Recasting: Mortgage Hack Your Way to Increase Your Cash Flow

[Scott Benton]

When it comes to lowering mortgage payments and increasing your cash flow on an existing investment property, chances are you’re probably thinking about refinancing your loan and getting yourself into a brand new 30 year fixed interest rate mortgage. 

It’s a decent plan. I’ve done it myself before and don’t have a lot of complaints.

Refinancing can definitely be useful in lowering your payments and increasing cash flow, but it also means you might not have your property paid off free and clear for another 30 years since most refinanced loans restart the payment clock all over again…not to mention the costly fees it takes once you commit fully to going through the refinancing process.

As you probably know, those fees add up quickly which means it will take even longer for you to recover the entire expenditure and make refinancing worth all the cost and trouble you’ll go through to get it. What’s worse is that some people are not able to qualify for a conventional mortgage after losing a job during a severe economic downturn that ultimately removes refinancing as an option to increase their passive income right when they need it most.

But what if there was a way to increase your cash flow over and over again incrementally over time as often as you like without restarting the clock on your mortgage payments or qualifying for a new conventional loan, and something that wouldn’t squeeze your finances with all the usual obnoxious refinancing fees?

Fortunately that ability is something you have always had available to you if you hold a conventional mortgage whether you have a job or not, but chances are you probably don’t even know the first thing about it or much less have any awareness of its existence.

Personally, I found most real estate investors I talk to don't know anything about this idea, never heard of it, and are often shocked when I tell them what I have done myself to instantly increase my own cash flow and move closer and closer to getting out of the rat race faster and faster one small step at a time.

Again, there is no cost to you, I certainly get nothing out of this myself should you pursue this option, and neither do the banks who hold your mortgage which is probably why you don’t know anything about it. At the end of the day, you’re pretty much the only one in this whole transaction who stands to gain anything of true lasting value.

Since banks make their money on refinancing, that’s what they like to push out to their customers and generally don’t talk about another lesser-known free option that’s also available. In many cases the free option might be the better decision when it comes to improving your cash flow because of how quick and easy it is and because it’s far less complicated than going through a refinance.

Strangely, I’ve also noticed that most real estate investing books never mention this technique either, and in rare case when they do touch upon it, they almost always gloss over the benefits such as paying off your mortgage faster than you thought possible at no cost. For context, I have read well over 200 books on real estate investing, and from those I've gone through, maybe two of them broached this subject…maybe. But it could have been only one now that I think about it.

It’s called RECASTING.

Recasting is a process I have used to quickly increase my cash flow several times. The more I used recasting, the more my cash flow increased. The more my cash flow increased, the more I was able to save. The more I was able to save, the more I was able to pay down my mortgage, and on and on it went…

But what is recasting and how does it work?

Let’s say you end up with a chunk of money for one reason or another. Maybe you saved it or maybe you got an unexpected windfall that somehow showed up from a distant relative you hardly knew existed. However you got the money, let’s say you’re now staring at an extra $5,000 in your bank account you’re not altogether sure what to do with.

In this example, and using very rough numbers to help illustrate the idea, let’s assume you already have enough money in reserves set aside for vacancy, repairs, and capital expenditures, and don’t have any pressing bills or obligations you must take care of in the near future. The $5,000 is available to do whatever you want with it. You have one property with $50,000 left on the principal of your mortgage, and a monthly payment of $500. Of that $500 payment, let’s say $300 is interest and $100 is principal. The rest goes to cover taxes and insurance. I know these numbers are hardly scientific or accurate, but stick with me for the sake of the example. The exact numbers really don’t matter here, and most likely yours will be wildly different anyway.

Once you’ve made the decision to recast your loan instead of refinancing, the first thing you’ll do is make an additional $5,000 principal only payment to your loan balance. Make sure you verify directly with the bank that the whole amount has been made to the principal portion of your loan which will bring your overall balance down to $45,000.

Okay, so far so good.

The problem at this point is that you are still on the same amortization schedule as you were before you made the $5,000 payment, so your monthly mortgage bill will not change and will remain at the same amount month after month if you end up doing nothing more.

That’s why you want to pick up the phone, call the bank that services your loan, and tell them you paid a portion of your mortgage principal off and would like to now recast your loan. They may ask you to submit a formal request in writing in which case you can either fax or email the request in by referencing the loan number and asking the bank to kindly initiate a recast on your mortgage. 

In a couple of days, you will receive a Fedex delivery on your doorstep with approximately three pages of documents in total as well as a pre-paid return envelope. The first document will be a letter from your loan servicing officer acknowledging that you made a formal request to recast your loan on such-and-such a date.

A second document will ask for your notarized signature. This is the only time you will potentially pay some money out of your own pocket for the recasting process. If you live in California as I do, it will cost you as much as $15 for the one single notarization that you will need to obtain. If travel is involved for the notary, it might cost you a little more, maybe as much as $100 depending on who you hire for the notarization service and how far they live from your location. If you go to a business that offers notarizations, you can expect to pay only $15 for the service at the time of this writing.

On the other hand, if you happen to have someone at work who is a notary, they potentially can notarize your document entirely for free if you ask them really nicely. I always give notaries the maximum $15 signature fee whether they charge me or not since I had been a California State notary myself for 12 years and know the costs and time involved in earning that notary commission. For California, there is quite a lot of effort involved. I think with everything I paid out, it came in around $700 to secure my four-year notary commission. That’s a lot of future signatures to make up for that much money and why eventually I resigned my commission. It was far too costly and something I had to repeat and pay $700 every four years as well as retake the test, so no thanks, California.

The third document tells you what your new payment will be once the recast has finally gone through and after the recalculation has been made.

Once you send the single-page notarized document (page 2) back to the bank in the pre-paid return envelope they included, in just a few days you will notice the amortization table has been adjusted since the overall principal amount that will be paid down every month has now dropped by $5,000. The interest, taxes, and insurance payments all remain the same. Those portions of your loan only change with a refinance, but not with a recast. You will notice that the debt payoff date has not moved either, and that your original loan is still firmly in place. Everything stays exactly the same as it was except for the principal amount that you must pay down each month. That portion of the loan has been reduced.

Since the overall mortgage payment in total will now be lower, that means your cash flow has just gone up. Assuming the rental payments you collect from your tenants remain the same, the dollar amount taken from those rentals to pay your mortgage has effectively now decreased, so you end up keeping more of it in your own pocket.

Not bad. Granted, it’s not a large increase in this example, but it’s always nice to see your cash flow going up in a positive direction little by little over time. Eventually it adds up substantially.

Okay, now let’s say a month has passed since the first successful recast, you made your lower mortgage payment, and your total cash flow has gone up slightly. You look in your mailbox one day, and what do you know…another unexpected check for $5,000 has shown up that once again you don’t know what to do with.

We should all be as lucky as you are. Obviously you have excellent financial luck and the universe smiles and looks favorably upon you.

So you decide to pay down even more principal on your loan and repeat the whole recasting thing over again exactly as you did the first time.

You make your $5,000 payment to principal only, call the loan servicer to tell them you would like to recast your loan, send in the written request, wait for the three pages of documents to show up on your doorstep, get the one document notarized (page 2), send it back to the loan processor, then wait for the payment recalculation once again. The monthly mortgage payment will be even lower this time around, and coupled with last month’s recast, your cash flow will be higher still.

You get to keep just a little more money in your pocket each month, and at the most, this second recast might have possibly cost you an additional $15 in a notarization fee all in—or nothing if your friend at work does it for free. That’s it. No bank charges. No points to haggle over and pay down. No vague miscellaneous filing fees.

Nada.

And you can do this as much as you want for any amount you pay the principle down. There is no limit to the number of recasts you request. But make sure you notice how much principal is generally paid off every month during each mortgage payment you make since you will notice the principal and interest amounts change over time. If you get to a point where no principal is getting paid off for the time being, then a recast will not improve your cash flow, but it will still continue to help pay off your loan quicker since you’ve decreased the financial distance you must travel until you reach zero and retire the loan completely. In this case, you started with a $50,000 loan and in two months paid off a total of $10,000, increased your cashflow, and now you have only $40,000 left in principal until you’ve paid off your house free and clear.

Sometimes I come across people who for years had made several extra payments already to the principal amount on their loan and in some cases lowered the amount they owe by tens of thousands of dollars, but otherwise who do not know the next step they can take by calling up the bank and requesting a recast. In some cases the monthly mortgage payment can drop precipitously depending on how much they’ve already paid off. While they were trying to think ahead, do the right thing and get their loan paid down faster than scheduled, they often didn’t realize they also had another option to recast the loan.

If you have already been making extra payments over the years yourself and reduced your principal, it might be worth reading no further, calling your bank, and asking about recasting your loan just to see what happens. Your monthly mortgage payment amount could go down, and all it would take is a single phone call to find out.

Recasting is a tool I wish I had known about when I first got into real estate investing. It took a long time before I understood this whole process because the bank was not forthcoming about recasting as an option. It was almost as if they answered only binary “yes” and “no” questions until somehow I navigated my way to understanding the process. I literally had to call the mortgage servicer over and over again before I put the whole idea together in my head and knew it would increase my cash flow without throwing away thousands of dollars in refinancing fees and starting my payment schedule all over again which I did not want to do.

After I paid down some of the principal for the first time and initiated the recast, I was completely hooked and did it as often as I could until I was hardly paying any principal amount each month at all. I liked the increased cash flow I saw coming in every month and didn’t mind that less and less was going towards principal pay down each month since I knew I would continue to pay off more of it anyway. With the extra cash I was accumulating, it helped me pay down the principal amount on a far more accelerated schedule than passively waiting out the entire 30 year period the loan originally had been written for.

Occasionally when I found that money was a little tighter as I made monthly mortgage payments, I would add in an extra $200 or $400 from my extra cash flow for principal only, and after I finally had paid down an extra $5,000 in principal total, however long it took, I would send in my request to the bank to recast the loan and quickly saw my cash flow go up again.

One thing I know for sure is that once I have mortgages to service with future properties I end up buying, I definitely will be using the recasting process as often as I can to lower my payments and increase my cash flow without refinancing. When looking for a loan product, I know I will calculate this strategy into my decision making, and whenever I find myself staring at an extra amount of cash and trying to figure out what to do with it, assuming the universe is benevolent that day, no matter how big or small it is, I know I can always pay down a portion of my loan and almost immediately benefit from the increased cash flow with no cost involved except for possibly a small and totally insignificant notarization fee.

I truly hope you are able to use this idea successfully yourself as well, share it with others, and that you appreciate all the positive benefits it brings that I have seen firsthand with my own recasting activities.

I wish you nothing but continued prosperity and an accumulation of many incremental rounds of small but significant monthly cash flow increases step by step to a zero balance, and even all the way to the rat race exit door.

[Dan M.]

I like it and might actually see what the bank offers in this scenario. I've never heard of such a thing but always round my payment up to the nearest hundred ( Easier to write the check and save a little interest over time ). The only downside I see to this is you will have to extend the full balance out to the original pay off date instead of paying off early but if your making the same interest payment at least it gives you an option to use the extra money how you see fit and costs nothing to do.  Thanks for posting this! 

[Scott Benton]

Sounds good. If you've been making even small payments, it's worth a shot to see if the bank will re-amortize the loan and bring the payment down even slightly to see what a valuable tool this can be purely for cash flow purposes if nothing else. 

[Bill F.]

@Scott Benton thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed post. 

Recasting is an interesting and under utilized tool in the arsenal of RE investors. however, the decision to do it really comes down to one's goals and the interest rate. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. 

 If someone has prepaid the mortgage, the most likely want to pay off the mortgage early, not move money from a liquid state to a less liquid one. They could accomplish basically the same thing you described, by investing the funds in a slightly higher yielding debt security and earn the spread without tying up the money. Given today's low interest rates, the investor has lots of choices of what to do with their money, which makes the decision to pre pay a much higher bar to clear. 

About the only situation I can see when a recast makes sense is if someone had the plan of paying off a loan early but life happened (job loss, major financial issues, potential foreclosure) and they needed the extra cash flow right now. Other than that keep making those extra payments to get out of the mortgage early or take that nice pile of cash and find somewhere else to invest it.

Thanks again for the great post! 

[Scott Benton]

Thanks, Bill. For my post, I was addressing the ability to instantly increase your cash flow for free over refinancing at cost if that is important to you. Sounds like this idea would probably not be the best move for you right now. Cash flow is more important to me at the moment in a tricky economy over investing in securities or, for instance, putting money into the VTSAK or another index fund when the Fed is printing money like drunken sailors, and also because of the higher taxes you pay with portfolio income on the gains over passive rentals. You certainly can do many things with your money, I definitely agree with you and love all the options you bring up, but like I said, if you want higher cash flow on your investment property immediately (or lower payments on the mortgage on your primary residence if you already have paid down a portion or plan to), then recasting is an excellent vehicle to accomplish that and one that most people I find don't know about to consider looking at. I wanted to shine a light on something I don't hear a whole lot about. Thanks for your well thought out comment and the discussion about generating higher returns. 

[Steve Vaughan]

Interesting.  I haven't recasted before because I was trying to shorten the term.

And there was a $500 fee. Cool idea if cash-flow is your main driver and there are no fees. 

[Scott Benton]

Interesting. I have done a recast several times and did not once have a processing fee to pay. I wonder if your $500 processing fee was originally written into the mortgage or not or if that's bank policy for your particular mortgage holder. I was recently told by a mortgage broker that there are no loans written these days, or have been for a while, that carry a pre-payment penalty which this possibly sounds like? 

[Scott Benton]

Also, I would imagine even if you did pay the $500, it would be an amount you would be able to write off during tax reporting. I would ask my accountant if that would be the case before moving forward with it. 

[Steve Vaughan]

Originally posted by @Scott Benton:

Interesting. I have done a recast several times and did not once have a processing fee to pay. I wonder if your $500 processing fee was originally written into the mortgage or not or if that's bank policy for your particular mortgage holder. I was recently told by a mortgage broker that there are no loans written these days, or have been for a while, that carry a pre-payment penalty which this possibly sounds like? 

My recast offer was received out of the blue. I paid the loan off not long after this letter in early 2019. Seterus.  

Maybe if the borrower starts the discussion vs it being the lender's idea it's different?    

For me, I'm going for the payoff if the rate is 6%+ or commercial.  19 down, 5 to go👍

[Scott Benton]

That's absolutely awesome. From reading your explanation, my first thought was that, yes, I wonder if there would be no $500 processing fee if you initiate the recast. On the other hand, I wonder if you could ask them to wave the $500 fee to recast and see if they'll go for it. 

[Chris Mason]

I used to have a chart on the wall showing all the big players, their minimum balance paydown to recast, and their fee. No one ever asked about it, so it's not up any more. 

But a lot of the major players had minimums of $10k or $20k, and fees of $150 or $250.

The most common time this comes up is actually for folks trying to buy before they sell, in the primary residence space. 

[Scott Benton]

Interesting. I did not experience any bank fees on the several recasts I did, and was told there were no minimums. I assumed that would be the case for all banks, since this was with one of the largest. My last recast I believe was in 2018 or 2019. Not sure if the policies have been changed since then. Still, for me if I had to pay $150 or $250 for the recast, I would still do it in a heartbeat. 

[Basit Siddiqi]

I don't see this method being as a competitor to the refinance. It is totally different.

Yes, your cash-flow is increasing in the future but you are essentially getting back the cash that you put in($5,000 in this example).

By making these payments, you convert assets that are liquid(cash) for as asset not liquid(equity in RE).
This is also not a good strategy for those who are looking to scale faster.

I think this is a better method to introduce to those who are looking to pay-down their house faster and get out of debt faster. 

[Scott Benton]

Thanks, Basit. After doing a refinance and comparing the overall experience to the first recast I did, and with the goal of increasing cash flow, this was much easier and helped snowball the debt I had way down. As I mentioned, I did not want to restart my payment clock and set it back to the 30 year mark again. I was not eager to give up the five or ten years of payments I had already made and would not have had an option for a new conventional fixed rate loan at the time. I agree a recast is not for everyone and does not make sense financially on many levels, especially when you start comparing interest rates and return and liquidity and so on. All of which I did not personally care about. I loved getting higher amounts of cash flow from passive income sources regardless of the calculations or whether they made sense or not numerically, and found I slept pretty well at night the more recasting I did. Since it is not well-known, I wrote the post to draw attention to it as an option that might work for others as well as it had worked for me. Thank for crunching the numbers between recasting and refinancing. I enjoy looking at these from many different angles and learning that not all banks treat these the same as my bank treated my loan payments. 

[Chris Wilson]

We wound up doing that with our house without knowing that was what we would wind up doing. We plan to sell and downsize at retirement so refinanced at the time to a 5/1 that dropped our rate from 3.875 to 3.24. A big part of the appeal is that the closing costs were only $295 for the refinance. There was also a provision to refinance at whatever current rates and extend the term for another 5 years. Within 6 months or so we wound up doing so to a 2.94 rate again for a $295 fee. I could it again to 2.74 but might be making a good sized payment on the principle next year so will wait to then. the term does recast when we did that.

[Jenning Y.]

Thanks for the info.

Basically I agree with @Basit Siddiqi. 

Financially it does not make much sense:

1) If you want to pay off the loan faster, you need to pay more monthly

2) If you want to increase cash flow, why not invest the $5000 to other fund?  Recently I cash-out refinanced $140k at 3.75% rate then put into Dave's note fund at return rate of 10%.

[Bill F.]

Originally posted by @Scott Benton:

Thanks, Bill. For my post, I was addressing the ability to instantly increase your cash flow for free over refinancing at cost if that is important to you. Sounds like this idea would probably not be the best move for you right now. Cash flow is more important to me at the moment in a tricky economy over investing in securities or, for instance, putting money into the VTSAK or another index fund when the Fed is printing money like drunken sailors, and also because of the higher taxes you pay with portfolio income on the gains over passive rentals. You certainly can do many things with your money, I definitely agree with you and love all the options you bring up, but like I said, if you want higher cash flow on your investment property immediately (or lower payments on the mortgage on your primary residence if you already have paid down a portion or plan to), then recasting is an excellent vehicle to accomplish that and one that most people I find don't know about to consider looking at. I wanted to shine a light on something I don't hear a whole lot about. Thanks for your well thought out comment and the discussion about generating higher returns. 

 If you look at the situation holistically, you aren't increasing your cash flow at all. The cash flow happens when your Uncle Bob sends you a check for $5k or you have taken the extra rental income and paid down the mortgage over time. The only thing recasting does is move the money from your checking account to your house in the former case or allow money to leave you checking account at a slower rate in the future. Both happen because you have at one point paid down the principle. 

The tyranny of double entry accounting doesn't let this become some magic pill to increase cash flow. The cash has been yours at some point. 

Like I said before, this has some great uses if you need to lower expenses for some reason and all investors should be aware that it is a great lever to pull in the right situation. 

[Scott Benton]

I suppose it depends on what kind of money you want. In the case of recasting, I was able to convert cash (or potential portfolio income as you suggest the money is used for) into passive income. If I convert this cash into portfolio income instead of paying down my mortgage, I will pay (what) 20–24% on the gains every year, and for myself I know i would not be utilizing that money to replace a job, but rather would focus on reinvesting it back into the fund. That does not get me out of the rat race as much as it allows me to log into my brokerage account and watch those numbers grow, which is fun but there is no current utility for that revenue, and if I do use that money, I don't get to use the whole amount. I would pay roughly one quarter of it to the government straight out. However, if I convert that money into passive income instead by recasting and paying down my mortgage, then effectively I pay 0% in taxes on those "gains" or increased rentals I keep and utilize. Passive income is considered 0% money since effectively I don't pay taxes on it from the tax benefits I receive with rentals. Rental money vs. mutual fund returns is not an apple-to-apple comparison. In all cases and assuming the amount is the same for both sources, I would much rather have money coming in where I can use 100% of it versus 75% of it. If I make $1,000 in rentals, because passive income is taxed at 0%, I get to spend the full $1,000. If I take out $1,000 from my portfolio from gains (which I am unlikely to do), I get to spend about $7,500 and must send about $2,500 to the government.

I get much less purchasing power with portfolio income such as what I would get from mutual fund gains as you suggest. 

Also, if you go by what John Bogle says about mutuals: “Do you really want to invest in a system where you put up 100 percent of the capital, you, the mutual fund shareholder, you take 100 percent of the risk, and you get 30 percent of the return?”, then that makes mutual fund investing even less attractive for me. Not only do I lose out on 70% of the potential gains however much the market goes up, but on top of that, I now have to pay about 25% to the government for the portion I do keep.

Looking at recasting as an option and growing my passive sources of income which I prefer of the there incomes (W-2 being the third), I would lean more in that direction myself. Sounds like that idea doesn't work for you and that you would rather focus on rates of return on mutual funds and paying more in taxes over passive. I respect your decision and the direction you take based on those fundamentals. I simply chose differently. There is no right answer for everyone, but this has worked wonderfully for me and might work well for others too. 

[Alexandre Marques dos Santos]

@Scott Benton

Thank you for your post. Even my acc manager thought i was an alien when i tried to discuss this option.

One point i would like to clarify. After recasting a portion of the interest paid should drop as you have paid off part of the principal. So the economy should also work there too.

Recasting ( i never knew how the process was called) is to reduce the principal of debt keeping the original maturity of the loan, therefore recalculating the payments to match that. The original interest rate in the contract remains the same.

This option is the only one when you have interest low ( no much additional saving on refinancing) and refinancing would cost thousands of dollars that does not make sense ( economically speaking) to do that.

Great point.

[Scott Benton]

I suppose it depends on what kind of money you want. In the case of recasting, I was able to convert cash (or potential portfolio income as you suggest the money is used for) into passive income. If I convert this cash into portfolio income instead of paying down my mortgage, I will pay (what) 20–24% on the gains every year, and for myself I know i would not be utilizing that money to replace a job, but rather would focus on reinvesting it back into the fund. That does not get me out of the rat race as much as it allows me to log into my brokerage account and watch those numbers grow, which is fun but there is no current utility for that revenue, and if I do use that money, I don't get to use the whole amount. I would pay roughly one quarter of it to the government straight out. However, if I convert that money into passive income instead by recasting and paying down my mortgage, then effectively I pay 0% in taxes on those "gains" or increased rentals I keep and utilize. Passive income is considered 0% money since effectively I don't pay taxes on it from the tax benefits I receive with rentals. Rental money vs. mutual fund returns is not an apple-to-apple comparison. In all cases and assuming the amount is the same for both sources, I would much rather have money coming in where I can use 100% of it versus 75% of it. If I make $1,000 in rentals, because passive income is taxed at 0%, I get to spend the full $1,000. If I take out $1,000 from my portfolio from gains (which I am unlikely to do), I get to spend about $750 and must send about $250 to the government.

I get much less purchasing power with portfolio income such as what I would get from mutual fund gains as you suggest.

Also, if you go by what John Bogle says about mutuals: “Do you really want to invest in a system where you put up 100 percent of the capital, you, the mutual fund shareholder, you take 100 percent of the risk, and you get 30 percent of the return?”, then that makes mutual fund investing even less attractive for me. Not only do I lose out on 70% of the potential gains however much the market goes up, but on top of that, I now have to pay about 25% to the government for the portion I do keep.

Looking at recasting as an option and growing my passive sources of income which I prefer of the there incomes (W-2 being the third), I would lean more in that direction myself. Sounds like that idea doesn't work for you and that you would rather focus on rates of return on mutual funds and paying more in taxes over passive. I respect your decision and the direction you take based on those fundamentals. I simply chose differently. There is no right answer for everyone, but this has worked wonderfully for me and might work well for others too.

[Alexandre Marques dos Santos]

@Jenning Yu

The difference is risk taking. When you recast, you are investing on your asset. Monthly payments will drop and cash flow will increase. You will quickly save more monthly. Putting the money in another fund will not give you more cash flow, will increase your risk ( you dont control your asset).

Comparing this option is not fair, because the product is different, risk is different, the results are different.

Not saying its a bad option, just that you are accomplishing something different from what the author tried to.

By the way, fund giving regular 10% without risk is a big red flag for me... just saying!! 😀

[Luka Milicevic]

I know about this deal. I've heard it being called re-amortizing a loan. I guess it's also called recasting. It's another tool in the vast toolbox of RE investing. 

[Scott Benton]

@Luka Milicevic — I have also heard of it referred to by both terms.

[Luka Milicevic]

@Scott Benton

In other news!!

I noticed you are from LA. Let me know when you are ready to join the 600k plus/year Californians leaving the state. I'll find you a great home in Nashville, TN!!! 

[Scott Benton]

@Luka Milicevic — Nashville is a great town. I enjoyed my visits there quite a bit.

[McKade Evenson]

@Scott Benton

Wow! Thanks for sharing this post and going into so much detail to educate those of us who have never heard of recasting. It is a super fascinating tool to leverage your cash flow.

I can see how this could be really useful for someone who is nearing retirement age and wanting to live off cash flow and want more cash flow without tying up a bunch of cash into a new property. Im sure there are plenty of other good uses too!

I’m just starting to educate myself on investing and I love that I now have this information in my Arsenal to use if I ever need to; or to just share with others who might have a use for it!