Real Estate Investors: A Simple Way To Increase Your Capital Growth

Posted @ 9:54 pm - Filed under BawldGuy Axiom, Buying Income Property, Capital Growth, Financing, Investment Lessons, Purposeful Planning, Retirement

Before we start today, allow me an observation. Over the years, I’ve noticed when confronted with simple concepts, some folks act as if they’ve always known about them, and have applied the concepts in question often. Bull Pucky. (Excuse my French) There are any number of these simple and reliable realities we use when analyzing properties or scenarios. Financing is one of the obviously more important factors in any real estate investment. So let’s go over how an itty bitty modification here and there can mean literally six figures in less time than you might imagine.

Let’s look at what would happen if a real estate investor, whose Purposeful Plan calls for capital growth, makes one simple tweak in their loan terms. And yeah, I know it’s so simple it’s basic, but when was the last time you applied it? Yeah, thought so.

There was a time back in the 80’s when tweakin’ loan terms for a client’s transaction made the difference on a couple levels. First, it made the deal possible, as the lender wasn’t gonna do it ’till I came up with terms that worked for everyone. Second, the terms themselves put more money into my client’s hands during his holding period.

The bonus? Dad finally realized I knew which way was north on the real estate investment map. :) He was never an investment guy, so after that transaction came together against all odds, he finally became a believer. So did his friends, who also happened to be buddies of the bank president whose mind was changed by my numbers. Who knew?

Let’s talk about how some of today’s realities can be turned into a wheelbarrow full of equity for ya.

Let’s say you’re lookin’ at a small income property with a Net Operating Income of $18,500. (NOI = Gross Scheduled Income, (GSI) minus Vacancies and Operating Expenses. It should always be expressed as an annual figure.) Note: Loan payments are not operating expenses.

The property in question will cost you $250,000 and you’ll be puttin’ 20% down to a new 80% fixed rate loan. The interest rate is 7%. The problem? The underwriters won’t lend to you ‘cuz you already own a few investment properties. Now what? You go to what’s known as a portfolio lender, one who isn’t beholden to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac guidelines. Why? Simple — they’re not gonna sell the loans to either of those government entities. Since it’s their money, it’s their rules, their loan terms.

What happens when they say the loan must have a 20 year amortization rate? No way!! you say with all the righteous indignation you can muster. That eliminates all my cash flow. Let’s pause for a moment. You aren’t investing in this property for cash flow. Your Purposeful Plan has called for many years of capital growth before transitioning into a cash flow stance. Cash flow? Yer gonna torpedo a perfectly solid capital growth vehicle ‘cus the new loan terms eliminate a couple hundred a month? Really? Let’s take a look.

These new terms eliminate about $2,500 cash flow yearly, $12,600 over a 5 year holding period.

The 20 year schedule leaves you with a loan balance of roughly $15,700 less than the 30 year approach. Use whatever analysis you wish, but you ain’t gonna invest your paltry $200 a month for an annual return of almost 11%. You simply are not. And, since your cash flow is now going toward principal pay down, it’s not subject to taxation. Even if you did manage to earn 11%+ on your annual cash flow, it’ll be taxed big time.

($2,500 per year at a little over 11% over 5 years will get ya about $15,700 or so.)

Let’s say, like so many of our clients, you’re gonna buy four small income properties. No matter what they sell for at the end of the 5 year holding period, you’ve now found yourself with about $63,000 additional exchangeable equity. But, you ask, how does that compare to the 30 year loan with the cash flow? So glad you asked.

$2,500 annual cash flow invested at an after tax rate of 4% each year for the entire holding period comes out to approximately $13,700. But wait, you bought four properties, right? So that would be around $55,000, rounding up. Yer still down $8,000 over the holding period if you went for the cash flow. Also, keep in mind your primary purpose for investing in these properties in the first place.

Capital Growth.

BawldGuy Axiom: More is better than less. Sooner is better than later. And more sooner is much mo betta.

The Takeaway: This exercise isn’t to point out that you’ve made a whopping $8,000 extra during the holding period. That’s hardly worth the effort. The point here is that most folks woulda walked away, cursing under their breath about the dang lender forcing them to miss out on a great opportunity. Wanna see the person who cost you that opportunity? Gotta be a mirror some place, right?

Taking the modified loan terms not only got you a boatload of capital growth, it allowed you to make the investment — period. Where would you have been if you’d waited for the terms you wanted? In 5 years you’d a been $1-200,000 poorer than you coulda, woulda, shoulda been.

And for the record? My experience with clients and small amounts of monthly cash flow, says that money had a shelf life of a super-sized #4 at Carl’s Jr. People promise themselves they’ll do what they know is the right thing, but sadly, the reality isn’t always a match. Just sayin’. Again, Bull Pucky. Over time, so many investors lower their own bar when it comes to spending cash flow. After all, they’ve earned it, right? I’ve heard all the perfectly reasonable sounding explanations for mysteriously missing cash flow. Bottom line? It was miraculously converted into steam. It’s long gone.

Go with the new loan and its modified terms. Your retirement will thank you in so many ways, and for a long, long time. I’ll thank you for the chance to chat. Let’s get together and figure out what makes sense for your Purposefully Planned retirement. You know how much I like talkin’ to folks about their retirement plans. I need a fix. :) Have a good one.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 18th, 2008 at 9:54 pm and is filed under BawldGuy Axiom, Buying Income Property, Capital Growth, Financing, Investment Lessons, Purposeful Planning, Retirement. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

10 comments to “Real Estate Investors: A Simple Way To Increase Your Capital Growth”

Joshua on November 19th, 2008 at 9:31 am said:

  • Wow, I can’t believe you don’t charge us for this knowledge. For the low low price of only $5k or so you can attend any of the “latest hotshot real estate seminars” anywhere in the country and not learn a penance of what we learn here on a daily basis.

BawldGuy on November 19th, 2008 at 9:48 am said:

  • Much appreciated, Josh. You remind me of a seminar I attended over 20 years ago. The guy was offering books and tapes, or would coach an investor 1 on 1 for a fee requiring a comma.

    There was a Q&A session in which I asked him if he would explain the difference between the various loan rates and terms and their impacts on the investor.

    After doing a few nonsensical laps, he said the answer would take too long and was ‘too sophisticated’ for this seminar. You’d think those guys would’ve gone the way of cars without seat belts, but they’re still not only around, but flourishing.

Joshua on November 19th, 2008 at 10:24 am said:

  • I wish they would. In fact, I’ve been watching some of the shows (mostly for the entertainment factor) about flipping houses. They seem successful, interesting, and enjoy what they do but when you go to their site it’s nothing but a scam feel. Maybe their web developers aren’t doing them justice but underneath the highly developed facade of their TV personalities it looks like they are really scamming behind the scenes. Can you say Than Merrill or Armando Montelongo?

    I’ve learned that those who are already successful seem to share their knowledge freely and charge where appropriate if at all.

BawldGuy on November 19th, 2008 at 10:41 am said:

  • Josh — Last week I met with a very sharp guy who’s considering a separate venture (not flipping) with Armando Montelongo.

    His personal opinion of the guy, based upon his own first hand observations is that Amando’s TV persona is nothing like his real world personality. I believe him. Like you though, I don’t think his on air impression serves him well.

Ned Carey on November 21st, 2008 at 10:23 pm said:

  • I never thought of it that way before. Although I want properties that cash flow, I haven’t taken any money out of my rental company. Profits going to equity isn’t as big a penalty as I might have originally thought.

    One correction, you said:
    >And, since your cash flow is now going toward principal pay down, it’s not subject to taxation.

    Actually that is taxable income. You only deduct the interest portion of your mortgage payment, The part that goes to principal is taxable

BawldGuy on November 22nd, 2008 at 9:38 am said:

  • Hey Ned — One correction, you said:
    >And, since your cash flow is now going toward principal pay down, it’s not subject to taxation.

    The way I wrote that could of been better worded.

    The ‘cash flow’ in that sentence wasn’t cash flow literally. I would’ve been IF the amort schedule had indeed been 30 instead of 20 years.

    When I said “…it’s not subject to taxation” there should have been an explanatory parenthesis there, which would’ve said, “As long as the investor deferred his taxes instead of selling and PAYING cap gain taxes.”

    With the exchange the increased equity produced by the shorter term amort schedule would not have been subject to taxation. I wrote that paragraph poorly. Good catch. :)

    Also, remember the premise of the post: The investor really didn’t have a choice on which amort schedule was to be used. I was illustrating why they shouldn’t walk away.

    I didn’t understand one comment you made. You said you liked having cash flow, but had never taken any money out of your properties. I’m not sure I get the gist of what you’re saying there.

    Don’t be a stranger, OK?

Ned Carey on November 22nd, 2008 at 11:30 am said:

  • BawldGuy,

    Hmmm, were not connecting, let me try again.
    Even with an exchange the money that goes toward principal IS taxable. It is taxable as passive income, it is not taxable as part of your gain when you sell. Let me give you a very simplified example.

    You have rental income of $1000 a month, Lets say your only expenses are A $1000 a month mortgage payment. (yes, I know that’s not realistic but I’m trying to keep it simple.) IF the mortgage payment is $950 in interest and $50 towards principal, you would have $50 a month in taxable income. The interest is deductible, the principal amount is not.

    Now I greatly simplified things and in the real world depreciation would likely cover the principal amount and you would have other expenses. However it is important to understand that principal payments are taxable. A large deal could be structured so that you have taxable income, without real income to cover it.(bummer)

    > You said you liked having cash flow, but had never taken any money out of your properties.

    My properties are held in an LLC. The rents and other income are reinvested in other assets to grow the company. I haven’t taken any money out of the company. (although I have had to pay taxes on that money).

    Shorter amortization schedules lend themselves to my goal which is build equity and a solid balance sheet. So you point is well taken.

BawldGuy on November 22nd, 2008 at 11:41 am said:

  • Ned — I’m crackin’ up, cuz we’re like two trains on parallel tracks, never to meet. :)

    Not one iota of this post has a thing to do with receiving income that includes principal. That’s another topic form a completely different chapter. Cash flow is cash flow and though your point about interest vs principal deductions is, of course accurate. it simply doesn’t apply in my post. We are talkin’ about different things.

    This is NO principal in cash flow from income properties, only from payments made TO you from a note. I’m gettin’ a headache here. :)

    Thanks again.

Ned Carey on November 22nd, 2008 at 1:25 pm said:

  • > I’m crackin’ up, cuz we’re like two trains on parallel tracks, never to meet

    Have you ever had this happen? Two people are arguing and both are gesturing and ferverently trying to make the other side understand their point. They are both quite emotional and are frustrated that the other doesn’t get it. Being a passive observer, you suddenly realize they are both arguing the same point of view, they are just saying it differently.

    Kinda like that, huh?

    Ned

BawldGuy on November 22nd, 2008 at 2:01 pm said:

  • Exactly. :) Dad and I took it to the level of high art.

Leave a Reply

Copyright © 2006-2009 Brown and Brown Investment Properties - All Rights Reserved.
WordPress Theme designed by SeanHQ.com