What return are you getting on your money from paying down a mortgage on a rental property?
"This is a great question, considering that all of your expenses including PITA, Maintenance, etc. are paid by a tenant, your cash flow is $0. Most people would stop and assume your investment is not performing and your only chance at making money is through appreciation. Your question eliminates appreciation so here are the returns you would get on your investment. The math will probably surprise many that you are actually earning a return on your money.   Annual Return = [((Future Value)/(Initial Investment))^((Periods per Year)/(Number of Periods) -1]*100 % 5.51% = [($200,000/$40,000)^(12/360)-1]*100 % As Chris Rea commented: The subtlety that some would miss is that while ""income covers expenses exactly"", embedded in the ""expenses"" is actually a repayment of the loan principal (and technically, that's not an ""expense"") so not all of the income is ""lost"" covering the ""expenses"". That repayment of principal portion of the rental income constitutes the return on the original capital invested." There are a few ways to look at this question. Assumptions. Per the original post's assumptions, this answer: In other words, if the owner paid the mortgage on its original schedule, the deal could boil down to a $ 40,000 up-front payment, in exchange for $ 200,000 of equity after 30 years.  Or the deal could boil down to a $ 40,000 up-front payment, in exchange for a $ 810.70 monthly payment starting in 30 years. While the owner is paying down the mortgage, the return on equity is the principal payment divided by the equity.  The principal payment is the net rent minus non-financing costs and interest, so it is actually a profit. The initial return on equity is 6.321 % APR, or 6.507 % APY.  This is calculated by dividing the $ 210.70 monthly principal payment by the initial $ 40,000 equity, and converting from monthly return to annual return. After 30 years, the return on equity is 4.864 % APR, or 4.974 % APY.  This is calculated by dividing the $ 810.70 monthly cash flow (which is no longer reduced by mortgage payments) by the $ 200,000 equity after 30 years, and converting from monthly return to annual return. The cap rate is the same as the return on equity in the absence of debt.  In this example, 4.864 % APR, or 4.974 % APY. The return on equity declines from 6.507 % APY initially to 4.974 % APY after 30 years. This is because the cap rate exceeds the note rate (4.974 % APY vs. 4.594 % APY), and the leverage decreases from 5x to 1x. The weighted average compound annual growth rate of the equity during the 30 years is 5.511 % APY.  Per the original poster's answer, this is computed by taking the 30th root of the 5-fold increase in equity.  Because the owner made no extra principal payments (besides those already discussed), the relevant amounts are the initial $ 40,000 owner payment and the final $ 200,000 owner equity.  5.511 % APY corresponds to a 5.377 % APR. The internal rate of return if the owner never sells can be computed by treating the deal as a $ 40,000 up-front payment, in exchange for an $ 810.70 monthly payment starting in 30 years.  The internal rate of return (IRR) is not a very useful number, because it assumes that you can somehow reinvest the eventual dividends at the same rate.  In this example, the IRR is 5.172 % APR, or 5.296  % APY.  In this example, the IRR is calculated by (iteratively) finding an interest rate for which (initial investment) * (1 + IRR) ^ (number periods before dividends start) = (periodic dividend) / (IRR - growth rate of dividend).  For example: $ 40,000 * (1.004309687)^360 = $ 810.70 / (0.004309687 - 0) = $ 188,111 I then converted the 0.431 % monthly IRR to an annual IRR. The deal can be thought of as a return on equity, plus a return on paying down the mortgage. When computing the return from paying down the mortgage, the initial equity is irrelevant.  It does not matter whether you start with a $ 160,000 mortgage on a $ 160,000 property, a $ 160,000 mortgage on a $ 200,000 property, or a $ 160,000 mortgage on a $ 1,000,000 property.  All that matters is the note rate on the mortgage, which is the applicable compound interest rate. The return on paying down the mortgage equals the note rate of the mortgage.  For a 4.5% note rate, this works out to a 4.594% annual percentage yield (APY). You can confirm this by looking at your amortization schedule.  Suppose you have a $ 160,000 mortgage with a fixed 4.5% APR note rate for 360 months.  Your monthly payment is $ 810.70.  In the first month, $ 600 goes toward interest, and $ 210.70 reduces the principal.  In other words, the $ 210.70 principal payment eliminated the need for a $ 810.70 payment 30 years later.  Notice that: . $ 210.70 * (1 + 0.045 / 12)^360 = $ 210.70 * (1.00375)^360 = $ 210.70 * 3.8477 = $ 810.71 which is within rounding error of $ 810.70. The interest rate is 3/8 % per month, which is an APR of 4.5%, and an APY of 4.594 %. As Chris pointed out: If your expenses are covered by the income exactly, as you have said to assume, then you are basically starting with a $40K asset (your starting equity), and ending with a $200K asset (a paid for home, at the same value since you have said to ignore any appreciation). So, to determine what you have earned on the $40K you leveraged 5x, wouldn't it be a matter of computing a CAGR that gets you from $40K to $200K in 30 years? The result would be a nominal return, not a real return. So, if I set up the problem correctly, it should be: $40,000 * (1 + Return)^30 = $200,000 Then solve for Return. It works out to be about 5.51% or so.
How is the current mortgage payment broken out? I have a mortgage on a rental property with a payment of $775, but $600 is principal. If I were at breakeven on a sale or a bit underwater, I'd be better off just holding still, the tenant paying the loan down over $7000/year.  You question is a good one, but a good answer would require more details. A bank may not agree to a short sale on an investment property, especially since there's a second property to go after. I'm not making a judgement, just saying, it's not a slam-dunk to just short sell it. "There should be no affect on your taxes. If you profit on the sale of a home, it does not matter whether you own the home fully or not. Selling a house with a mortgage on it will usually incur fees, ""like mortgage processing fees"". Paying off the mortgage is preferable because that will make the sale easier. When a bank is involved then they will function in the closing as a 3rd or 4th party, making everything more complicated. Not only that, they will charge you fees, for making them sit through a closing. The bank will require a lawyer. Guess who pays for their lawyer? You do. When you pay off a mortgage, none of this happens. You just pay the mortgage and the bank goes away. There are no lawyers and no fees. This makes it easier to sell the house and gives you full control over the sale." Remember this when you rent. You may get 1,600 back - however, you have to provide insurance on the house still, 10% of that rent goes into a repair fund for things that break. You don't get compensated for months without a renter. You still pay property tax and income tax. If you have someone manage the house, you have to pay their fee (10%+ usually). Lots of variables when renting (I looked into doing the same thing) 1) How does owning a home fit into my financial portfolio? Most seem to agree that at best it is a hedge against rent or dollar inflation, and at worst it should be viewed as a liability, and has no place alongside other real investments. Periods of high inflation are generally accompanied with high(er) interest rates. Any home is a liability, as has been pointed out in other answers; it costs money to live in, it costs money to keep in good shape, and it offers you no return unless you sell it for more than you have paid for it in total (in fact, as long as you have an outstanding mortgage, it actually costs you money to own, even when not considering things like property taxes, utilities etc.). The only way to make a home an investment is to rent it out for more than it costs you in total to own, but then you can't live in it instead. 2) How should one view payments on a home mortgage? How are they similar or different to investing in low-risk low-reward investments? Like JoeTaxpayer said in a comment, paying off your mortgage should be considered the same as putting money into a certificate of deposit with a term and return equivalent to your mortgage interest cost (adjusting for tax effects). What is important to remember about paying off a mortgage, besides the simple and not so unimportant fact that it lowers your financial risk over time, is that over time it improves your cash flow. If interest rates don't change (unlikely), then as long as you keep paying the interest vigilantly but don't pay down the principal (assuming that the bank is happy with such an arrangement), your monthly cost remains the same and will do so in perpetuity. You currently have a cash flow that enables you to pay down the principal on the loan, and are putting some fairly significant amount of money towards that end. Now, suppose that you were to lose your job, which means a significant cut in the household income. If this cut means that you can't afford paying down the mortgage at the same rate as before, you can always call the bank and tell them to stop the extra payments until you get your ducks back in the proverbial row. It's also possible, with a long history of paying on time and a loan significantly smaller than what the house would bring in in a sale, that you could renegotiate the loan with an extended term, which depending on the exact terms may lower your monthly cost further. If the size of the loan is largely the same as or perhaps even exceeds the market value of the house, the bank would be a lot more unlikely to cooperate in such a scenario. It's also a good idea to at the very least aim to be free of debt by the time you retire. Even if one assumes that the pension systems will be the same by then as they are now (some don't, but that's a completely different question), you are likely to see a significant cut in cash flow on retirement day. Any fixed expenses which cannot easily be cut if needed are going to become a lot more of a liability when you are actually at least in part living off your savings rather than contributing to them. The earlier you get the mortgage paid off, the earlier you will have the freedom to put into other forms of savings the money which is now going not just to principal but to interest as well. What is important to consider is that paying off a mortgage is a very illiquid form of savings; on the other hand, money in stocks, bonds, various mutual funds, and savings accounts, tends to be highly liquid. It is always a good idea to have some savings in easily accessible form, some of it in very low-risk investments such as a simple interest-bearing savings account or government bonds (despite their low rate of return) before you start to aggressively pay down loans, because (particularly when you own a home) you never know when something might come up that ends up costing a fair chunk of money. Whether it is better to buy or to rent depends on several factors.  Most of them are fairly uncertain, but calculations can be made to see how they play out in the long-term for insight into their impact. The results below are made on the basis that both the buyer and the tenant spend the same amount, in this case $1,480.03 per month.  The buyer pays his mortgage and when it's all paid for he switches to investing $1,480.03 per month at the fund deposit rate.  Meanwhile the tenant pays rent and invests whatever remains from $1,480.03 per month at the fund deposit rate. The amount $1,480.03 is set by the mortgage case and used by buyer and tenant for equal comparison. Taking some hopefully not too unrealistic rate estimates, these are the calculation inputs:- (All percentages are expressed as effective annual rates) Plot of buyer's and tenant's accumulated assets over time The simulation extends for twice the term of the mortgage.  If the investment fund can return 7% and a $900 rental is comparable to a $300,000 house then there isn't much of a compelling case either way. Lowering the expected fund return shows a different picture.  Sticking with the 5.0% fund return, lowering the rent brings the tenant's asset accumulation closer to the buyer's.  If there is a particular set of inputs you would like to see plotted I'm sure I could add another example to this post. There is also an interactive version of the calculation which you can find via this page.  However, unlike the examples above which include a deposit and grant, it just explores the simple case of a 100% mortgage. The aim is just to see how rate variations affect asset value over time. "As a rental, this is not an ideal set of numbers. You manage to show a $255 'gain' but $275 is from payment to principal. So, from the start, you're out $20/wk.  This ignores the $170K down payment, which has an opportunity cost, however you calculate it. You can assign the same rate as the mortgage, and it's nearly $10K/yr. Or the rate you feel your choice of stock market or alternate investment would rise. Either way, you can't ignore this money.  Your mortgage rate isn't fixed. A 1% rise and it would jump to $1663 ($842/week) Ideally, a rental property is cash positive without counting principal paydown or even the tax refund. It's a risky proposition to buy and count on everything going right. I didn't mean to scare you off with ""1%"" but you should research the costs of repair and maintenance. Last year my Heat/AC system needed replacement. US$10K. This year, it's time to paint, and replace rotting trim, $7000.  In the US we have property tax that can range from 1-2% of the house value. If you don't have this tax, that's great, just please confirm this." There are those who are knowledgable in real estate who offer rules of thumb: Don't pay more that 50X the rent for the house. Here, $972 x 50 is $48600. Assume half the rent goes to expenses. So from $972, you net $486, and after that mortgage, you have $111 in profit. Zillow usually assumes 20% down, here $20K. So you are seeing a 6.67% return on your 20K. (Plus appreciation and principal paydown.)  For the record, I just bought a 3 family, under renovation now. Expecting total cost to be $160K, and total rent $2500. I missed ratio a by a bit, but $1250 to go toward a $120K mortgage works out fine. $550 profit/mo on the 25% down ($40K). (By the way, a turnover of tenants can cost (a) a month of no rent, (b) a cost to the real estate agent, if you use one, and the cost to paint/repair. This is generally considered 10%. So if the 50% of rent seemed high, here's 10 of it.) I used to own a few investment properties, so I'm pretty familiar with this.  As MrChrister mentions, lenders see investment mortgages as higher risk. People who fall into financial trouble are much more likely to let their investment properties go than their personal residence.  Consequently, the interest rates and downpayment requirements are generally higher. Typically a mortgage for an investment property will require 20% down, vs. as low as 3-5% down for a personal residence.  With excellent credit and some shopping around, you could probably do 10% down.  Interest rates are typically about a half-percent higher as well. You'll also find that the more investment properties you have, the harder it becomes to finance new ones.  Banks look at debt-to-income ratios to determine if you are over extended.  Typically banks like to see that your housing payments are less than 20% or so of your income.  However, with rental properties, housing payments generally account for far more than 20% of your rental income.  Other income you have can offset that, but after buying 2-3 houses or so, your DTI generally creeps into the range where lenders are uncomfortable lending to you anymore.  This is why you'll find that many rental properties are bought on land contracts with owner financing rather than with mortgages. I suppose you can calculate the rate of return on buying a home in terms of appreciation, expenses, inflation, taxes, etc.  Nothing wrong with that. The method justkt came up with is accurate, but when you get the number out I wouldn't worry if the return is negative. Why?  Because you've lived there and enjoyed the house the whole time (I'm assuming anyway that this is your residence you're purchasing).  If you come out even the slightest bit ahead, congratulations!  You had a free place to live the whole time, plus you made a little money on the deal. If you lost money, then oh well.  You still had a place to live. By rounding my house payments up to the nearest $50.00, my 30 year mortgage was paid off in 7 years.  Initially, my mortgage payment was roughly $600, $50 going to principal and $550 going to interest (banker's profits). By paying $650, I was actually doubling the amount I was paying on principal.  Since interest is computed as a function (percentage) of the outstanding principal balance, the amount of my fixed payment that went to interest decreased each month, and the amount that went to principal increased. In 7 years I owned my home free and clear, and started putting the money I had been putting into the mortgage payments into investments. A rule of thumb I have discovered is that it takes half the time to save money to meet a goal that it takes to pay off the same debt. Even after the real estate crash, there are banks that lend money outside of the rules I'll share.  A fully qualified mortgage is typically run at debt to income ratios of 28/36, where 28% of your gross monthly income can apply to the mortgage, property tax, and insurance, and the 36% is the total monthly debt (including the mortgage, etc) plus car loan student loan, etc. It's less about the total loan on the potential than about these ratios. The bank may allow for 75% of monthly rent so until rentals are running at a profit, they may seem a loss, even while just breaking even.  This is just an overview, each bank may vary a bit. "In the UK it all comes down to what HMRC will allow you to charge without taxing you on the ""rent profit"" and not hitting capital gain tax when you sell the house, it may not all count as your ""main home"" if some is rented out.   (http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/ is a good place to ask this type of questions in the uk)" I can probably rent the house out for about $1,600. If sell now I can get 180k at the most. My mortgage will be $1,800 with tax and insurance. If I use the 180k to pay off the house, I can refinance the loan for a lower interest rate too. I think I know what I want to do but just need a second opinion. Thanks btw 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 reasoning is backwards. As others have pointed out, you cannot just decide how much you charge irrespective of the market. Let me paraphrase a little economics 101 to underline why you also should not think like this: You can see a rental property like your house (the same reasoning is usually explained with the example of hotel rooms) as a series of perishable goods. Your house represents the potential sale of the January rent (which perishes once January is over), plus the February rent etc. Your approach was to compute the total costs (all fixed and variable costs of owning that house as well as costs associated to renting specifically) and average them over the time period so that you know how much to ask at least. Assuming that you are only looking to rent it out, not sell it or let a family member live there, you can't think like this. Most of those costs that you averaged are what economists call sunk costs. You have already incurred the mortgage costs and they are not affected by your decision to rent or not to rent. These costs are irrelevant to your decision making process. You only need to think about marginal costs: those additional costs that you have when you rent but not when you don't. Look at the market prices for renting similar properties in that region and compare them with your marginal costs. As long as they are higher than your marginal costs, rent it out. This does not mean that you are sure to make profits, but it means that you are sure to make less losses than in your only alternative of not renting.