Sell or keep rental Property?
Sell the house, in the scenario you describe he is using the property as an investment with a $250 per month buy-in. This investment doesn't make a return right now and when you add in the cost of dealing with the tenant (even if he doesn't have those cost now, he will when they move out)he is out of more than $250 a month and he has no direct knowledge that the value will definitely increase. He would be better spent selling the house and putting the funds into an investment, even a risky investment. It will have less maintenance cost associated with the risky investment than the rental property.  Besides sitting on the property for 10-15 years would cost him 30-45k plus the cost of re-renting the house when empty.Not to mention the inevitable increases in taxes over that time which will either increase his deficit or eat up the rent increase he is able to charge. Don't take the loss on the sale, just short sale it and take the money and invest! One last thought... An alternative is to creatively finance a sale (take payments from a buyer until they can buy outright) that will cover the FULL mortgage and get him the price he needs. You can look up owner financing to find out more on how to do this. Hope this helps! How is the current mortgage payment broken out? I have a mortgage on a rental property with a payment of $775, but $600 is principal. If I were at breakeven on a sale or a bit underwater, I'd be better off just holding still, the tenant paying the loan down over $7000/year.  You question is a good one, but a good answer would require more details. A bank may not agree to a short sale on an investment property, especially since there's a second property to go after. I'm not making a judgement, just saying, it's not a slam-dunk to just short sell it. And he has to pay for it every home repair and every month the property sets empty.  His loss each month is not $250, but probably closer to $500.  In generally you need to clear at least $200 ABOVE PTI (principle, taxes and interest) to cover repair and the like to property. From your post, it sounds like your dad was forced into the land-lord business by the recession.  Unless he plans to hold the property until its rental value has increased by $500 a month, he should consider selling it and writing-off the loss.  Losing money bit by bit on a house isn't a tax write-off event.  Selling a property for less than you bought it for generally is. FYI, I got the $500/month loss by assuming that repairs/emptiness/etc will cost you about $200 a month, and added $50 for your dad's time managing the property.
"Is the mortgage debt too high? The rental property is in a hot RE market, so could be easily sold with significant equity. However, they would prefer to keep it. Given the current income, there is no stress. However in absence of any other liquid [cash/near cash] assets, having everything locked into Mortgage is quite high. Even if real estate builds assets, these are highly illiquid investments. Have debt on such investments is risky; if there are no other investments. Essentially everything looks fine now, but if there is an crisis, unwinding mortgage debt is time consuming and if it forces distress sale, it would wipe out any gains. Can they afford another mortgage, and in what amount? (e.g. they are considering $50K for a small cabin, which could be rented out). I guess they can. But should they? Or diversify into other assets like stocks etc. Other than setting cash aside, what would be some good uses of funds to make sure the money would appreciate and outpace inflation and add a nice bonus to retirement? Mutual Funds / Stocks / bullions / 401K or other such retirement plans. They are currently in mid-30's. If there is ONE key strategy or decision they could make today that would help them retire ""early"" (say, mid-50's), what should it be? This opinion based ... it depends on ""what their lifestyle is"" and what would they want their ""lifestyle"" to be when they retire. They should look at saving enough corpus that would give an year on year yield equivalent to the retirement expenses." You could use the money to buy a couple of other (smaller) properties. Part of the rent of these properties would be used to cover the mortgage and the rest is income. In general you do not want to show a taxable gain on rental properties if you can avoid it.  One of the more beneficial advantages of owning cash flowing rental properties, is that the income is tax deferred because of the depreciation.  I say deferred, because depreciation affects the cost basis of your property.   Also since you are considering financing, it sounds like you don't need the cash flow currently.  You usually can get better returns by financing and buying more rental properties, especially with investment mortgages at historical lows (Win via inflation over time) "You are assuming 100% occupancy and 100% rent collection.  This is unrealistic.  You could get lucky and find that long term tenant with great credit that always pays their bills... but in reality that person usually buys a home they do not rent long term.  So you will need to be prepared for periods of no renters and periods of non payment.  The expenses here I would expect could wipe out more than you can make in ""profit"" based on your numbers. Have you checked to find out what the insurance on a rental property is?  I am guessing it will go up probably 200-500 a year possibly more depending on coverage.  You will need a different type of insurance for rental property. Have you checked with your mortgage provider to make sure that you can convert to a rental property?   Some mortgages (mine is one) restrict the use of the home from being a rental property.  You may be required to refinance your home which could cost you more, in addition if you are under water it will be hard to find a new financier willing to write that mortgage with anything like reasonable terms. You are correct you would be taking on a new expense in rental.  It is non deductible, and the IRS knows this well.   As Littleadv's answer stated you can deduct some expenses from your rental property. I am not sure that you will have a net wash or loss when you add those expenses.  If you do then you have a problem since you have a business losing money.  This does not even address the headaches that come with being a landlord. By my quick calculations if you want to break even your rental property should be about 2175/Month. This accounts for 80% occupancy and 80% rental payment.  If you get better than that you should make a bit of a profit... dont worry im sure the house will find a way to reclaim it." Think carefully about the added expenses.  It may still make sense, but it probably won't be as cheap as you are thinking.  In addition to the mortgage and property taxes, there is also insurance and building maintenance and repairs. Appliances, carpets, and roofs need to be replaced periodically.  Depending on the area of the country there is lawn maintenance and now removal. You need to make sure you can cover the expenses if you are without a tenant for 6 months or longer.  When tenants change, there is usually some cleaning and painting that needs to be done. You can deduct the mortgage interest and property taxes on your part of the building.  You need to claim any rent as income, but can deduct the other part of the mortgage interest and taxes as an expense.  You can also deduct building maintenance and repairs on the rental portion of the building.  Some improvements need to be depreciated over time (5-27 years).  You also need to depreciate the cost of the rental portion of the building.  This basically means that you get a deduction each year, but lower the cost basis of the building so you owe more capital gains taxes when you sell. If you do this, I would get a professional to do your taxes at least the first year.  Its not hard once you see it done, but there are a lot of details and complications that you want to get right. Our two rentals have yielded 8.5% over the past two years (averaged). That is net, after taxes, maintenance, management, vacancy, insurance, interest. I am only interested in cash flow - expenses / original investment. If you aren't achieving at least 4.5-5% net on your original investment you probably could invest elsewhere and earn a better return on a similar risk profile. In order to arrive at a decision you need the numbers: I suggest a spreadsheet.  List the monthly and annual costs (see other responses).  Then determine what the market rate for rental.  Once you have the numbers it will be clear from a numbers standpoint.  One has consider the hassle of owning property from a distance, which is not factored into the spreadsheet With student loans at 2%, I wouldn't pay a dime over minimum on that, and I certainly wouldn't sell an investment property to pay them off, you can get CD's that beat 2% interest. With the rentals, you could sell the one that isn't performing as well and pay no capital gains tax if you lived in it 2 of the last 5 years (counting 5 years back from sale date). That'd be a nice chunk of money for your down-payment. The risk of using proceeds to buy a different rental property is that you may find you don't like being a distance landlord, and then you'd lose money selling or be stuck doing something you don't enjoy for a while until you can sell without a loss. Like you mentioned, the risk of selling either/both rental properties is that if the Arizona housing/rental markets do well you'd have given up your position and missed out. Ultimately, I think it's about your desired timeline, if you are content to wait a while to buy in San Diego, you could have a handsome down payment, will know whether or not you like being a distance landlord, and can sell/keep the rentals accordingly. Alternatively, if you want to get a house in San Diego sooner, then selling one or both rentals gets you there faster. If I was in your position, I'd probably sell the rental that I lived in and put that toward a down-payment on a primary residence, keeping the other rental for now and trying my hand at being a distance landlord. You may be in a situation where buying is preferred, especially because you can enter the market in a strong position - with a 20% down payment.  If you have the financial ability to assume the risk of owning, you may be better off.  I would consider two things.  Renting is purchasing a service. You are buying the flexibility to move with minimum hassle and the landlord is assuming the risk of owning the asset (property). They will make money on you, like any service provider. Buying is purchasing an asset. You are buying the underlying asset and assume all the risks associated with it. This is large, unforeseen maintenance, fees, taxes, depreciation, etc... Some of these risks were passed to you as a renter, but some were not.  Just like purchasing $400k in stock, if you have to sell when the market is down, you lose big. You win if you can hold. Unlike a stock, real estate will eat your cash in taxes and repairs unless it is rented. If you are willing to be a long-distance landlord, this may work out. Understand that property management fees will eat into your rent income and being long-distance will give more potential for a bad tenant to ruin your property value. These and other factors (e.g. vacancy rate) will increase your risk of loss and should be considered. Some of this will be your preference, since you will spend much more time dealing with buying/selling/property management as opposed to a more clean rental situation. Is this hassle worth the savings? For many, yes; others, no. Finally, I hope this calculator can help clarify some of the financial aspects for you.  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html?_r=0 Good Luck! You have some of the math right, but are missing a few things. Here's what I can offer - if I leave anything out, someone please expand or clarify. Rental income can be reduced by mortgage interest and maintenance costs (as you mentioned), but also by property tax payments, association fees, insurance costs, landlord expenses, and depreciation. Note that if you don't live in the property for 3 years, you'll have to pay capital gains tax if/when you sell the house. You can live in it again for 2 of the last 5 years to avoid this. Many people recommend only assuming you will get 10 months of rental income a year, to account for transitions between tenants, difficult in finding new tenants, and the occasional deadbeat tenant. This also adds a buffer for unexpected problems you need to fix in the house. If you can't at least break even on 10 months of income a year, consider the risk. I think there are also some cases where you need to repay depreciation amounts that you have deducted, but I don't know the details. Renting out a house can be fun and profitable, but it's very far from a sure thing. I'd always recommend preparation and caution, and of course talking to professionals about the finances, accounting, and lease-writing. Good luck! Getting the first year right for any rental property is key. It is even more complex when you rent a room, or rent via a service like AirBnB. Get professional tax advice. For you the IRS rules are covered in Tax Topic 415 Renting Residential and Vacation Property and IRS pub 527 Residential Rental Property There is a special rule if you use a dwelling unit as a personal   residence and rent it for fewer than 15 days. In this case, do not   report any of the rental income and do not deduct any expenses as   rental expenses. If you reach that reporting threshold the IRS will now expect you to to have to report the income, and address the items such as depreciation. When you go to sell the house you will again have to address depreciation. All of this adds complexity to your tax situation. The best advice is to make sure that in a tax year you don't cross that threshold. When you have a house that is part personal residence, and part rental property some parts of the tax code become complex. You will have to divide all the expenses (mortgage, property tax, insurance) and split it between the two uses. You will also have to take that rental portion of the property and depreciation it. You will need to determine the value of the property before the split and then determine the value of the rental portion at the time of the split. From then on, you will follow the IRS regulations for depreciation of the rental portion until you either convert it back to non-rental or sell the property.  When the property is sold the portion of the sales price will be associated with the rental property, and you will need to determine if the rental property is sold for a profit or a loss. You will also have to recapture the depreciation. It is possible that one portion of the property could show a loss, and the other part of the property a gain depending on house prices over the decades. You can expect that AirBnB will collect tax info and send it to the IRS As a US company, we’re required by US law to collect taxpayer   information from hosts who appear to have US-sourced income. Virginia will piggyback onto the IRS rules. Local law must be researched because they may limit what type of rentals are allowed. Local law could be state, or county/city/town. Even zoning regulations could apply. Also check any documents from your Home Owners Association, they may address running a business or renting a property.  You may need to adjust your insurance policy regarding having tenants. You may also want to look at insurance to protect you if a renter is injured. To your secondary question: Appropriately consider all estimated numbers involved with keeping the house compared to your closest estimate of what the home could sell for. Weigh out the pros and cons yourself as a stranger will not be able to 100% appreciate what you value and dislike.  Remember to include insurances, taxes, HOA(s), and the actual mortgage payment. Depending on how you also plan to rent out the property, include whichever utilities you intend to cover (if any).  There will also be costs for property management and upkeep as things will break overtime and tenants will not hesitate to get you (or your management) to fix them, either way that means you are paying. I would also keep in mind while homes typically appreciate in value there is a higher risk with tenants for the value to depreciate to damages and poor upkeep.  There are increased legal risks to renting, so be sure you have properly vetted whichever management you are going with.  In extreme circumstances you also could be required to retain an attorney to defend yourself again litigation because whichever management team you hire will most likely defend themselves and not include you in that umbrella.  My family lives in the LA area as well and a judge refused to throw out an obvious frivolous suit when my parents attempted to rent out a house.  The possible renters after signing the main paperwork never showed to finish a second set of documents for renting.  Parents immediately declined to rent to these people as they missed something so important without any explanation and they sued claiming racism, emotional damages, and some other really crazy things despite my parents never having met them (first meeting was between property management and renters only). Personally and professionally, I would only suggest renting our the place and not selling if you can turn a profit after all the above mentioned costs. If renters are only paying to keep the property in the black you have yourself a non-earning asset which WILL be damaged over time and require repairs which will come out of your pocket.  Also, while the property is unoccupied you also must remember it is not earning at that time. Much of this may sound obvious, overcautious, etc... I simply wish to provide my family's experience to help you in making your decisions.   Best of luck with your endeavor. Edit:  Also, you will be required to report all earned rental income on your taxes. They will fall under the Schedule E and possibly K-1 area.  I would strongly recommend consulting with an actual accountant about the impacts to you. Sounds like you have a nice rental on your hands, honestly, if it's blue-collar-ish material.  Not too expensive for a rental. Is the rental market fairly strong there?  You're probably looking at $400-$500 per month income after you pay everybody.  (My property manager takes 10% of gross rents and she would inspect the property quarterly for me.) I'd take as many of those as I can get, though if I had ten of them I could be set for the rest of my life. :) That way you can offset any losses you might incur by selling now. I'd rent and put the $30K/ yr into savings. When the short sale comes off your credit, you'll have a substantial downpayment.  You don't mention the balance, but the current rate you're paying is 3% too high. Even if you get the rate reduced, you have a $100K issue.  I recommend reading through Will Short Sale Prevent Me From Getting VA Home Loan Later? A bit different question, but it talks more about the short sale. A comment for that question makes a key point - if you have a short sale, will the bank chase you for the balance? If not, you have a choice to make.  Adding note after user11043 commented - First, run the numbers. If you were to pay the $100K off over 7 years, it's $1534/mo extra. Nearly $130K, and even then, you might not be at 80% LTV. I don't know what rents are like in your area, but do the math. First, if the rent is less than the current mortgage+property tax and maintenance, you will immediately have better cash flow each month, and over time, save towards the newer house.  If you feel compelled to work this out and stay put, I'd go to the bank and tell them you'd like them to recast the loan to a new rate. They have more to lose than you do, and there's nothing wrong with a bit of a threat. You can walk away, or they can do what's reasonable, to just fix your rate. With a 4% rate, you'd easily attack the principal if you wish. As you commented above, if the bank offers no option, I'd seriously consider the short sale. There's nothing wrong with that option from a moral standpoint, in my opinion. This is not Bedford Falls, and you are not hurting your neighbors. The bank is amoral, if not immoral. He owns some giants. I'd bet Coca-Cola is his biggest cash cow.   This is a non-story. The revenue naturally follows actual value provided, as opposed to buying and selling shares with the swings of the stock market.   Buffet buys and holds, and builds and collects the revenue from his companies, that's been his core philosophy since the beginning.