Don't get me wrong, I self mange, but I would never suggest to someone that is what will make my investing a success or a failure like you seem to,.
But a PM charges a %age of rent and set fees and no more, so same %age per property regardless of # of properties.
I think some investors have made it to financial freedom using PM's, so I am not as convinced as you that it is better to limit yourself to your own area just so that you can manage it yourself in order to succeed somehow while being blind to other possiblly better opportunities out thetre which could eclipse an expense of property manger's $3k pa bill
Jaycee,
I have no problem suggesting staying in an area where you can self manage.From the problems I read on SS about PM's who don't know the ACT, obviously are an advocate for the tenant, and who also encourage the LL to do something, for the benefit of the PM ( ex.increase rent $10 wk, and the tenant moves, all reletting fees apply then )
Having a PM can be the most detrimental part of property investing.
When you self manage, you don't need to pay $50+ for someone to change a lightbulb, fire alarm battery etc. Even if you hired a "weekend husband" it would be cheaper to fix all minor things.
If it stopped at % of the rent, that would be one thing, but it doesn't. Many times if the PM represents you at Tribunal, they charge for that too. and the list goes on and on.
When you have this much trouble when you can be beside your property, imagine the risk you can be putting yourself, when you are in a different state.
Yes some will make it to financial freedom using a PM...imagine how much futher they could have been doing it themselves
Using your numbers..37 properties @ $3k=$111,000
Yes, I would rather have that money.