[tmoullet]

In finance, there is a rule-of-thumb called the rule of 72. Basically, 72/X = # of years to double, where X is the compounded rate of return.

Solving for your request, 72/X = 5, X = 14.4%.

So to double your investment in 5 years, you need to find something that will give you 14.4% return for 5 years in a row. That high of rate (in this climate) would require a fairly risky investment.

[davismwfl]

A 14% return on properly selected and executed rehabs is very easy to do, in fact I'd be really disappointed if that is all that came back. Do this 2-3 times a year and it is easy to grow the money. But to get 14% consistently annually out of the stock market IMO is tougher without some high risk, which depending on age may not be a big deal.

But you have to study the local market some and talk to realtors about what is selling where, and why it is selling over other properties. Then ideally team up with another investor/rehab person for 1-2 and get a feel for how to be successful. I say that cause doing it wrong can be a recipe to losing money quickly too.

[stevewilhelm]

> A 14% return on properly selected and executed rehabs is very easy to do.

This is unrealistic in the SF bay area. First time home buyers are paying top dollar for "fixer uppers" and in many cases just tearing down the existing home and replacing them with a new ones.

Good contractors have several month lead times and are being paid in excess of $300 per square foot for doing renovations.

Real estate agent commissions are three to six percent of sales price.

[davismwfl]

My suggestion to the OP is to look outside of CA in general, not because it isn't possible to make these returns but because in CA the rehab & rental market are a lot tougher in many ways, taxes, fees, a heap full of regulations (good and bad) etc. And it isn't that you can't make these returns in the SF Bay area, it is just that the cost to enter the market is significantly higher both in terms of dollars and knowledge, plus the proper type of inventory is constrained. The risk right now with the Bay area market is also far from ideal, and should stop any small investor from entering. Hence why you have to find markets, and neighborhoods within markets that are better to work in.

Real estate commissions are basically the same across the US, and 6% is common, 3% to buyers agent, 3% to sellers, with lower fees in some markets or if you negotiate them down (careful what you negotiate here though it can backfire fast). These are always a factor you add to your deals to see if they are good or not, e.g. taxes (both while holding and at sale), costs of materials & labor, interest costs, loan fees (if any) etc.

As for the contractor availability, 60-90 days of lead time is not uncommon right now for decent contractors most places. But here is the key, if you do things legally, i.e. with permits, it takes 30-60 days to get all the permits in line usually and most contractors will come aboard if you hire them, get all the paperwork started through the system and be ready to go the minute they can. At the same time not all rehabs require a GC or permits, so you can hire day labor or handy people to knock a ton of stuff out.

[solomatov]

It's easy to do if you don't take into account risk. For example, are you sure that it's ok for the author to get 14% with 90% probability but to lose 40% with 10% probability?

[davismwfl]

We likely disagree on which is riskier if I read your statement correct. Much like anything though, going into it with an educated mind is the critical part, which is why I pointed out the need to study the market and team up with someone that has prior experience, as the potential to lose money is real in either case.

The simple reason I find the real estate market less risky, and hence the probability of loss less, is that factors which change valuation do so at a much slower rate and are, with some measure, easier to predict. With the stock market you can lose significant money in a single day because of the words that come out of someones mouth, regardless of the truth or veracity in those words. The housing market is a bit more resilient then that which I think mitigates some of the risk, at least the risk of others affecting your asset and money. It doesn't stop you from making bad choices and losing money though, as nothing fixes stupid choices.

There are a lot of other details and I can see the arguments either way, and truly for balance you should be involved with more then one investment vehicle. But for pure rates of return annually, I still stand by the fact I feel the real estate market is less risky overall then the stock market if you want some larger returns.