The 1% Rule: A Filter, Not a Decision
Monthly rent at one percent of purchase price is a fast way to reject listings. It is a poor way to accept one, because the costs it leaves out are the costs that decide whether a rental works.
Start in about 60 seconds · No tax returns · No W-2s
Reviewed by Andrew Pawlak · Updated
The 1% rule asks one question: is the monthly rent at least one percent of the purchase price? A $200,000 house renting for $2,000 hits it exactly.
It is a fine way to sort a list of twenty listings into the three worth studying. It is a bad way to decide on any of the three, because the costs it omits are the costs that determine whether the property works.
What the rule leaves out
The rule looks at rent and price. A rental's actual economics run on rent minus everything, against a payment built from price, rate, taxes, insurance, and dues.
Property taxes vary by more than a factor of two between states and sometimes between counties in one metro. Insurance premiums differ enormously by peril exposure, and coastal or wildfire markets carry premiums that would look like typos elsewhere. Association dues can add hundreds a month and appear nowhere in a listing's headline. Interest rates move the payment independently of everything else.
None of those appear in a rent-to-price ratio. All of them land in the payment your rent has to cover.
Two properties, same 1%, different outcomes
Take two $200,000 properties, each renting at $2,000, each hitting the rule exactly. Finance both identically at 75% with a $150,000 loan at 7% over thirty years, which puts principal and interest at about $998 on each.
Now carry them. The first sits in a low-tax county at 0.8%, insures for $100 a month, and has no association. Its full monthly payment lands near $1,232, so the rent covers it at about 1.62. Comfortable.
The second sits in a 2.2% tax jurisdiction, insures for $250 a month because of where it is, and carries $200 in dues. Its full payment lands near $1,815, and the same $2,000 rent covers it at about 1.10. Thin.
That is a difference of roughly $583 a month between two properties the rule scored identically. One has room for a vacant month and a rent adjustment. The other does not. Nothing in the 1% test could tell them apart, because the test never looked at the numbers that separate them.
Where the rule came from and why it drifted
Shortcuts encode the conditions they were invented under. This one comes from a period when rates, taxes, and insurance were all lower and moved together, so price was a decent proxy for the whole payment.
That proxy weakened as the components diverged. Two markets with similar prices can now carry very different payments, which is exactly what the worked example shows. The rule did not become wrong so much as it became less informative, and the gap is widest in precisely the markets investors are most curious about.
What to use instead
Nothing exotic, and it takes a few minutes once you have the tax figure and an insurance quote.
- Coverage: rent against the full payment including taxes, insurance, and dues, which is the test a lender runs
- Cash-on-cash: annual cash flow against the money you actually put in, after vacancy, management, and reserves
- A stress case: the same deal with lower rent and a vacant month, which tells you how much room you bought
The DSCR calculator does the first and the rental property calculator does the second. For the order to run them in, see how to analyze a rental deal.
Run the unlevered number first with the cap rate calculator, then the levered one with the DSCR calculator. The two together answer what the 1% rule only guesses at.
Keeping the rule in its place
Screening tools earn their keep by being fast and disposable. Run the 1% test across a list, keep what clears it, and then forget the number entirely while you do the real work on the survivors.
The failure worth avoiding is the one where a property clears the rule and that becomes the reason to buy it. Coverage built on a shortcut behaves the same way as coverage built on an optimistic rent, and thin coverage is what turns into a delinquency.
To see where a specific property lands, run your numbers.
What is the 1% rule in real estate?
A screening shortcut that asks whether a property's monthly rent is at least one percent of its purchase price. A $200,000 house renting for $2,000 hits it exactly. It exists to sort a long list of listings quickly, not to decide whether a specific property is worth buying.
Is the 1% rule outdated?
The arithmetic works the same as it always did; what changed is how much it leaves out. The rule says nothing about interest rates, property taxes, insurance, or dues, and all four have moved a great deal in different directions in different markets. A shortcut that ignores your largest variable costs gets less useful as those costs diverge.
What about the 2% rule?
Same shortcut with a higher bar, and the same blind spots. Properties clearing two percent of price in monthly rent are usually cheap for reasons that show up later as vacancy, turnover, or capital expense. A high rent-to-price ratio is a question worth asking rather than an answer.
What should I use instead of the 1% rule?
Coverage and cash-on-cash, both computed with the actual carrying costs for that parcel. Coverage tells you whether a lender will finance it, and cash-on-cash tells you what it returns on the money you put in. Neither takes long once you have the tax figure and an insurance quote.
Is there any version of the 1% rule worth keeping?
Yes, as a sorting tool. Running it across twenty listings to decide which three deserve a real analysis is a reasonable use of ten minutes. The failure mode is treating a property that clears it as validated, because clearing it says nothing about what the property costs to hold.
Ready to run your deal?
Tell us the property, the rent, and the plan. Your DSCR computed on the spot, with options priced by lending partners on the property's cash flow.
Start in about 60 seconds · No tax returns · No W-2s