Is being a landlord a good idea? Is there a lot of risk?
"Risk is the capital you have staked in pursuit of profit. The danger is that you lose what you have risked.  For some bets (risks), you can get insurance to cover for losses.  Now the ""game"" of Landlord and Tenant requires you to play fully by the rules set forth by your legislators. In your case, that is the legislators of the State of Texas. Without knowing those rules, you could be liable (open to civil prosecution) for violating those rules. Tenants could be savvy to those rules or savvy enough to hire someone, a lawyer, who knows those rules. As well, in the game of Landlord and Tenant, you must ascertain the creditworthiness of your would-be tenant. If the tenant fails to pay rent, that tenant can detain the residence. You will incur additional outlays to gain possession of your property (ownership in your rental). Now the game of Landlord vs Landlord is different. You can't pick up houses easily enough and even if you could, likely the expense of doing so could wipe out any would profits from having the house as a rental. So, in Landlord vs Landlord, you get constrained by where your rental sits. Thus you must forecast what will the neighborhood look like in five, ten, fifteen years." "I have been a landlord in Texas for just over 3 years now. I still feel like a novice, but I will give you the benefit of my experience. If you are relying on rental properties for current income versus a long term return you are going to have to do a good job at shopping for bargains to get monthly cash flow versus equity growth that is locked up in the property until you sell it.  If you want to pull a lot of cash out of a property on a regular basis you probably are going to have to get into flipping them, which is decidedly not passive investing. Also, it is easy to underestimate the expenses associated with rental properties. Texas is pretty landlord friendly legally, however it does have higher than usual property taxes, which will eat into your return. Also, you need to factor in maintenance, vacancy, tenant turnover costs, etc. It can add up to a lot more than you would expect. If you are handy and can do a lot of repairs yourself you can increase your return, but that makes it less of a passive investment. The two most common rules I have heard for initially evaluating whether an investment property is likely to be cash flow positive are the 1% and 50% rules. The 1% rule says the expected monthly rent needs to be 1% or greater of the purchase price of the house. So your hypothetical $150K/$10K scenario doesn't pass that test. Some people say this rule is 2% for new landlords, but in my experience you'd have to get lucky in Texas to find a house priced that competitively that didn't need a lot of work to get rents that high. The 50% rule says that the rent needs to be double your mortgage payment to account for expenses. You also have to factor in the hassle of dealing with tenants, the following are not going to happen when you own a mutual fund, but are almost inevitable if you are a landlord long enough: For whatever reason you have to go to court and evict a tenant. A tenant that probably lost their job, or had major medical issues. The nicest tenant you ever met with the cutest kids in the world that you are threatening to make homeless. Every fiber of your being wants to cut them some slack, but you have a mortgage to pay and can't set an expectation that paying the rent on time is a suggestion not a rule. or the tenant, who seemed nice at first, but now considers you ""the man"" decides to fight the eviction and won't move out. You have to go through a court process, then eventually get the Sheriff to come out and forcibly remove them from the property, which they are treating like crap because they are mad at you. All the while not paying rent or letting you re-let the place. The tenant isn't maintaining the lawn and the HOA is getting on your butt about it. Do you pay someone to mow the grass for them and then try to squeeze the money out of the tenant who ""never agreed to pay for that""?  You rent to a college kid who has never lived on their own and has adopted you as their new parent figure. ""The light in the closet went out, can you come replace the bulb?"" Tenants flat out lying to your face. ""Of course I don't have any pets that I didn't pay the deposit for!"" (Pics all over facebook of their kids playing with a dog in the ""pet-free"" house)" If you are able to buy a 150K home for 50K now that would be a good deal!  However, you can't you have to borrow 100K in order to make this deal happen.  This dramatically increases the risk of any investment, and I would no longer classify it as passive income.   The mortgage on a 150K place would be about 710/month (30 year fixed).  Reasonably I would expect no more than 1200/month in rent, or 14,400.  A good rule of thumb is to assume that half of rental revenue can be counted as profit before debt service.  So in your case 7200, but you would have a mortgage payment of 473/month.  Leaving you a profit of 1524 after debt service.  This is suspiciously like 2K per year.  Things, in the financial world, tend to move toward an equilibrium. The benefit of rental property you can make a lot more than the numbers suggest.  For example the home could increase in value, and you can have fewer than expected repairs.  So you have two ways to profit:  rental revenue and asset appreciation. However, you said that you needed passive income.  What happens if you have a vacancy or the tenant does not pay?  What happens if you have greater than expected repairs?  What happens if you get a fine from the HOA or a special assessment?  Not only will you have dip into your pocket to cover the payment, you might also have to dip into your pocket to cover the actual event! In a way this would be no different than if you borrowed 100K to buy dividend paying stocks.  If the fund/company does not pay out that month you would still have to make the loan payment.  Where does the money come from?  Your pocket.  At least dividend paying companies don't collect money from their shareholders. Yes you can make more money, but you can also lose more.  Leverage is a two edged sword and rental properties can be great if you are financial able to absorb the shocks that are normal with ownership. Based on what you've said I think buying a rental is risky for you. It looks like you heard that renting a house is profitable and Zillow supported that idea. Vague advice + a website designed for selling + large amounts of money = risky at the very least. That doesn't mean that rental property is super risky it just means that you haven't invested any time into learning the risks and how you can manage them. Once you learn that your risk reduces dramatically. In general though I feel that rental property has a good risk/reward ratio. If you're willing to put in the time and energy to learn the business then I'd encourage you to buy property. If you're not willing to do that then rentals will always be a crap shoot. One thing about investing in rental property is you have the ability to have more impact on your investment than you do dropping money in the stock market which is good and bad. "Rather than thinking of becoming a landlord as a passive ""investment"" (like a bank account or mutual fund), it may be useful to think of it as ""starting a small part-time business"". While certainly many people can and do start their own businesses, and there are many success stories, there are many cases where things don't work out quite as they hoped. I wouldn't call starting any new business ""low risk"", even one that isn't expected to be one's main full-time job, though some may be ""acceptable risk"" for your particular circumstances. But if you're going to start a part-time business, is there any particular reason you'd do so in real estate as opposed to some other activity? It sounds like you'd be completely new to real estate, so perhaps for your first business you're starting you'd want it to be something you're more familiar with. Or, if you do want to enter the real estate world (or any other new business), be sure to do a lot of research, come up with a business plan, and be prepared for the possibility of losing money as with any investment or new business." Buying a property and renting it out can be a good investment if it matches your long term goals.  Buying an investment property is a long term investment.  A large chunk of your money will be tied up with the property and difficult to access.  If you put your money into dividend producing stocks you can always sell the stock and have your money back in a matter of days this is not so with a property. (But you can always do a Home equity line of credit (HELOC)) I would also like to point out landlording is not a passive endeavor as JohnFx stated dealing with a tenant can be a lot of work.  This is not work you necessarily have to deal with, it is possible to contract with a property management company that would place tenants and take care of those late night calls.  Property management companies often charge 10% of your monthly rent and will eat a large portion of your profits.  It could be worth the time and headache of tenant relations.  You should build property management into you expenses anyway in case you decide to go that route in the future. There are good things about owning an investment property.  It can produce returns in a couple of ways. If you choose this route it can be lucrative but be sure to do your homework.  You must know the area you are investing very well.  Know the rent, and vacancy rates for Single family homes, look at multifamily homes as a way of mitigating risk(if one unit is vacant the others are still paying).
The main point to consider is that your payments toward your own home replace your rent. Any house or apartment you buy will have changes in value; the value is generally going slowly up, but there is a lot of noise, and you may be in a low phase at any time, and for a long time. So seeing it as an investment is not any better than buying share or funds, and it has a much worse liquidity (= you cannot as easily make it to cash when you want to), and not in parts either. However, if you buy for example a one-room apartment for 80000 with a 2% mortgage, and pay 2% interest = 1600 plus 1% principal = 800, for a total of 2400 per year = 200 per month, you are paying less than your current rent, plus you own it after 30 years. Even if it would be worth nothing after 30 years, you made a lot of money by paying half only every month, and it probably is not worthless. You need to be careful not to compare apples with oranges - if you buy a house for 200000 instead, your payments would be higher than your rent was, but you would be living in your house, not in a room. For most people, that is worth a lot. You need to put your own value to that; if you don't care to have a lot more space and freedom, the extra value is zero; if you like it, put a price to it. With current interest rates, it is probably a good idea for most people to buy a house that they can easily afford instead of paying rent. The usual rules should be considered - don't overstretch yourself, leave some security, etc. Generally, it is rather difficult to buy an affordable house instead of renting today and not saving a lot of money in the process, so I would say go for it. Others have already made good points, so I'll just add a few more: You say that if you bought it, your mortgage, insurance, and taxes minus the rental income from the bottom floor would leave you with costs of 1/4 of your current rent. That means you're getting a fantastic deal on the purchase price. I suspect you may be underestimating some of those costs. So, get exact figures on the mortgage, insurance and taxes and do the math. If it is that good, go for it, just make sure to get that home inspection (in case there's major problems and they're trying to get out while the gettin's good) Also, some advice: Be prepared to cover that entire monthly cost for a few months. Units can stand empty for a while. Also, you may want to rent out slowly - a good tenent found after a couple months is much better than a bad tenent found quickly. Also, have some money set aside for maintenence. As a renter, you've never really had to think about that before, but as a homeowner you do. As a landlord, it's even more important - you can not fix something in your own home for a while if you needed to wait, but in a tenent unit, you have to fix it immediately.  Finally, taxes: You do get to deduct interest, and so on, but it'll work a little differently than you think. You'll have to split it in half (if the units are the same size) and deduct half the interest as a normal homeowner deduction, the other half as a business expense. Same for PMI, insurance, and property taxes. If you do maintenance that effects both units, like fixing the roof, half will be deductible, the other half not. However, maintenance that only affects the tenant unit is fully deductible.  You can claim depreciation, but only for half. So, your starting amount you can depreciate would be (purchase price - land value)/2. Same thing here - half is your home, the other half is a business.  Note that some things you'd think of as maintenance costs actually can't be deducted, only depreciated over time. Take that leaky roof, for example. If you replaced it instead of repairing it, you could not deduct your replacement costs. It counts as an improvement, and gets added to your cost-basis, where you depreciate it along with (half!) the house.  If your tenant's refrigerator went out, and you replaced it, you couldn't deduct that either. However you can depreciate all of it on another schedule (seperate from home depreciation). If you repaired it instead, you can deduct all of it immediately.  Taxes suck. Even selling isn't riskless. Sure, your house has gained value-- but unless that's due to improvements you made to it, every other house in the neighborhood you might buy has gained value too, so moving might not result in extracting any net value. This is one of the reasons I keep reminding folks that a house is not an investment. It can be a business, if you're renting it out. But if you're occupying it, it is simply housing. If you are lucky you'll make a profit if and when you sell it, but don't count on that.  It does store value, but except for taking loans against that it's had to access that value. And lower loan rates than you'd otherwise pay are not a huge value when you'd save more if you don't borrow at all. The only use I'm making of my house's value is that by taking a very-low-rate mortgage when I could have paid cash I was able to leave more money in my investments -- arguably the safest leveraged investment possible. "Have you been rejected from a rental for a specific reason (leading to this question)?  Landlords are in the business of exchanging space for regular payments with no drama.  Anything they ask in an application should be something to minimize the risk of drama.   The ""happy path"" optimistic goal is that you pay your rent by the due date every month.  If your income is not sufficient for this, demonstrating you have assets and would be able to pay for the full term of the lease is part of the decision to enter into the lease with you.   In the non-happy-path, say you fall off the face of the earth before ending the lease.  The landlord could be owed several months of rent, and could pursue a legal judgment on your assets.  With a court order, they can make the bank pay out what is owed; having bank information reduces the landlord's cost and research efforts in the event the story has degenerated to this point (in the jargon of landlording, this means the tenant is ""collectable"").  While of course you could have zeroed out your accounts or moved money to a bank you didn't tell the landlord in the meantime, if you are not the bad actor in this story, you probably wouldn't have.   If you get any kind of ""spidey-sense"" about a landlord or property at all there is probably a better rental situation in your city.  You also want to minimize drama.  If the landlord is operating like a business, they're not in this to perform identity theft.  If the landlord is sloppy, or has sloppy office workers, that would be different.   In the event sharing your asset information truly bothers you, and the money is for rental expense anyway, you could offer to negotiate a 1 year prepaid rental (of course knock another 5%-10% off for time value of money and lower risk to landlord) if you're sure you wouldn't want to leave early." "with 150K € to invest to ""become a landlord"" you have several options: Pay for 100% of one property, and you then will make a significant percentage of the monthly rent as profit each month. That profit can be used to invest in other things, or to save to buy additional properties. At the end of the 21 years in your example, you can sell the flat for return of principal minus selling expenses, or even better make a profit because the property went up in value. Pay 20% down on 5 flats, and then make a much a smaller profit per flat each month due to the mortgage payment for each one. At the end of the 21 years sell the flats. Assuming that a significant portion of the mortgage is paid off each flat will sell for more than the mortgage balance. Thus you will have 5 nice large profits when you sell. something in between 1 and 5 flats. Each has different risks and expenses. With 5 rental properties you are more likely to use a management company, which will add to your monthly cost." I have done something similar to this myself.  What you are suggesting is a sound theory and it works.  The issues are (which is why it's the reason not everyone does it) : The initial cost is great, many people in their 20s or 30s cannot afford their own home, let alone buy second properties.  The time to build up a portfolio is very long term and is best for a pension investment.  it's often not best for diversification - you've heard not putting all your eggs in one basket? With property deposits, you need to put a lot of eggs in to make it work and this can leave you vulnerable. there can be lots of work involved. Renovating is a huge pain and cost and you've already mentioned tennants not paying!  unlike a bank account or bonds/shares etc.  You cannot get to your savings/investments quickly if you need to (or find an opportunity)  But after considering these and deciding the plunge is worth it, I would say go for it, be a good landlord, with good quality property and you'll have a great nest egg.  If you try just one and see how it goes, with population increase, in a safe (respectable) location, the value of the investment should continue to rise (which it doesn't in a bank) and you can expect a 5%+ rental return (very hard to find in cash account!)  Hope it goes well! "This can be done, and there have been many good suggestions on things to do and watch out for.  But to my shock I don't see anyone offering any words of caution about property managers! Whatever you do, don't assume they have your best interests at heart.  Do not assume that ""no news is good news"" and that if you aren't hearing of problems and are just collecting rent checks, everything must be fine. You can easily end up with tenants you would never have allowed yourself, or tenants with pets that you would not have allowed, etc.  Especially if the manager doesn't want you to have a vacancy and potentially lose you as a client, they may very well lower their standards just to get the place occupied.  And a year or two or three later, you may find yourself looking at a very large repair bill and wonder how on earth it could have happened when you supposedly had someone looking out for your property! There are quality, ethical property managers out there.  They are not all bad to be certain.  But whatever you do, check up on them.  And with multiple properties - especially if in multiple areas/states etc. - this can be nearly a full time job in itself.  As the saying goes, ""Trust, but verify"".  I have never found this to apply more than with rental properties and property management. Don't leave anything significant to them 100%.  You can't even assume that a rule like ""all expenses over $50 must be cleared by me first"", as that can simply mean that they don't bother to come to you for certain kinds of repairs that would cost more than that, or that they just get them ""taken care of"" by their own person (done poorly, illegally, etc.) and never tell you.  Never trust their choice of tenants blindly.  Visit the place yourself at least every few months - a quick driveby at a minimum or better if you can, arrange a reason to walk through the house personally.  Check the back yard, never assume that the front yard is indicative of anything else.  Never assume that a ""no pets"" rule will be followed, or that tenants wouldn't lie to the management about having pets.  Never assume that the tenants won't move additional people into the property as well. Always expect a bare minimum of 1 month vacancy every year, and an additional minimum of 1 month's rental revenue in unexpected maintenance/repairs every year.  This is at a minimum!  You might do much better than this, and have a high quality tenant in place for years who costs next to nothing in extra maintenance.  But do not count on it. Rental real estate investing looks so simple on paper, where it's just numbers.  But reality has a very rude habit of surprising you when you least expect it. After all, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition! Good luck!" "The flaw in your reasoning is that you are assuming that renting a house is easy and automatic. Who is going to manage the property? Your parents? What are you going to do if the tenants burn the place down, start having drug parties there, or secretly have 6 cats who piss everywhere so noone will ever want to rent it again? What are you going to do when the house goes unrented for a year and you have to pay a year's worth of mortgage payments with no rental income? What are you going to do when some deadbeat decides to stop paying the rent, but won't move out, and when you try to evict him, he goes to court to stop you? You going to fly to NJ to make the court appearances? Unless you sell your existing house, or your parents buy you out, then you need to stay. You should not attempt to own two houses at once with one of the houses located not where you are at. That will not turn out well. Also, just as an aside, 30-year mortgages are not an ""investment""; they are a way to lose money. Usually people get them because they want a big beautiful house that they cannot afford, so they borrow the money. That is not ""investing"", that is wasting money to live in luxurious circumstances. If you want to become wealthy, buy a property you can afford, not something that you have to string out payments for 30 years." I don't know enough about taxes and real-state in the Netherlands to be super helpful in determining whether or not a rental property is a good investment. One thing for certain is that there's some risk in spending everything on a rental property. It's wise to have some buffer, an emergency fund of 3-6 months expenses. If things got dire, you'd still need to live somewhere until your tenant was gone, and you'd want to be able to handle any major repairs that crop up. So, even if it is a good idea to buy a rental property, you should probably wait until doing so doesn't leave you without a healthy buffer. As for owning a rental, you described a scenario where you'd get 6% income on your investment each year if there were zero expenses associated with owning the property. Are there property taxes? Is there a monthly cost to maintain the building the apartment is in? Are rental incomes taxed more heavily than other investment income? Just be aware of the full financial picture before deciding if it's a worthwhile investment. 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. One lender's explanation of getting permission to rent out.  The implication is that it is straightforward with a 1% extra interest to pay.  However, there is no guarantee that permission would be given, so there might be a risk. http://www.nationwide.co.uk/support/support-articles/manage-your-account/letting-your-property/letting-your-property-overview Definitely renting out a property with a residential mortgage is not a good idea. "If you don't plan to stay in it, it is never good money to try to buy a house in a bad neighborhood. The question you want to be asking is probably ""Is it smart to buy this piece of real estate,"" not ""is it smart to buy a house in college.""  In this case, it's probably not smart because you won't actually have revenue from the property (you'll break even compared to renting), you may face some expensive repairs (water heater or other appliances going out, etc.), and you may find that your startup costs in things like lawn mowers, etc. is not worth the hassle (or cost of lawn service if you have someone else do it.) On top of that, can you get a loan with your proven income and assets? Don't forget to factor the cost of selling the house again into it -- and how long can you leave it on the market after you move out if it doesn't sell without going bankrupt yourself? In my opinion, it'd be a giant albatross around your neck." As Andy T says, it is very common for landlords to have a residential mortgage (typically capital + interest) on their own home, and a buy-to-let mortgage (typically interest-only) on each rental property that they own. However, before going down this route, you will need to do some homework. Buying and letting a property is covered by a fair amount of legislation and tax rules; and in the last couple of years, the amount of regulation has increased, as has the amount of tax you're likely to pay. Letting a property can be profitable, but you need to do the maths first, and make sure you do everything by the book. Using a reputable letting agent, at least for your first tenant, should help avoid common pitfalls. There are a number of good websites on this subject. Note that the rules in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all different, so make sure that you get the right information! "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?" Yep, you need to hire a lawyer and an accountant, honestly.    When I was starting my business, I hired one who was BOTH.  Not really for cost-savings, though it did save $$$, but it was super convenient and it's nice to have someone knowledgable in both.  It totally depends on your area, but don't overthink it or get intimidated.  It won't take as much $$$ as you think to hire someone, maybe $500-$1,000 or so upfront, then a small hourly fee probably every month if you need help with sales tax or accounts or whatever... you need to make sure the gov is getting theirs though from day 1 re: taxes, otherwise you're gonna regret it.  Much cheaper to get it all in place now.