As property managers, I am learning we are bias with some of our properties. I know that place that just got overhauled will have higher screening requirements than that place that just had a quick turn from resident to resident.
I loaded up my schedule E's into Claude and gave them a true number of days a place was vacant and marketed, intentional off the market getting overhauled and the number of days the place was full and bringing in income. I asked Claude to act as an investment analyst and tell me how to improve specific properties.
Truth be told, I felt rather beat up on the places I recently overhauled. I am not sure if it was based on having extra expenses of their overhaul or because my standards were higher because of the overhaul. I am thinking instead of loading just one year into the system, it would need a wider window of time to show that systems do in fact wear out.
I feel this is the future. I am wondering if anyone else has done this yet. Your feelings will probably get hurt if you do. I know I need to load more info to make this more meaningful.
It showed me some gaps in how I do business. It said I was under the market rent and under maintenance for my 18-year resident. It said, I spent too much on maintenance and repairs. on other places - especially when an overhaul occurred. It gave me a list of three places that I should consider peeling off. I was surprised with two of the three answers.
I did not notice how debt was treated differently to find that ideal balance between leverage and cash flow. That is a different function IMO. Have any of CPA types out there done a performance study yet? What were your thoughts
--173.188.xx.xx