News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.8K     0 

simuls

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
0
I'm curious to know what most people think about how there seems to be such a difference between what purchase prices are vs. the rental income they can generate. It would seem to me that an average 1b, 600/ft condo in dt TO goes for around $300 000 with pkg, but could only rent for $15-1600. Even if you put 50% down that's not really generating any income, just paying expenses. Is it even possible to invest in the market as it is or will prices have to come down/rents go up?
 
that's been one of the arguments by those who say RE is currently too expensive.

i thought a 600sf condo would fetch $1,350/m [assuming no locker or parking].

for $300K condo with 20% down payment, leaves $240K mortgage.

$240K @ 4% 5yr term /25yr amort = $1,262/m [$469-570 principal + $693-793 interest];
property taxes = ~$200/m;
maintenance fees = $300/m;
property insurance = $50/m
========================================

total costs = ~ $1,812/m.


there are some who will say that the principal repayment shouldn't be taken into, which i don't agree with, b/c an owner/investor should be compensated for the risk.

however, for illustrative purposes, let's say we don't include the principal repayment ...

this gives us an approx expenses of $1,300/m at historic low rate of 4% ... just barely covered by the $1,350/m rent;

and that doesn't take into consideration any vacancies (typically at least 5% is used by banks);
realtor fees to lease the place (typically forgo 1 month per year lease);
costs associated with bad tenants, etc.

================

In year 6, the mortgage comes up for renewal ... I have assumed rates have gone up conservatively by 200 basis points to 6% but maintained other costs the same, which is VERY unlikely:

$209K @ 6% 5yr term /20yr amort = $1,488/m [$456-610 principal + $878-1032 interest];
property taxes = ~$200/m;
maintenance fees = $300/m;
property insurance = $50/m
========================================

total costs = ~ $2,038/m.; if you exclude principal repayment then your expenses are approx $1,505/m ... income does not cover expenses and residential rent increases are controlled ... you'd be lucky to get 10% increase over those 5 years.



that's why I think anything over $325-350 PSF is unsustainable.
 
Last edited:
I think anything under $400psf is still okay.

Assuming 393psf * 600 sf = $236k w/ 25% down. $177 mortgage.

$177k @ 4% 5yr term. (I assume paying 15% off per year and paying off full after 5 years and only calculating interest and not principal) average interest is $412.6

property taxes = ~$168/m
maintenance fees = $300/m
property insurance = $50/m

Total carrying costs excluding principle cost = $930.6

If you rent out for $1350 (no parking and locker). $419.4/month * 11 month earnings is $4,613/year. Calculating earnings for the principle is a bit more difficult unless you assume full payments without mortgage.

Assume no mortgage (cash payment)

property taxes = ~$168/m
maintenance fees = $300/m
property insurance = $50/m
Total carrying = $518/m
earnings = $832/m * 11 m = $9152
Interest on principle earnings is approx 3.88%
Interest on principle earnings is approx 4.11% (excluding property insurance).
Current interest at the bank is 1-1.75%.

There's also the gains from selling property at a higher price. Assume you sell for $500psf, you gain $107psf. $64200.
 
Am I correct in thinking that all of the money earned (beyond expenses) is taxed as income in that fiscal year and you're taxed again on the sale at your rate on 50% of the gain? That would seem to seriously shrink your return vs. the market.

It would seem to make more sense to buy it, move in for a couple years, then rent it out because you can keep a place you don't live labelled as your principal residence for up to 4 years after you start renting it out. That way you avoid the capital gains when you sell it.

Also, where can you find less than $400/ft downtown right now unless it's in an older building, which will command lower rent and have higher maintenance? I'm not challenging, I'm just interested.
 
Am I correct in thinking that all of the money earned (beyond expenses) is taxed as income in that fiscal year and you're taxed again on the sale at your rate on 50% of the gain? That would seem to seriously shrink your return vs. the market.

It would seem to make more sense to buy it, move in for a couple years, then rent it out because you can keep a place you don't live labelled as your principal residence for up to 4 years after you start renting it out. That way you avoid the capital gains when you sell it.

Also, where can you find less than $400/ft downtown right now unless it's in an older building, which will command lower rent and have higher maintenance? I'm not challenging, I'm just interested.

I'm not sure about tax issues. However, there are few under $400 psf to be had. It's not common, but some agents get deals from builders for left over units to be sold at a cheaper price. Or there's the possibility of taking over people's assignments for those who purchased too many units to flip but can't get mortgage to close and can't sell the assignment. I just got email from an agent for someone selling at 1 king for $400psf fully furnished. However I think it will be harder to earn as much on it since maintenance there is high. Also harder to sell at high price due to high maintenance too.
 
similus said:
Am I correct in thinking that all of the money earned (beyond expenses) is taxed as income in that fiscal year and you're taxed again on the sale at your rate on 50% of the gain? That would seem to seriously shrink your return vs. the market.

yes, net money earned annually via rent is considered income and taxed at your marginal tax rate; and capital gains is currently taxable at 50% at time of sale.



I think anything under $400psf is still okay.

Assuming 393psf * 600 sf = $236k w/ 25% down. $177 mortgage.

$177k @ 4% 5yr term. (I assume paying 15% off per year and paying off full after 5 years and only calculating interest and not principal) average interest is $412.6

property taxes = ~$168/m
maintenance fees = $300/m
property insurance = $50/m

Total carrying costs excluding principle cost = $930.6

If you rent out for $1350 (no parking and locker). $419.4/month * 11 month earnings is $4,613/year. Calculating earnings for the principle is a bit more difficult unless you assume full payments without mortgage.


Q, where would you get the 15% annual principal pre-payment from; and why would you want to pay it off full within 5 years since investment interest is tax deductible?
 
Q, where would you get the 15% annual principal pre-payment from; and why would you want to pay it off full within 5 years since investment interest is tax deductible?

well...if you borrow money. You can pay 15% of the principle each year to help decrease your loan interest. By end of 5th year 75% of principle will be paid off. You can just pay off rest of 25% or continue mortgaging and paying interest. I realize interest is tax deductible. But it will eat into your earnings if need to pay off interest. It depends, is the interest you need to pay which is tax deductible more worthwhile than paying it in cash full and having greater savings?
 
Th amount you declare as taxable on rental income is somewhat under your own control because you are allowed to defer taxation through such means as the capital cost allowance.
 
AKS said:
well...if you borrow money. You can pay 15% of the principle each year to help decrease your loan interest. By end of 5th year 75% of principle will be paid off. You can just pay off rest of 25% or continue mortgaging and paying interest. I realize interest is tax deductible. But it will eat into your earnings if need to pay off interest. It depends, is the interest you need to pay which is tax deductible more worthwhile than paying it in cash full and having greater savings?

To each their own I guess ... but to pay an extra 15% of the principal out of one's pocket seems to defeat the point of buying RE for positive cashflow purposes.

With 20-25% down payment, one would hope the rents coming in would cover all expenses plus provide a little bit of cushion; without having to risk putting up 75% of your capital and to have the rental income taxed at a higher marginal tax rate during one's working years.

I am of the understanding that RE investing is purely a longterm investment for positive cashflow, not solely for capital gains, which starts minimally and after 25 years, when one is closer or in retirement, the property is paid in full and the net income from rent will be taxed at a lower marginal rate.


Th amount you declare as taxable on rental income is somewhat under your own control because you are allowed to defer taxation through such means as the capital cost allowance.

True, CCA helps to defer tax in the year earned, but it all gets recaptured when the property is sold, and most likely at the highest marginal tax rate.

Has anyone here done calculations to see if it's more beneficial to invoke CCA in year earned and get recaptured later; or just pay in the year earned?
 
Something else that I wonder about, and never ever hear the banks or anyone else mentioning, is the effect of inflation on mortgage payments. Everyone says to pay off the loan ASAP, but that would seem to be counter-productive when inflation will start eating away at the actual cost. For eg. If I paid $100 000 in 1983, I effectively paid $198 623.06 (avg rate of 2.78%) in 2008 dollars. If I took out a $100 000 mortgage, it would cost me over the same amount of time at an average rate of 6% with monthly payments, $191 940.69. It would seem then, to make more sense to NOT pay off your mortgage early, and use the rest (if you have it) to invest and use that interest to pay off some more of the mortgage. Any thoughts?
 
Simuls,

I believe the main advantage to real estate investment is the guaranteed capital appreciation over time via inflation while the mortgage amount remains fixed. Yes, I say “guaranteed†as we have a Central Bank inflation target of 2% a year which implies all physical assets on average increase by this amount per year (or conversely, money depreciates 2% per year). And yes, inflation will always remain positive as we have a fiat currency regime which allows the Bank to simply print money to maintain the target if need be. For me, the rental income is irrelevant provided it at least covers all costs associated with the property (i.e. mortgage interest, tax, other expenses). Here’s a very simple example of what I’m talking about. You buy a property for $100,000 with a $20,000 deposit and the rental yield is 0% (i.e. rent covers all expenses only). In the first year inflation is 2%, thus your property has increased $2,000 which yields 10% (2,000/20,000=0.10). Over time, your property will continue compounding at 2% per year, while your mortgage amount remains the same. A 2% rate doesn’t sound that great, but when leveraged (as in the above example), and compounded over time, the results can be quite spectacular. In addition, as your property appreciates over time, you should draw out the extra equity (paper gains) and principle paid down to use or invest elsewhere. Paying down the mortgage only reduces the above mentioned leverage which reduces your return.

I should mention though, if your risk tolerance is low, you can simply decrease the leverage used via a larger deposit (i.e 50%).

If you're still interested, here’s some excerpts of a previous post I made rambling on about capital appreciation vs income back in January/09:

When discussing real estate (generally speaking), all variables grow with inflation over time except the mortgage amount. For example, over time the following will increase roughly 3% per year on average: rent, condo fees, taxes, insurance, maintenance and (most important of all) the home value. Over a 25 year period, your $500k home growing at 3%/yr will produce a much larger gain then your income. Your yearly income probably starts out flat (maybe even slightly negative) and then slowly grows over time as your increased rent (3%/yr) begins to exceed your fixed interest expense. Clearly, $500k growing at 3% will produce a much larger gain then the annual rent of $25k growing at 3%.

My spread sheet model has estimated the capital appreciation component to represent roughly 90% of total gains (and rental income 10%) for the average Toronto property over a 25 year period. Other less desirable cities may not have home values match inflation over time, but they should yield a higher rental income to help compensate, therefore producing a 50%/50% split rather then Toronto’s 90%/10%. The absolute $ gain though will still be much higher in Toronto vs less desirable cities.

In the above example, I’m only assuming Toronto home prices increase with inflation (and no more). If you believe (as I do) that well located central Toronto real estate will actually grow at least 1%-2% above inflation over the next 25 years, the returns will indeed be good. You may disagree and claim that Toronto real estate will not increase more then inflation. Perhaps, but I would counter with two main points. First, the long term fundamentals are just too damn good. Of course the next three years will be slow but let me point out: Toronto is a great city, a financial centre, a medical/research centre, an educational centre, the upcoming demographic shift of baby boomers moving to city centre (and away from suburbia), population increases (2 million +), restricted land use policies, increased transport congestion in suburbs, and continued foreign immigration (to mention but a few). My second main point is that the average GTA property has already increased in value 2.49% above inflation between 1966 and 2008. According to Stats Canada data (source Bloomberg), Canadian CPI has averaged 4.6% over the last 42 years. According to the Toronto Real Estate Board, the average yearly compounded growth of a home in the GTA has been 7.09%. Here’s the raw data:

Average GTA House Price
Year Price % Increase
1966 $21,360 0.00%
1967 $24,078 12.72%
1968 $26,732 11.02%
1969 $28,929 8.22%
1970 $29,492 1.95%
1971 $30,426 3.17%
1972 $32,513 6.86%
1973 $40,605 24.89%
1974 $52,806 30.05%
1975 $57,581 9.04%
1976 $61,389 6.61%
1977 $64,559 5.16%
1978 $67,333 4.30%
1979 $70,830 5.19%
1980 $75,694 6.87%
1981 $90,203 19.17%
1982 $95,496 5.87%
1983 $101,626 6.42%
1984 $102,318 0.68%
1985 $109,094 6.62%
1986 $138,925 27.34% +
1987 $189,105 36.12% +
1988 $229,635 21.43% +
1989 $273,698 19.19% +
1990 $255,020 -6.82% -
1991 $234,313 -8.12% -
1992 $214,971 -8.25% -
1993 $206,490 -3.95% -
1994 $208,921 1.18%
1995 $203,028 -2.82% -
1996 $198,150 -2.40% -

1997 $211,307 6.64%
1998 $216,815 2.61%
1999 $228,372 5.33%
2000 $243,255 6.52%
2001 $251,508 3.39%
2002 $275,231 9.43%
2003 $293,067 6.48%
2004 $315,231 7.56%
2005 $335,907 6.56%
2006 $351,941 4.77%
2007 $376,236 6.90%
2008 $379,347 0.83%

Side note: It’s best to look at the raw “unadjusted†data. Previous posts have included price graphs of Toronto home prices “adjusted†for inflation. This is a pointless (and distorting) exercise. To compare apples with apples, you would also have to adjust the mortgage amount over time to fall 4% a year. Suddenly a flat gain in your home value looks good if the mortgage amount decreases each year (without even making a principle payment!).

Of course, past performs doesn’t guarantee the future, but it helps to form an opinion. Also note the abnormal period between 1986 and 1996 in the above table. You had 4 years of outstanding gains and then 6 years of outstanding losses. But the average annual compounded return over this 10 year period was still +6.2%.

I firmly believe the most important (and least understood) concept pertaining to real estate, is “Compound Interestâ€. You’ve all heard the term but few people actually appreciate how powerful it is over time. As long as you have constant growth every year, you will experience exponential growth which is perhaps the most powerful force in our world. Some might say “well you can’t have continuous growth foreverâ€. Well, few people understand that, in our current financial system, you can. Most central bankers in the world (FOMC, ECB BoC, BoJ, etc…) have explicit (or implicit) goals to maintain inflation between 1% and 3% per year forever. This is easy to do as we now have a “fiat†(paper) monetary system. Most systems withdrew from the gold standard (money supply based on amount of gold in the vault) after Richard Nixon in 1971. It is now extremely easy for central bankers to maintain a positive inflationary environment as they just print more money (or type a few keys on a keyboard). The next few years will prove to be difficult for central bankers (no question) but don’t you worry, central bankers will prevail (I wouldn’t bet against them!). Basically, the way most financial systems work today, inflation acts as a form of stealth tax on the masses. Your living standards are continuously eroded by inflation (a dollar today will be worth about 1 cent next century). The reason governments support this system is that it’s a great way to secretly reduce national debts. These huge gov’t debts continuously decrease in relation to the overall economy, thus becoming more manageable and easier to pay off.

This is the beauty of real estate investment. Provided you invest in the right area at the right price, don’t over leverage (never invest with just 5% down), and are prepared to wait, you will handsomely out perform most any other asset class. You’re basically taking advantage of the system in the same manner as governments. Let it work for you and not against you!

There are three main barriers to entry which explain why most people choose not to invest in real estate:

1) Large lump sum- At least 20%-25% is required to ride out the bumpy years. You can easily lose a lot of money if forced to sell in a down market

2) Time- The two main ingredients to compound interest are growth and time. Growth is easy, you’ll get that from Mark Carney. Time is the tricky one. You need to wait at least 15 years to begin bearing fruit and to fully maximum your investment 40+ years are required. I suspect most people on this board are under 40. You basically have to pre-commit to a long holding period (as long as your life to date) and begin investing as early as possible. This is not easy.

3) Hands-on- Real estate is not something you can just purchase and through in the drawer. It requires continual maintenance and management. Unfortunately, most people do not want this added burden.

One final note on behavioural psychology. When things are going well, we humans assume things will continue in this fashion forever. When things go wrong, again we assume things will continue badly forever. It’s easy to read the papers and follow the heard but miss the broader picture. Nobody said building true wealth was easy.
 
Great post Johnzz.

One thing I wanted to add or ask about though, is what do you mean when you say:

In addition, as your property appreciates over time, you should draw out the extra equity (paper gains) and principle paid down to use or invest elsewhere.

How does one actually do that? Do you mean take a second mortgage out of the place once it's paid off? Or can one actually just not pay principle and pay interest forever?



As well (question to all), what is everyone's opinions regarding the long-term value of a condo vs a house? A condo is much easier to rent and maintain (someone else does that for you at least, and condos are smaller than houses), but from what I've noticed the older a condo is, the less desirable it is both in terms of property price and rental price. How would that affect a real estate investment?
 
"I believe the main advantage to real estate investment is the guaranteed capital appreciation over time via inflation while the mortgage amount remains fixed. Yes, I say “guaranteed†as we have a Central Bank inflation target of 2% a year which implies all physical assets on average increase by this amount per year (or conversely, money depreciates 2% per year). "

While this is generally accepted I actually think it is somewhat dangerous thinking when words like "guaranteed" are thrown around, particularly with regard to condos which most people on this forum tend to be concerned with. There can be massive cyclical time lags and eras of stagnation. Given the time frame of a human life you can essentially be a massive winner or wait forever without appreciable gains. The era we are entering is definately uncertain and I would tend to suspect that capital appreciation will be muted at best as far as we can see into the future. This from a guy who has skin in the game so to speak. In general property appreciates with inflation, however there is a building and land component to property. Condos are very much more anchored towards the building element and as such tend to be dragged into the depreciating asset category. Perhaps this will change, but my evidence suggests that condos do not maintain their inflation adjusted value and hence don't make much sense as long-term real estate holdings plays. This does not mean there isn't money, a lot of money, to be made in condos as short-term investments and other niche investment vehicles.
 

Back
Top