Skip to content
×
PRO
Pro Members Get Full Access!
Get off the sidelines and take action in real estate investing with BiggerPockets Pro. Our comprehensive suite of tools and resources minimize mistakes, support informed decisions, and propel you to success.
Advanced networking features
Market and Deal Finder tools
Property analysis calculators
Landlord Command Center
$0
TODAY
$69.00/month when billed monthly.
$32.50/month when billed annually.
7 day free trial. 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,

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...