正文
本壇最流行的詞是什麽？是現金流。本壇地主，無論大小，言必稱現金流。沒錯，任何business，現金流非常重要，好像血液。出了問題，就得關門打烊了，但是在本壇，被奉若神明的現金流確實是錯誤的。不僅錯的很離譜，而且從頭錯起！
由於本人時間少，任務重，工作忙，且重病纏身，更重要的是寫的帖子，看的人寥寥無幾，但是看到大家對錯誤的東西盲目崇拜，很為大家的錢袋擔心，所以匆匆寫下此帖，對常見錯誤略舉二，三。對不同意見者，歡迎炸磚。
第一個很奇怪的錯誤是下麵這個很奇怪的論點：“you can turn this into a good investment by putting down more down payment”；“要想實現正的現金流，必須增加首付”。。。 以上論點均取自本壇名家名帖。奇怪在於這個很大的頭期首付竟然就被忽略了，不被算進現金流了。這麽說所有cash買的房產無論貴賤，都是好的投資，因為都是“正”的現金流。
數學錯誤的理論，聽上去再好，就像有致死劇毒的食物，再好吃也不能吃。真正的正的現金流應該是不僅無需首付，而且需要貸款大於100%，把所有的closing cost都cover住，才行。而且以後每個時刻的收入總是大於支出，這樣的才算正現金流。
第一個錯誤是算錯，第二個錯誤則是誤用。對每一個房產單獨算現金流是荒唐的，無意義的。就像不能對公司的每一筆花費算現金流。員工培訓的現金流是多少？如果是負的，就不幹了嗎？現金流隻有對一個獨立核算單位有意義。比如你個人。買了十個房產，總體的現金流才有意義，你才能考其他房產的盈利投資下一個房產，一大筆錢投出去，還不是把正現金流扭成負現金流嗎？
第三，就是現金流和盈利與否是兩回事，和是不是好的投資更是三回事。這點我已經說了很多遍，正的現金流不一定是好的投資，而負的現金流不一定是壞的投資。詳細看我今天下午的帖子：
The question you asked was not good. There was not enough information to calculate. On the other hand, you gave some information which is not directed related.
The answers from those master level landlords were based on their experiences, but I have to say they were not satisfactory to me. Unlike religion and culture which can accept multiple answers, there is always just one scientific answer. Here is my answer:
First, you got to understand which relative parameters which affect the calculation directly. All those parameters must be quantitative. Then you have to provide all those or as many as possible. You should have provided property tax amount, school tax amount, insurance…
Some other parameters are not directly relevant, but you provided. I saw a lot of others did the same, always providing the square footage of the property, number of bedroom, bathroom, the quality of the school district, location,… all those are not needed for calculation, first they cannot be quantified. Second, they are not direct related, for example, the square footage or number of bedroom, bathroom, the quality of the school district, location,…, they are reflected through the monthly rent! Or more other parameters, such as the location could affect your mortgage rate, alternative investment rate or cost of maintenance.
Misusing cash flow is one of the big pitfalls in those experienced landlords thinking. Any problem of cash flow is not a problem of profitability; instead, it is a problem of operation. A lot of real experienced landlords have suffered a lot from bad cash flow which could suffocate or had suffocated their rental business, but that’s the problem of their management and operation. They always confuse the profitability of the business with the survival of the business. That’s the reason Miat42 concluded that it’s a bad investment if you down paid 20%, but a good one if you down paid 30%. He never calculate the money has been paid which means according to his dictionary, good investment = survival; while bad = bankruptcy. That\'s fine, but you should be aware according to this, you will lose $7,591 after your 1 year positive cash flow rental operation. This $7,591 is well calculated.
You have to define “good investment” first maybe, but I were you, I would define it as generating better returns than other alternative investment. Of course it has to be profitable, (which is different from positive cash flow) simply because if we put $1,000 cash under our bed, it is still $1,000.
Since you did not provide enough information, I have to assume all of the other parameters, such as property tax, and many others listed in my previous email. And also assume that the home price appreciation rate is 1%, the rent increase 1%, inflation rate 2%, other alternative investments 5%.... I got the following conclusion:
If you buy the house and rent it for more than 5 years, then it\'s a good investment because it generates better returns than 5%.
If you buy the house, turn it into a rental business, then sold out in 5 years, it’s a bad investment because the appreciation and rental income cannot cover the costs of buying and selling.
My conclusions are calculated thoroughly, not just uttered out through my mouth with some kind of believing. Of course, everybody knows cash flow could kill you, but it will not guarantee good investment.
Whether you earn money or lose money, it has nothing to do with location, unless the location could affect the home appreciation rate and alternative investment return rate, but all of those have been taken into account already. $1 earned in California is the same $1 earned in New York. Separating all those mentioned above: cash flow, percentage of payment, location ... from profitability are the key difference from my calculation with others in this thread.
由於本人時間少，任務重，工作忙，且重病纏身，更重要的是寫的帖子，看的人寥寥無幾，但是看到大家對錯誤的東西盲目崇拜，很為大家的錢袋擔心，所以匆匆寫下此帖，對常見錯誤略舉二，三。對不同意見者，歡迎炸磚。
第一個很奇怪的錯誤是下麵這個很奇怪的論點：“you can turn this into a good investment by putting down more down payment”；“要想實現正的現金流，必須增加首付”。。。 以上論點均取自本壇名家名帖。奇怪在於這個很大的頭期首付竟然就被忽略了，不被算進現金流了。這麽說所有cash買的房產無論貴賤，都是好的投資，因為都是“正”的現金流。
數學錯誤的理論，聽上去再好，就像有致死劇毒的食物，再好吃也不能吃。真正的正的現金流應該是不僅無需首付，而且需要貸款大於100%，把所有的closing cost都cover住，才行。而且以後每個時刻的收入總是大於支出，這樣的才算正現金流。
第一個錯誤是算錯，第二個錯誤則是誤用。對每一個房產單獨算現金流是荒唐的，無意義的。就像不能對公司的每一筆花費算現金流。員工培訓的現金流是多少？如果是負的，就不幹了嗎？現金流隻有對一個獨立核算單位有意義。比如你個人。買了十個房產，總體的現金流才有意義，你才能考其他房產的盈利投資下一個房產，一大筆錢投出去，還不是把正現金流扭成負現金流嗎？
第三，就是現金流和盈利與否是兩回事，和是不是好的投資更是三回事。這點我已經說了很多遍，正的現金流不一定是好的投資，而負的現金流不一定是壞的投資。詳細看我今天下午的帖子：
The question you asked was not good. There was not enough information to calculate. On the other hand, you gave some information which is not directed related.
The answers from those master level landlords were based on their experiences, but I have to say they were not satisfactory to me. Unlike religion and culture which can accept multiple answers, there is always just one scientific answer. Here is my answer:
First, you got to understand which relative parameters which affect the calculation directly. All those parameters must be quantitative. Then you have to provide all those or as many as possible. You should have provided property tax amount, school tax amount, insurance…
Some other parameters are not directly relevant, but you provided. I saw a lot of others did the same, always providing the square footage of the property, number of bedroom, bathroom, the quality of the school district, location,… all those are not needed for calculation, first they cannot be quantified. Second, they are not direct related, for example, the square footage or number of bedroom, bathroom, the quality of the school district, location,…, they are reflected through the monthly rent! Or more other parameters, such as the location could affect your mortgage rate, alternative investment rate or cost of maintenance.
Misusing cash flow is one of the big pitfalls in those experienced landlords thinking. Any problem of cash flow is not a problem of profitability; instead, it is a problem of operation. A lot of real experienced landlords have suffered a lot from bad cash flow which could suffocate or had suffocated their rental business, but that’s the problem of their management and operation. They always confuse the profitability of the business with the survival of the business. That’s the reason Miat42 concluded that it’s a bad investment if you down paid 20%, but a good one if you down paid 30%. He never calculate the money has been paid which means according to his dictionary, good investment = survival; while bad = bankruptcy. That\'s fine, but you should be aware according to this, you will lose $7,591 after your 1 year positive cash flow rental operation. This $7,591 is well calculated.
You have to define “good investment” first maybe, but I were you, I would define it as generating better returns than other alternative investment. Of course it has to be profitable, (which is different from positive cash flow) simply because if we put $1,000 cash under our bed, it is still $1,000.
Since you did not provide enough information, I have to assume all of the other parameters, such as property tax, and many others listed in my previous email. And also assume that the home price appreciation rate is 1%, the rent increase 1%, inflation rate 2%, other alternative investments 5%.... I got the following conclusion:
If you buy the house and rent it for more than 5 years, then it\'s a good investment because it generates better returns than 5%.
If you buy the house, turn it into a rental business, then sold out in 5 years, it’s a bad investment because the appreciation and rental income cannot cover the costs of buying and selling.
My conclusions are calculated thoroughly, not just uttered out through my mouth with some kind of believing. Of course, everybody knows cash flow could kill you, but it will not guarantee good investment.
Whether you earn money or lose money, it has nothing to do with location, unless the location could affect the home appreciation rate and alternative investment return rate, but all of those have been taken into account already. $1 earned in California is the same $1 earned in New York. Separating all those mentioned above: cash flow, percentage of payment, location ... from profitability are the key difference from my calculation with others in this thread.
評論
april
2010-03-21 21:52:23
回複
悄悄話
hi, which software do you use to determine whether to purchase an invest property or not by analizing property's profitability, liquidity, stress test etc?
登錄後才可評論.
