Minitrump
2019-04-16 03:45:28
- #1
:
Purchase price: €500,000
Incidental costs: €50,000 (including minor renovations, rental advertisement costs, etc.)
Equity capital: €50,000
---> Loan amount: €500,000 (full financing)
at a fixed 2% for 10 years with 1% initial repayment (do not repay too much!; banks may not like to hear this, but it is better for you).
That means the loan installment is €15,000 per year.
Net rent: €1,600/month or €19,200/year
Operating costs approx. €3,800 per year
(Repairs, non-recoverable incidental costs, rental loss (strictly speaking, these are not costs but reduce the net rent; but you can also deduct them here), lawyer fees for tenant-default lawsuits/legal protection insurance, taxes, etc.)
That leaves €15,400, €15,000 go to the bank, leaving even a €400 buffer, which you can either spend or put into reserves. In terms of cash flow, it is roughly a break-even game. Liquidity remains the same.
BUT: There is already an accounting profit due to the 1% repayment, so slightly more than €5,000 is repaid in the first year. But that's not all regarding the return: because you still have to consider the property price development: assuming the property price rises 4% per year, then after 1 year the property would be worth €520,000. The total accounting profit is therefore €25,000.
If you now relate this to the equity capital invested, this would initially result in an equity return of 50% for the first year (= 25,000/50,000). Of course, this is not entirely correct, because you still had to bear incidental purchase costs of €50,000. So the total return would still be negative. This can be continued to be viewed year by year. If the property price increase is constantly 4% per year, then after about 2 years you would be roughly break-even, i.e., you would have recovered the incidental purchase costs. After 4 years, even considering the incidental purchase costs, you would have earned more than €50,000 (compound interest also comes into play here). If you now relate this to the equity capital invested of €50,000, you already get an annualized equity return of almost 19%. So 100% was earned in 4 years. You then have to take the GEOMETRIC mean (not the arithmetic one!), i.e., the 4th root of 2. (The 100% gain corresponds to 2; so 100% is the baseline, then 100% is added, so 100% + 100% = 200% = 2) --> and the 4th root of that is approximately 1.19, thus 19% annualized return.
This average return then rises further in the following years to over 20% (assuming the property price increase remains at 4%). But since the ANNUAL performance contribution decreases year by year
(because repayment increases the equity base, i.e., the ratio of newly gained equity to current equity (considering repayment) decreases more and more year by year, because the denominator always becomes much larger and the numerator only marginally)
the equity return converges over time towards the rental yield + property price growth rate. When the loan is fully repaid, i.e., you have 100% equity share, only the simple rental yield + property price growth rate is generated. So there is a maximum somewhere where, over time, the average return is maximal. Before that, i.e., in the first year, it is negative due to incidental costs, and at the end, when the loan is long repaid, the average return approaches the rental yield + property price growth rate again. So ideally, you should hit this maximum at sale. Usually, this occurs after about 10 years. But it would be wrong to repay the loan completely or even buy a rental property entirely with equity, which strangely about 80-90% of people do and then wonder why they mostly only maintain the real economic value. They often also buy somewhere in the boondocks, where price increases are rather low. Therefore, very few achieve real returns of over 1% with their equity-financed properties!
Of course, the question is how much equity you have to bring in? Usually, banks require 20%. Then the equity return is naturally much worse. But it can also be that the rental yield is higher or property prices rise more than 4%. This can, of course, lead to equity returns of 40% and more in individual cases.
What I am also trying to find out in my thread, for example, is to what extent life insurance policies can be pledged (as equity substitutes or in my case also as a substitute for ongoing income), since I don't touch them anyway, hopefully providing higher collateral and thus a lower interest rate.
So basically, you can remember: The less equity input, the higher the equity return. The lower the repayment, the higher the equity return. And don't forget to sell the property in time and not hold it until the final repayment.
I hope at least to have clarified the basic principle.
Regarding location and size:
I find all the usual suspects interesting like Berlin, Frankfurt, Munich, Stuttgart, Hamburg, Düsseldorf, etc.; also the second row like Cologne, Karlsruhe, Mainz, etc.
For roughly €300,000, I had a flat in the center with 30-40 m2 in mind. No houses, even though you have sole decision-making power there. Try to find a property with a small share of the entire building. Because if, for example, the facade needs to be renovated for €200,000, it makes a difference whether you have a 1.5% share or 10% or even more. So the %-wise maintenance costs decrease the smaller the share of the entire building.
Of course, almost every investor thinks like this, which is why these small apartments are disproportionately expensive; you have to see what makes sense in the individual case.
Purchase price: €500,000
Incidental costs: €50,000 (including minor renovations, rental advertisement costs, etc.)
Equity capital: €50,000
---> Loan amount: €500,000 (full financing)
at a fixed 2% for 10 years with 1% initial repayment (do not repay too much!; banks may not like to hear this, but it is better for you).
That means the loan installment is €15,000 per year.
Net rent: €1,600/month or €19,200/year
Operating costs approx. €3,800 per year
(Repairs, non-recoverable incidental costs, rental loss (strictly speaking, these are not costs but reduce the net rent; but you can also deduct them here), lawyer fees for tenant-default lawsuits/legal protection insurance, taxes, etc.)
That leaves €15,400, €15,000 go to the bank, leaving even a €400 buffer, which you can either spend or put into reserves. In terms of cash flow, it is roughly a break-even game. Liquidity remains the same.
BUT: There is already an accounting profit due to the 1% repayment, so slightly more than €5,000 is repaid in the first year. But that's not all regarding the return: because you still have to consider the property price development: assuming the property price rises 4% per year, then after 1 year the property would be worth €520,000. The total accounting profit is therefore €25,000.
If you now relate this to the equity capital invested, this would initially result in an equity return of 50% for the first year (= 25,000/50,000). Of course, this is not entirely correct, because you still had to bear incidental purchase costs of €50,000. So the total return would still be negative. This can be continued to be viewed year by year. If the property price increase is constantly 4% per year, then after about 2 years you would be roughly break-even, i.e., you would have recovered the incidental purchase costs. After 4 years, even considering the incidental purchase costs, you would have earned more than €50,000 (compound interest also comes into play here). If you now relate this to the equity capital invested of €50,000, you already get an annualized equity return of almost 19%. So 100% was earned in 4 years. You then have to take the GEOMETRIC mean (not the arithmetic one!), i.e., the 4th root of 2. (The 100% gain corresponds to 2; so 100% is the baseline, then 100% is added, so 100% + 100% = 200% = 2) --> and the 4th root of that is approximately 1.19, thus 19% annualized return.
This average return then rises further in the following years to over 20% (assuming the property price increase remains at 4%). But since the ANNUAL performance contribution decreases year by year
(because repayment increases the equity base, i.e., the ratio of newly gained equity to current equity (considering repayment) decreases more and more year by year, because the denominator always becomes much larger and the numerator only marginally)
the equity return converges over time towards the rental yield + property price growth rate. When the loan is fully repaid, i.e., you have 100% equity share, only the simple rental yield + property price growth rate is generated. So there is a maximum somewhere where, over time, the average return is maximal. Before that, i.e., in the first year, it is negative due to incidental costs, and at the end, when the loan is long repaid, the average return approaches the rental yield + property price growth rate again. So ideally, you should hit this maximum at sale. Usually, this occurs after about 10 years. But it would be wrong to repay the loan completely or even buy a rental property entirely with equity, which strangely about 80-90% of people do and then wonder why they mostly only maintain the real economic value. They often also buy somewhere in the boondocks, where price increases are rather low. Therefore, very few achieve real returns of over 1% with their equity-financed properties!
Of course, the question is how much equity you have to bring in? Usually, banks require 20%. Then the equity return is naturally much worse. But it can also be that the rental yield is higher or property prices rise more than 4%. This can, of course, lead to equity returns of 40% and more in individual cases.
What I am also trying to find out in my thread, for example, is to what extent life insurance policies can be pledged (as equity substitutes or in my case also as a substitute for ongoing income), since I don't touch them anyway, hopefully providing higher collateral and thus a lower interest rate.
So basically, you can remember: The less equity input, the higher the equity return. The lower the repayment, the higher the equity return. And don't forget to sell the property in time and not hold it until the final repayment.
I hope at least to have clarified the basic principle.
Regarding location and size:
I find all the usual suspects interesting like Berlin, Frankfurt, Munich, Stuttgart, Hamburg, Düsseldorf, etc.; also the second row like Cologne, Karlsruhe, Mainz, etc.
For roughly €300,000, I had a flat in the center with 30-40 m2 in mind. No houses, even though you have sole decision-making power there. Try to find a property with a small share of the entire building. Because if, for example, the facade needs to be renovated for €200,000, it makes a difference whether you have a 1.5% share or 10% or even more. So the %-wise maintenance costs decrease the smaller the share of the entire building.
Of course, almost every investor thinks like this, which is why these small apartments are disproportionately expensive; you have to see what makes sense in the individual case.