Everything’s Free & Clear — Rentals Included — Yet Still Taking Home 25-35% of What’s Easily Attainable

How can that be? Easier than you might think — a lot easier.

Josh and I are currently studying one our San Diego data bases. This one isn’t made up of investors we know, but of those we’d like to know.

Earlier this week I noticed a woman and her holdings that really caught me eye. She owned everything in her name only. There were three homes plus her personal residence.

magnifying glass

All were free and clear.

Easy Street, right? Let’s break it down, and take a closer look. As you go through this, please keep the concept of Purposeful Planning in mind. (On the right hand column of this blog are two podcasts on the subject.)

The rental homes are worth, more or less, $500,000 apiece. Her personal residence is located in a neighborhood where a 1,500 square foot fixer runs around $800,000 or so. Hers is worth at least a million if not $1.5MIL. Don’t forget, it too is free and clear of any debt.

Let’s not get bogged down in a bunch of number crunching. Her net income from the three rentals is, at the absolute best, $4,000 a month — but I doubt it. They’re old, and have had tenants in them for the last 20 years. Still, we’ll use that figure.

Her home was purchased after California’s now famous Prop 13 property tax law. (actually a constitutional amendment, as the authors didn’t trust politicians as far as they could throw ‘em) The lowest her tax bill could possibly be, annually, is about $13,000. It’s probably a few thousand more, but let’s not quibble.

Using properties our clients’ have purchased this year, or that are available now, we did some quick comparative analysis on this woman’s position. status quo

First, let’s flesh out her financial status quo in San Diego.

Her rentals have been owned, according to public records, since 1985. This is significant because it means she’s totally out of depreciation (read: tax shelter) due to the depreciation schedules of that time. Result? All of her net income from the rentals are taxable. So that $4,000 a month we talked about? Not so fast, after-tax breath!

Her income is now significantly lower than the $48,000 we originally thought. It doesn’t matter how much, but when both Fed and State taxes are subtracted, she’s not happy, trust me.

1031 exchange

Now let’s look at what we’d ask her to consider.

Execute tax deferred (1031) exchanges on all three rentals. This would result in approximate tradable capital of just under $1.4 million. Including the all costs of acquisition, she’d be comfortably able to trade into around $5 million of income properties located in much more cash flow oriented regions.

We’d want her financing to be relatively long term, and fixed. Her depreciation (tax shelter) will be revived to miraculous levels. Her net income will easily be between $125-145,000 annually. Most, but probably all of this income will be tax sheltered — far beyond her life expectancy.

In other words?

She will have at least quadrupled her after-tax income — for the rest of her life.

She’ll be able to do things she’s not burying can in backyard
been able to afford for years. She can go to Europe, or an exotic island, or replace her old car — easily.

BawldGuy Axiom: Free and clear is almost always a false friend. It’s akin to burying your money in a Folger’s can in the backyard.

This woman is a few months away from a massive improvement in the financial lifestyle of her Golden Years.

Going from $48,000 a year before having to pay both real estate ($13,000) and income taxes, to $10,000 a month or more — after all income taxes — is a paradigm shift in anyone’s financial life. To be able to make that change in what amounts to a few months?

Incredible — and imminently doable.

There are literally many thousands of people in very similar circumstances, who are living a life less abundant than is easily possible for them. They can’t really be blamed either.

Why?

BawldGuy Axiom #2: We don’t know what we don’t know.

This woman can’t get the answer to a question she doesn’t know to ask.

Being able to have such a positive impact on folks’ lives, is the high that keeps on giving. It’s why I love what I do. Receiving postcards from Italy sent by retired clients? A cool bonus. :)

Related posts:

  1. Getting Out Of A Dead Market — The Case For Taking What’s There And Movin’ On
About BawldGuy

I'm second generation real estate, first licensed in fall of 1969. Having been mentored by several iconic brokers, I'm also CCIM trained, having completed all 200 hours back in 1980. Have successfully executed well over 200 tax deferred exchanges, many of which have been multi-state in nature. Strong points are analysis and the creation and real world application of Purposeful Plans employing several strategies synergistically. The idea is to arrive at retirement with the most after tax income possible, backed by the largest net worth.

Contact BawldGuy | BawldGuy's Google Profile

Comments

  1. Robert Coté says:

    Brilliant and short analysis. Yes, free and clear is not a good policy when there are favorable taxes and better opportunities. I do question the amount of leverageyou are recommending. $5m of income generating properties for her $1.4m investment is 28% or 4:1 leverage. Tax benefits against income help but she is also going from $13,000 in property taxes to $45,000 (after deductions) right? Then there are the inevitable management costs.

    Don’t get me wrong. This woman needs to get the equity working harder as you suggest. I just don’t want the top line numbers to be the reason. Bottom line she’ll do herself and others a great service by freeing up these assets for better uses.

    Not to step on your territory but “encumbering” the existing properties for the purposes of mantaining/improving with the idea of higher sales prices or rental value might also be part of your plan.

  2. BawldGuy says:

    Hey Robert, good to see you back.

    The 25% equity position worked out because of the following assumptions used, which I”m confident you’ll agree are real life.

    7% interest only loans. Got that from my lender before writing the piece. He said he can do that all day every day with 25% down.

    35% operating expenses – speaks for itself. As you’re well aware, small properties, i.e., 1-4 units, generate a lower expense factor overall than do large complexes.

    Rents used were taken from, as mentioned, either available properties with existing leases, or recent closed transactions of my own clientele.

    Borrowing against her existing props would certainly get the results you put forth. My argument would be time.

    What does she care, for instance, if she ends up with after tax monthly income of $11,000 or $12,500 – given her current status?

  3. BawldGuy says:

    And Robert – thanks so much for the complement.

  4. Doug Quance says:

    That’s some pretty smart prospecting, Mr. Brown!

    What can Brown do for you?

    (I think that might have been taken, already…)
    :lol:

  5. Jeff Brown says:

    Damn! I knew I’d heard it somewhere. :)

  6. Very nicely done, Jeff. Throw that cash into a Walgreens or some kind of very safe NNN deals and you are looking at a very nice ROI.

  7. Jeff Brown says:

    Good to see you here David – The NNN approach is very cool for a retired lady. Her potential challenge would be having enough capital to acquire a property offering a national sized tenant the qualify of Walgreens. In any case, they sure make life easy, don’t they?

  8. Cher says:

    There must be some fractional ownerships of NNN out there because, yes, you need allot of bucks to have exclusive ownership.
    Great to talk to you Thursday…thanks for the time and great ideas. Brian has been in touch for info and I e-mailed info to him.
    We are flying out to Boston tomorrow night…red eye…trip is a write off thanks to out of state property.

  9. BawldGuy says:

    Enjoy!

Speak Your Mind

*