NoRegretsCoyote
Registered User
- Messages
- 5,766
It's about degree, not the principle. If you had 20% debt across a portfolio you have close to zero risk of negative equity or not being able to meet your repayments.if I understand it correctly? So say turn 2M into 3M and then in the long run I have more property once the debts are paid off? I decided against it, firstly because I'm kind of adverse to risk after seeing what happen my father during the 2008 crash. He was quite wealthy but ended up losing it all and almost the family home which the bank had a lean on. So that shaped my outlook on business strategy in life.
But the second reason is that along with the fact I like to be debt free, if I buy the property for cash and therefore all the rental income is coming straight to me and not paying off a mortgage, then I will earn back the money required to buy another property a lot faster anyway.
Not really. If your gross yield is greater than your cost of finance then the bank's money is going the work for you. Suppose you have €1m and properties yield 10%. You can opt to borrow another €500k or not. For simplicity I assume no maintenance costs
No debt | Debt at 33% of portfolio | ||
Equity | 1,000,000 | 1,000,000 | |
Debt | 0 | 500,000 | |
Value of portfolio | 1,000,000 |
| |
Gross rental income @10% yield | 100,000 | 150,000 | |
Cost of debt@6% | 0 | 30,000 | |
Net rental profit | 100,000 | 120,000 | |
You take on some risk but you get an extra 20% profit. Potential for more CGT gains as well. It all depends on your risk tolerance. For me anything above 50% leverage on a rental property is too risky. 2004-2008 era saw landlords take on 100% interest-only mortgages which was madness both from borrower and lender perspective.
Last edited: