Quote from @Joe Villeneuve:
Quote from @Jacob Trogan:
Quote from @Patrick P.:
I am soon going to receive a decently large cash sum (~3 Mil USD) from a company buy-out in a tech company. There are a lot of ways in my head that I have thought about investing this in real-estate.
Is it more efficient to buy the houses in cash, and then use that rental income to take out additional mortgage, or would it make more sense to pay 15-20%, may a mortgage, but then buy more asset.
One thing to note, is I carry a mortgage on my primary residence of $248,000, but have a stupid low rate on it (1.875% ARM 7/1 that is only in year 1) and I just closed on a flip/remodel that I will have a $325,000 mortgage on that I intend to flip within 4 months.
I am very new to this, so any tips/tricks on Tax assistance, and how to assess what a property would rent for, would be of great assistance.
You are in a position where you should pay 100s or 1000s which is a drop in the bucket for yourself for professional tax advice. The tax benefits of real estate largely seem to be ignored here on BP because most people who need those benefits are high income earners or high net worth individuals which YOU are and 99% of people on this forum are not. Lots more to real estate than just cash flow at your level. If you could buy enough property without any leverage (so in cash) to create enough cashflow to pay for your living expenses that may be my advice. That would be super low headache and allow you to work full time in whatever is your passion which may be your current tech job. Really for anything of substance you need to elaborate more.
As for your question there is not even a debate if you want to grow and expand your portfolio significantly. Leverage is always the option. Buy with 20-30% down to limit risk and don't leverage more than that. If whatever you buy cashflows with margin for repairs/capex saved up who cares if some call it risky to leverage.
Do you understand what risk is in the case of REI properties?
There are three parts to it:
1 - What is at risk. This is always the same thing in every deal, and what too many think is at risk, isn't what's at risk.
2 - Who is at risk. This always comes from the person in the funding that is running the risk of losing what's at risk.
3 - Who is the risk. This is always the person that the person who is at risk is taking the risk on.
Now, in a REI property, who/what are the three parts of Risk above.
I'll bite, opportunity to learn here, when I say risk I define it as a liquidity problem which is a common problem I see as a HML lender (cash is king).
I personally try to leverage as much as possible and not have any of my own money in a deal because of my personal goasl/risk tolerance. So what I mean specifically for him as a risk is if he were to buy a bunch of properties leveraged 99% somehow with his 3 million and then his monthly gross incomes were not able to support that debt service due to Capex or vacancies or whatever he would then be paying out of his own pocket to support holding onto the property. At the large dollar amounts he is talking about that would probably be unsustainable to support from his own pocket. What most people would then do in that case is sell the property (maybe even at a discount) to liquidate and have cash once again. So specifically the risk I had in mine was a lack of cash on hand. This lack would result from not having sufficient cash reserves.
The biggest risk I see when it comes to real estate is not having the cash on hand to support expenses of holding a property. If the person doesn't want to hold the property and instead sell, their lack of cash is not a risk but an opportunity. But usually people want to choose when they can sell a property and therefore want to have the cash to pay for any expenses for a property until they want to sell.
So anyways what are the three parts of risk?