Should I sell a 2nd home, or rent it out?
"So here are some of the risks of renting a property: Plus the ""normal"" risk of losing your job, health, etc., but those are going to be bad whether you had the rental or not, so those aren't really a factor. Can you beat the average gain of the S&P 500 over 10 years?  Probably, but there's significant risk that something bad will happen that could cause the whole thing to come crashing down. How many months can you go without the rental income before you can't pay all three mortgages? Is that a risk you're willing to take for $5,000 per year or less?   If the second home was paid for with cash, AND you could pay the first mortgage with your income, then you'd be in a much better situation to have a rental property.  The fact that the property is significantly leveraged means that any unfortunate event could put you in a serious financial bind, and makes me say that you should sell the rental, get your first mortgage paid down as soon as possible, and start saving cash to buy rental property if that's what you want to invest in. I think we could go at least 24 months with no rental income Well that means that you have about $36k in an emergency fund, which makes me a little more comfortable with a rental, but that's still a LOT of debt spread across two houses.   Another way to think about it:  If you just had your main house with a $600k mortgage (and no HELOC), would you take out a $76k HELOC and buy the second house with a $200k mortgage?" "If it was me, I would sell the house and use the proceeds to work on/pay off the second.   You don't speak to your income, but it must be pretty darn healthy to convince someone to lend you ~$809K on two homes.  Given this situation, I am not sure what income I would have to have to feel comfortable.  I am thinking around 500K/year would start to make me feel okay, but I would probably want it higher than that. think I can rent out the 1st house for $1500, and after property management fees, take home about $435 per month. That is not including any additional taxes on that income, or deductions based on repair work, etc. So this is why.  Given that your income is probably pretty high, would something less than $435 really move your net worth needle?  No.  It is worth the reduction in risk to give up that amount of ""passive"" income.  Keeping the home opens you up to all kinds of risk.  Your $435 per month could easily evaporate into something negative given taxes, likely rise in insurance rates and repairs.  You have a great shovel to build wealth there is no reason to assume this kind of exposure.  You will become wealthy if you invest and work to reduce your debt." I kind of hate piling on with another opinion, but this is too long for a comment. I did what you are thinking of doing, I would at least try renting it for a couple years so long as: The primary risks of renting are mostly related to unexpected costs and bad tenants, you've got a very healthy income, so as long as you maintain a nice emergency fund it doesn't sound like keeping this property as a rental will be too much risk. If the rental market is strong where your house is, then you have a better chance of avoiding bad tenants. I like to keep my rent a little lower than the max I think it could go for, to attract more applications and hopefully find someone who will be a good longer term tenant. Tax-free gains So long as you lived in your house 2 of the last 5 years, you can sell without paying capital gains tax on your profit, so you could try renting it for 2 years and then sell. That was a key for me when I converted my first house to a rental. I liked that flexibility, there's still the typical renting risks associated, but it's not a lifelong commitment. You can get 2 years of increased equity/appreciation tax-free, or you could find you enjoy it and keep it for the long haul. It sounds like you plan to sell sooner or later. If your opinion is that there is still room for the housing market to grow, make your bet and sell later. The real estate market is much less liquid than other markets you might be invested in, so if you do end up seeing trouble (another housing crash) you may be stuck with your investment for longer than you hoped. I see more risk renting the house out, but I don't see significantly more reward. If you are comfortable with the risk, by all means proceed with your plan to rent.  My opinion is contrary to many others here who think real estate investments are more desirable because the returns are less abstract (you can collect the rent directly from your tenants) but all investments are fraught with their own risks. If you like putting in a little sweat equity (doing your own repairs when things break at your rental) renting may be a good match for you. I prefer investments that don't require as much attention, and index funds certainly fit that bill for me. One piece of information you didn't mention is how much you paid for the original home.  If you hold onto that home for too long you will have to pay capital gains on the difference between sale price and original price. This can be a TON of money, thousands of dollars easily. The rule is: If you lived in a home for 2 out of the past 5 years, you don't have to pay the capital gains tax. So  if you just moved, you have 3 years to sell.  Perhaps as a compromise you can try renting it for 3 years and then selling it a few months before the deadline. Option A - you sell the house and then use the money to pay off a portion of your second mortgage. The return on that investment is 5.5% a year, or $1925 net. Option B - you rent it out, that will bring  you $5220 (435 x 12), more than 2.5 times option A. That's not counting any money going towards the principal of the loan. Given that you'll be using a property management company, you can be fairly certain that there won't be any unexpected expenses (credit check, security deposit should take care of that) Option C - you invest the money somewhere else. You'll have to get 15% return in order to beat option B. I don't think that's sustainable.  You should talk to a CPA about the tax implications, but I'm fairly certain that you'll do better tax wise to rent it out, since you can use depreciation to lower your tax bill.  Finally, where do you think real estate prices will be in 4 years? If you think they'll increase that's another reason to hold onto the property and rent it.  Finally finally, if you plan to rent it out long term (over 4 years), it will be a good idea to refinance and lock the current interest rate. "Another factor is, how far is your prospective rental property from where you live? vs. how comprehensive is your property management service?  If you need to visit much or would simply like to keep an eye on it, a couple of hours drive could be a deal breaker. One more thought; would you be able to upgrade the property at a profit when it comes time to sell?  If you have a realtor you trust he or she should be able to tell you if, say a $20k kitchen reno would reliably return more than $20k. It has a lot to do with the property's relative price position in the neighborhood.  A cheaper home has more ""upsell"" room." If you can generate a higher ROI by renting than by cashing out and investing, then you should rent it out. Please consider your risk tolerance as well. It's always a personal decision whether to assume higher risk for a higher return. I don't see anything in this forum on the leverage aspect, so I'll toss that out for discussion.  Using generic numbers, say you make a $10k down payment on a $100,000 house. The house appreciates 3% per year. First year, it's $103,000. Second year, $106090, third it's 109,272.70. (Assuming straight line appreciation.) End of three years, you've made $9,272.70 on your initial $10,000 investment, assuming you have managed the property well enough to have a neutral or positive cash flow. You can claim depreciation of the property over those rental years, which could help your tax situation.   Of course, if you sell, closing costs will be a big factor. Plus... after three years, the dreaded capital gains tax jumps in as mentioned earlier, unless you do a 1031 exchange to defer it. Heres what you need to know: This can be prevented by what a previous renter did to us. This is a smart, kind of a jerky way to do it but its VERY SMART, as long as your property is worth it, raise the rent higher. You must have a very nice, clean, everything working, house. You must be willing to have anything fixed. this is all to make up the high rent. You don't want the rent way out of proportion but just a bit higher. This is because, more than likely, people who are going to pay for a higher rent don't usually leave a mess, (higher class families vs lower class people living alone..) What might also help from the risk of damage is create a fee (also what my renter did) of any painting needed done like finger prints on the wall, nails in the wall, carpet stains, etc when the tenant is ready to move out. I would suggest a required professional carpet cleaning as well when lease is up. My renter was very nice, but very strict and did all these things. He has a few properties that are very nice middle class houses. Your home sounds like it could easily pass for this kind of business depending on where you live. If the tenant leaves before his lease is up you could charge a 1-2 month's rent to be able to find a new tenant. Be proactive on finding a tenant before the lease is up.  This would be a bit of work to first set up and usually maintain, but its a good thing to think about.
In most cases my preference would be to buy. However, if you intend to sell after just one year I would maybe lean towards renting. You haven't included buying and selling cost into your equation nor any property taxes, and as John Bensin suggests, maintenance costs. If you were looking to hold the property for at least 5 years, 10 years or more, then if the numbers stood up, I would defiantly go with the buy option. You can rent it out after you move out and if the rent is higher than your total expenses in holding the property, you could rely on some extra passive income. Should I treat this house as a second home or a rental property on my 2015 taxes? If it was not rented out or available for rent then you could treat it as your second home. But if it was available for rent (i.e.: you started advertising, you hired a property manager, or made any other step towards renting it out), but you just didn't happen to find a tenant yet - then you cannot. So it depends on the facts and circumstances. I've read that if I treat this house as a rental property, then the renovation cost is a capital expenditure that I can claim on my taxes by depreciating it over 28 years. That is correct. 27.5 years, to be exact. I've also read that if I treat this house as a personal second home, then I cannot do that because the renovation costs are considered non-deductible personal expenses. That is not correct. In fact, in both cases the treatment is the same. Renovation costs are added to your basis. In case of rental, you get to depreciate the house. Since renovations are considered part of the house, you get to depreciate them too. In case of a personal use property, you cannot depreciate. But the renovation costs still get added to the basis. These are not expenses. But does mortgage interest get deducted against my total income or only my rental income? If it is a personal use second home - you get to deduct the mortgage interest up to a limit on your Schedule A. Depending on your other deductions, you may or may not have a tax benefit. If it is a rental - the interest is deducted from the rental income only on your Schedule E. However, there's no limit (although some may be deferred if the deduction is more than the income) if you're renting at fair market value. Any guidance would be much appreciated! Here's the guidance: if it is a rental - treat it as a rental. Otherwise - don't. "The perceived risk depends on the entire situation, but often it is considered more risk, especially if you want to occupy yourself. Things you need to consider: It can be very difficult to show a property with tenants occupying it. There are many reasons for this and most homes show / sell better empty. I have found many tenants make it difficult on the seller. Leaving their areas a mess, being unaccommodating and especially in markets that are flooded with options, a lot of buyers just won't bother with the difficulty of scheduling a showing in occupied properties. I've tried to purchase many properties where the renter insists on being there during a showing, but won't open the door and there's no recourse for the landlord because his lease or laws in the area don't allow you to enter without permission. Also, it can be difficult to look past a lot of clutter and other people's decorating and aroma ""preferences"" to be kind. :) Is the property currently under lease and what is the period of that lease? It could be that the lease is month to month, or it could be years remaining on the lease period. It is likely a legal requirement in most areas that you honor the existing lease. I would never buy a property that has multiple years remaining. While some amateur landlords will allow 2 or even 5 year leases, this is a very bad idea for many reasons! What are laws like in your area for evicting tenants? You should know this regardless of whether or not you intend to occupy or keep it a rental. It can be a very difficult process evicting tenants and this process is vastly different from country to country and state to state here in the USA. Look into the security deposit - assuming there is one. How much is the deposit? Will it cover damage that may not exist yet? Don't think that just because you plan on evicting them soon, it isn't important. People can trash a place on the way out and an expensive lawsuit could be your only recourse. It is far easier to take a deposit than sue. I would absolutely demand that the deposit transfer to you upon sale. View the current renters with a fresh eye. Especially if you are considering leave it a rental, look into all of the typical requirements: Their monthly income, their credit history, their criminal record, their payment history, their references. Are they likely to be good or terrible renters? If you're interested in the property, consider an offer which requires the current landlord to evict within the time-frame of the buy/sell agreement. This isn't an uncommon requirement. I think the first thing to do is go look at the property and see if you can determine for yourself why it hasn't sold yet. Properties all have different reasons for not selling in a reasonable time to the local market. Having renters alone in most markets shouldn't be that big of a factor. I would suspect bad smells, nasty renters, or an unfavorable lease agreement exists." "I'd probably say ""buy"" for most situations. Unless you have a long-term lease, you're going to be saddled with elastic/rising rents if the market tightens up, while with a purchase you usually have fixed expenses (with the exception of property taxes/condo fees) and you are gaining equity. As I've gotten older, the prospect of moving is more and more daunting. The prospect of being essentially kicked out of my home when the landlord decides to sell the property or raise the rent is a turn-off to me." "I think you may have a significant misunderstanding here.  You have been renting your property out for two years, now.  There is no special ""roommate"" clause in the tax code; roommates are renters, and the rent they pay is rental income.  (If they were roommates in a property you both rented from a third party, that would be different.) See publication 527, chapter 4 for more details on the subject (search on ""Renting Part of Property"").  You should be: You may also consider ""Not renting for profit"" section, which may be closer to what you're actually thinking - of changing from ""Renting not for profit"" to ""Renting for profit"".  Not rented for profit means you can report on your 1040 as opposed to filing Schedule E, but it does mean you have to actually not make a profit (and remember, some of the money that goes to paying the mortgage is not deductible on this side of things since it's your property and you'll get that money back, presumably, when you sell it). If that is what you're asking about, it sounds like it's just a matter of money.  Are you going to start making money?  Or, are you going to start making enough significant upgrades/etc. to justify the tax deduction?  You should consider the actual, specific numbers carefully, probably with the help of a CPA who is familiar with this sort of situation, and then make the decision that gives you the best outcome (keeping in mind that there may be long-term impacts of switching from not-for-profit to for-profit rental treatment)." Buy a rental property instead. You get tax benefits as well as passive income. And it pays for itself You may be in a situation where buying is preferred, especially because you can enter the market in a strong position - with a 20% down payment.  If you have the financial ability to assume the risk of owning, you may be better off.  I would consider two things.  Renting is purchasing a service. You are buying the flexibility to move with minimum hassle and the landlord is assuming the risk of owning the asset (property). They will make money on you, like any service provider. Buying is purchasing an asset. You are buying the underlying asset and assume all the risks associated with it. This is large, unforeseen maintenance, fees, taxes, depreciation, etc... Some of these risks were passed to you as a renter, but some were not.  Just like purchasing $400k in stock, if you have to sell when the market is down, you lose big. You win if you can hold. Unlike a stock, real estate will eat your cash in taxes and repairs unless it is rented. If you are willing to be a long-distance landlord, this may work out. Understand that property management fees will eat into your rent income and being long-distance will give more potential for a bad tenant to ruin your property value. These and other factors (e.g. vacancy rate) will increase your risk of loss and should be considered. Some of this will be your preference, since you will spend much more time dealing with buying/selling/property management as opposed to a more clean rental situation. Is this hassle worth the savings? For many, yes; others, no. Finally, I hope this calculator can help clarify some of the financial aspects for you.  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html?_r=0 Good Luck! It depends where you are going to live and how you are going to pay for your new accommodation. If you are moving within the UK and intend to buy another house you run into the problem that you will find it hard to get a second mortgage. If you rent out the house in Kent you will probably have to change the mortgage basis on it to a mortgage that allows for letting - normal residential mortgages exclude that entirely - which would allow you to take out a residential mortgage. It depends how much equity you have in the house. If most of the value of the house is mortgaged then you'll (1) find it hard to re mortgage on a commercial mortgage (2) may find it hard to cover the costs by letting and (3) are very sensitive to house prices falling. Also bear in mind that for the past three months in a row, house prices in the UK have mostly either stagnated or fallen... so you cannot guarantee any increase in value of the house in Kent. What I'm saying is ... there is no crystal ball that will tell you what's financially the best thing to do. Talk to estate agents, find out how much the house would sell for / how much it would rent for. Talk to your mortgage lender and find out if they will let you rent it out. Talk to other mortgage lenders and find out how much a commercial mortgage would cost. Do the sums, find out if renting the house would cover the costs, in which case you can gamble on the housing market continuing to rise. Don't rely on house prices continuing to rise as they have done before. Certainly where I live due to the number of new houses being built and other economic issues house prices have fallen appreciably over the past few months and may well continue to fall as more and more new houses come on the market. To your secondary question: Appropriately consider all estimated numbers involved with keeping the house compared to your closest estimate of what the home could sell for. Weigh out the pros and cons yourself as a stranger will not be able to 100% appreciate what you value and dislike.  Remember to include insurances, taxes, HOA(s), and the actual mortgage payment. Depending on how you also plan to rent out the property, include whichever utilities you intend to cover (if any).  There will also be costs for property management and upkeep as things will break overtime and tenants will not hesitate to get you (or your management) to fix them, either way that means you are paying. I would also keep in mind while homes typically appreciate in value there is a higher risk with tenants for the value to depreciate to damages and poor upkeep.  There are increased legal risks to renting, so be sure you have properly vetted whichever management you are going with.  In extreme circumstances you also could be required to retain an attorney to defend yourself again litigation because whichever management team you hire will most likely defend themselves and not include you in that umbrella.  My family lives in the LA area as well and a judge refused to throw out an obvious frivolous suit when my parents attempted to rent out a house.  The possible renters after signing the main paperwork never showed to finish a second set of documents for renting.  Parents immediately declined to rent to these people as they missed something so important without any explanation and they sued claiming racism, emotional damages, and some other really crazy things despite my parents never having met them (first meeting was between property management and renters only). Personally and professionally, I would only suggest renting our the place and not selling if you can turn a profit after all the above mentioned costs. If renters are only paying to keep the property in the black you have yourself a non-earning asset which WILL be damaged over time and require repairs which will come out of your pocket.  Also, while the property is unoccupied you also must remember it is not earning at that time. Much of this may sound obvious, overcautious, etc... I simply wish to provide my family's experience to help you in making your decisions.   Best of luck with your endeavor. Edit:  Also, you will be required to report all earned rental income on your taxes. They will fall under the Schedule E and possibly K-1 area.  I would strongly recommend consulting with an actual accountant about the impacts to you. When looking at buying and selling, you really need to look at the overall picture for the short term. What would the closing cost be? Would you pay a buyers agent, or use the sellers? Loan generation fees? All of these would add up, and would affect you timeline adversely. You are currently comparing you rent, versus your plain mortgage and taxes. You're missing the losses you could possibly incur, if you do not stay int he home for the long term. You also have to rememberer the possibility of the property not renting long term, can you swing two mortgages? Or a mortgage and a rent check? Your calculations are good as far as they go, but there are lots of other factors and pros and cons to each decision. Yes, you should certainly compare the monthly rent to what your mortgage payments would be, as you have done. Yes, you should consider how long you might live there. If you do move out, how difficult will it be to sell the house, given market conditions in your area? If you try to rent it, how difficult is it to find a tenant, and what rent could you expect to receive? Speaking of moving out and renting the place: Who will manage the property and do maintenance? Would you still be close enough to do this yourself? Would you be willing and able to spend the time? Or would you have to hire someone? Also, what if the tenant does not pay the rent? How difficult is it to evict someone in your area? Speaking from personal experience, I own a rental property in Ohio, and the law says you can evict someone with 3 days notice. But in practice they don't just leave, so then you have to take them to court. It takes months to get a court date and months longer before the police actually show up to order them out of the house. And you have to pay the lawyer and court fees. In that time they're living in your property rent free. In my case one tenant also totally trashed the place and stole everything that wasn't nailed down -- I had to spend $13,000 on repairs to a house worth a fraction of what you're talking about. Being a landlord is NOT just a matter of sitting back and collecting rent checks: there's a fair amount of work and a lot of risk. What do you have to pay the realtor, and what other closing costs would you have to pay? Where I live, realtors typically charge 6 to 7%. You may also have to pay for an appraisal, title search, and bunch of other little fees. Mortgage interest is deductible on your federal income taxes. Rent is not. If you own and something needs to be repaired, you have to pay for it. If you rent, the landlord has to pay for it.  If you own, you can do pretty much what you like with the property -- subject to zoning ordinances and building codes and maybe homeowners association rules, but you should have a pretty good amount of leeway. If you want to install ceiling fans or remodel the kitchen or add a deck, it's up to you. If you're renting, it's up to the landlord to decide what you can do to the property. And if he agrees to let you do some upgrade, when you're done, it belongs to him. With a condo, you are not usually responsible for exterior maintenance, like mowing the lawn and trimming the bushes and washing the outer walls. With a house, you are. You might pay someone to do this, which adds to the cost, or you might do it yourself, which takes time. Insurance on a condo or aparment is much less than insurance on a house. In my area, anyway. You should investigate those costs. If you buy, eventually you own the place and don't have to pay a mortgage any more. If you rent, you continue to pay forever. (Even if you don't live in the same house forever, as long as you don't take a terrible loss when you sell you should then have some money left over to apply to the next house, so you are still building equity.) Some of these pros and cons are easily quantifiable. Others are probabilities, like how likely is it that your water heater will fail?, and how long is it likely to take to find a buyer if you want to sell? And others are pretty subjective. It is fine to think about options you may have when X to Y years down the road you move out of the condo. The reason you move may be kids, or job opportunities,  or a shorter commute, or wanting to move back to Germany. The thing is that nobody can tell you what the investment situation may be when you move out of the unit. You may want to sell, you may need to sell; but the market may say no way to sell and get back what you owe - so you have to become a landlord. Or the prices could go through the roof, and selling makes the most sense. In those ten years the local market could crater because the water system is full of lead (see Flint Michigan), or the biggest industry moves. Other bad things could be overbuilding so that there are too many condos on the market. On the good side the neighborhood could become the place that young people graduating college in the mid 2020s want to live. Of course you can't ask them because they are currently in 6th grade. Decide what make sense for you now. What is the likelihood that you will have to move in 2-3 years. What about 3-7 years.  I would only start evaluating the investment part if I had lived there awhile and now had to plan what to do when we are ready to move out a year or two from then. "Do you still enjoy living in your home? Can you afford the mortgage payments? Is there a reason for you to move, such as a relocation for work, or your third kid is on the way and your current house is already crowded with two? Those questions are more important than ""Is my home worth more than what I owe on it"". Ultimately, it's your home. You probably chose it for more than just its price, and those qualities should still make it valuable to you in some way beyond the monetary value which goes up and down with the market. You have a few options:" Because it appears you have in the neighborhood of 30 years remianing on your mortgage for the first house, If you can sell it you will likely be better off in the end.  While renting has the potential for greater income it is a business.  And like any business there are risks, expenses, and work required to make it successful.  There will be times where you can not find a renter immediately and will be responsible for making both payments, maintaining both houses, the insurance(which for an owner is higher for a rental property than a domicile), and paying the applicable taxes.   You need to look at your best and worst case numbers.  If your best case numbers leave you in the hole 300/month then that is not the sort of business you want to run.  Your investment should build your savings and retirement funds not deplete them.  Further you are more likely to fall between your best and worst case scenerios.  So you need to be able to thrive at that level.  If something in the middle is going to take you into bankruptcy then sell the property.  If you are not willing to put the time into your business that it will need (My rental home took about 10-30 hours a month despite renters being responsible for basic upkeep and maintenance.   Finally your plan B:  A home with 800k value will have higher costs and higer expenses and maintenance.  If the 800k home is the home you and your family needs then by all means go for it.  But if it can do just as well in the 450k Home then go there.  Pay the home off early by making the payments you would be making for the 800k home.  In this way you pay less in total cost of the home and set your self up for the greatest chance of success.  Once that home is paid off the break even point for renting goes way down as well.  So the rental option could be in the future.  I would just aviod it now if possible. "I'm a little confused on the use of the property today.  Is this place going to be a personal residence for you for now and become a rental later (after the mortgage is paid off)?  It does make a difference. If you can buy the house and a 100% LTV loan would cost less than 125% of comparable rent ... then buy the house, put as little of your own cash into it as possible and stretch the terms as long as possible.  Scott W is correct on a number of counts.  The ""cost"" of the mortgage is the after tax cost of the payments and when that money is put to work in a well-managed portfolio, it should do better over the long haul.  Don't try for big gains because doing so adds to the risk that you'll end up worse off. If you borrow money at an after-tax cost of 4% and make 6% after taxes ... you end up ahead and build wealth. A vast majority of the wealthiest people use this arbitrage to continue to build wealth.  They have plenty of money to pay off mortgages, but choose not to.  $200,000 at 2% is an extra $4000 per year.  Compounded at a 7% rate ... it adds up to $180k after 20 years ... not exactly chump change. Money in an investment account is accessible when you need it.  Money in home equity is not, has a zero rate of return (before inflation) and is not accessible except through another loan at the bank's whim.  If you lose your job and your home is close to paid off but isn't yet, you could have a serious liquidity issue. NOW ... if a 100% mortgage would cost MORE than 125% of comparable rent, then there should be no deal.  You are looking at a crappy investment.  It is cheaper and better just to rent.  I don't care if prices are going up right now.  Prices move around.  Just because Canada hasn't seen the value drops like in the US so far doesn't mean it can't happen in the future.  If comparable rents don't validate the price with a good margin for profit for an investor, then prices are frothy and cannot be trusted and you should lower your monthly costs by renting rather than buying.  That $350 per month you could save in ""rent"" adds up just as much as the $4000 per year in arbitrage. For rentals, you should only pull the trigger when you can do the purchase without leverage and STILL get a 10% CAP rate or higher (rate of return after taxes, insurance and other fixed costs).  That way if the rental rates drop (and again that is quite possible), you would lose some of your profit but not all of it.  If you leverage the property, there is a high probability that you could wind up losing money as rents fall and you have to cover the mortgage out of nonexistent cash flow. I know somebody is going to say, ""But John, 10% CAP on rental real estate?  That's just not possible around here.""  That may be the case.  It IS possible somewhere.  I have clients buying property in Arizona, New Mexico, Alberta, Michigan and even California who are finding 10% CAP rate properties.  They do exist.  They just aren't everywhere. If you want to add leverage to the rental picture to improve the return, then do so understanding the risks.  He who lives by the leverage sword, dies by the leverage sword.  Down here in the US, the real estate market is littered with corpses of people who thought they could handle that leverage sword.  It is a gory, ugly mess."