Skip to content
×
Try PRO Free Today!
BiggerPockets Pro offers you a comprehensive suite of tools and resources
Market and Deal Finder Tools
Deal Analysis Calculators
Property Management Software
Exclusive discounts to Home Depot, RentRedi, and more
$0
7 days free
$828/yr or $69/mo when billed monthly.
$390/yr or $32.5/mo when billed annually.
7 days free. Cancel anytime.
Already a Pro Member? Sign in here

Join Over 3 Million Real Estate Investors

Create a free BiggerPockets account to comment, participate, and connect with over 3 million real estate investors.
Use your real name
By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions.
The community here is like my own little personal real estate army that I can depend upon to help me through ANY problems I come across.
Buying & Selling Real Estate
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

Updated almost 6 years ago on . Most recent reply

User Stats

48
Posts
38
Votes
Adam Peacock
  • Rental Property Investor
38
Votes |
48
Posts

Ratio/Percentage Rules of thumb for down payment vs cashflow

Adam Peacock
  • Rental Property Investor
Posted

Hey BP community,

Love this site - I've learned so much. A question since I know I've missed it...

If I pay all cash for a buy-and-hold property to achieve positive cash flow (i.e. in markets where home prices are high), is there a rule of thumb that helps determine how much down payment you should put in to achieve positive cash flow?

Theoretical example:

Let's say I buy a property somewhere for $100K cash and it rents for $1250/month, that means I paid $100k to achieve $1250/month positive cashflow (1:0.0125). If I used that same $100k to purchase 5 separate properties with 20% down on each and they individually produce $250 positive cashflow (1:0.015), is that better or worse than the previous example? Both examples produce the same cashflow overall but the latter introduces debt interest where cash isn't flowing to the investment but to a lender whereas the former does not.

Basically I can put any amount of cash towards a house and get positive cashflow but I'm not clear on whether there is a certain point where investing more cash stops being a good idea.

Does that make any sense?

//adam

Loading replies...