One of the ideas I have seen floating around with regards to personal finance is to maximise your
cashflow, and properties (real estate) are advocated as a major generator for doing it. How valid is this claim?
The central tenet behind this idea is to leverage your money by using a mortgage. Suppose you purchase a house for $10,000 and got a mortgage on it for $9,000, then all you have to pay is $1,000 (excluding various handling charges). Not only that, but you can rent the house out to cover your payments on the mortgage. All that looks very good on paper.
The Breakeven PointFor the example above, suppose your monthly mortgage payment is $100. You need to rent the house out for $100 to cover this expense. Therefore, it can only generate a positive
cashflow for you if you can rent it out for more than $100 a month.
The rental market is a perfectly competitive market, more or less. You are up against others offering similar houses for rent in the same area. There is no brand name or other such considerations here. I realise that there isn't an infinite (or nearly so) supply of houses in any given area, which makes the situation more favourable to property owners. Yet the amount you can rent a house for is still tied to the local and national economy and there is no guarantee that you can even reach the
breakeven point.
When the economy is booming, rent goes up and you are likely to generate a positive
cashflow from your property investment. On the other hand, During an economic downturn, it is likely that you are going to make a net loss, even with lower interest rates. The whole point of this is
property (real estate) is not a reliable cashflow generator as you are at the mercy of conditions out of your control.
Other FactorsProperties are expensive investments. When I checked last time the average price for a house in the United States is $200,000. Even when you can secure a 90%
prime mortgage your initial payment is still $20,000. If your objective is to rent the place you probably need to look at areas where rental rate is high, which translates into more expensive price tags.
Return on Investment. Say you manage to rent your $200,000 house for $1,000 a month. That's $12,000 a year, which translates to an ROI of 6%. That's not bad, but you can find better vehicles for the cool $200,000. The calculations with a mortgage is a lot more complicated. You get to pay much less upfront, but you also get much less each month - if any, and you end up paying more.
A mortgage is a loan with interest that you need to eventually pay back. As a result, it is only wise to do so if what you stand to gain is more than the interest you need to pay. The property may appreciate enough for that to happen, which makes any positive
cashflow you may get icing on the cake. Then again, it may not. At any rate, this is a different consideration.
Other VehiclesIgnoring any
appreciation you may get in property value, there are other vehicles for generating a positive
cashflow.
Stocks. Stocks in public
utilities tend to carry a high dividend. Pick your stocks well and you also benefit from long term compounded growth.
Fixed-term deposits. Fixed-term deposits, or their counterparts in the US
CDs (certificates of deposit) usually carry a high interest rate. I have seen rates as high as 20% or even 30%!
ConclusionIf you are looking for ways to create passive income, you can look elsewhere. Properties are expensive and unreliable as a source of income. There are better alternatives.