The Rental Market is HOT!
Investors who purchase apartments are seeing better deals now than at anytime in the past. In contrast to housing, where prices are low, inventory is growing, and loans are difficult to get, apartment vacancies are down, rents are near all times high again, and cash flow can be positive from day one.
Why is it a good time to invest in apartments? Rents nationwide now average $991, which is up from $930 in 2006. In the San Francisco Bay Area, the average rent has gone from $1,025 in 2006 to $1,200 in 2011. This is partly due to fewer rental units available as well as less new building being done over the last few years. This is evidenced by the national vacancy dropping to 6.2% in the first quarter 2011 from 8% a year ago. Additionally, demographic trends are also favorable:
- 3 million young adults now living at home will equal about 1/3 of rental demand going forward
- 2.8 million homes and another 5 million homes will have been in foreclosure by 2012, which
means 2-3 million families will have to rent for up to 7 years
If you are looking at purchasing an apartment, here is what to consider:
- You want a property that produces at least 6% return on cash investment in the first year
- If the property requires a property manager, plan on a 2-4% fee
- Repairs, etc. run about 5-6%
- Expenses should not exceed 40% of income
And, if you don’t want to be an owner, consider a real estate investment trust (REIT), which are popular again. They typically pass along on average 90% of their income to their investors and currently some are returning 20%+ on the initial investment.
Sometimes everything works out how you want it to!
Recently I worked with a client who was committed to finding the right property that she could afford and also fit into her long-term plans. When she came in looking for an investment property of multiple units, with low down payment, low monthly payments, and in a good rental market near San Francisco I thought that she may just be asking too much.
She interviewed a lot of people, asked questions, listened to their advice and did her own investigations and then, when she felt comfortable she acted decisively and heeded the advice of the professionals working for her. We were able to find her a great four-unit building with only a 3.5% down payment. And, believe it or not, the property even has a positive cash flow with her living for free in one of the units!
The market right now is so varied that even some of the most difficult to find situations have a chance to found. It’s important to know what you’re looking for and to recognize when you’re asking for too much, but always take a chance on finding just the right place because it happens!
Understanding the New Taxes Coming in 2013
The health care bill that passed in March 2010 has two new taxes starting in 2013 to help pay for it – an extra 0.9% levy on wages for couples earning more than $250,000 ($200,000 for singles) and a new 3.8% tax on investment income, which in effect adds a “payroll” tax on unearned income.
How does the 0.9% tax work? If a couple earns $350,000 under current rules, they owe 1.45% or $5,075 and their employer owes a matching amount (Medicare tax due). In 2013, the couple will owe an extra 0.9% on any wages above $250,000. For this example couple, that is 0.9% of$100,000 or $900. Their employers pay nothing extra.
How does the 3.8% tax on net investment income work? It is keyed to the “modified adjusted gross income” with a threshold of $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for singles. For example, a couple has $400,000 of adjusted gross income — $200,000 in wages and $200,000 in investment income. Thus, they have $150,000 of income above the $250,000 threshold and they would owe an extra $5,700 in taxes.
To better understand this tax, you need to understand what is considered investment income. Interest, except municipal bond interest, dividends, rents, royalties, capital gains, insurance annuity payouts, passive income, and even gains on the sale of a home above $250,000 (single) or $500,000 (couple) counts. The 3.8% will also be put on trusts and estates.
What is not taxed will be regular and Roth IRAs, retirement accounts, Social Security, life insurance proceeds, and veterans’ benefits.
What steps can you take to minimize these benefits? Examine both your regular and investment income. Look at a Roth IRA conversion as Roth withdrawals don’t raise A&I and aren’t considered investment income.
If you have a small business, consider a defined pension plan, as their payouts don’t count as investment income. If you are selling assets, consider an installment sale as it spreads out the income.
Lastly, life insurance may become more attractive as proceeds at death are not subject to this tax. That means that a taxpayer could buy a policy, borrow from it, and then settle up at death thus avoiding income tax on investment gains.
So, get ready for these new taxes in 2013.
I’ve just inherited a loved one’s estate. How can a financial adviser help me?
When one inherits money from a loved one, often the emotions are mixed. When the need to deal with the inheritance arises, many people are still dealing with extreme grief. This makes it even more difficult to determine how to deal with the transfer of funds and/or property, especially when there are usually different parties—with often very different perspectives and financial goals—involved in this decision. This can be a very emotionally draining time for all.
Moving away from the emotional issues, let’s talk about the financial considerations in terms of the inherited investments.
When a parent, or other family member, dies, one of the biggest mistakes that the beneficiaries make is leaving the investments as they are, without doing any research into how they are allocated or considering alternative options. Why could this be a mistake? Because the portfolio was set up for someone typically 20 to 30 years older than the individuals who inherit the funds, and it may not fit well with their own financial goals. Also, the beneficiaries may not realize that there is a real opportunity with many investment for them to receive a “step up in basis” if they decide to sell, which means they can sell them at the value upon death with NO TAXES. This gives them a good opportunity to reposition the assets to be in line with their investment goals and risk tolerance. If the original investments are held for too long, the fear of capital gains could once more be an issue and repositioning to the “appropriate” positions may never be done.
Furthermore, it is absolutely critical to establish one’s own financial plan prior to deciding how to invest the inheritance because some companies offer different settlement options. And if you get talked into a settlement option that is not in your best interest, it may be impossible to change.
One of the biggest mistakes people make with investment inheritances is that they accept the death benefits without planning. Why is this a problem?
For example, let’s look at four million dollar estate that was left by generation 1 after already paying estate taxes (which could be as high as 48 percent on everything inherited over $2,000,000). Let’s say that the beneficiary (generation 2) is a 62-year-old man who has planned and invested well enough that he does not need the inheritance for his own financial security, but takes it anyways (because that’s what over 90 percent of Americans do). If he takes it, and then dies a year later, for example, the 48 percent estate tax will again deplete the inheritance his beneficiaries (generation 3). Estate taxes could deplete the original inheritance by another $2,000,000; however, with the proper planning in place, all $4,000,000 could have remained, avoiding both the first and second taxation.*
Troy V. Collins, RFC.**
President, McKinley Financial Group
Phone: (650) 551-8900
CA Insurance Lic. No. 0B96613
www.mkfinancial.com
* This material has been prepared for informational purposes only; it is not intended to provide and should not be relied upon for financial, legal, or tax advice.
** Registered Representative offering securities through First Allied Securities, Inc., a Registered Broker/Dealer Member FINRA/SIPC.
Investment Advisor Representative offering services through First Allied Advisory Services.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=8022621c-c1d0-4b7a-a1e1-43e056882126)
How can a financial advisor help me as a real estate agent?
It is crucial for a real estate agent to have a good relationship with a financial advisor, but not just any advisor. He or she must be an advisor who knows and understands the “ins and outs” of investing in real estate. Historically, financial advisors and realtors have been on opposite sides of the fence. The advisors want their clients to invest in the things that they sell: stocks, bonds, mutual funds, annuities, etcetera, because that is how they make their money. In fact, many realtors have received responses from clients saying, “My financial advisor says that real estate isn’t a good investment.” So it is no wonder that this partnership is not very common. But if a realtor partners with the right financial advisor, it should be a beneficial relationship for all.
A financial advisor who understands real estate can help a client to structure the deal correctly, figure out what funds to use to purchase the property, and how much and what kind of leverage to use—if any. Though a mortgage advisor is the expert on the programs available, only financial planners can model the loan into the purchasers’ financial plans to see how the tax benefits and loan affect their long-term financial planning goals. When gathering important data for the financial package, the advisor can also submit financials in one statement, verifying funds on deposit. Although there are several parties involved to make sure real estate transactions go smoothly, it is beneficial for both the real estate agent and the client to work with a knowledgeable advisor. For example, often times it makes sense to transfer the ownership of properties into a family trust and many times it does not; knowing the different options is important.
The biggest reason that real estate professionals should work with well-trained financial advisors is that they should be able to help them sell more real estate. One of the biggest reasons that people hold on to real estate is due to capital gains taxes. And other than the $250,000 exemption if filing as a single person and $500,000 if married filing a joint return, few people understand the strategies that make it possible to avoid capital gains taxes. My personal opinion is that capital gains taxes are avoidable in almost every circumstance; it just takes some planning to do so. Thus, if an elderly couple wants to downsize but is afraid of the taxes, a good financial planner should be able to design a plan to avoid paying them and in the process create more retirement income than they had before.
Investors in real estate make many mistakes from a financial perspective. One of them is getting “too comfortable.” That is, an investor may have bought an investment property 20 years ago and, although it may have been a great investment then, it may no longer be a good investment today. Also, paying it off may mean losing tax benefits and deductions. Another common reason investors do not want to sell their properties is because they feel that it would be impossible to do so in today’s market, or that capital gains taxes would be too high if they did. However, a good financial planner can help to determine whether or not the property in question is still a good investment, and also establish a plan to get increased income (even tax free!) from the property in retirement.
The bottom Line: It is important for real estate agents and financial advisors to work together. The benefits are unlimited.*
Troy V. Collins, RFC.
President, McKinley Financial Group
Phone: (650) 551-8900
CA Insurance Lic. No. 0B96613
www.mkfinancial.com
* This article is oversimplified in many ways and is for illustrative purposes only. McKinley Financial is not recommending any specific product, nor are we recommending that you purchase real estate.
** Registered Representative offering securities through First Allied Securities, Inc., a Registered Broker/Dealer Member FINRA/SIPC.
Investment Advisor Representative offering services through First Allied Advisory Services.
Real Estate: What is it for? Part 4
One of the things that I have found over the years in working with clients that own real estate portfolios is that people love buying real estate, but they constantly make fundamental mistakes when doing so. The starting point in deciding what to buy and how to buy it should begin with the answer to this question: What is it for?
This may seem like a silly question, but as a financial advisor I need to know the time frame, expectations, and, most importantly, whether the property will be used to create income, for growth, or for growth and income (both).
This is the fourth and final piece in our discussions on the appropriate investment strategy for buying real estate.*
Liquidity for Real Estate Opportunities
So, we have established that one of the biggest mistakes that investors make when buying real estate is leveraging incorrectly, or not at all. But often times, people are somewhat reserved about having a mortgage payment to make. Let me remind you of a couple of basic premises.
A $1M property that appreciates by 5 percent has a 5 percent rate of return (ROR).
A $1M property that appreciates by 5 percent that is half leveraged has a 10 percent ROR.
A $1M property that appreciates by 5 percent that is 75 percent leveraged has a 20 percent ROR.
Most people who start investing in real estate know this and start out their investment strategy using this concept to their advantage. However, as the years roll on and people get comfortable, they start to make the mistake of paying it off. Doing this may be the right thing to do, but often it done by accident. By paying a property off, you may lose many of the great things about real estate: the tax benefits. You may have depreciated a building down all the way which takes away a deduction. By having expenses such as a mortgage, you have a way to offset income. These should not be overlooked.
Using up one’s liquidity to invest in real estate can be tremendously detrimental. Look at everyone you know who fell into the trap of buying multiple properties in Arizona, Las Vegas, and Texas over the past 10 years. Many of them are underwater; that is, they owe more to the bank than what the properties are worth. If there is no cash left behind and all properties are leveraged to the hilt, then there is significant risk.
In instances like this, paying cash for properties can really be a savior. If properties such as these were owned outright, though the value may be down, the likelihood of losing them is small. In fact, they would likely be cash flow positive. However, it may be argued that if there were a time to buy in Arizona it is NOW! With prices deflated like a porcupine’s balloon, there may be some great opportunities. For those who paid cash for properties, those opportunities may not exist. Getting cash out of a building is far more difficult than never having put it in. So, perhaps there is a middle ground.
I believe that having the cash to pay them off is a GOOD thing, but to actually do it is the last thing to do, (or last resort). For that reason, we have helped many clients use an insurance based program to create liquidity for opportunities in real estate.** In this program, your capital cannot lose value due to market fluctuations, but can obtain growth type returns and cause a positive “arbitrage” opportunity if used correctly (that is, it can keep pace with or beat the “cost of capital” ). This capital may be accessed tax free under current tax law. What is the advantage of this program? For one, all of your eggs are not in one basket. On top of that, consider the idea that you will have cash available at any time for any reason at all! And while it sits there, growing tax free, you could pay off the property that you choose to leverage instead, and it could grow at 7 percent or more while you are borrowing money at 5.5 percent or so, on a tax-deductible basis. You do the math!
Troy V. Collins, RFC.
President, McKinley Financial Group
Phone: (650) 551-8900
CA Insurance Lic. No. 0B96613
www.mkfinancial.com
Registered Representative offering securities through First Allied Securities, Inc., a registered Broker/Dealer Member FINRA/SIPC.
Investment Advisor Representative offering services through First Allied Advisory Services.
* Investing in real estate and real estate investment trust (REITS) may not be suitable for all investors and involves special risks, such as limited liquidity and demand for real property, changes in supply and demand for real property, changes in law, tenant turnover or defaults, loss of investment, competition, casualty losses, and use of leverage. Real estate values may fluctuate based on economic, environmental, and other factors. There is no assurance that the investment objectives of any real estate program will be obtained.
** Most people do not know that one of the most tax efficient investments in our country is an insurance contract issued by Life Insurance Companies. There are risk factors other than market volatility that could cause loss of principle. Not everyone will qualify for insurance through this strategy. Consult your tax advisor for any tax related strategies.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=78acf038-dce9-4884-ab40-081ded3c824e)
Real Estate: What is it for? Part 3
One of the things that I have found over the years in working with clients that own real estate portfolios is that people love buying real estate, but they constantly make fundamental mistakes when doing so. The starting point in deciding what to buy and how to buy it should begin with the answer to this question: What is it for?
This may seem like a silly question, but as a financial advisor I need to know the time frame, expectations, and, most importantly, whether the property will be used to create income, for growth, or for growth and income (both).
This is the third in a series of four discussions on the appropriate investment strategy for each.
Real Estate for Growth and Income
In Parts 1 and 2, we separated out the distinctly different reasons for investing in real estate: growth or Income. In this article, my purpose is to try and make sense in blending the two. How can you do both? It may be that you need two different properties? It may be that one can do it.
Let’s say that a client came to me with a rental property that was worth one million dollars and had net rents (before tax) of $25,000 per year. His property was paid up, and Bob is content with his increase in income each year of about 4 percent (based on rent increases, if not rent controlled). I might look at this rental property and identify a few weaknesses. The first would be that the rents give Bob a 2.5 percent yield, which is not great for income. The second would be that he has virtually NO TAX BENEFITS. A third would be that he is not using his capital wisely to use what I would consider THE major reason for buying real estate, LEVERAGE!
If this is for income only, I could find individual bonds that might pay 4 to 5 percent, which would give more income than the property.* If it is for growth, then leverage might be a key. Bob wants both Income and growth. What do we do?
I might suggest that Bob look for replacement properties, two or more of them. It may be possible to find a property that has a 6 percent cap rate. If so, he could invest $500,000 into this property (all cash) and create $30,000 of income from just half as much money. Then he could find another property for growth in which he could put down, say, $500,000 on a $1M property (or four for $250,000 each).
What is the outcome of doing this? We still have $30,000 in cash flow. But now we have $1.5M of real estate appreciating for us instead of $1M. At a 5 percent growth rate, this is $25,000 more in year one alone. What is the risk? If you owned a $1M property outright and the tenant vacated, you would have no income. If that happens in our scenario, you have no income and you have a mortgage payment. So what you could gain on the top end can be at some risk. This is why for the income producing properties we often look to nonpublicly traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) or something with LONG term leases.** Having a company such as Home Depot or Walmart as a tenant with a signed 20-year lease can often eliminate much of the vacancy concerns. Thus, if the other property were vacant, you would still be able to cover the debt putting you in a similar situation as if you owned just one building outright.
It is important to consider all options when investing in any kind of real estate, but the more you know, the better.***
Troy Collins
* Bonds are subject to a variety of risk, the most visible of which is interest rate risk. If a bond is sold prior to maturity, the investor may receive back more or less than the original amount invested.
** Investing in real estate and real estate investment trust (REITS) may not be suitable for all investors and involves special risks, such as limited liquidity and demand for real property, changes in supply and demand for real property, changes in law, tenant turnover or defaults, loss of investment, competition, casualty losses, and use of leverage. Real estate values may fluctuate based on economic, environmental, and other factors. There is no assurance that the investment objectives of any real estate program will be obtained.
***Note/disclaimer: this article is over-simplified in many ways and is for illustrative purposes only. McKinley Financial is not recommending any specific product, nor are we recommending that you purchase real estate.
Troy V. Collins, RFC.
President, McKinley Financial Group
Phone: (650) 551-8900
CA Insurance Lic. No. 0B96613
www.mkfinancial.com
Registered Representative offering securities through First Allied Securities, Inc., a registered Broker/Dealer Member FINRA/SIPC.
Investment Advisor Representative offering services through First Allied Advisory Services.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=ddd32e0a-d58c-43c2-a324-6f84f3a40e2e)
Real Estate for Growth* Part 2
This article addresses Real Estate investing for Growth*, versus my last article where we discussed investing for Income.
One of the things that I have found over the years in working with clients that own real estate portfolios is that people love buying real estate, but they constantly make fundamental mistakes when doing so. The starting point in deciding what to buy and how to buy it should begin with the answer to this question: What is it for?
This may seem like a silly question, but as a financial advisor I need to know the time frame, expectations, and, most importantly, whether the property will be used to create income, for growth, or for growth and income (both).
This is the second in a series of four discussions on the appropriate investment strategy for each.
Real Estate for Growth*
Many people think that buying an apartment building is a great way to increase their cash flow and their retirement portfolio. While it may work for some, I want to explain a more realistic strategy using the following example:
Gus, Age 50, is a doctor and earns $450,000 per year. He wants to build his real estate portfolio to help him gather assets for retirement and considers buying an apartment complex. The building will cost one million dollars and he has the cash to buy it outright. Great! (But that doesn’t mean he should buy it outright.) After buying this building, he will have an additional $70,000 of income each year. Sounds good right? Not to me. Based on his tax rate, he will likely owe 45 percent of this to the IRS. To avoid this, wouldn’t he be better off by buying properties that would “appreciate” rather than produce “cash-flow?” I think so. Gus does not need “income” – he needs “growth.”
So let’s look at two issues:
1.Most real estate experts would agree that buying single-family homes in up and coming areas or well-established desirable neighborhoods would appreciate far greater than multifamily properties or commercial ones. That being said, perhaps Gus is looking at the wrong type of property.
2.Even with this property, instead of using all cash to purchase the property, perhaps leveraging it would work better. With 30 percent down, Gus could buy the property with $300,000. His loan would be $700,000, which at 6 percent would have a payment of $4,196. With other expenses and taxes, let’s say his total monthly expenses are $6,000. Perfect! His income and his expenses are roughly equal meaning that he likely has no taxable income. Thus he is using the property more effectively by having the tenants pay for the property with no creation of additional taxable income, and by leveraging it effectively a 5 percent increase in value on the property ($50,000) is equivalent to a 16 percent return on your money ($300,000).
Obviously, more potential can be identified with this breakdown. How about the idea that Gus can now buy three properties for the same one million dollars with which he was going to buy only one? Now, a little caution needs to be exercised here as we can all identify with those who overextended and bought as many properties as possible and sacrificed liquidity. There definitely is a balance. (See part four of this series of discussion to see how life insurance can act as a tax free holding tank for funds with which to buy future properties and provide liquidity.)
Troy V. Collins, RFC.
President, McKinley Financial Group
Phone: (650) 551-8900
CA Insurance Lic. No. 0B96613
www.mkfinancial.com
Registered Representative offering securities through First Allied Securities, Inc., a registered Broker/Dealer Member FINRA/SIPC.Investment Advisor Representative offering services through First Allied Advisory Services.
** Investing in real estate and real estate investment trust (REITS) may not be suitable for all investors and involves special risks, such as limited liquidity and demand for real property, changes in supply and demand for real property, changes in law, tenant turnover or defaults, loss of investment, competition, casualty losses, and use of leverage. Real estate values may fluctuate based on economic, environmental, and other factors. There is no assurance that the investment objectives of any real estate program will be obtained.
Real Estate: What is it for?
One of the things that I have found over the years in working with clients that own real estate portfolios is that people love buying real estate, but they constantly make fundamental mistakes when doing so. The starting point in deciding what to buy and how to buy it should begin with the answer to this question: What is it for?
This may seem like a silly question, but as a financial advisor I need to know the time frame, expectations, and, most importantly, whether the property will be used to create income, for appreciation, or for growth and income (both).
This is the first in a series of four discussions on the appropriate investment strategy for each.
Real Estate for Income
When buying real estate for income it is necessary look at the type of income that you purchase. Although for appreciation, single family homes in the San Francisco Bay Area may be a great investment, for income typically they are not. Let me give you an example: A two bedroom home in Burlingame, California that would sell for one million dollars rents for $3,300 per month. Subtracting out the annual expenses of about 8 percent plus the property taxes, it would not be uncommon for this property to net $25,000 after expenses (but before taxes).* So for income, $25,000 on a $1M investment equals 2.5 percent, which is a little better than a CD with substantially more risk and work to maintain. Don’t get me wrong; this investment may be far greater than 2.5 percent due to possible appreciation; however, my point here is to demonstrate that for income, this is not a great investment.
So what might work better? For income, multiunit properties, apartments, or commercial properties may be far superior in terms of income than single family homes. In today’s market, you may be able to find a 6 unit property for $1M. You could rent for approximately $1,200 per month, giving you a total $7,200 per month or $86,400 per year in rental income. After expenses, you may still have $70,000 net income after expenses (but before taxes). On a $1M investment, this is 7 percent net income. Now this, as far as income is concerned, is a very decent investment. As for appreciation, however, multiunit properties and apartments do not typically keep up with single family homes in terms of value.
Other options may include using Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)** for income. Generally, nonpublicly traded REITS have a more stable valuation than publicly traded REITs and their goal is to pass along high income: 5 to 7 percent income is not uncommon in today’s marketplace. Using REITs instead of owning the property individually allows for the owner to have less of the management headaches that a landlord may experience.
Using leverage may also allow for additional income on a property. If, by using leverage, you are able to buy a larger building with more income, and the income outweighs the expenses of the loan, then this too can be of benefit.
Bottom line: You need to do some planning prior to purchasing a building. You should consider the types of properties, how to fund the property, whether to use leverage, who will manage the property, what improvements it may need, and what annual expenses it might have, among other issues. The list of considerations is long, but the end result well worth the hard work if done correctly.
Troy Collins
* If this property were bought 10 years ago it would fare a little better because property taxes would be reasonable for today’s standards. However, if it is a property that you are looking at today, property taxes would cost more than $10,000 per year.
** Investing in real estate and real estate investment trust (REITS) may not be suitable for all investors and involves special risks, such as limited liquidity and demand for real property, changes in supply and demand for real property, changes in law, tenant turnover or defaults, loss of investment, competition, casualty losses, and use of leverage. Real estate values may fluctuate based on economic, environmental, and other factors. There is no assurance that the investment objectives of any real estate program will be obtained.
Troy V. Collins, RFC.
President, McKinley Financial Group
Phone: (650) 551-8900
CA Insurance Lic. No. 0B96613
www.mkfinancial.com
Registered Representative offering securities through First Allied Securities, Inc., a registered Broker/Dealer Member FINRA/SIPC.
Investment Advisor Representative offering services through First Allied Advisory Services.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=0eecd34c-7bc5-443b-a45b-032260ab92c6)
Seems like staging is expensive, why is it worth the expense?
Staging sells homes faster and for more money. It’s as simple as that.
 |
 |
| BEFORE | AFTER |
Statistically speaking staging is cheaper than the first price reduction that people make on a listing that isn’t selling. Staging should be considered the final investment into your home that will have a profitable return of investment.
A seller should budget 3-5% of the asking price towards staging and deferred maintenance on average. A well maintained home would require less, but a home that needs updating, maintenance and staging could be more.
In a national study by the Real Estate Staging Association, published recently, it showed 126 homeowners that had their property on the market and average of 263 days (9 months!) before they decided to have it staged. It also showed 284 homes that were staged prior to being listed and they sold in 40.5 days. This is approximately 223 days less time on the market, that’s SEVEN months less time on the market.
As an example, using this formula you can determine approximately how much money you will continue to spend while your home is on the market un-staged.
If your mortgage is : $1800.00
If your direct expenses (utilities, etc.) are: $300.00
Total carrying cost per month: $2,100.00
Based on the study the home owners had their property on the market for an average of 9 months. $2,100.00 X 9 months = $18,900.00 in expenses.
Had those homeowners staged first, their time on market would have been cut by 7 months on average $2,100.00 x 7 months= $14,700.00 Staging their homes first would have saved them $14,700.00.*
*The numbers, of course, are all relative to individual mortgage and expenses.
Use this simple formula to determine how much you will save by staging your home or listing before putting it on the market:
Mortgage + expenses (utilities etc.) = Monthly expenses
Monthly expenses X 9 months (avg. time un-staged) = Cost to list house un-staged
Savings: Expenses x 7 months (average time on market reduced) –staging fee =Savings if you stage your house first!
** If you have a price reduction you can also add that into the loss you are taking by listing a property un-staged.
Having been in the home staging market for many years I can personally attest and give examples of how staging a listing can increase market value and return on investment. Contact me at kerry@decorstaging.com or 650-619-9052 and I can share more information with you!
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=5b3c168c-21f4-420d-912e-2e748e532b8a)
About the Team
Recommended Links
Michael Haigh Team
