Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Money and Finances
Reply to "Why are people so obsessed with rental properties yielding positive cash flow?"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Is there a firecalc type app that compares the ROI between a RE investment compared to S&P? Assume a 20% down payment and a 1% gross rental return vs. a one-time S&P investment of the same 20%? How would one fare if they did this in 1900 vs 2000 vs 2015, etc. over time? [/quote] Of course real estate would give you more due to leverage on initial investment. Because with stocks you only get income on those 20% that YOU invested. In real estate, you get return on the whole 100% (your down+ remaining 80% financed by the bank). Of course if real estate prices call you are at a loss more than you would be in stocks. But in reality they don’t fall that drastically at lease in urban areas, and when it works well as a rental covering your mortgage and carry costs you can continue holding it . There is no point in selling real estate unless you want to do 1031 exchange or reinvest [/quote] +1 I'm the OP and people that keep calling me dumb don't seem to grasp this concept. (BTW, for all those saying I should take a course in finance, I have a degree in math and understand finance/investments just fine.) What these people don't get apparently is the value of leverage in generating returns. And leveraging a property makes it more likely that it will not yield a positive cash flow, hence my initial question. Of course, any property that you buy with no mortgage will give you positive cash flow. However, you can boost your returns with leverage, and sometimes that means covering a $500 monthly shortfall between the rental income and PITI/other expenses. But so what? Most people put much more than $500/month (i.e. negative cash flow) in their 401(k)s and Roth IRAs. And yet you never see the pearl clutching like you do with negative cash flow properties.[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics