Why I Chose to Rent My First House

Rewind the clock a couple years back in time and you’d find that my perception of investing in real estate has changed dramatically. Prior to educating myself and running calculations I was opposed to the idea of this. My previous bias against real estate was formulated from my observations of real estate investors in my community. They all seemed stretched thin for time and overwhelmed. They were stressed, and any interaction with them was brief and frantic – the opposite of the lifestyle I want.

My previous bias strongly conflicted with the biases my wife’s family held. They claimed to have made their money in real estate – in fact my wife’s uncle was a major developer of lakefront property. He unfortunately died before I could meet him and pick his brain on the topic. I’m sure he’d have become somewhat of a mentor if he was still alive, and he may have been able to sway me earlier.

About a year before writing this, I joined a local real estate investor meetup. The founding member of this meetup group recommended I look into Bigger Pockets. At the time of his recommendation I was in the process of remodeling my basement and I discovered their podcasts, which was fortunate timing. I run a very full schedule and their podcast made it possible to listen to their content while working on my basement. The BP podcast opened my mind to the possibility of investing in real estate. They provided enough insight that I decided to rent this house upon completion of the basement and buy a different primary residence. There’re a few reasons I decided to do this – one of which was the expected returns.

Investment returns on rental real estate come in three forms – cash flow, principal reduction on the mortgage, and appreciation of property values. In my case, I expect the rental property to return about $2,400 in annual cash flow, $3,000 in annual principal reduction, and about $5,000 in annual appreciation. In all, let’s round this down to $10,000/year. This breakdown of investment returns is important because it demonstrates that most of my returns are coming from appreciation and principal reduction. When most people ask about my decision to rent, they ask about the cash flow and the other two components aren’t initially considered. $2,400 hardly seems worth dealing with and people are often perplexed why I’d hassle myself with the inconvenience of managing a rental house for such paltry cash flow. The reality is that cash flow is a drop in the bucket in this case – although a very important aspect of investing in real estate.

The alternative to renting my place was to sell, which would have net me $18,000. The reason this is only $18,000 is because I live in the rural Midwest where the average home value is only $250,000, because I’d have to pay realtor and closing fees, and because I re-leveraged the house before renting to provide working capital for another investment property I acquired.  The expected outcome of this rental house is a collective $10,000 annual benefit, and only $18,000 was left in the property, which is an initial 55% return on capital.

My strategy is very similar to the BRRRR method Bigger Pockets advocates for. BRRRR is the process of buying a house, remodeling it, renting it, refinancing it, and repeating the process. In short – buy, rehab, rent, refinance, repeat. The intended outcome of BRRRR is to acquire a cash flowing rental property while leaving the least amount of your money in the deal as possible. Many people initially consider it irresponsible to leave as little equity in a property as possible. You can argue either way on this but at the end of the day, equity in a house does not pay the bills and cash in the bank does. BRRRR is simply choosing cash over equity. Also, you still have skin in the game – the bank will still only allow a 70% – 80% loan to value on an investment property. With the BRRRR strategy you’ve simply cashed in on your sweat equity. For example, let’s say you buy a $100,000 house with a $70,000 mortgage. You then proceed to spend $40,000 in renovations, which brings the value to $200,000. Your total contributions at this point is $70,000 ($30,000 down payment + $40,000 in renovations). With a cash out refinance you should be able to acquire a $140,000 mortgage against the house. After paying off the original $70,000 mortgage you’re left with $70,000 cash-out to refund your contributions. You’re still leveraged 70% on the property value. You still have a property that cash flows. You’ve simply removed your initial investment in exchange for hard work, and now you have cash to pad your bank account or repeat the process.

My future real estate endeavors are not set in stone but my focus for the next few years will be remodeling the new house I purchased. This cost me $178,300 to purchase and after $50,000 of renovations it should be worth $275,000 – $300,000 three years from now, depending how the housing market performs in my neighborhood. There’s a good chance I’ll re-leverage this house like I did for the rental house. I may also sell the rental house within this time to avoid capital gains tax since I’ll have lived in it 2 of the past 5 years. But I’d need to have another investment opportunity lined up because it wouldn’t make sense to sell for the purpose of saving $10,000 – $15,000 in capital gains tax if it meant losing an asset that was providing a $10,000 annual benefit.

Remodeling the rental house is the reason I didn’t put much time into this blog in 2020. I also hold a full-time job and have a few very young children so any remodeling is done before and after work hours. I do hope though to post a little more frequently in 2021.

Social Security Spousal & Survivor Benefit Considerations: Case Study With Health Concerns

This is a simple case study on 62 year old wife and 66 year old husband. The Husband elected benefits at full retirement age and wife has yet to file for benefits. Husband has health concerns and wife is healthy, expecting to live 20 more years.

People are largely biased towards claiming social security benefits early. Nearly one third of the population claims benefits as soon as possible, at age 62. There are strong opinions on this topic but the best timing is specific to each person’s situation. See Social Security: There’s More to Consider Than Gross Lifetime Benefits, where I point out several social security considerations beyond gross lifetime calculations.

Today’s post provides a brief analysis of a couple with conflicting health. The husband is struggling with his health and the wife has a clean bill of health. These conflicting timelines can be challenging to navigate. In this case both individuals have each others best interest in mind but it’s easy to imagine how conflicting life expectancy could fuel opposing financial objectives. One person is most concerned about the long-term and the other is most concerned about the short term. As this pertains to social security, it would likely foster an emotional bias within the husband towards claiming benefits as soon as possible whereas leaving the wife more concerned with the long-term affects of this. I hope you find this brief analysis helpful.

Again, to set the stage, Wife is 62 years old, in good health and hasn’t claimed benefits. The Husband is 66 years old, in poor health and claimed benefits at full retirement age. Husband’s monthly benefit is $1,394 and Wife is eligible for spousal benefit. Husband is not working and Wife works occasional jobs, earning less than the income limit.

Wife asked my thoughts on her claiming early. In our conversation we assumed that Husband would likely pass within within 5 years, but Wife would live for 20 years. Our initial instinct was for Wife to claim spousal benefits and enjoy both benefits until Husband is no longer living.

After further discussion I realized Wife doesn’t need additional income now and the long-term maximization of benefits for Wife was of greater importance. Wife has enough non-qualified assets to cover several years living expenses and can make do with the amount of social security income from any outcome. That being said, her financial situation isn’t bullet proof and she prefers making educated decisions that will provide the largest possible inheritance to her children. Of course, there are worse outcomes than her children not receiving an inheritance. The main priority is not running out of money.

Wife was wresting with the concept of claiming spousal benefits now or waiting until her full retirement age to claim. At age 62, Wife can claim $482 monthly spousal benefit. Electing benefits at this age presents the risk of permanently reducing her long-term social security benefit. The reason being that spousal benefits convert to survivor benefits immediately upon notification of death to the social security administration. If this event transpires prior to Wife’s full retirement age, she would experience a permanent reduction of survivor benefits. On the other hand, if Wife is not receiving benefits when Husband upsets the apple cart, she can choose when to claim survivor benefits. In her case this would be full retirement age.

Survivor benefits are reduced as follows:

Age% ReductionMo. Benefit (No Inflation Adjustment)
6271.7%$999
6376.7%$1,069
6482.2%$1,146
6588.9%$1,239
6696.6%$1,333
66 + 8 mo.100%$1,394

The worst-case scenario for Wife would be to immediately claim spousal benefits and husband to pass shortly thereafter. The best-case scenario would be for Wife to claim spousal benefits now, and husband to live past Wife’s full retirement age.

For this analysis i’m going to adopt a simple gross lifetime benefit comparison. This may seem to go against my comments in Social Security: There’s More to Consider Than Gross Lifetime Benefits but I’m doing so for good reason. This couple’s financial situation is not complicated by taxes or investment withdrawal considerations. They’re able to live entirely off social security income. When Wife is living without Husband she has enough non-qualified assets to supplement her income. Lastly, they’re planning around a fairly narrow range of life expectancy outcomes, which limits the range of possible outcomes and simplifies the analysis. My approach at analyzing the options is to quantify the financial impact to Wife’s lifetime benefits with Husband passing away at various ages within a 5 year time frame.

To avoid a permanent reduction of survivor benefits Wife would either have to wait to claim benefits until full retirement age or Husband would have to live 5 more years while Wife is claiming spousal benefits. Wife plans to live to age 82 and her primary hesitation for claiming spousal benefits is the potential permanent reduction of survivor benefits. Let’s quantify this concern to determine it’s validity. If she was to forgo spousal benefits in exchange for a larger survivor benefit at her full retirement age, she would have collected $300,625 (adjusted for 1.5% cost of living adjustment) by age 82. This scenario is shown on the far right column of the table below. The other columns show the cumulative lifetime benefit if Wife was to claim spousal benefits and Husband was to pass at various ages.

The table suggests there is minimal risk of Wife claiming spousal benefits at 62. All other considerations aside, she should elect spousal benefits as soon as possible.

Before moving forward with the decision to claim spousal benefits, I suggest this couple determine the amount of unrealized capital gains from any assets Wife would need to liquidate to supplement her social security income and determine if it’s worthwhile paying tax on these prior to Wife claiming spousal benefits. That being said, I’m fairly certain it makes sense to pay taxes while both are living. This couple doesn’t own retirement assets but I’d suggest a similar consideration around these for anyone in a similar situation.