Originally posted by @Nicholas B.:
Wow! There have been some really great posts since I last checked in. I feel bad for not thanking each individually, but I did read every post in it's entirety. Thank you all.
I'm considering this as confirmed that the factor of contradiction is scale. I'm not judging anybody for using an aggressive strategy involving leverage. It's just not something I'm interested in right now. I just hope that people understand that it's that scale that makes it work.
My point is that people get it confused and seeing it in action confused me ("Why are people doing this to themselves?"). I guess it's not a terrible thing to stretch out a few properties that are "paying for themselves", knowing that 10-30 years later, you'll have acquired the asset "free of charge". Well, at least until they go to take out a loan and realize that in a personal credit transaction, lenders will add the rental income and mortgage payments directly to your DTI and still expect 40%...
Hi @Nicholas, I know this was posted a few months ago and I wanted to chime in as well because it was something I fought with for a while. I had the same thought process in regards to taxes and interest and really what I want to point out here is what people are alluding to here are "opportunity costs" and "time value of money". Also negative cash flow will hurt the DTI ratio more than having longer term debt.
First, I will say that I understand your thought process completely that paying interest to save on taxes is counter productive, and you are correct.
Next, the most important thing to factor in a deal is what is the rate of return on the money you are putting in out of your own pocket. Real estate is unique that lending is so readily available to purchase this type of investment, however, leveraging is also a strategy available in the stock market as well. (I will not get into that here however).
So, to simplify, If you take $100 and invest it at 10% return, you will get $10 back each year. But say you can take that same $100 and buy $500 worth of investments by putting $20 towards each investment and someone else pays the other $80. You have to pay that other person 5% for their money to use it. Now, you have $500 worth of investments that still pay 10% return each. So you get $50 back but half of that goes to the other person so you get $25 for your return on your initial $100 investment. While you are paying someone else interest for the right to use their money you have increased your return on investment from 10% to 25%. So you need to look at your opportunity cost for buying that first investment in whole or using that same money to buy several investments using leverage. You would get $10 on wholly owned investment and $25 on your leverage investments. So your opportunity cost of paying for the first investment rather than leveraging is $15.
Now, time value of money. As inflation increases our money becomes worth less. Compounding interest makes a $1 today worth more than $2 next year. So now that you have that extra return on your leveraged investment, you can reinvest it thus compounding the interest yet again.
As with any investment you must determine your risk tolerance based on your situation and determine what amount of risk and leverage is reasonable to you.
Another reason for using longer term loans with smaller payments to ensure a positive cash flow is to actually hep your DTI. When you can show full debt and expense coverage of your investment properties they will actually take that into account when looking at future lending scenarios. If you have a shorter term loan with higher payments it will increase your debt to income ratio regardless of the years to maturity.
I do not have an opinion on which one is better, I will tell you that I have chose to leverage within reason and to be very careful not to over leverage.
I hope that helps,
Cheryl