Why Does Everybody Want Passive Income From the Most Active Business in the World?

Question

I know a man who bought a rental property because he was tired of working for a living. He wanted passive income.

Six months later, he knew three plumbers by their first names, had developed strong opinions about water heaters, and was spending Sunday afternoons discussing somebody else's toilet. I asked him how retirement was going. He told me to go to hell.

There's something wonderfully optimistic about the phrase passive income in real estate. Buy a property. Find tenants. Collect rent. Watch your bank account grow while you develop an interest in fishing. Then the air conditioner dies in August. The tenant calls. The contractor doesn't answer. The replacement part is on back order. And suddenly your passive income has developed a very active personality.

Of course, somebody will immediately point out that you should hire a property manager. Excellent idea. Now somebody else gets the calls about the toilet. But you still have to hire the manager, pay the manager, make sure the manager is doing his job, approve major expenses, and occasionally find a new manager because the first one turned out to be considerably more passive than the income.

So what exactly have we made passive? Not the building. It still needs maintenance. Not the tenants. They still need attention. Not the business. Somebody still has to operate it. We've simply moved the work around. And there's nothing wrong with that. Delegating operations is how businesses grow. A well-managed rental portfolio can require relatively little day-to-day involvement from its owner.

But that's not quite the same as income appearing out of thin air. Somebody is doing the work. Either you're paying them, or you're doing it yourself and conveniently forgetting to put your own labor on the expense sheet. Maybe the problem isn't rental property investing. It's the fantasy that ownership somehow eliminates the need for management.

Passive income isn't necessarily income without work. It's income from work that doesn't necessarily have to be yours. And if the numbers only look attractive because you've valued your own time at zero, perhaps you've bought yourself a job with an unusually expensive entrance fee.

So here's my question. When we call rental income passive, are we describing the investment, or merely announcing that we've found somebody else to answer the phone?

Clinton Orr · Answer

A useful ownership metric might be hours required per month alongside cash distributed after management fees and reserves. Delegation can reduce routine work, but an escalation plan for major repairs and unexpected expenses still needs an owner. How do you define that boundary with a manager?

Simon W. · Answer

Jimmy's point about forgetting vacancy, repairs and the PM fee is the real gap, and it shows up on the books quickly. On a $1,600 rent, a 10% PM fee is $160 a month, plus a vacancy allowance of 5% is $80, plus maybe $100 a month for repairs. That's $340 before the mortgage, which is more than a lot of people budget.

Separately, your own time never appears on the books, so I'd keep a simple log of hours per property for a couple of months. If it's 10 hours a month and the property nets $200, that's $20 an hour, and now you're comparing it to a job.

That log also matters for taxes, since time and involvement can affect how losses are treated. Keep it real and dated.

Henry Lazerow · Answer

I disagree; real estate can be very passive cashflow if you buy Class A 2 to 4 units and avoid working-class or low income towns. For my North Side Chicago four-unit property, I spend maybe 20 to 30 hours a YEAR managing it. The tenants are on autopay, they take good care of the place, and I only lease to 680 plus credit tenants who have never even needed a late notice. I have tenants meet a contractor or give out the lockbox when repairs are needed; all done by text. The compounded rent growth over time has now created strong cash flow of around $3,000 net a month off that one building alone. I had a very similar 4 unit in a cashflow lower income area that place was NOT passive and I sold it thankfully somehow for double what I paid. Stay in good areas and its passive.

Richard (Ryszard) Cieplechowicz · Answer

Rent is as passive as the systems behind it. I spent years around a 90-unit operation, and the rent showed up every month whether anyone felt like working or not - but only because somebody had already done the work: screening, solid leases, preventive maintenance, and reserves for the big-ticket items. The owners who get burned skip that setup and then act surprised when the phone rings.

A manager moves the phone calls, it doesn't remove them. You're now managing the manager, which is a smaller job but still a job.

The honest frame: rentals are an operating business where income can become mostly passive after the systems and reserves are in place, not on day one.

Jimmy Samaha · Answer

I think it's mostly the second one. After almost 14 years in real estate and 7 as an investor, I'd say rentals are semi passive at best. With a decent PM at 8 to 10 percent of rent, my own time is maybe an hour or two a month per door, but only because I set up the systems up front. The people who get burned are the ones who count rent minus mortgage and forget to budget for vacancy, repairs and the PM fee. If the deal still cash flows after you pay someone to answer the phone, then it's passive enough. If it only works when you do the work yourself, you bought a job.

Jay Hinrichs · Answer

some rental RE can be.. like NNN deals. Or as mentioned A class in expensive areas. But returns on those are not as high as ( at least on paper) SFRs in the C D class and investors dont really understand the difference until they jump in. My banker and I fish a few times a year and in between bites when we are chatting this always comes up. He owns a 12 unit and a few other SFR's and he just laughs when I tell them about how things are portrayed on BP and investors think they can buy rentals and its all going to work out for them in this passive investment.. its anything but passive for most rentals. Not that is hard your generally not doing hard labor but sit back and get mailbox money not realistic for most

Chris Seveney · Answer

Depending on the property and how you manage it will depend on how passive it is. If you are buying a Class A rental with a property manager and give them a high budget to fix something, then yes, it can be extremely passive. For example, I have a rental and a condo that are very passive, and I do pay a property manager, probably too much, to basically do nothing. When something does happen, that one time, they deal with it, and I don't have to. To me, that is worth the expense.

A lot of these strategies, subject to, seller finance, carrying the note, or short-term rental, I do not really see these as being very passive. To me, passive is like owning a stock. My 401(k). The only thing I do is potentially change asset or investment on something that is liquid. For real estate, unless you're investing in a fund, which is one where the investor has no control, most of real estate is not passive.

Sean Poulos · Answer

I think the idea is that it’s “mostly” passive. More passive to do those mentioned tasks a few hours a week, than 40. It’s all about proper systems in place, where I think most people fail at.

Why Does Everybody Want Passive Income From the Most Active Business in the World?

8 Replies