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 · 394 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
211 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
  • Rental Property Investor · East Wenatchee, WA · Member since 2014 · 10k+ posts · 16k+ votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @John W.:

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

     Absolutes like always and never rarely apply.  RE, business, investing, etc aren't exceptions.

    I have 'NO PAYMENTS!' in my mug shot so I get debt risk.  I don't see reasons to finance things that drop in value. Pretty much ever. 

    But to summarily say debt is your #1 risk forgets inflation.  Only having a house or 2 free and clear after a lifetime of working sounds like a bigger risk than utilizing leverage responsibly to me.  

    Another way inflation /appreciation is a larger risk than responsible borrowing is on the front end.  By the time you save up that $100k, the house you planned on buying now costs $130k or worse. 

    Your $100k puts you in the hood and/or with far less house by the time you've saved.  I'd hear that on DR a lot.  'We're doing the 100% down plan, Dave.  In 5 years, we'll be ready."  Welp, in 5 years, your market will be a rowhome in shadyville. No picket fence for you anymore. But that's not said.  

    Anyway, I get the gist of what you say.  With no debt ever, I'd maybe own 2 houses free and clear vs the  many more responsible borrowing has allowed.  Inflation can be a bigger risk than (responsible) leverage. 

  • Real Estate Broker · Portland, OR · Member since 2019 · 4k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    6y

    There are 3 parts to risk:

    1 - What is at risk = Cash

    2 - Who is at risk = Lender

    3 - Who is the risk = Borrower

    I'd disagree.  In Oregon, we're a lien-theory state.  If the event that creates the risk, a default happens, the lender effectively controls the property.  This may mean they can sell it to pay for the amount due + fees.  This often means a shortfall, which, if you hold the property personally, can follow you or your recourse assets.

    Reason you should hold property as a LLC and get non-recourse funding - Even if at a higher rate.

  • Rental Property Investor · Buffalo, NY · Member since 2017 · 257 posts · 130 votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Steve Vaughan:
    Originally posted by @John W.:

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

     Absolutes like always and never rarely apply.  RE, business, investing, etc aren't exceptions.

    I have 'NO PAYMENTS!' in my mug shot so I get debt risk.  I don't see reasons to finance things that drop in value. Pretty much ever. 

    But to summarily say debt is your #1 risk forgets inflation.  Only having a house or 2 free and clear after a lifetime of working sounds like a bigger risk than utilizing leverage responsibly to me.  

    Another way inflation /appreciation is a larger risk than responsible borrowing is on the front end.  By the time you save up that $100k, the house you planned on buying now costs $130k or worse. 

    Your $100k puts you in the hood and/or with far less house by the time you've saved.  I'd hear that on DR a lot.  'We're doing the 100% down plan, Dave.  In 5 years, we'll be ready."  Welp, in 5 years, your market will be a rowhome in shadyville. No picket fence for you anymore. But that's not said.  

    Anyway, I get the gist of what you say.  With no debt ever, I'd maybe own 2 houses free and clear vs the  many more responsible borrowing has allowed.  Inflation can be a bigger risk than (responsible) leverage. 

    We both basically agree and probably operate our businesses similarly, as I have some low interest debt that doesn't make sense to pay off quickly due to inflation. But what you said still doesn't prove me wrong, debt is your number one risk. And that still holds true on the extreme Dave Ramsey approach to debt, even for responsible/wise borrowers...no debt is  still is safer, but not always best. 

    And especially in our current situation, I would advise being extremely careful what debt one takes on.

  • Investor · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2015 · 394 posts · 116 votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Marc Rose:

    @Alain Perez-Majul

    I’m curious as to why it isn’t your problem if you owe the bank $100 million (I know the amount is in jest, but using your quote).

    I’ve heard this said before but it makes no sense to me. If you are on the hook and personally backstop the debt on a recourse loan, you are putting all of your finances at risk. I guess you could get lucky and have the bank not come after you for the deficiency, but they certainly could. Especially if you have other significant assets (which in my opinion you should if you are investing in rental properties at all).

    What am I missing?

     @Joe Villeneuve touched on it in a his post a few back in his "3 parts to risk," and I mentioned it to some degree in my post you responded to. The equity you have in a property is YOUR risk, given that in the scenario you were to lose that asset, it is that equity you would lose. A bank will prefer to lend, let's say, at 65% LTV over 95% because if they end up having to take that property back, they're essentially taking back an asset at 0.65 cents on the dollar (mind you, the topic of a bank wanting to take a property back is a different one, given that banks do not like doing so- it's a pain for them, and they're not in the business of having to manage real estate). So essentially, the more equity YOU have in a property, the more YOU have to lose, the more YOU have at risk. Precisely why it was easy for people to walk away from their ridiculous loans back in '08-'09... they had no risk, nothing to lose, and that risk shifted to the lender.

    Again, I admit ignorance to some degree, and while there may be more than one way to interpret that quote, I look at it from the perspective I mentioned above. Let's say you owe $100k to the bank on a $1MM asset (the difference being your equity, of course) and you lose that asset, you're the one on the hook and it's your loss. Now if you owe $1MM on that $1MM asset and you lose it, sucks for the lender...

    Again, my interpretation, and if anyone smarter than me or with a different perspective would like to weigh in, that'd be great. 

    Related to this concept is losing a property due to unpaid property taxes and the relationship of possible equity in that property and taxes owed. I'm sure it's happened many times over (and will continue to happen) that someone owes pennies in taxes relative to the value of the subjective property and the state takes it back over a tiny amount of unpaid property taxes.

  • Investor · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2015 · 394 posts · 116 votes
    6y

    For those reading this comment, and interested, the book "The Wealthy Code" does a good job at covering a lot of this stuff (perhaps at an elementary level for many experienced investors, but as someone still on the journey of educating myself in matter of real estate financing and how to really think about debt, risk, volatility, etc, it was eye opening for me).

    The author at one point talks about equity like this, and I found it beneficial (quoting here):

    Do you think this is a good investment?

    • You pick pick the monthly payments you make
    • If you pay less than the amount you pick, you could lose all the previous payments made
    • Each payment makes the money you have paid less safe
    • Money is not liquid; nor is it safe
    • The money earns zero percent return!

    Is this a good investment?

    Most people are already "invested" in this. It's their house! Equity in a house is a bad investment. It sits there and odes nothing for the homeowner.

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

    @Alain Perez-Majul

    Yeah, I get what you’re saying, but I want everyone to understand that if you take on a loan/mortgage, and it is a full recourse loan to you, then the lender absolutely has the right to come back to you for the deficiency (if any). I get that it rarely happens because (1) the value of RE typically appreciates over time, (2) lenders often require a borrower to put in some equity (which gives them a cushion), and (3) lenders may not want to go through the hassle of chasing down a deficiency claim. But they absolutely can UNLESS it is a non-recourse loan.

    Because of 1-3 above, you may be willing to take the risk of putting the minimum down that a lender will require (and I get the financial benefits of leverage - that’s not what we’re debating here), but you are absolutely limiting risk when you put more down or don’t borrow at all when borrowing with a recourse loan (which most mortgage loans are).

  • Investor · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2015 · 394 posts · 116 votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @John W.:

    Originally posted by @Alain Perez-Majul:
    Originally posted by @John W.:

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

     Actually, it's really the other way around. Well calculated debt is not your risk- it's the lenders. Your EQUITY is your risk. The more levered you are, the riskier position the bank is in, not you (of course, I'm not saying here that you should leverage the most you possibly can). But I understand what you're getting at. 

    I've always liked the quote:

    "If you owe the bank $100 that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem." 

    Only in an upside down world do people start believing that debt is good and safe and that not owning something is preferable. 

     I guess I would say I would challenge this, for many of the reasons stated by everyone contributing to the thread so far. And the fascinating thing to me about this topic is that I wouldn't say you're necessarily wrong, while many could make a good case that you are- again, no right or wrong, no one way to skin the cat.

    Isn't cash flow what you really want at the end of the day? Simply owning an asset doesn't pay for my lifestyle and give me the freedom most people get into this business looking to achieve. If one could learn to properly manage leverage and risk given their subjective tolerances and preferences as an investors (which again, will vary from person to person), what does it matter that you "own" it? I mean, shoot, take AirBnB arbitrage (for those of you unfamiliar with the concept, it's the idea of renting out a property from a landlord, and then AirBnB'ing that property for much larger spreads above your monthly lease responsibility to that landlord/owner). Would I care if I was renting out properties from someone else and I myself cash flowing $1MM a year? Maybe I wouldn't, maybe I would, depending on my risk tolerance. But it'd be tough to argue that you wouldn't be sitting comfortable at $1MM of yearly cash flow while not owning anything. The point I'm making here is that your argument of the importance of ownership and lack of debt, could be argued, doesn't hold ground. I personally am not in real estate for the sake of just owning real estate- I simply want to use it to buy my time back.

  • Investor · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2015 · 394 posts · 116 votes
    6y

    @Marc Rose

    Yup, totally get what you're saying. And I don't think anyone would argue the recourse-ness/non-recourse-ness of the of loan. But it seems that it's simply coming down to how risk gets looked at. I think it's a great discussion, so I would ask:

    Why do you see it as "riskier" to you? If you put more down, let's say you take a 60% LTV loan as opposed to an 80% one, why are you at less risk? Because your monthly cash flow is larger (thus favorable) given less monthly debt service responsibility, and thus you see it as a safer monthly cushion?

  • Investor · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2015 · 394 posts · 116 votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Steve Vaughan:
    Originally posted by @John W.:

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

     Absolutes like always and never rarely apply.  RE, business, investing, etc aren't exceptions.

    I have 'NO PAYMENTS!' in my mug shot so I get debt risk.  I don't see reasons to finance things that drop in value. Pretty much ever. 

    But to summarily say debt is your #1 risk forgets inflation.  Only having a house or 2 free and clear after a lifetime of working sounds like a bigger risk than utilizing leverage responsibly to me.  

    Another way inflation /appreciation is a larger risk than responsible borrowing is on the front end.  By the time you save up that $100k, the house you planned on buying now costs $130k or worse. 

    Your $100k puts you in the hood and/or with far less house by the time you've saved.  I'd hear that on DR a lot.  'We're doing the 100% down plan, Dave.  In 5 years, we'll be ready."  Welp, in 5 years, your market will be a rowhome in shadyville. No picket fence for you anymore. But that's not said.  

    Anyway, I get the gist of what you say.  With no debt ever, I'd maybe own 2 houses free and clear vs the  many more responsible borrowing has allowed.  Inflation can be a bigger risk than (responsible) leverage. 

     Agreed! Not only that, but when thinking about inflation and debt, you should also consider time value of money and the powerful benefits of leverage. If you lock in a loan and you're paying, say $400 in debt service a month for 15, 20, 30 years, it is essentially cheaper money in the future given inflation. Yet another benefit!

    (Oh man, don't get me started on DR lol!)

  • Real Estate Agent · Commerce CIty, CO · Member since 2018 · 127 posts · 78 votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Joe Villeneuve:
    Originally posted by @Jason Cacioppo:

    Its gotta be a happy medium. Clearing $100 a month on a property isn't sustainable no matter what anyone says. I believe in larger down payments to reduce the monthly mortgage. But people have made millions taking debt up to the gills. 

     I agree completely about the $100/month not being sustainable.  

    Larger DP's don't really increase cash flow...they just kick the can down the road by "buying" the added cash flow you are getting "on paper" upfront...or worse, paying for the negative cash flow upfront.  That's not the same thing as true cash flow.

    That's a fair point. Some people run the numbers for years and never make a move though. Its always a good time to own real estate, they have to do what feels safe.

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

    I agree that cash flow is the only point to own "buy/hold" property. For me personally I want at least 400/500 dollars a month profit. I keep hearing $100/door. To me earning $100/month is just a waste of my time and energy. I would much rather "own" way less, earn way more, and work way less. 

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

    Also, a fun statistic to keep in the back of your mind. 100% of all foreclosed properties had mortgages on them. 

    Jus Sayin'

  • Theresa HarrisPro Member
    Member since 2019 · 15k+ posts · 11k+ votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Steve Morris:

    I understand the Dave Ramsay fans totally about ZERO debt and the "sleep" factor- That works for 80% of the population that doesn't manage debt well.  However, to grow wealth, your best tool is the leverage of OPM.

    There is no way to avoid debt if you are going to own a home, or for many a car.  I think there is 'good debt' and bad debt.  Honestly a mortgage is the only thing I would put in the first category and even then, I'd say it is a necessity because in the long term owning your own house is a good thing.  Yes pay off the mortgage, but you still need one to be able to buy a house in most places.   

  • Developer · NY/NJ/PA · Member since 2018 · 758 posts · 935 votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Zac Boelkow:

    I agree that cash flow is the only point to own "buy/hold" property. For me personally I want at least 400/500 dollars a month profit. I keep hearing $100/door. To me earning $100/month is just a waste of my time and energy. I would much rather "own" way less, earn way more, and work way less. 

    This is very inaccurate. You hear this a lot on BP because many people aren't at the level to afford the next level of REI. Many wealthy people will tell you that's not true. Plenty of people buy property for long term appreciation and don't give a crap about cash flow. People buy MF in most Primary markets (NYC, SF, Boston, DC) for minimal to no cash flow. You can make more money long term with those properties than people do in a lifetime of "cash flow" investing. It's just has a higher barrier of entry since we are talking much larger numbers.

    Also owing 20 units vs 40 units isn't a huge workload difference. But the income difference is massive. You're better off owning 40 units @ 50% leverage than 20 owned outright.

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

    Also, a fun statistic to keep in the back of your mind. 100% of all foreclosed properties had mortgages on them. 

    Jus Sayin'

     ...and when you lose something, it's always in the last place you look.

  • Joe VilleneuvePro Member
    Plymouth, MI · Member since 2013 · 13k+ posts · 19k+ votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Alain Perez-Majul:
    Originally posted by @Marc Rose:

    @Alain Perez-Majul

    I’m curious as to why it isn’t your problem if you owe the bank $100 million (I know the amount is in jest, but using your quote).

    I’ve heard this said before but it makes no sense to me. If you are on the hook and personally backstop the debt on a recourse loan, you are putting all of your finances at risk. I guess you could get lucky and have the bank not come after you for the deficiency, but they certainly could. Especially if you have other significant assets (which in my opinion you should if you are investing in rental properties at all).

    What am I missing?

     @Joe Villeneuve touched on it in a his post a few back in his "3 parts to risk," and I mentioned it to some degree in my post you responded to. The equity you have in a property is YOUR risk, given that in the scenario you were to lose that asset, it is that equity you would lose. A bank will prefer to lend, let's say, at 65% LTV over 95% because if they end up having to take that property back, they're essentially taking back an asset at 0.65 cents on the dollar (mind you, the topic of a bank wanting to take a property back is a different one, given that banks do not like doing so- it's a pain for them, and they're not in the business of having to manage real estate). So essentially, the more equity YOU have in a property, the more YOU have to lose, the more YOU have at risk. Precisely why it was easy for people to walk away from their ridiculous loans back in '08-'09... they had no risk, nothing to lose, and that risk shifted to the lender.

    Again, I admit ignorance to some degree, and while there may be more than one way to interpret that quote, I look at it from the perspective I mentioned above. Let's say you owe $100k to the bank on a $1MM asset (the difference being your equity, of course) and you lose that asset, you're the one on the hook and it's your loss. Now if you owe $1MM on that $1MM asset and you lose it, sucks for the lender...

    Again, my interpretation, and if anyone smarter than me or with a different perspective would like to weigh in, that'd be great. 

    Related to this concept is losing a property due to unpaid property taxes and the relationship of possible equity in that property and taxes owed. I'm sure it's happened many times over (and will continue to happen) that someone owes pennies in taxes relative to the value of the subjective property and the state takes it back over a tiny amount of unpaid property taxes.

     Can I have an "Amen".

  • Rental Property Investor · Brooke Park Drive · Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    6y

    Joe how do you measure the CF:

    +Rent
    -What specific items

  • Architect · Raleigh, NC and Mid Michigan · Member since 2014 · 110 posts · 16 votes
    6y

    Free Saturday evening Masterclass.  Thanks to the contributing BP community!

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

    Joe how do you measure the CF:

    +Rent
    -What specific items

    Minus all the hard monthly fees and costs that come out of the pocket of the REI.

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

    My questions when looking at finance would be:

    1) If I go with high LTV, do I have POSITIVE CFBT in case of an emergency? You want your investment to stand on its own and not suck up money from outside of the investment.

    2) If I do borrow money, for each $1 I borrow at x% rate can I make x+% return?  There is nothing wrong with debt if you manage it and use it properly.  

    I understand the Dave Ramsay fans totally about ZERO debt and the "sleep" factor- That works for 80% of the population that doesn't manage debt well.  However, to grow wealth, your best tool is the leverage of OPM.

     Personal debt, and investment debt isn't the same thing.

    When it comes to investing, it isn't "what" you pay for it, it's "how" you pay for it,,,and as long as you have positive CF, the tenant is the source of funds that is paying for it...NOT the REI. In your own home, you are the source of funds.

    Like you said, it's "how you manage it". REI gives you the ability to manage it much differently (and better) than your own persona debt.

    REI debt and personal debt are different animals.

  • Rental Property Investor · Ithaca, NY · Member since 2015 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    6y

    @Alain Perez-Majul

    As a 27 year old, I got 38 years of work left in me before I can retire. I was told to go aggressive as I can, I try to lever up as much as possible. If I go bankrupt today, I can get back to RE by 35. Most people are starting real estate at 35, I have time on my side.

    Now if I was 60 then I’d be the opposite, I’d try to own my properties free and clear to retain my wealth. Maybe start lending my money on projects.

  • Rental Property Investor · Member since 2019 · 304 posts · 462 votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Sherry Byrne:

    @Bjorn Ahlblad age definitely plays a part in this. I, too, have acquired all the properties I want. And I own most of them outright. But they do keep me busy.

    I wish more was written on this topic...best way to escape the hampster wheel after scaling up and owning all the RE you want to a more passive income.

    You have several options. I too had a number of properties and they kept me very busy; too busy. I chose to sell all those properties and with the proceeds, I purchased a 36 unit apartment building. The gross income allowed for a live-in property manager who took care of all the daily maintenance. I collected the rent and paid all the bills. I visited the property once a month just to make sure everything was in order. Freed up a lot of my time for other pursuits.

    Depending on how concentrated the locations of your properties are, you could always hire a property management company. The key is to find a good one, which from what I have read on here, can be a challenge. 

    The third option is to calculate your ROI and investigate other investment options that produce the same or higher ROI. At the same time, you have to assess the level of risk associated with the ROI. Difficult to do in the current environment.

  • Specialist · Portland, OR · Member since 2010 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    6y

    @Alain Perez-Majul just took the time to read all the threads. This is an excellent discussion and each to their own. It is cool how many different perspectives there are here. I like hearing from some of the satisfied small players as those are the ones after my own heart. I am 67 and my friend Bruce is 67 and an investor too. We were talking about not working or buying anymore and he said he enjoys the buy. I have been a full time volunteer for 9 years so enjoy mailbox money. 

    I have seen major appreciation so agree with @Syed H. that the real money is in buying quality properties that have a higher barrier to entry. This works for people who aren't relying on cash flow for their daily living expenses and take the long game approach.

    I got started by buying from a shrewd landlord that I became friends with by being a real estate agent. He sold 5% down (my commission) and 12% interest only with a 3 year balloon. He owned lots of Portland Oregon properties. With my commission that is zero down. He gave me a deal a month (real estate agent sales) which kept food on the table during a recession. 

    Why would someone buy a low rise commercial building in Portland, Oregon with a 4 cap? Because of future rental appreciation. Rising rents drive up value. How do you finance a 4 cap? Wealthy investors who want quality. They come from all over the world.They pay cash. The last thing they need is cash flow, but 3 or 4 percent is a lot better than treasuries.

    I have had times when vacancies scared me and even with a job multiple vacancies for months is scary. I am no longer scared of recessions or vacancies but I am small time and I prefer the simple life.

  • New to Real Estate · Georgetown · Member since 2020 · 22 posts · 5 votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Terry N.:

    Free Saturday evening Masterclass.  Thanks to the contributing BP community!

     @Terry N,

    Well said. 'Same thing I was saying to myself while following this thread. Ya gotta love all the knowledge, wisdom, stories, case studies the BP community shares with everyone.

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