We often hear investors on the Bigger Pockets Podcast say they own 1,200 units, 2,000 units, 15,000 units etc. In most cases where the unit counts are this large, these units are owned as part of a syndication or fund, meaning they retained ownership/control of “a percentage of 1,200 units” (and in many cases, I think these claims should be clarified, but I'll save that for another day...).
My question for the BP community is:
By taking fractional ownership of a large deal (let’s say 10% of a 100-unit deal), and sharing the deal with partners, you are in a sense truly “owning” 10 units. In other words, you're reaping the benefits of an equivalent of 10 units. Is there a benefit to this over just purchasing 10 units without partners (either single family or small multifamily) alone, with 100% ownership? Wouldn't the cash flow, principle paydown, and appreciation be similar, just spread out over more deals? Wouldn't you have the same amount of equity invested/created, just spread out over 10 small deals instead of 1 large deal? Am I forgetting an important piece of this puzzle?
I would love to hear from investors who have done BOTH small deals and large deals to see how they weigh the pros and cons.
Why I'm asking:
I'm new to investing with less than 12 units. I feel the urge to partner with other investors and purchase a larger deal (something like an 8-16 unit) to scale faster. But I've played around with the numbers, and it seems like I would get the same return by just buying more units alone, and not giving up any control of those units (the ability to sell, re-fi, renovate, etc. without needing permission from partners).
