Using property to achieve financial independence
I wrote this in another thread but is also applicable here. In general people make some key mistakes with property: Not factoring in depreciation properly. Houses are perpetually falling down, and if you are renting them perpetually being trashed by the tenants as well - particularly in bad areas. Accurate depreciation costs can often run in the 5-20% range per year depending on the property/area. Add insurance to this as well or be prepared to lose the whole thing in a disaster. Related to 1), they take the index price of house price rises as something they can achieve, when in reality a lot of the house price 'rise' is just everyone having to spend a lot of money keeping them standing up. No investor can actually track a house price graph due to 1) so be careful to make reasonable assumptions about actual achievable future growth (in your example, they could well be lagging inflation/barely growing if you are not pricing in upkeep and depreciation properly). Failure to price in the huge transaction costs (often 5%+ per sale) and capital gains/other taxes (depends on the exact tax structure where you are). These add up very fast if you are buying and selling at all frequently. Costs in either time or fees to real estate rental agents. Having to fill, check, evict, fix and maintain rental properties is a lot more work than most people realise, and you either have to pay this in your own time or someone else’s. Again, has to be factored in. Liquidity issues. Selling houses in down markets is very, very hard. They are not like stocks where they can be moved quickly. Houses can often sit on the market for years before sale if you are not prepared to take low prices. As the bank owns your house if you fail to pay the mortgage (rents collapse, loss of job etc) they can force you to fire sale it leaving you in a whole world of pain depending on the exact legal system (negative equity etc). These factors are generally correlated if you work in the same cities you are buying in so quite a lot of potential long tail risk if the regional economy collapses. Finally, if you’re young they can tie you to areas where your earnings potential is limited. Renting can be immensely beneficial early on in a career as it gives you huge freedom to up sticks and leave fast when new opportunities arise. Locking yourself into 20 yr+ contracts/landlord activities when young can be hugely inhibiting to your earnings potential. Without more details on the exact legal framework, area, house type etc it’s hard to give more specific advise, but in general you need a very large margin of safety with property due to all of the above, so if the numbers you’re running are coming out close (and they are here), it’s probably not worth it, and you’re better of sticking with more hands off investments like stocks and bonds. Be very careful about buying property because it has been going up quickly in recent years.  There are some fundamental factors that limit the amount real-estate can appreciate over time.  In a nutshell, the general real-estate market growth is supported by the entry-level property market.  That is, when values are appreciating, people can sell and use the capital gains to buy more valuable property.  This drives up the prices in higher value properties whose owners can use that to purchase more expensive properties and so on and so forth. At some point in a rising market, the entry-level properties start to become hard for entry-level buyers to afford.  The machine of rising prices throughout the market starts grinding to a halt.  This price-level can be calculated by looking at average incomes in an area.  At some percentage of income, people cannot buy into the market without crazy loans and if those become popular, watch out because things can get really ugly.  If you want an example, just look back to the US in 2007-2009 and the nearly apocalyptic financial crisis that ensued. As with most investing, you want to buy low and sell high.  Buying into a hot market is generally not very profitable.  Buying when the market is abnormally low tends to be a more effective strategy. Will buying a flat which generates $250 rent per month be a good decision? Whether investing in real estate is a good decision or not depends on many things, including the current and future supply/demand for rental units in your particular area. There are many questions on this site about this topic, and another answer to this question which already addresses many risks associated with owning property (though there are also benefits to consider). I just want to focus on this point you raised: I personally think yes, because rent adjusts with inflation and the rise in the price of the property is another benefit. Could this help me become financially independent in the long run since inflation is getting adjusted in it? In my opinion, the fact that rental income general adjusts with 'inflation' is a hedge against some types of economic risk, not an absolute increase in value. First, consider buying a house to live in, instead of to rent:  If you pay off your mortgage before your retire, then you have reduced your cost of accommodations to only utilities, property taxes, and repairs. This gives you a (relatively) known, fixed requirement of cash outflows. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - it doesn't cost you anything extra, because you already own your house. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, then you don't save anything, because you already own your house. If you instead rent your whole life, and save money each month (instead of paying off a mortgage), then when you retire, you will have a larger amount of savings which you can use to pay your monthly rental costs each month. By the time you retire, your cost of accommodations will be the market price for rent at that time. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - you will have to pay more on rent. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, you will save money on rent. You will have larger savings, but your cash outflow will be a little bit less certain, because you don't know what the market price for rent will be. You can see that, because you need to put a roof over your own head, just by existing you bear risk of the cost of property rising. So, buying your own home can be a hedge against that risk. This is called a 'natural hedge', where two competing risks can mitigate each-other just by existing. This doesn't mean buying a house is always the right thing to do, it is just one piece of the puzzle to comparing the two alternatives [see many other threads on buying vs renting on this site, or on google]. Now, consider buying a house to rent out to other people:  In the extreme scenario, assume that you do everything you can to buy as much property as possible. Maybe by the time you retire, you own a small apartment building with 11 units, where you live in one of them (as an example), and you have no other savings. Before, owning your own home was, among other pros and cons, a natural hedge against the risk of your own personal cost of accommodations going up. But now, the risk of your many rental units is far greater than the risk of your own personal accommodations. That is, if rent goes up by $100 after you retire, your rental income goes up by $1,000, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes up by $100. If rent goes down by $50 after you retire, your rental income goes down by $500, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes down by $50. You can see that only investing in rental properties puts you at great risk of fluctuations in the rental market. This risk is larger than if you simply bought your own home, because at least in that case, you are guaranteeing your cost of accommodations, which you know you will need to pay one way or another. This is why most investment advice suggests that you diversify your investment portfolio. That means buying some stocks, some bonds, etc.. If you invest to heavily in a single thing, then you bear huge risks for that particular market. In the case of property, each investment is so large that you are often 'undiversified' if you invest heavily in it (you can't just buy a house $100 at a time, like you could a stock or bond). Of course, my above examples are very simplified. I am only trying to suggest the underlying principle, not the full complexities of the real estate market. Note also that there are many types of investments which typically adjust with inflation / cost of living; real estate is only one of them.
I hope things work out and odds are that they will, but there's always a risk profile with any investment particularly an illiquid one like property. Here you're taking the risk that the local market in your area doesn't tank or that if it does that you can liquidate your houses quickly and retain most of the capital. Some areas are more stable than others, but things can change in decades.   My parents live in a decent part of CT. House prices were high in the early 2000s. Then one of the biotech firms around here pulled out. One firm was not so big a deal - 30000 jobs is quite a bit but the area didn't become rich off one company -  but it turns out that was the start of an industry trend. 3 more go, and suddenly property values crashed. Luckily, we have a pretty small house for the area so most of the assets aren't tied up in it, but it's pretty alarming to see a formerly upper middle class neighborhood become filled with overgrown lawns and for sale signs that hang around long enough to gather moss. When my parents sell after they retire they might be taking a hit in nominal terms, never mind real terms factoring in inflation.  This is about investment real estate though. I do think there is a more intangible emotional and stability gain you get from owning the land or property you live in. People just love becoming more well-off than they currently are, and one of the ways they do it is with leverage. Leverage requires credit. That desire is not exclusive to people who are not already well-off. For a well-off person who wants to become more well-off by expanding their real estate ventures, paying cash for property is a terrible way to go about it. The same goes for other types of business or market investment. Credit benefits the well-off even more greatly than it benefits the poor or the middle-class. It's generally a bad idea to use low-risk credit (low-risk in sense you're practically guaranteed to be forced to pay it off) to buy high-risk shares. In optimistic scenario, the profit from shares would be higher than your credit percentages. In less optimistic scenario you come with nothing. In worse scenario you have worthless shares and another credit to pay.  If your only problem is the non-profitable property, you can always sell it and get rid of negative cash flow. It won't affect your quality of life negatively. In your high-risk scenario you trade the opportunity for a bit better life with for a risk of turning it into disaster for you and your family. "It depends what you mean. Finance Independence and Retirement Early (FI/RE) are two overlapping ideas. If you plan to retire early and spend the same amount of money every year (adjusted for inflation), then you need to save twenty-times your yearly spending to satisfy the 4% Safe Withdrawal rule of thumb. Carefully notice I say ""yearly spending"" and not income.  I'm unaware how it is in Pakistan, but in America, people who retire in their sixties tend to reduce their spending by 30%. This is for a host of reasons like not eating out as much, not driving to work, paid off mortgages, and their children being adults now. In this type of profile, a person needs to save 17.5x yearly spending. This numbers presume a person will only use their built assets as an income source. Any programs like a government pension acting as a safety net. If you factor those in, the estimates above become smaller." Huh, well it's working for me. I've got 3 properties and am a little over 25% of my goal to never work again.  How would you suggest one get rich? I assume you have a better plan than he does? What you are describing is called a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). While the strategy you are describing is not impossible it would raise the amount of debt in your name and reduce your borrowing potential. A recent HELOC used to finance the down payment on a second property risks sending a signal of bad financial position to credit analysts and may further reduce your chances to obtain the credit approval. "You're right to seek passive income and since you're already looking for it, you probably already know some of the reasons to why it is important.   Do you live in the United States? If so I'd strongly recommend purchasing your primary residence and then maybe investment properties if you like owning your own home.  The US tax and banking structure is set up to favor this move in more ways than I can count. So, SAVE, SAVE, SAVE then beg, borrow and steal to get the down payment, rent rooms to friends or random people to afford the payments, buy a fixer upper in an up and coming neighborhood.  The US is rife with these in all price ranges. If you're working 56 hrs a week, you've got the work ethic. So if you can't afford it it's probably because you're spending all your money on other stuff. If you want to do this, it will take some effort, smarts, and savings. You will have to trim back the mochas, vacations, dinners out, etc, etc etc.  Let your friends do that stuff and rent from you.  Your life will get continually easier. If you have already trimmed back all the discretionary spending and still can't make it then you need to earn more money. Doing either and both of these things will absolutely change your whole economic life and future. So in summary I'd offer these  Ranked Priorities: 1) Learn to Save (unless you always want to have to work for someone else) 2) Increase your income capability (since your most valuable asset is YOU) 3) Buy and hold real estate (because the game is rigged to favor passive income) I'm 38, never earned a six figure salary, made some good purchases when I was 25-30 and work is ""optional"" for me now." I would not claim to be a personal expert in rental property. I do have friends and family and acquaintances who run rental units for additional income and/or make a full time living at the rental business.  As JoeTaxpayer points out, rentals are a cash-eating business. You need to have enough liquid funds to endure uncertainty with maintenance and vacancy costs. Often a leveraged rental will show high ROI or CAGR, but that must be balanced by your overall risk and liquidity position. I have been told that a good rule-of-thumb is to buy in cash with a target ROI of 10%. Of course, YMMV and might not be realistic for your market. It may require you to do some serious bargain hunting, which seems reasonable based on the stagnant market you described. Some examples: The main point here is assessing the risk associated with financing real estate. The ROI (or CAGR) of a financed property looks great, but consider the Net Income. A few expensive maintenance events or vacancies will quickly get you to a negative cash flow. Multiply this by a few rentals and your risk exposure is multiplied too!  Note that i did not factor in appreciation based on OP information. Cash Purchase with some very rough estimates based on OP example Net Income = (RENT - TAX - MAINT) = $17200 per year Finance Purchase rough estimate with 20% down Net Income = (RENT - MORT - TAX - MAINT) = $7500 per year Your experience is anecdotal (outside Australia things are different). There are many companies and real estate investment trusts (REITs) that own residential properties (as well as commercial in many cases to have a balanced portfolio). They are probably more common in higher-density housing like condos, apartment buildings, flats, or whatever you like to call them, but they are certainly part of the market for single family units in the suburbs as well. What follows is all my own opinion. I have managed and rented a couple of properties that I had lived in but wasn't ready to sell yet when I moved out. In most cases, I wish I would have sold sooner, rather than renting them out. I think that there are easier/less risky ways to get a good return on your money. Sometimes the market isn't robust enough to quickly sell when it's time to move, and some people like the flexibility of having a property that a child could occupy instead of moving back in at home. I understand those points of view even if I disagree with them. I don't quite understand your thought process here.  First, in a tax-advantaged retirement account you are NOT allowed to engage in a transaction with yourself.   If you just want to run a business and be able to write off expenses, how is using the self-directed IRA relevant? You can either buy the condo using your tax-advantaged account and rent it out to regular tenants.  Or you buy the condo yourself using your own money and then operate your business so you can deduct business expenses from doing so.  401k's allow you to take a loan out of it, so you can look into that as well. I would strongly, strongly advise against it. Others here are answering the question of, having decided to invest in property, how one ought to ensure that one invests in the right property. What has not really been discussed here is the issue of diversification. There are a number of serious risks to property investment. In fact, it is one of the riskiest types of investment. You face more of almost every type of risk in property than maybe any other asset class. It is one thing to take on those risks as part of a diverse portfolio including other asset classes. It is quite another - extremely irresponsible - thing to take on those risks as your sole investment, when your portfolio is in its infancy. So no, do not invest in property when you lack any other investments. Absolutely not. I assume having real estate in a good popular city is much more secure way of keeping money than having it in a bank account Not at all!  Many things can go wrong with rental property. Renters can be late on rent, they can cause damage to property, you can have unexpected repairs. I'm not saying that you should just let it sit, but rental property is not risk-free my any means. Are you prepared to be a landlord as a part time job (for 500/mo?).  Rental property is not passive income - it takes work to maintain.  You can outsource this to a property manager, but that eats into the 500/mo that you are estimating). I want to stay flexible and have a possibility to change my location whenever I want. That's a perfectly reasonable reason not to buy a home, but what will you do with the rental when you move? It will still need maintenance, you'll still need to interact with renters, etc. I'm not saying you shouldn't do this, but I get the feeling that you are not fully aware of the risks involved in rental properties. "Leverage here is referring to ""financial leverage"". This is the practice of ""levering"" [ie increasing, like the use of a lever to increase the amount of weight you can lift] the value of your investment by taking on debt.  For example: if you have 100k in cash, you can buy a 100k rental property. Assume the property makes 10k a year, net of expenses [10%]. Now assume the bank will also give you a 100k mortgage, at 3%. You could take the mortgage, plus your cash, and buy a 200k rental property. This would earn you 20k from the rental property, less 3k a year in interest costs [the 3%]. Your total income would be 17k, and since you only used 100k of your own money, your rate of return would now be 17% instead of 10%. This is financial leveraging. Note that this increases your risk, because if your investment fails not only have you lost your own money, you now need to pay back the bank. ""Beta riders"" appears to be negative commentary on investors who use Beta to calculate the value of a particular stock, without regard to other quantitative factors. Therefore ""leveraged beta riders"" are those who take on additional risk [by taking on debt to invest], and invest in a manner that the author would perhaps considered ""blindly"" following Beta. However, I have never seen this term before, and it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. A ""quant process driven discipline"" appears to be positive commentary on investors who use detailed quantitative analysis to develop rules which they rigorously follow to invest. I have never seen this exact phrasing before, and like the above, it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. I am not providing any opinion on whether ""beta riding"" or ""quant processes"" are good or bad things; this is just my attempt to interpret the quote as you presented it. Note that I did not go to the article to get context, so perhaps something else in the article could skew the language to mean something other than what I have presented." You could use the money to buy a couple of other (smaller) properties. Part of the rent of these properties would be used to cover the mortgage and the rest is income. "When you give a gift to another person or receive a gift from another person there is no impact on your taxes. You do not have to report certain amounts in your income, including the following: ...   -most gifts and inheritances; http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/ncm-tx/rtrn/cmpltng/rprtng-ncm/nttxd-eng.html If you give a gift to a charity or similar organization you can reduce your taxes. It is my recollection that when a family member gives a large amount of money to a child, tax on the income that money earns (typically interest) should be paid by the giver, not the child, but I can't find any publications to that effect on the CRA Site. There is a bit of language about ""Gifts"" from an employer that are really employment income: Gifts and other voluntary payments 1.3 The term gift is not defined in the Act. In common law jurisdictions, the courts have said that a bona fide gift exists when:   •There is a voluntary transfer of property,   •A donor freely disposes of his or her property to a donee, and   •The donee confers no right, privilege, material benefit, or advantage on the donor or on a person designated by the donor. 1.4 Whether a transfer of property has been made voluntarily is a question of fact. In order for a transfer to be considered voluntary, there must be no obligation to make such a transfer. Amounts received as gifts, that is, voluntary transfers without consideration and which cannot be attributed to an income-earning source, are not subject to tax in the hands of the recipient. 1.5 However, sometimes individuals receive a voluntary payment or other valuable transfer or benefit by virtue of an office or employment from an employer, or from some other person. In such cases, the amount of the payment or the value of the transfer or benefit is generally included in employment income pursuant to subsection 5(1) or paragraph 6(1)(a). (See also Guide T4130, Employers’ Guide - Taxable Benefits and Allowances.) Similarly, voluntary payments (or other transfers or benefits) received by virtue of a profession or in the course of carrying on a business are taxable receipts. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/tchncl/ncmtx/fls/s3/f9/s3-f9-c1-eng.html#N10244 If the people in question are adults who are not related to each other and don't have a business or employment relationship, then you should find that regardless of the amount of the gift, neither giver nor recipient will have a tax consequence."