@Joe Villeneuve
If that’s how you like to invest go for it! I just think it’s flawed thinking and more risky... I used to think the same way but have changed my mind.
Debt is risk, because you don’t own the property, the lender does. If they call the note due, or your tenant stops paying and you default, the bank forecloses and you lose your equity and the house.
Now, yes it’s slower but your argument of building a larger portfolio quicker is also flawed. You can use 100k to buy one house or buy 5 with 100k down and 400k in loans. The paid for house will let’s say cash flow 1000 a month and the leveraged houses let’s say 200/month. You get the same 1000, but no risk of foreclosure and your net worth is higher in the first scenario. So while you might build a 500 million dollar portfolio with debt, you will owe 480 million to the bank, and your net worth will be negative. If you own the properties outright, you keep all the cash flow, have zero risk, still make about 10-12% on your money. You don’t lose money by buying the house, it’s just not liquid. Plus, you aren’t paying interest. Some argue the tenets are paying the interest, but nonetheless, the mortgage cuts into your cash flow.
I realize my idea is very contrary to what a lot of people preach and do. I just think there is more than one way, and it’s a good idea to understand multiple methodologies.