Lose Your Competitive Edge With Debt

Lose Your Competitive Edge With Debt

Real Estate Investor · Englewood, CO · Member since 2013 · 988 posts · 258 votes

Lose Your Competitive Edge With Debt

The more debt you have, the larger the loan on the property, the less competitive you are.

Is your goal to have as little money tied up in an investment property as possible? He who has the least debt is the most competitive.

Consider this:

In 2006, you buy a similar house next door to mine. We both own the properties as rental investments. I own mine free and clear. You aggressively sought a loan with the least down payment. Because the properties are the same, we both attract the same target market. Both houses rent for $1,000 per month.

Now, it is 2008. The target market is no willing or able to pay $1,000 per month. There are fewer people who qualify to rent your house because you rely on credit checks and I do not.

I lower my rental price to $850 per month and my property remains occupied. You cannot lower your rental price because you still have mortgage payments, overhead, and other debt payments. Your property will not cash flow below a rental payment of $1,000 per month. When you bought the house, you hoped to raise the rent the second year.

While my house has a tenant and is cash flowing at the $850, your house sits empty for more than a month. You are struggling to make the mortgage payment. You cannot find a buyer for the house. Finally, your savings are gone and you give up. The property goes into foreclosure, as many investors’ properties did 2008 and beyond.

Yes, my comments are completely contrary to the many books on the subject. They are based upon decades of experience and observation. My goal is to make deposits. I spend less time massaging numbers and never borrow money. It is very difficult to compete against me.

Just consider the options to determine what works best for you.

Your comments are welcomed and encouraged. We all learn from others ideas.

0Reply
107 views

Most Popular Reply

J ScottPro Member
Moderator
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
13y
Originally posted by Tom Goans:

The more debt you have, the larger the loan on the property, the less competitive you are.

Is your goal to have as little money tied up in an investment property as possible? He who has the least debt is the most competitive.

Personally, I disagree with these statements...at least in some circumstances...

The first statement is mathematically incorrect. I can have more debt today than yesterday, but have it spread out across many more properties, each with a lower LTV. More overall debt, less overall risk.

In general, the absolute value of debt is meaningless without more information.

As for the second statement, I know some very competitive investors who are 100% debt laden. Many of the institutional investors who are buying up Atlanta (and other cities) right now are working off 100% debt and are tremendously competitive (if you define competitive to mean they have an acquisition advantage). While I'm not going to comment on their business models (they often make bad investments), they are extremely competitive because they have the ability to leverage large amounts of (borrowed) capital.

Donald Trump is another good example. Back in the early 90s at one point, he was $900M in personal debt. He borrowed about $3B at that time and was able to use it to dig himself out of debt and today he's doing okay for himself.

I'm not advocating large amounts of debt by any means (many people are bad with money and more debt equals more problems)...I'm just pointing out that blanket statements like "He who has the least debt is the most competitive" make absolutely no sense to me.

The bigger questions are how that debt affects your overall financial picture, how you use your debt, how you manage your debt, and what the risk associated with that debt is.

See this reply in the discussion

64 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Rental Property Investor · Phoenix/Lima, Arizona/OH · Member since 2012 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    13y

    LOL Jimmy Hong - NICE :) There are a couple of points that I can make on this subject:

    1. There is no right way or wrong way - this is a function of personal view of finance and individual comfort zone.
    2. Listen to J Scott - he is a smart guy.
    3. I would not EVER buy a SFR with 100% leverage - this is dangerously stupid. Only multi-unit
    4. The assumption that just because I finance 100% of the PP, that I am unable to come down on rent is wrong - period.
    5. While you own 1 house and generate 1k/month, leverage allows me to own 5 houses at $200/month each. Something goes wrong with the 1 revenue stream you've got - you are done. I think there is strength in diversification of revenue
    6. If you have to take on debt, then taking on more is safer then less - I don't want to be a debtor to the bank; I want to be a partner. Nobody wants to walk away from responsibilities (I've never been late on a payment), but at times adjustments may be necessary. Bank won't bother over 100k, but 2 mil is different somewhat...

    That's a bit of my thinking on the subject. Any talk of "safety" because under 100% financing I put no money on the table is purely academic. My word is my bond - period! Sure, I wouldn't be losing cash by walking away, but I'd be loosing something a heck of a lot more important...

  • Investor · Cincinnati, OH · Member since 2010 · 1k+ posts · 928 votes
    13y

    I think the debt is acceptable and improves the risk-adjusted ROI as long as the Debt Coverage Ratio (NOI/P&I) at time of property purchase meets an appropriate threshold. In that event, the investor can weather systematic calamaties, such as an across the board drop in market rents of 25% caused by a deep and prolonged economic downturn. (It's easy to foresee many possible scenarios that will create this.)

    For SFRs, a reasonable proxy is to target gross rents as 3.5x of P&I. This should permit you to weather a prolonged 25% drop in market rents.

    And of course, don't pay market value for properties. You're already down 10% on day one of your purchase, since it would cost you that much to turn around and resell your property to cover commissions and other costs. And a 30-day "quick-sale" value, if you were really in a bind, would knock off another 10%. So you've just got to capture some equity on the front end, at lease 15%+, by buying from motivated sellers, buying distressed properties and rehabbing, etc.

    However, the guy with 4 houses owned in cash can also probably easily manage them, saving PM fees, whereas the guy with 4x to 5x as many leveraged houses either needs a PM (and will pay them 12-16%, including leasing fees) or will spend many many hours of their life dealing with all the houses.

    It's also a lot easier to find 4 great below-market deals than 16+.

    I also like the comment someone made that if they had sufficient capital to buy a portfolio of SFRs outright, they'd probably just be a private lender and capture double-digit returns on a much more time-leveraged basis with less risk and more stability in the income.

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    13y
    Originally posted by Ben Leybovich:

    6. If you have to take on debt, then taking on more is safer then less - I don't want to be a debtor to the bank; I want to be a partner. Nobody wants to walk away from responsibilities (I've never been late on a payment), but at times adjustments may be necessary. Bank won't bother over 100k, but 2 mil is different somewhat...

    Awesome point...

    I don't remember who said it (maybe Trump), but I've always liked the (paraphrased) saying that when someone borrows $1000, the lender is in control...but when you borrow a $100M dollars, the borrower is in control.

  • Roy N.Pro Member
    Rental Property Investor · Fredericton, New Brunswick · Member since 2013 · 7k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    13y
    Originally posted by Ben D.:

    Something to keep in mind is that once you have a free and clear property you can take out a HELOC against it and you are now a "cash" buyer for the next property, with all of the advantages that entails.

    Yes, but you are also a debtor on your first property which is now leveraged. :-)

  • Abingdon, MD · Member since 2013 · 193 posts · 60 votes
    13y
    Originally posted by J Scott:
    Originally posted by Patrick G.:

    J Scott, Does this really happen? Do you really get those loans? Could I get one? This is a completely new concept to me.

    Non-recourse loans are much more common among private and commercial lenders, but there are plenty of them out there. Most of the private loans I get (which comprise most of the loans I get, in general) don't come with a personal guaranty, so the property is all the lender can take if I were to stop paying.

    The Non-recourse loans really seem like a great deal, I've done a bit of searching and it seems a lot are tied to self directed IRA's. So I know they are out there, but on this forum, I am getting the sense they are not the norm. You use them which is great, but reading the forums investors are talking about the rising interest rate, and the FHA 10 loan limits, which is leading me to believe that most investors here are using full recourse loans.

    Originally posted by Ned Carey:

    Actually if owned in an LLC your liability goes up. If you have little equity and get sued they can only take the little equity the LLC has. If your properties are free and clear you have much more equity to take.

    Ned, It does not protect you in any way from the risks associated with the debt. If you have 20k equity into a 100k house, you get sued and the plaintiff takes the house. You are out 20k and the bank is out 80k. However that doesn't dismiss the loan. The bank is then going to come after the person who signed the loan. So you are still going to lose the extra 80k, only it's been going to be through wage garnishments, or getting your bank accounts frozen, or your car repossessed. And now you have interest and lawyer fees added on.

    As J Scott pointed out, there has been a lot of debt forgiveness thrown around. I personally know, I had a family member go into default on there home, they received debt forgiveness on their second mortgage and a non-recourse short sale on their first mortgage. But you can't bank on that. That can't be the plan.

  • Ned CareyPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Baltimore, MD · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 13k+ votes
    13y
    Originally posted by Patrick G.:
    Ned, It does not protect you in any way from the risks associated with the debt. If you have 20k equity into a 100k house, you get sued and the plaintiff takes the house. You are out 20k and the bank is out 80k. However that doesn't dismiss the loan.

    Patrick, It doesn't work that way. The plaintiff doesn't "take " the house. At best they can force a sale and take only the proceeds above and beyond what the lender is owed.

    To address this there is a legitimate asset protection strategy called "Equity Stripping." As an aside a questionable version of this was promoted by a Guru and now disbarred lawyer Troy Titus. He was profiled on the TV show American Greed

    - Ned

  • Investor · Round Rock, TX · Member since 2010 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    13y

    Wow....I like the enthusiasm!

    First of all, it is pointless to debate this in the abstract. Arguing over who has the competitive advantage is like arguing over which tool a contractor should use to do a given job. The tool depends on the job and the tradesman using it. Whether or not the job makes sense also depends on the tradesman.

    If you think you have a competitive advantage by taking a 2-3% yield when times are tough then you are probably better off investing passively in something else that requires zero brain damage. Bonds come to mind as do investments in pools lending on private money.

    One of the other things that all of this simplistic analysis fails to account for is FUTURE borrowing. If one damages their credit the cost to their future borrowing is:

    1. Not being able to borrow - A HUGE cost

    or

    2. Borrowing costs are MUCH higher; as in hard money type rates

    So saying that the person that uses mostly debt doesn't have as much at risk is inaccurate because it fails to account for the hoards of future borrowing that an investor would presumably do.

    Other topics included a cash-on-cash return only being modestly higher. This is simply ridiculous and it assumes that the yield of the investment being leveraged is small. If the yield is high like it would be with a flip or a new construction project then the difference in the leveraged state is VERY high. We have projects that do 40% unleveraged and 150%+ leveraged at 80% LTC. That is a pretty big difference; or at least it is to me.

    Regarding ethics this has been debated many times on the forum as well. Defaulting on non-recourse loans when things go really south is completely ethical despite what some of our less-than-informed posters think. Thankfully the one with the loudest megaphone on this topic rarely posts any more.

    Another fundamental problem with the OP is that he assumes that the choice is always between using cash and using some cash and some debt. This is the set of circumstances for a fortunate few. However, this is not the set of circumstances for most real estate investors. It is hard to argue for having an advantage competitively if one can not compete at all without the use of leverage. There simply would be no competition.

    Again, all of this is difficult to argue in the abstract. One needs to know many things, like:

    1. How much money the investor has
    2. How much income the investor has
    3. One's tolerance for risk and personal situation - Which are generally a function of one's family situation and their set of initial conditions at birth
    4. How volatile the investment is independently of how it financed
    5. How skillful one is in the investment sought
    6. Ability to access other liquidity in the event that things go south
    etc.

    I am probably missing many things to account for. Fundamentally saying one has a competitive advantage by being able to accept yield lower than inflation costs is a fairly specious argument.

  • Abingdon, MD · Member since 2013 · 193 posts · 60 votes
    13y
    Originally posted by Ned Carey:

    Patrick, It doesn't work that way. The plaintiff doesn't "take " the house. At best they can force a sale and take only the proceeds above and beyond what the lender is owed.

    To address this there is a legitimate asset protection strategy called "Equity Stripping."

    So if the plaintiff sues, judges awards $100k in damages, the lender gets paid out before the plaintiff?

    I see your point then. The debt does lower your exposure in a lawsuit.

    What is the legitimate Equity Stripping, google? only pops up with scammy type of stuff.

  • Investor · Round Rock, TX · Member since 2010 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    13y

    They would be suing for a DEFICIENCY; not for the whole amount. That is why they seize the collateral and sell it.

  • Landlord · NY · Member since 2013 · 23 posts · 5 votes
    13y

    Very interesting thread.

    Tom Goans - I disagree with this point, leverage gives me a competitive edge. My goal is to accumulate as many real estate assets and cash flow as much as possible from my assets as possible.

    In your example, you may be able to drop your rents to gain a tenant. That's fine, but who says that there is only one tenant between us? In real estate, we are looking at a demand vs supply factor as well. In the Manhattan NYC market, demand exceeds supply. I utilize leverage to the maximum level possible because the I do not want all that capital tied up in one asset.

    Consider this: $100k for a rental property @ $1000 net income per month (10% cash of cash).

    Equity Man- Uses $100k for acquisition, earns $10k per year. After deducting depreciation (27.5 yrs resi, 39 commercial), Equity Man has taxable income of about $6551. Assuming 30% income tax, Equity Man has cash flow $8034 annually ($10000 less income tax). Overall return is about 8.034%

    Debt Man- 20/80 Equity/Debt @ 5%, 30 year. Income less PMI is $4852. After depreciation and interest expense, Debt Man has cash flow of $1830 for return of about 18.3%

    If Debt Man acquired four other properties at 100k under the same debt situation, he would earn $9150. This would diversify his risk as well as he would be able to find other submarkets or situations.

    The key is volume. Putting 100% equity into one property would tap most of us out. I compare my situation with several other peers in my market who did all-cash deals. They're tapped out for at least 2-3 years while I'm still quite liquid and have flexibility for more acquisitions.

    My numbers might be slightly off but I just wanted to try to explain that using debt is perfectly fine so long as one isn't overextended and knows what to do with debt.

  • Civil Engineer · Orange County, CA · Member since 2012 · 189 posts · 45 votes
    13y
    Originally posted by J Scott:
    Originally posted by Ben Leybovich:

    6. If you have to take on debt, then taking on more is safer then less - I don't want to be a debtor to the bank; I want to be a partner. Nobody wants to walk away from responsibilities (I've never been late on a payment), but at times adjustments may be necessary. Bank won't bother over 100k, but 2 mil is different somewhat...

    Awesome point...

    I don't remember who said it (maybe Trump), but I've always liked the (paraphrased) saying that when someone borrows $1000, the lender is in control...but when you borrow a $100M dollars, the borrower is in control.

    J Scott or Ben Leybovich, Can you elaborate on this idea a bit further?

  • Rental Property Investor · Phoenix/Lima, Arizona/OH · Member since 2012 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    13y

    Chad B. Deal with a small local bank. Do these guys make money on the trading floor like JP - NO. They make money for shareholders by actually lending. On the commercial side, they do not sell paper on secondary market, rather they hold it in portfolio - Portfolio Loans. In a small bank, if you've got 500k and it goes bad - bad news for the bank; 1 million - really bad news for the bank. This is their bread and butter.

    OK - stuff hits the fan. You come in and say to the CEO/President (who by the way knows your name...) - I NEED HELP or this thing is going up in flames. Is he going to listen to you if your portfolio is 1 mil? Very likely - he wants you to find a way. He'll cut some interest or re-amortize, or whatever. Is it a guarantee - hell no. He is the bank - he makes the rules. But do you have a much better chance of a work out with 1 mil than 125k - Absolutely! When you get big and bank needs the loan to stay positive, they will at least listen. You are partner...

  • Ned CareyPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Baltimore, MD · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 13k+ votes
    13y
    Originally posted by Patrick G.:
    judges awards $100k in damages, the lender gets paid out before the plaintiff?
    Yes
    Yes

    Simple get loans against the properties in the entity, take that money out of the entity, and leave little equity to go after. You cannot take ALL the equity out or the business can be pierced for being under-capitalized. Insurance can be a substitute for some or all of the capitalization.

    This comes form a case about a taxi company. All the taxis were owned in separate companies to shield the real owner from liability. The courts ruled that the companies that owned the taxis should be pierced as sham companies as they were not properly capitalized - Ned

  • Civil Engineer · Orange County, CA · Member since 2012 · 189 posts · 45 votes
    13y

    Ben Leybovich, Thanks for the further clarification. I though that is what you were referring to and just want to be sure since I have never been in that position but hope to one day.

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.