And I would argue that looking at annual yields factoring in principal paydown is misleading, as part of that yield (the cash) can be compounded while part of that yield (the non-cash benefits) cannot be.If you want to include principal paydown in your yield metrics, I would suggest using IRR or ROE metrics instead. 

The general rule is that if ROI is greater than the interest rate you pay then leverage gives you higher ROE.

There are some interesting ideas, but there are some faults in thinking too:1) While your ROE is low, this is due to the large equity, NOT the low return.  

ROE = $477 * 12 = $5,724 / $20,000 = 28.62%. 

My question is in regards to continue to own the property even when the ROE (return on equity).

I take responsibility for my reference to the case and with hindsight, it would've been helpful for non-Washington State readers to know that overturning an amendment isn't "easy relief", regardless of the Filmore case.However, I wouldn't be so quick to discount the case's merits just because the Internet's legal scholars aren't discussing it.  

I'm still only investing in my backyard and there is definitely something to be said for being able to watch over your asset, even if your ROE isn't very good.

The deal could of course be structured in other ways to allow you to lower your debt required, but it will also likely decrease your ROE because you'll be using less leverage.   

Probably not if you had $1M to invest.My point is, spend some time learning the different ways to understand returns in real estate (ROI, ROE, IRR, cash flow per door) and how real estate earns income in various ways (tax losses, appreciation, tenant mortgage paydown, etc.).

Most big businesses did not approve, but none left, laws like it got overturned by the Supreme Court, and now gay marriage is legal in North Carolina, and nationwide.