Possible to grow without taking on debt?
Real Estate Investor · Dayton, OH · Member since 2015 · 31 posts · 6 votes
Possible to grow without taking on debt?
Most Popular Reply
Investor · Houston, TX · Member since 2011 · 26 posts · 37 votes
10yLeverage is your friend in real estate. Think of it this way. If you have to save your way to buy a $100k property how long will it take you? Conversely, you can use leverage and put down $20k and take control of a $100k property. While your cashflow maybe a couple hundred per month, you will also enjoy paying down of the debt over time.
Instead of buying 1 100k property cash you could buy 5 houses with 20k down each and make perhaps $1000/month cashflow. In addition presuming you had a 30yr loan. In 30 years you'd have 500K in paid off assets.
Which is better? One builds wealth faster using leverage and time.
132 Replies
- Real Estate Broker · Gibsonia, PA · Member since 2013 · 828 posts · 260 votes10y
I buy units at discount bc they need a lot of work that ppl with financing will have issues with securing a loan hahaha
now that u made me think about it.
also I buy unit that requires significant deferred maintenance that needed to be address yesterday, again buyers with financing with no capital for large rehab will pass.
- Real Estate Broker · Gibsonia, PA · Member since 2013 · 828 posts · 260 votes10y
I need to amend my comment. I buy cash but also have a HELOC( home equity line of credit)
we pay down and acquire more. (its all written on one of my post, eventually did a 1031)
- Jacksonville, FL · Member since 2015 · 60 posts · 15 votes10y
There is plenty of risk when you are in debt. It must be "manageable". You should have large, I mean large, cash reserves to operate a stable business, family and country.
- Investor · Rochester, NY · Member since 2016 · 477 posts · 426 votes10y
Originally posted by @Jay Dean:
Once you have bought using cash, rented, and establish a baseline of say 6 months, consider talking to a commercial banker about a "50% cash out" loan. Use this opportunity to get at least one more unit, increase your total income stream, and create a tax write off (interest) without over extending yourself. If you never leverage more than 50% and have a rainy day fund set aside, you should still be very stable while earning more.
For whatever reason, this option never occurred to me until reading this. I always looked at cash out re-fis as an all or nothing proposition (that I was wary of.) Really glad I keep coming back to this thread - there's a ton of good information here!
- 10yDavid GreeneBusiness MemberReal Estate Broker · San Francisco Bay Area, CA · Member since 2012 · 225 posts · 266 votes
Bradley,
When I first got started I thought exactly like you-if I put more down my payment will be lower and I'll have less risk.
Looking back, I was an idiot.
Interest rates are super low right now. SUPER. This is probably the lowest they will ever be in my lifetime. In some circumstances it is almost free money. If you're property makes you a profit, and it will still make you a profit after you take a loan on it, there is no good reason at your age not to take a loan.
There are literally so many good reasons to take out a loan on your property I don't have time to list them here (feel free to DM me for more detail). I will live you with a wise quote a good friend's father (a lawn maintenance and factory worker who went on to become a millionaire at retirement) told him.
"If you want to be a millionaire, take out a million dollars worth of debt and have someone else pay it off for you."
Please message me with any questions. Debt secured by real estate is one of the most amazing tools for wealth building in the entire world.
- Plano, TX · Member since 2016 · 15 posts · 6 votes10yI was taught " you cannot save your self to wealth" And that there are 2 types of debts 1.constructive ( good) 2.destructive ( obviously bad) Going into debt to buy cash producing properties is definitely a good debt.
- Mechanicsburg, PA · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes10y
Everybody has different ideas. I can only say what worked for me in 900+ deals that I did. It may not work for everybody or anybody else. I strongly believe that the good debt/bad debt argument is bogus. If you owe $10 million it doesn't matter if its good debt or bad debt. The debt doesn't care. The dollars used to pay the debt doesn't care. And the lender doesn't care. A $10 million dollar debt is still a $10 million dollar debt whether its "good" or "bad".
Dave Ramsey would roll over in his grave, if he were dead, but I literally started with nothing, borrowed 100% for the first 11 properties that I bought and had a low paying job making $8,000 a year as a full time employee. And I had no savings. And I can from a poor family where my father working full time never made $10,000 in one year. I would borrow as much as I could for as long as I could. Today I tell people that these interest rates will eventually go up, take advantage of the historic low interest rates and "borrow as much as you can for as long as you can." I've had 50+ mortgages, I know exactly what it is like to have millions dollars of debt hanging over my head. In 2007 I decided that I was working for the banks, and I wasn't going to be doing that anymore. I regimented my self on a program to reduce my debt by paying off mortgages early, selling some properties and using the proceeds to pay off other mortgages, and for the next 130 properties that I bought, only 1 was mortgaged. I somewhat reluctantly took a mortgage, because the lender owner made me an attractive deal of 90% financing on a non-owner occupied property at 4.5% fixed for 30 years.
I needed to heavily finance the early properties to buy so many properties. Botoh, as I've written many times before:
1. If I would do over I would buy less properties not more properties. See Bigger Pockets book "Real Estate Rewind" a free download here, which I co-authored with 11 other people.
2. My model worked for me, that doesn't mean it will work for you. And in fact it may work for nobody else. When I started and had a full time job, there were times where real estate was like a second full time job. One year while having a non-real estate full time job I bought and sold 74 properties for my own portfolio. I've been a full time real estate investor for many years since and have never bought and sold that many properties in one year.
3. Yes, I took risks, some, maybe many of those risks are risks that you should not take. Somebody once asked me if wasn't the things that I do and did risky? Yes, heck yes. I am risk adverse, at least I think I am and the risks taken were calculated risks. But some times the risks paid off sometimes not. I've bought a lot of Sheriff Sale and foreclosure sale properties where I wasn't able to get in the house (within break and entering which I won't do, though some other investors do.); so I'm buying a property that I haven't seen in side. If the house is unlocked and unoccupied, I will go in. If occupied, I may ask the tenant or owner to see inside. But there still are the properties, where they are locked up, the rapes are pulled closed or the occupant won't let me in. The riskless thing to do would be to not bid on those properties. I don't always do that. So sometimes I buy a surprise, like hoarder houses, I wrote about here on BP just yesterday, or a basement with 2-3 feet of water, or mold, or other damage.
A property I didn't buy was bought by somebody else I know and the house was owner occupied by the original owner. The outside looked nice. Inside though when the buyer got in AFTER the sale, there were walls torn out and for some reason the owner ripped out the wiring, maybe for scrap value of copper, who knows but was still living there. The property needed extensive interior work and the buyer ended up wholesaling it to a rehabber and almost broke even. Lots of times the outside will look like the inside. A neglected outside usually means a neglected inside, but not always.
- Rock Hill, SC · Member since 2015 · 1k+ posts · 597 votes10y
Originally posted by @Luke F.:
Originally posted by @Alex Franks:
Originally posted by @Bradley Marion:
To me its all about leverage. I have raised and used a lot of private funds. Have had loans in both my wife and my name. Money is cheap today. So the leverage is using cheaper I like to call it making money off borrowed money. For me, my goal was free and clear properties. Then again when I first started my mind set was buy 4 properties at time. Fix and flips selling 3 and keep the 4th free or almost free slowly building my portfolio.
Why did you change your investing strategy?
Started out wholesaling, then after building up capital. I started rehabbing , buying holding , retail sales. I was just running 100 miles an hour with little direction back then.
Alex
- Littleton, CO · Member since 2015 · 59 posts · 14 votes10y
Originally posted by @Alex Franks:
Originally posted by @Luke F.:
Originally posted by @Alex Franks:
Originally posted by @Bradley Marion:
To me its all about leverage. I have raised and used a lot of private funds. Have had loans in both my wife and my name. Money is cheap today. So the leverage is using cheaper I like to call it making money off borrowed money. For me, my goal was free and clear properties. Then again when I first started my mind set was buy 4 properties at time. Fix and flips selling 3 and keep the 4th free or almost free slowly building my portfolio.
Why did you change your investing strategy?
Started out wholesaling, then after building up capital. I started rehabbing , buying holding , retail sales. I was just running 100 miles an hour with little direction back then.
Alex
What are your thoughts on debt now with your portfolio?
- Investor · Des Moines, IA · Member since 2015 · 380 posts · 201 votes10y
Originally posted by :
1. If I would do over I would buy less properties not more properties. See Bigger Pockets book "Real Estate Rewind" a free download here, which I co-authored with 11 other people.2. My model worked for me, that doesn't mean it will work for you. And in fact it may work for nobody else. When I started and had a full time job, there were times where real estate was like a second full time job. One year while having a non-real estate full time job I bought and sold 74 properties for my own portfolio. I've been a full time real estate investor for many years since and have never bought and sold that many properties in one year.
I think the time factor is easily overlooked. Having a business as my primary focus, doing rentals/rehabs more on the side(a little related to my business) it's amazing how much time properties can take.
If you have $100k, you can buy one property making an 8% cap rate, or you can put $20k down on five houses, and yes you might get a 15% cash on cash return as well as additional equity pay down. No question you'll get higher returns leveraging. BUT, you will be managing 5x the properties, 5x the tenants, 5x the property repairs, 5x the headaches. The additional cash flow will likely be eaten up by the additional time if you were to calculate yourself an hourly wage. But 10 years from now you will see benefit when you have some decent equity and rent has increased. So it depends on your current personal situation on which option to go with.
- Rental Property Investor · East Wenatchee, WA · Member since 2014 · 10k+ posts · 16k+ votes10y
I can look up now and say I don't like debt. Today I want EVERYTHING paid off. But wait... how did I acquire the portfolio I have? What one factor in my investing has allowed me to be selective with additional acquisitions? What factor has allowed me to not care if I never buy again? Leverage. But my goal wasn't to just do this REI thing on the side. Haven't had a w-2 since '02. This interest rate environment sure is juicy, though! Responsible leverage is very attractive at 4ish%.
One or 2 paid off houses may suffice if I was a busy professional. Like many have said, it depends on your goals!
- Accountant · greenwell springs, LA · Member since 2009 · 177 posts · 43 votes10y
Debt makes real estate deals LESS risky, not more risky. The only requirement is that the debt service be less than the cash generated from the asset.
- Homeowner · VISTA, CA · Member since 2015 · 726 posts · 340 votes10y
@Bradley Marion, Simply stated, it really depends on your particular station in life. At 70 years young I've worked most of my life to eliminate all debt and have finally arrived and plan to stay that way.
We hold a very healthy and comfortable stock and RE portfolio and don't leverage at all anymore. If we can't pay cash for it we don't buy it. Our goal is PASSIVE INCOME and you really can't realize the ultimate in that if your leveraging capital, assets or equity in my humble opinion.
However, that stated, if your young, healthy and ambitious and have some capital to invest via leveraging and building a portfolio as you go and grow then go for it with zeal. If you're not willing to take a little risk along the path of life you'll just sit on the sidelines and watch while the real movers and shakers entrepreneur their way through life.
My 3 cents worth adjusted for inflation.
- Flipper/Rehabber · Greeley, CO · Member since 2013 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes10y
I completely agree. I hear the good debt bad debt argument all the time. It doesn't matter what they debt is against, it matters what you use the debt for.
- 10yDavid GreeneBusiness MemberReal Estate Broker · San Francisco Bay Area, CA · Member since 2012 · 225 posts · 266 votes
if someone thinks they can make more passive income by having less debt (assuming it's low interest rate, non risky mortgages), they aren't finding the right properties.
If you one a 200k property free and clear and it's bringing in $1200 a month in passive income, you should be able to take out a mortgage for 150k, and use that 150k to warn you $1500 a month in passive income on additional properties.
The loan at 4-5% would cost you $760 a month. That doesn't include principal pay down.
That's why this is "good" debt. You are borrowing money at a low rate to earn money at a higher rate. "Bad" debt would be borrowing money to not make money. That's a big difference.
$1500 a month in additional passive income - $760 a month in the cost for the mortgage = $740 a month in extra "passive income".
Using leverage at super low interest rates adds to your passive income. It doesn't take away from it.
If you can't cash flow with a mortgage on a property, you probably shouldn't have bought that property. One of the pillars of wealth building through real estate is using leverage and the awesome terms you can get when secured by a house. It's not very risky at all if the property was bought right.
Don't be deterred by the words "mortgage" or "debt". Be deterred by unwise investments or foolish loan terms.
A lot of people were burned by adjustable rate mortgages, balloon payments, or negative amortizing loans. That doesn't mean mortgages are bad or debt is bad.
- Investor · Muskegon, MI · Member since 2015 · 35 posts · 16 votes10y
Mortgage means "Death Grip"
Anytime I see people say there are only 2 ways something can be done it tells me that the 3rd way is going to be the most profitable. There are plenty of ways you can get into real estate with out debt that doesn't require you to pay for it all your self. Get creative.
- Rock Star Extraordinaire · Northeast, TN · Member since 2015 · 10k+ posts · 16k+ votes10y
Originally posted by @Gary Hall:
Mortgage means "Death Grip"
Anytime I see people say there are only 2 ways something can be done it tells me that the 3rd way is going to be the most profitable. There are plenty of ways you can get into real estate with out debt that doesn't require you to pay for it all your self. Get creative.
And Greenland means "Green Land", but it doesn't make it so :) I don't think anyone said that the only way you can built wealth is through debt, but pretending that leverage cannot significantly increase your cash flow and ultimate net worth is folly. I get it that some people need to carry an EpiPen in case a mortgage jumps out and grabs them, but once you get past the hysteria you'll find that properly structured deals under good conditions are going to make you a lot of money. Leverage doesn't have to be simply in the form of a mortgage. Leverage can be a 50/50 partnership, for example. A mortgage is nothing more than a partnership between you and the bank, wherein they front you the money for your project and promise to pay them back at X %. How that is any different than any other partnership, at its core, is beyond me.
Skyline Properties - Investor · Rochester, NY · Member since 2016 · 477 posts · 426 votes10y
I listened to podcast #122 on my way in to work this morning, and Chris Clothier said something that really caught my attention when asked about the BRRRR strategy.
He said (and I'm doing my best to remember/paraphrase): "For the first 24 years of a 30 year fixed mortgage, the interest payment alone is the single largest expense you are going to have on that property." And that's with rates at 4-5%.
So, right now, I can borrow something like $300k from my bank in the form of a portfolio mortgage, 30 year fixed at 5.375. The total cost of taking that loan and carrying it all the way to completion would be $605,000. At 10% (just to prove a point about what will happen if rates go back up) the total cost of that mortgage is $948,000.
So cashflow numbers and cash-on-cash return might look and be great, but in the back of my head, I'll always know that I'm paying two to three times as much for that property (minus gains from inflation, etc.)* as I would if I had paid cash for it, or even used a much shorter term loan, and bought less.
*Side Note: Could someone coach me on how to figure out the actual difference here? How much does 30 years of monetary inflation offset the cost of borrowing the money (assuming typical inflation)? I'm decent with excel, but I don't think I understand the financial mechanics well enough to figure out those formulas on my own.
- Investor · Des Moines, IA · Member since 2015 · 380 posts · 201 votes10y
Originally posted by @Jason V.:
I listened to podcast #122 on my way in to work this morning, and Chris Clothier said something that really caught my attention when asked about the BRRRR strategy.
He said (and I'm doing my best to remember/paraphrase): "For the first 24 years of a 30 year fixed mortgage, the interest payment alone is the single largest expense you are going to have on that property." And that's with rates at 4-5%.
So, right now, I can borrow something like $300k from my bank in the form of a portfolio mortgage, 30 year fixed at 5.375. The total cost of taking that loan and carrying it all the way to completion would be $605,000. At 10% (just to prove a point about what will happen if rates go back up) the total cost of that mortgage is $948,000.
So cashflow numbers and cash-on-cash return might look and be great, but in the back of my head, I'll always know that I'm paying two to three times as much for that property (minus gains from inflation, etc.)* as I would if I had paid cash for it, or even used a much shorter term loan, and bought less.
*Side Note: Could someone coach me on how to figure out the actual difference here? How much does 30 years of monetary inflation offset the cost of borrowing the money (assuming typical inflation)? I'm decent with excel, but I don't think I understand the financial mechanics well enough to figure out those formulas on my own.
You are paying 2-3x for it over 30 years than you would if you paid cash. But if you bought 5 houses with 20% down, you'd have 5x the net worth/assets in 30 years than if you bought 1 cash now. Assuming you have a positive cash flow, it cost you only management time. So in 30 years, would you rather have one $300k property that you never had a loan on, or $1.5m in properties that you just wrote the final mortgage payments on?
- Investor · Rochester, NY · Member since 2016 · 477 posts · 426 votes10y
@Chase Gochnauer I get what you're saying, but there's another way to think about it: Would you rather pay $300,000 for something worth $300,000, or pay $4.5 million for something worth $1.5 million?
And the answer isn't "But your tenant is paying for it" because their rent would be the same either way - you're just paying more to the bank in interest if you have a loan, rather than it going into your pocket, or towards loan paydown in the event of a shorter term loan. It might take longer, but who says you can only pay cash for one property? Maybe you wind up with 3 you paid cash for instead of 5 you mortgaged. I don't know.
This is where it gets complication to me - because I'm not against having mortgages on properties. I have mortgages on both the properties I currently own, and plan on having mortgages on the next several. But I think it is something that requires some thought, and that's why I'm interested in figuring out how to calculate the potential savings (if any) of shorter term loans versus the time value of money.
- Investor · Des Moines, IA · Member since 2015 · 380 posts · 201 votes10y
Originally posted by @Jason V.:
@Chase Gochnauer I get what you're saying, but there's another way to think about it: Would you rather pay $300,000 for something worth $300,000, or pay $4.5 million for something worth $1.5 million?
And the answer isn't "But your tenant is paying for it" because their rent would be the same either way - you're just paying more to the bank in interest if you have a loan, rather than it going into your pocket, or towards loan paydown in the event of a shorter term loan. It might take longer, but who says you can only pay cash for one property? Maybe you wind up with 3 you paid cash for instead of 5 you mortgaged. I don't know.
This is where it gets complication to me - because I'm not against having mortgages on properties. I have mortgages on both the properties I currently own, and plan on having mortgages on the next several. But I think it is something that requires some thought, and that's why I'm interested in figuring out how to calculate the potential savings (if any) of shorter term loans versus the time value of money.
But the tenant is paying for it. The rent would not be the same either way. Without the mortgage, you wouldn't own the additional 4 properties, therefore the rent on those 4 properties would be $0.
It depends on how much you can put into it. Most people won't have $900k cash in 30 years of working to purchase 3 properties. To own 3 properties purchased outright at this amount, you'd have to bank $30k/yr for 30 years and wouldn't be able to purchase the 3rd one until year 30. But, you'd have to hope your yearly income increases with the real estate market as at year 30 that property is now worth $600k, and you lost all of that potential appreciation gain.
There will be no Excel sheet, or analysis in the world that will show you paying cash, or shorter term loans for properties gives you better returns on your money. On paper, longer term leveraging will give you the best cash on cash returns no question. In reality there are things that cannot be put on paper such as the time involvement in the properties and risk, we could argue risk all day long. But from an analysis standpoint leveraging always wins.
If you're 60 years old, have $900k in the bank, then buying 3 properties cash meets your current goals.
- Investor · Rochester, NY · Member since 2016 · 477 posts · 426 votes10y
@Chase Gochnauer I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm trying to learn something. So I really do appreciate your perspective.
To the first, I get what you're saying, but you're thinking about it differently than I am. In my mind, the rents would be the same either way: rent on a house is $800/mo no matter what I do, but I have the choice of paying the bank $300/mo in interest, $0/mo in interest, or somewhere in between. Shorter terms also accelerate loan paydown, and decrease the amount you'll pay to borrow the money, at the cost of cashflow. Depending on a lot of different factors, some people might be able to make more money trading cashflow for equity, and paying less to borrow the same amount of money. This is a better IRR, but a worse Cash-on-cash return.
And you're absolutely right that you'll get more cashflow with more properties (assuming all things equal with deals, which we all know is a dangerous proposition.) But as someone pointed out earlier, if things take a huge turn for the worse, a house with no mortgage can't be foreclosed on, and having actual cash on hand (as opposed to doing cash-out re-fis that seem to disappear during the big downturns) can be a huge advantage. It becomes even more so when banks are afraid to lend money.
I'm not trying to decide whether to use debt or not, because I already do, and will continue to do so. I'm trying to get a handle on what an acceptable level of risk is for my personal preferences. I want to know if I should start debt snowballing properties after 4 or 20 properties.
I know there is a point of optimization for accomplishing my goals. I also understand that I will be sacrificing some growth potential for stability, and I'm OK with that.
So if someone wants to jump in and help me out with some math on this one, I would appreciate it!
- Investor · Des Moines, IA · Member since 2015 · 380 posts · 201 votes10y
Originally posted by @Jason V.:
@Chase Gochnauer I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm trying to learn something. So I really do appreciate your perspective.
To the first, I get what you're saying, but you're thinking about it differently than I am. In my mind, the rents would be the same either way: rent on a house is $800/mo no matter what I do, but I have the choice of paying the bank $300/mo in interest, $0/mo in interest, or somewhere in between. Shorter terms also accelerate loan paydown, and decrease the amount you'll pay to borrow the money, at the cost of cashflow. Depending on a lot of different factors, some people might be able to make more money trading cashflow for equity, and paying less to borrow the same amount of money. This is a better IRR, but a worse Cash-on-cash return.
And you're absolutely right that you'll get more cashflow with more properties (assuming all things equal with deals, which we all know is a dangerous proposition.) But as someone pointed out earlier, if things take a huge turn for the worse, a house with no mortgage can't be foreclosed on, and having actual cash on hand (as opposed to doing cash-out re-fis that seem to disappear during the big downturns) can be a huge advantage. It becomes even more so when banks are afraid to lend money.
I'm not trying to decide whether to use debt or not, because I already do, and will continue to do so. I'm trying to get a handle on what an acceptable level of risk is for my personal preferences. I want to know if I should start debt snowballing properties after 4 or 20 properties.
I know there is a point of optimization for accomplishing my goals. I also understand that I will be sacrificing some growth potential for stability, and I'm OK with that.
So if someone wants to jump in and help me out with some math on this one, I would appreciate it!
No problem, I'm not trying to be argumentative either. Friendly debate :) . Your assumption in your second paragraph assumes you have unlimited money, though. Of course no mortgage would be higher cash flow. But when determining how to maximize the returns on the money you do have, leverage up to your acceptable level of risk will always maximize returns, on paper.
It somewhat depends on where you're located too. Here in the Iowa, we got hurt for sure on property values and such, but not nearly like those in say California, Vegas, etc did. We maybe dropped 20%. So having 20% down on a property would make me feel comfortable here. If I lived in a area that has seen obscene appreciation and a home is worth double what it was five years ago, I would consider 20% down more risky. You also have to take your reserves into consideration. If I lived in one of those appreciating areas, only had 20% but had $300k in reserves, that might be OK.
I believe debt snowballing is a Ramsey term, and I think applies great to a person working a W2 job trying to reduce consumer debt but not sure I'd use it in real estate. I'd keep your leverage percentage at a comfortable level, and not begin to really work on paying them off until you're gearing up for retirement. If you get to the point of having say 10 leveraged properties, and you do the math that if you pay them off you can retire off the income, then start paying them off as fast as you can and your retirement date is the day they are paid off. If you have three or four properties and its not possible to retire from the income of those properties, then I'd continue to purchase until you reach that point.
This is only my opinion, others will have different strategies.
- Real Estate Investor · Dayton, OH · Member since 2015 · 31 posts · 6 votes10y
@John Arendsen – Passive income is where it’s at! I can’t be managing all this stuff all the time because I have other stuff to do most of the time. I am a busy professional and I am focused on my career most days because I know I can make six figures with an execellent pension if I just keep working hard for the Government. However if I can make money on the side with some paid off assests that makes great sense as long as I don’t have to manage a bunch of properties and dozens of tenants all the time with repairs and whatnot.
Actually for my current day job with the Government I am a professional manager of property management companies. I oversee these tenants AND the property management, site managers and professional property management individuals 9 hours a day at my day job. I know how much work it is to take on property and I am not interested in “leveraging” so much because I know dollar for dollar my time is better spent only managing property where I am collecting 100% of the rent and I am not giving all to some bank or investor.
I have very limited amount of time in my life with my career and family. Therefore I do not have 60 hours per week to create some sort of Donald Trump real estate empire. I am landlording “on the side” right now and will always manage up to 5 or 6 properties. However when I get above that I will most likely hire a couple of property management companies to help me out and also let them know that I am keeping a very close eye on them.
Also I just don’t like the idea of some 3rd party having an interest in my business. I do not know why but it just bugs me, I enjoy the freedom of knowing that I am the boss and no one can tell me that the “rent” is due. As of now I am the only one telling people when the rent is due and it feels great.
- Real Estate Investor · Dayton, OH · Member since 2015 · 31 posts · 6 votes10y
Another thing is I want to get into being an accredited investor some day to start doing crowdfunding on the debt side. Basically I want to be the bank and people can pay to use my money if they have good credit and history / portfolio of performance. Also the real estate is tied to the loan so the chance of a loss is minimal if a foreclosure goes down.
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.