Rentals: Debt and Leverage, Free-and-Clear, or Happy Medium

Rentals: Debt and Leverage, Free-and-Clear, or Happy Medium

Investor · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2015 · 393 posts · 116 votes

Hey guys! Surely this has been discussed before, but figured I'd start my own thread on this topic for convenience's sake (selfish, I know haha). 

Although my active real estate business is wholesaling, my goal is to channel the opportunities and income from wholesaling into a buy-and-hold approach, as I'm sure many others who find themselves in a similar situation do. While I've accumulated a decent amount of experience on the rental side over the last few years, as time goes on I continue to learn more about real estate financing, taxes, and my own sanity (lol), and as a result, my perspective and opinion on debt and how I personally approach it changes.

Undoubtedly, there are many pros to leveraging debt when investing. One can scale a lot quicker. One can take advantages of tax write-offs. It allows you to employ BRRRR (if done correctly). However, leveraging can also bring about its negatives. Your cash flow per unit is significantly affected. When scaling quickly, you have more properties to worry about and more potential headaches. It also makes you more vulnerable and susceptible to economic swings. Overall, it can add a lot more stress to your life, and while scaling and owning a ton of real estate sounds (is?) sexy, if it's detracting from your quality of life, one could argue it defeats the purpose; I personally know investors that went from owning 60+ SFR's with debt to selling most doors in order to own a fraction of them free-and-clear for the peace of mind and ability to "sleep better at night."

Of course, there is no one way to skin the cat, as different investors have different risk tolerance, and different approaches to this business in general given a wide array of varying factors. And so I'm curious:

As a buy-and-hold investor, where do you stand and why? Do you prefer to leverage as much as possible, or would you rather own free-and-clear? Have you found a happy medium with a mixture of both? Perhaps you throw debt on some, and not on others, or maybe you leverage each at 50%, or any other ratio that is not a typical 75% LTV (of course, this depends a lot on the lender), in order to cover more risk and utilize the advantages of leverage while safekeeping sanity. Regardless of approach, how did you arrive at your chosen relationship with debt (or lack-thereof) and what major points did you consider when arriving there?

There is no right or wrong way to this, and investors figure out what is personally "right" for them. I myself am still on the journey figuring out my ideal balance- which is why it'd be great hear how people approach this relationship in their personal investments. 

Would love to hear your thoughts!

Cheers

3Reply
90 views

Most Popular Reply

Joe VilleneuvePro Member
Plymouth, MI · Member since 2013 · 13k+ posts · 19k+ votes
6y

It's a question of basic math.  Everything that comes out of your pocket is a cost to you (as in paid for by you).  Everything that is paid for out of the rent is a cost to the tenant (as in paid for by the tenant).  In order to make a profit, you have to recover "your" costs.  The larger "your" costs are, the more "you" have to recover and the longer it takes.  The larger the DP, the more "you" paid for the property since the rest of it, if leveraged, is paid for by the tenant...as long as you have positive CF.

Example:  $100k property; Cash Flow without Mortgage = $10k/year;  CF w/ mortgage = $5k/yr

Option #1 - 100% cash purchase of 1 property
Cost = $100k; 
Equity  = $100k
CF/Yr = $10k
# yrs to recovery of cost = 10
Profit after 10 years = 0

Option #2a - 20% DP; financed = $80k of 1 property

Cost = $20k
Equity = $20k
CF/Yr = $5k
# yrs to recovery of cost = 4
Profit after 10 years = $30k

Both properties appreciate the same based on $100k in property value

Option #2b - 20% DP; financed = $80k times 5 properties (using the same $100k)
Cost = $20k/property = $100k
Equity = $20k/property = $100k
CF/Yr = $5k/property = $25k (5 propertis)
# yrs to recovery of cost = 4...all 5 are recovering simultaneously 
Profit after 10 years = $150k

All 5 properties appreciate the same, but the total appreciation is now based on $500k in property value, meaning you would be gaining appreciation 5 times faster than the first 2 Options.

See this reply in the discussion

99 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Joe VilleneuvePro Member
    Plymouth, MI · Member since 2013 · 13k+ posts · 19k+ votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Alain Perez-Majul:
    Originally posted by @Joe Villeneuve:
    Originally posted by @Jenny Li:

    @Joe Villeneuve I was thinking of the same thing that equity is sitting there doing nothing. I recently refi-ed Rental#1 that has some equity on it, took cash out to down pay another house which will be Rental #2. Now Rental#2 is also rented. This is my baby step to scale. Hope it works out as I planned.

    You're using the BRRRR method...which sounds good, but has limits to it, and you really aren't using your equity when you refi. Your equity is still in the original property and is being used as collateral for the refi loan. If it was the same money, you wouldn't have to pay for it again. There's a better way.

     Joe, can you explain what you meant here? In regards to equity, how do you bypass the down payment?

     Where did I say, "bypass the down payment"?

  • Investor · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2015 · 393 posts · 116 votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Joe Villeneuve:
    Originally posted by @Alain Perez-Majul:
    Originally posted by @Joe Villeneuve:
    Originally posted by @Jenny Li:

    @Joe Villeneuve I was thinking of the same thing that equity is sitting there doing nothing. I recently refi-ed Rental#1 that has some equity on it, took cash out to down pay another house which will be Rental #2. Now Rental#2 is also rented. This is my baby step to scale. Hope it works out as I planned.

    You're using the BRRRR method...which sounds good, but has limits to it, and you really aren't using your equity when you refi. Your equity is still in the original property and is being used as collateral for the refi loan. If it was the same money, you wouldn't have to pay for it again. There's a better way.

     Joe, can you explain what you meant here? In regards to equity, how do you bypass the down payment?

     Where did I say, "bypass the down payment"?

    Sorry, you didn't. Poorly worded on my end, perhaps. Essentially what I was asking is, in the event someone is getting an 80% LTV loan, requiring a 20% down payment on the behalf of the borrower, how does that borrower, who is putting down that equity to act as the collateral for the refi, not put equity in place? Maybe I misunderstood what you meant?

  • Joe VilleneuvePro Member
    Plymouth, MI · Member since 2013 · 13k+ posts · 19k+ votes
    6y

    You lost me right after you said, "...how does the borrower...".

    Let me wee if I can explain this better.

    When you refi, you are not getting your cash out of the original property.  Your cash is still there.  You used it as collateral for the refi loan from the bank.  The equity (dead cash) that wasn't used is what's left of the original equity.

    The loan from the bank is new money.  This is because you have to pay for it.  If it was the cash/equity from the original property being refi'd, it would be able to access it at no charge.

  • Investor · Houston, TX · Member since 2014 · 81 posts · 25 votes
    6y

    The tax code is made to favor taking on more debt on your properties. Investing for tax benefits should not be the prime reason but simply the icing on the cake however.
    What I found typical is for people to lower their leverage as they age. If all your properties are paid off, there is not much risk in owning rentals anymore. 

  • Lender · Central Florida Markets · Member since 2017 · 137 posts · 135 votes
    6y

    Covered Debt is a Real Estate investors best friend .   Some of my borrowers have grown their portfolios in relatively short periods of time  by  finding good properties  using OPM ( Other Peoples Money ) and MANAGING the asset and debt - 

    As long as  the Asset is  able to support the debt, Do your numbers , triple check them with someone in the industry -- add some cushion ( reserves ) and you will do well..

    IMO If the deal doesn't support at least a 1.70 DSCR or better Id stay away from the loan ,

    IE:

                                       Net Operating Income :   $3400 

    Debt Service Coverage Ratio / divided by        

                                       Debt Service                :   $2000

    DSCR is 1.70 ...

    Most lenders only require 1.2 in most cases - that doesnt make it a great deal , but if you know you can increase rents or drop expense to 1.7  you will be on solid ground ,, ( we all see what can happen ) 

    The extra .5  lets you  stay healthy and wealthy  

  • Developer · NY/NJ/PA · Member since 2018 · 758 posts · 935 votes
    6y

    Happy medium is always the answer. Extremes are almost never a good idea. 

    When you are growing many people leverage to the max but the more important thing to look at when you are using a lot of debt is your DSCR. Too many people buy crap deals that have no safety net in case anything goes wrong.

    My strategy is to have enough units paid off to maintain my personal lifestyle and have the rest of the units with moderate leverage. 

  • Rental Property Investor · East Wenatchee, WA · Member since 2014 · 10k+ posts · 16k+ votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Alain Perez-Majul:

    As a buy-and-hold investor, where do you stand and why? Do you prefer to leverage as much as possible, or would you rather own free-and-clear? 

     Depends on the asset.  Commercial loans are a pain and have higher risks.  I also keep commercial assets in LLCs so they are more protected.  I pay them off or carry free and clear.  

    Other houses I intended to BRRR but by the time they seasoned, my dry powder was restocked and I didn't need to refi. For a little more protection, I slap a mortgage on them just in case.

    Loans cost.  Loan or no loan isn't apples to apples.  My closing costs on cash buys avg $417.  A loan would be more like $5417, interrupting my nap schedule.

    I do keep some long term fixed resi loans that are low rate and don't bother me every year for my financials like commercial loans do.  Asset-specific.   

  • Rental Property Investor · Columbus, OH · Member since 2014 · 148 posts · 177 votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Joe Villeneuve:

    You lost me right after you said, "...how does the borrower...".

    Let me wee if I can explain this better.

    When you refi, you are not getting your cash out of the original property.  Your cash is still there.  You used it as collateral for the refi loan from the bank.  The equity (dead cash) that wasn't used is what's left of the original equity.

    The loan from the bank is new money.  This is because you have to pay for it.  If it was the cash/equity from the original property being refi'd, it would be able to access it at no charge.

    What's your alternative? Are you selling into a 1031, cross collateralizing, or something else?

  • Joe VilleneuvePro Member
    Plymouth, MI · Member since 2013 · 13k+ posts · 19k+ votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Joshua Myers:
    Originally posted by @Joe Villeneuve:

    You lost me right after you said, "...how does the borrower...".

    Let me wee if I can explain this better.

    When you refi, you are not getting your cash out of the original property.  Your cash is still there.  You used it as collateral for the refi loan from the bank.  The equity (dead cash) that wasn't used is what's left of the original equity.

    The loan from the bank is new money.  This is because you have to pay for it.  If it was the cash/equity from the original property being refi'd, it would be able to access it at no charge.

    What's your alternative? Are you selling into a 1031, cross collateralizing, or something else?

     Sell the property and invest the now liquid equity as a DP into the next deal.

    When your equity is initially built from the down payment (bought), it has the exact same "face value" that it had when it was cash in your bank account.  However, at a 20% DP, it has a real value of 5 to 1.  As your equity grows from the tenant paying down the mortgage (rent) and the economy (appreciation),...both free gifts to you,...it grows on a 1 to 1 basis.  The real value of each new dollar in equity is equal to either the principle pay down or the property value.  When combined with the original equity from the DP, this added equity actually dilutes the original equity with each added dollar.

    So, after about 3 to 5 years, I sell the property (other reasons, but this is the reason for this discussion) since by that time the equity should have doubled +.  I then invest the extracted equity into 2 properties with each of the new properties then having a 5 to 1 value again.  The total equity hasn't changed, it's just distributed into more than one property.

    By the way, if you've duplicated the number of properties, and the new ones look just like the original one, then you've also doubled the cash flow.  Keep repeating this every 3 to 5 years.

    Now before someone says, "that's a lot of properties", ...my answer is, "let's think about this".  You don't have to by more than one property every time you "double down".  Just by bigger ones.  The number$ with $$$ in front shouldn't change.

  • Real Estate Agent · San DIego · Member since 2019 · 177 posts · 185 votes
    6y

    There's a time to expand and a time to settle in.  I think the older and more seasoned you are as an investor, the less appealing it is to leverage and grow.   This is a cushy retirement and there's no need to hustle for more. 

    We have no mortgages now, but 15 years ago, none of this would have been possible without leverage.   We leveraged our home and bought what has now become 10 paid off rental houses.  At one point, we had 1,000,000 in debt and a fistful of mortgage payments.  We gambled and won.    Now, we've settled in for the easy part.  The houses have appreciated- most have doubled in value, the repairs have been made, the tenants are happy.  The cash flow is great and we earn enough for the lifestyle we want to live.    Yes, we could leverage more and have more houses, more cash flow and presumably more wealth and riches, but we like our free time and a slower pace now.   The "Gone Fishing" sign is hung on the door.

  • Rental Property Investor · Columbus, OH · Member since 2014 · 148 posts · 177 votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Joe Villeneuve:
    Originally posted by @Joshua Myers:
    Originally posted by @Joe Villeneuve:

    You lost me right after you said, "...how does the borrower...".

    Let me wee if I can explain this better.

    When you refi, you are not getting your cash out of the original property.  Your cash is still there.  You used it as collateral for the refi loan from the bank.  The equity (dead cash) that wasn't used is what's left of the original equity.

    The loan from the bank is new money.  This is because you have to pay for it.  If it was the cash/equity from the original property being refi'd, it would be able to access it at no charge.

    What's your alternative? Are you selling into a 1031, cross collateralizing, or something else?

     Sell the property and invest the now liquid equity as a DP into the next deal.

    When your equity is initially built from the down payment (bought), it has the exact same "face value" that it had when it was cash in your bank account.  However, at a 20% DP, it has a real value of 5 to 1.  As your equity grows from the tenant paying down the mortgage (rent) and the economy (appreciation),...both free gifts to you,...it grows on a 1 to 1 basis.  The real value of each new dollar in equity is equal to either the principle pay down or the property value.  When combined with the original equity from the DP, this added equity actually dilutes the original equity with each added dollar.

    So, after about 3 to 5 years, I sell the property (other reasons, but this is the reason for this discussion) since by that time the equity should have doubled +.  I then invest the extracted equity into 2 properties with each of the new properties then having a 5 to 1 value again.  The total equity hasn't changed, it's just distributed into more than one property.

    By the way, if you've duplicated the number of properties, and the new ones look just like the original one, then you've also doubled the cash flow.  Keep repeating this every 3 to 5 years.

    Now before someone says, "that's a lot of properties", ...my answer is, "let's think about this".  You don't have to by more than one property every time you "double down".  Just by bigger ones.  The number$ with $$$ in front shouldn't change.

     If you cash out refinance to a new 80 ltv mortgage on a property and use the cash to buy a new property with a "5 to 1" value then you're in the same place. 2 investment properties with a 20% equity position in each, only difference is that I only need to find one new property instead of two. Doesn't work if you're looking to trade up to bigger and better properties, but otherwise it's the same.

  • Joe VilleneuvePro Member
    Plymouth, MI · Member since 2013 · 13k+ posts · 19k+ votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Joshua Myers:
    Originally posted by @Joe Villeneuve:
    Originally posted by @Joshua Myers:
    Originally posted by @Joe Villeneuve:

    You lost me right after you said, "...how does the borrower...".

    Let me wee if I can explain this better.

    When you refi, you are not getting your cash out of the original property.  Your cash is still there.  You used it as collateral for the refi loan from the bank.  The equity (dead cash) that wasn't used is what's left of the original equity.

    The loan from the bank is new money.  This is because you have to pay for it.  If it was the cash/equity from the original property being refi'd, it would be able to access it at no charge.

    What's your alternative? Are you selling into a 1031, cross collateralizing, or something else?

     Sell the property and invest the now liquid equity as a DP into the next deal.

    When your equity is initially built from the down payment (bought), it has the exact same "face value" that it had when it was cash in your bank account.  However, at a 20% DP, it has a real value of 5 to 1.  As your equity grows from the tenant paying down the mortgage (rent) and the economy (appreciation),...both free gifts to you,...it grows on a 1 to 1 basis.  The real value of each new dollar in equity is equal to either the principle pay down or the property value.  When combined with the original equity from the DP, this added equity actually dilutes the original equity with each added dollar.

    So, after about 3 to 5 years, I sell the property (other reasons, but this is the reason for this discussion) since by that time the equity should have doubled +.  I then invest the extracted equity into 2 properties with each of the new properties then having a 5 to 1 value again.  The total equity hasn't changed, it's just distributed into more than one property.

    By the way, if you've duplicated the number of properties, and the new ones look just like the original one, then you've also doubled the cash flow.  Keep repeating this every 3 to 5 years.

    Now before someone says, "that's a lot of properties", ...my answer is, "let's think about this".  You don't have to by more than one property every time you "double down".  Just by bigger ones.  The number$ with $$$ in front shouldn't change.

     If you cash out refinance to a new 80 ltv mortgage on a property and use the cash to buy a new property with a "5 to 1" value then you're in the same place. 2 investment properties with a 20% equity position in each, only difference is that I only need to find one new property instead of two. Doesn't work if you're looking to trade up to bigger and better properties, but otherwise it's the same.

    How does a bigger property "not" work?

  • Port Richey, FL · Member since 2016 · 129 posts · 48 votes
    6y

    The old debate "cash or leverage"... I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "investors figure out what is personally "right" for them." I think in most cases "yes" is the answer to your question lol. Depending where you are financially in life, your risk tolerance, your eagerness, and ability to stay the course and dedicated to your investing would ultimately determine how leveraged you are. Savvy investors, with great work ethic and long running track records, will probably fair better with leverage than "Jane and Jon" married couple going in on a thought that real estate is going to somehow be their answer. For most people the best and easiest way to gain wealth in America has been and will continue to be buying index funds inside tax sheltered accounts for the long run. That provides no debt and little risk and massive gains over a 20-30 year run.

    What I personally did was pay off all my debt including my house. Investing did not make sense to me if I was paying 3, 5, 12% on loans and getting the same returns on my investments. I thought "is this not a 0% net gain?" After I paid everything off including my house my money grew so fast that I was able to buy lots of different types of investments including properties. In the beginning I used my money and leverage to acquire my properties. I just did not get too far ahead of myself. I wanted lots of houses but I did not want debt so I just kept on keeping on until I bought a great duplex and paid cash. I made so much money from paying cash and not having any debt. When another property came up I did not have enough to pay cash. I was close but I did not have it all. I leveraged that one. I have the cash now to pay it off but I got great financing on it with a three year term. When the note comes due I will pay it off and probably finance another property  using my two paid for in full properties to pay off the third asap. Then keep repeating until the math tells me to stop.

    What I think when I use debt... Say its $100,000 property and you need 20% down payment. Essentially I am paying $20,000 to put myself in debt $80,000. Say that out loud  and it even makes less sense... I have a high paying 9-5 job, one paid off duplex, and another duplex that is about 40% paid off. I can afford a little leverage and want to buy more properties and I will after I pay off my last duplex. At the end of the day I enjoy working for myself being debt free. It gives me such a feeling of independence and freedom....

  • Rental Property Investor · Columbus, OH · Member since 2014 · 148 posts · 177 votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Joe Villeneuve:
    Originally posted by @Joshua Myers:
    Originally posted by @Joe Villeneuve:
    Originally posted by @Joshua Myers:
    Originally posted by @Joe Villeneuve:

    You lost me right after you said, "...how does the borrower...".

    Let me wee if I can explain this better.

    When you refi, you are not getting your cash out of the original property.  Your cash is still there.  You used it as collateral for the refi loan from the bank.  The equity (dead cash) that wasn't used is what's left of the original equity.

    The loan from the bank is new money.  This is because you have to pay for it.  If it was the cash/equity from the original property being refi'd, it would be able to access it at no charge.

    What's your alternative? Are you selling into a 1031, cross collateralizing, or something else?

     Sell the property and invest the now liquid equity as a DP into the next deal.

    When your equity is initially built from the down payment (bought), it has the exact same "face value" that it had when it was cash in your bank account.  However, at a 20% DP, it has a real value of 5 to 1.  As your equity grows from the tenant paying down the mortgage (rent) and the economy (appreciation),...both free gifts to you,...it grows on a 1 to 1 basis.  The real value of each new dollar in equity is equal to either the principle pay down or the property value.  When combined with the original equity from the DP, this added equity actually dilutes the original equity with each added dollar.

    So, after about 3 to 5 years, I sell the property (other reasons, but this is the reason for this discussion) since by that time the equity should have doubled +.  I then invest the extracted equity into 2 properties with each of the new properties then having a 5 to 1 value again.  The total equity hasn't changed, it's just distributed into more than one property.

    By the way, if you've duplicated the number of properties, and the new ones look just like the original one, then you've also doubled the cash flow.  Keep repeating this every 3 to 5 years.

    Now before someone says, "that's a lot of properties", ...my answer is, "let's think about this".  You don't have to by more than one property every time you "double down".  Just by bigger ones.  The number$ with $$$ in front shouldn't change.

     If you cash out refinance to a new 80 ltv mortgage on a property and use the cash to buy a new property with a "5 to 1" value then you're in the same place. 2 investment properties with a 20% equity position in each, only difference is that I only need to find one new property instead of two. Doesn't work if you're looking to trade up to bigger and better properties, but otherwise it's the same.

    How does a bigger property "not" work?

    A bigger property works as an investment. Doing a cash out refi to grow your portfolio doesn't work if your goal is to move from a smaller property to a bigger property. If you want to trade small properties for larger or more expensive properties then BRRRR isn't the best model. If you're trying to expanding units then a 1031 or BRRRR are equally effective, as long as you end up with a 20% equity stake in the total portfolio.

    That's what I meant

  • Joe VilleneuvePro Member
    Plymouth, MI · Member since 2013 · 13k+ posts · 19k+ votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Zac Boelkow:

    The old debate "cash or leverage"... I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "investors figure out what is personally "right" for them." I think in most cases "yes" is the answer to your question lol. Depending where you are financially in life, your risk tolerance, your eagerness, and ability to stay the course and dedicated to your investing would ultimately determine how leveraged you are. Savvy investors, with great work ethic and long running track records, will probably fair better with leverage than "Jane and Jon" married couple going in on a thought that real estate is going to somehow be their answer. For most people the best and easiest way to gain wealth in America has been and will continue to be buying index funds inside tax sheltered accounts for the long run. That provides no debt and little risk and massive gains over a 20-30 year run.

    What I personally did was pay off all my debt including my house. Investing did not make sense to me if I was paying 3, 5, 12% on loans and getting the same returns on my investments. I thought "is this not a 0% net gain?" After I paid everything off including my house my money grew so fast that I was able to buy lots of different types of investments including properties. In the beginning I used my money and leverage to acquire my properties. I just did not get too far ahead of myself. I wanted lots of houses but I did not want debt so I just kept on keeping on until I bought a great duplex and paid cash. I made so much money from paying cash and not having any debt. When another property came up I did not have enough to pay cash. I was close but I did not have it all. I leveraged that one. I have the cash now to pay it off but I got great financing on it with a three year term. When the note comes due I will pay it off and probably finance another property  using my two paid for in full properties to pay off the third asap. Then keep repeating until the math tells me to stop.

    What I think when I use debt... Say its $100,000 property and you need 20% down payment. Essentially I am paying $20,000 to put myself in debt $80,000. Say that out loud  and it even makes less sense... I have a high paying 9-5 job, one paid off duplex, and another duplex that is about 40% paid off. I can afford a little leverage and want to buy more properties and I will after I pay off my last duplex. At the end of the day I enjoy working for myself being debt free. It gives me such a feeling of independence and freedom....



    "What I think when I use debt... Say its $100,000 property and you need 20% down payment. Essentially I am paying $20,000 to put myself in debt $80,000."


    When I think of is:

    1 - it only cost me $20k to buy a $100k property
    2 - I will recover all of my costs 5 times faster than if I paid full price for the property
    3 - If I use all of the $100k, I can buy 5 times as many properties, have 5 times as much Property Value, and have 5 times as much appreciation gain
    4 - have at least 2  and a half times as much cash flow from the start
    5 - have less at risk
    6 - ...and, have my tenants buy the property for me

  • Dallas, TX · Member since 2020 · 26 posts · 18 votes
    6y

    Just want to say that I really enjoy the discussion on this topic. I’m new to these forums, but have been considering jumping into rental properties for some time.

    I’m generally a debt free guy when it comes to personal finance, although I see the clear benefits that can be gained by using debt (especially business debt on an income producing asset).

    Seems to me that at a very basic level, using cash is safer but slower. And using debt is quicker but riskier.

    My guess is that until I retire from my day job, I will likely use some % of debt on my rental properties, with the goal of paying the best cash flow producing properties off when I retire by selling the ones that aren’t cash flowing as well as the others. And then becoming a cash investor going forward.

    But again, I appreciate the info in this thread.

  • Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2018 · 420 posts · 388 votes
    6y

    @Joe Villeneuve I am curious what kind of reserves you’d recommend carrying under the last scenario. If I’m hold $500k in properties at 20% equity each and let’s say the cash flow $100 each.... what’s a reasonable amount of reserve funds? Is it a percentage of overall property value? Percentage of total PITIA? A multiple of total PITIA? A number of months PITIA?

  • Joe VilleneuvePro Member
    Plymouth, MI · Member since 2013 · 13k+ posts · 19k+ votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:

    @Joe Villeneuve I am curious what kind of reserves you’d recommend carrying under the last scenario. If I’m hold $500k in properties at 20% equity each and let’s say the cash flow $100 each.... what’s a reasonable amount of reserve funds? Is it a percentage of overall property value? Percentage of total PITIA? A multiple of total PITIA? A number of months PITIA?

     1 - I don't buy properties that only have $100/month in CF.  That's financial suicide.  They must have at least $4-500/month, or I won't even look at them.

    2 - I could be holding just one property.  The number of properties in my example (as I explained later above) is just a way of showing the exponential expansion on the total dollar amount.

    3 - I don't deal in percentages since they lie.  Why would I hold back 10% of the rent (rent = $1250; hold back = $125/month), with the idea of protecting me for when the $%&##$ hits the fan (vacancy, roof replacement, HVAC replacement, etc...) when the actual dollar amount retained has no chance in the world of covering any of those items when they happen...especially if more than one happens at once.

    I prefer to be proactive in those items, and use a large LOC that's available from the beginning to cover those items if/when they happen.

    An example of a proactive solution, that actually make me money, would be to replace the roof when I buy the property.  Why?  Here's why:

    1 - If I wait until the roof leaks (and causes all kinds of problems for me and the tenant), it will cost me at least $5k to replace.  This is money that is out of pocket to me and adds to the overall cost that I end up paying for the property, that I need to recover before I start making a profit again.

    2 - If I replace it when I buy the property, I can bury it in the initial financing.  $5k at 4% for 30 years is only $24/month, or less than $300/yr.  That money comes from the tenant in the form of rent.

    3 - If I sell the property after 3 - 5 years (say 5), the roof didn't cost me $5k...it only cost me less than $1500 in reduced cash flow.

    4 - When I list the property, it's listed with a new roof that was replaced within the last 5 years (meaning still under warranty).

    5 - Do you think I can list the property for at least an extra $5k...meaning the roof didn't cost me anything, and actually made me money in the long run.

    Jim Leyland has said many times regarding playing baseball games against the top teams that, "it isn't necessarily who you play, but when you play them".  The same mentality can be applied here.  "It isn't how much it costs, but how you pay for it".

  • Whitney HuttenPro Member
    Investor · Boulder, CO · Member since 2016 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    6y

    @Alain Perez-Majul Great debate!  I think one point that hasn't been brought up in what phase of investing you are a in.  If someone is young and in the accumulation phase of investing, I think it makes more sense for them to leverage properties wisely to scale.  If they are closer to retirement, then I think a deleveraged portfolio feels (and works) better for retirees.  The main reason I don't like paying all cash (aside from scaling issues) is my legal risk.  If something happens on the property, who do you think is a bigger target?  The one with $20K of equity or the one that has $100K of equity?

    Ideally, you start young, employee other people's money to wisely scale, let the tenant pay the property down for you, and then have them (or snowball to get them) paid off before retirement.  

    For me, I love leverage, however I have rules:

    1. No cross-commercialization of properties. I might use my home's HELOC to float an initial down payment or rehab, however I'm 99.9% certain I can pay it off in cash in 60 days even in a pandemci.

    2. Carry high reserves.  I carry 6+ (closer to 12 months) of reserves including my deductibles.  I like surprises for my birthday, not with my rentals.

    3. When I BRRRR, I like for the refi downpayment to be 25-30%. I feel that this is a good balance of using leverage and being able to fire-sale if I must.

    4. I 110% with @Joe Villeneuve, your property must cashflow WELL.  If you have multiple properties that are bringing in $200+ a month over reserves (close to that $400-500 a month cash), then you are well positioned if a tenant stop paying or you have a large expense.

    Leverage is great for building your wealth.  However, it has to be used wisely.  If you can't use it wisely, then pay all cash.

  • Rental Property Investor · Buffalo, NY · Member since 2017 · 257 posts · 130 votes
    6y

    @Alain Perez-Majul always work to be as debt free as possible, I don't care what others say, debt is your #1 risk

  • Rental Property Investor · Boston, Massachusetts (MA) · Member since 2016 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    6y

    @Joe Villeneuve well trod ground here and and agreeing with you that denying the power of leverage to build a portfolio is insane. I do math the same way. To be fair, though, in your first example you stopped the math just before a key point: the exit.

    Let’s say there was no real appreciation other than maybe inflation (and that gets wiped out by commissions yada yada) so you get back exactly your purchase price. You hold the property for 5 years.

    In our simplified model Property one with all cash purchase will return 50% or 10% a year over the 5 years assuming you recoup the original investment and no more.

    Property two with the down payment of 20% on a value of 100k gets 5 years of 5k cash return for 25k and 5 years of pay down which I’m ballparking at another 10k. So thats 35k over 5 on an investment of 20k 160% over 5 or 32% a year.

    CLEARLY better but unadjusted for risk. 10% is nothing to sneeze at in a world where the risk baseline of the ten year t note is less than 1% and a savings account pays essentially nothing. Where A diversified portfolio has hedges against risk in a variety of forms, real estate, stocks etc. gold has often been bought for safety vs return. And people don’t like keeping uninsured accounts in multiple banks anyway.

    So if you are cash and asset heavy and love real estate you can certainly smartly use all cash purchases in that way, just realize it’s a decently yielding savings account and inflation hedge not a true growth investment.

    Why am I going over something you clearly know? Because I think many people starting out intuitively understand the safety of cash purchases but misapply it to their small portfolio business. And in the scale I’m talking we are almost all small.

    Cash only purchases really dont have much place until you don’t have options on where to safely put your money. We have been in a crazy search for yield at the global level with worldwide rates so low and so cash for real estate for the big boys and gals (talking 7/8/9 figures here) became BOTH a profit center and a safety play. Nice trick.

  • Specialist · Nashville, TN · Member since 2019 · 75 posts · 50 votes
    6y

    @Alain Perez-Majul

    Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this, but as your property is (hopefully) appreciating, your return on equity is going down. The more equity that you accrue through appreciation and making your monthly payments, the amount of cash that you have in the deal continues to go up. If you are still looking at expanding your portfolio this can be a viable option, especially with the Fed's projection on interest rates through 2022. 

  • Investor · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2015 · 393 posts · 116 votes
    6y

    Wow. I am pleasantly surprised at the amount of feedback and participation from this thread. I'm happy to hear it's helped some of you guys who have had similar thoughts swimming around, and I appreciate the feedback from those who are past that stage! Thank you to all who have taken the time to comment, especially in detail with a ton of value :)

  • Investor · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2015 · 393 posts · 116 votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Joe Villeneuve:
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:

    @Joe Villeneuve I am curious what kind of reserves you’d recommend carrying under the last scenario. If I’m hold $500k in properties at 20% equity each and let’s say the cash flow $100 each.... what’s a reasonable amount of reserve funds? Is it a percentage of overall property value? Percentage of total PITIA? A multiple of total PITIA? A number of months PITIA?

     1 - I don't buy properties that only have $100/month in CF.  That's financial suicide.  They must have at least $4-500/month, or I won't even look at them.

    2 - I could be holding just one property.  The number of properties in my example (as I explained later above) is just a way of showing the exponential expansion on the total dollar amount.

    3 - I don't deal in percentages since they lie.  Why would I hold back 10% of the rent (rent = $1250; hold back = $125/month), with the idea of protecting me for when the $%&##$ hits the fan (vacancy, roof replacement, HVAC replacement, etc...) when the actual dollar amount retained has no chance in the world of covering any of those items when they happen...especially if more than one happens at once.

    I prefer to be proactive in those items, and use a large LOC that's available from the beginning to cover those items if/when they happen.

    An example of a proactive solution, that actually make me money, would be to replace the roof when I buy the property.  Why?  Here's why:

    1 - If I wait until the roof leaks (and causes all kinds of problems for me and the tenant), it will cost me at least $5k to replace.  This is money that is out of pocket to me and adds to the overall cost that I end up paying for the property, that I need to recover before I start making a profit again.

    2 - If I replace it when I buy the property, I can bury it in the initial financing.  $5k at 4% for 30 years is only $24/month, or less than $300/yr.  That money comes from the tenant in the form of rent.

    3 - If I sell the property after 3 - 5 years (say 5), the roof didn't cost me $5k...it only cost me less than $1500 in reduced cash flow.

    4 - When I list the property, it's listed with a new roof that was replaced within the last 5 years (meaning still under warranty).

    5 - Do you think I can list the property for at least an extra $5k...meaning the roof didn't cost me anything, and actually made me money in the long run.

    Jim Leyland has said many times regarding playing baseball games against the top teams that, "it isn't necessarily who you play, but when you play them".  The same mentality can be applied here.  "It isn't how much it costs, but how you pay for it".

     Joe, where are you finding properties that cash flow $500 a door? These must be in markets where the rents are decently high to even allow it to be a remote possibility. But even then, those markets then typically also have high price points, which will significantly affect your cash flow in the event there's debt thrown in the deal. The only other way I can think of is buying a home run from the get-go (ie significantly under market value) where debt service (plus additional expenses to factor) to monthly rent allows that to pencil out. 

    Typical Indy example (class B property, late 90's, 00's vinyl village):

    PP:    $120,000

    Rent:    $1,200

    Taxes (assuming same assessed value):   $200/month

    Loan: $96k (80% LTV) @ 4%, 30 years.... PI of $458/month

    PM (10%):    $120/month

    Vacancy/maintenance (15%?):    $180/month

    We're looking at $960 going out a month, or cash flow of $240 (with the assumption the above numbers are fair, which, other than vacancy and maintenance, one can't argue the rest- and I might've been aggressive on the commercial 30 year interest) - all of this in Indy, a city renown for good cash flow given its cheap real estate. 

    How are you hitting $400-$500 minimum cash flow per unit (if indeed you turn deals away if they don't meet this cash flow)?? 

  • Investor · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2015 · 393 posts · 116 votes
    6y

    @Joe Villeneuve wait, perhaps I spoke too soon. Were you including debt pay down, write-offs, and appreciation in the monthly cash flow calculation?

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