daveto
Active Member
Thanks once again for your replies.
Not sure what you mean - the $120k would return 10%. I suppose I could keep it in the bank at 2% or buy dividend stocks at 5%, but every investment has an opportunity cost.
Agree - I think this is the kicker. The first 5 years are cashflow positive and quite profitable, but the biggest risk in this "deal" is years 5-10.
It's only relevant for getting a mortgage refinancing. The Bank won't lend me $410k on a property that's worth less than that. Prices have to fall massively for this to be the case.
Don't disagree with any of your math here. I suppose if I wanted to "juice" the return, I could pull equity our at year 5 and refinance at an LTV of 80%. But mortgage rates will be higher then, and depending on rent increases, the return may not be as good.
For me this would be buy and hold. I assume prices are flat.
To be honest, one of the appealing bits about an investment like this is being able to borrow money at 3%, eg, inflation level. It's free money.
Hard to argue with this. Wish I had a time machine and could go back to 2009 to buy instead. Though that's when this thread was created, oddly enough.
I'd say the cheap money is the best part!
Indeed, this is the very sort of analysis I'm doing now.
Ok, let's try this a different way.
Lets say that the mortgage rate remains at 3% indefinately.
And lets say you pay 0% income tax on the revenue net of expenses (remember, principal paydown is not an "expense" for tax)
And let's say you follow your buy and hold strategy indefinately.
And lets say that prices are flat (net of inflation) indefinately, as are rents.
And your excess cashflow is used to cover all maintenance/vacancie (1% of the house value is standard for this)
And you place zero cash value on the DIY labour that you spend on this over that time.
So after 25 years, you own a $600k asset. This comes from $120k making 6.6% net of inflation, compounded for 25 years.
So then what happens? You are now earning revenue of $27k on an asset of $600k. A return of 4.5%. Not so great. And you only got here with a 3% mortgage rate guaranteed for 25 years, and no taxes.
Sure, you'll just say "well, I would re-leverage at some point". But this is exactly my point. You're only making money on this "investment" because the bank is indeed "giving it away" and you're making money on the spread between your income and that 3%, (and then ignoring the tax considerations). And they're only giving it away because that what the US Fed and the Bank of Canada are doing. And when that merry-go-round stops?
Think if it this way. Why does the bank need you? Why don't they just buy the house themselves?