Buy home and leverage roommates, or split rent?
what I should think about. If you decide to do this - get everything in writing.  Get lease agreements to enforce the business side of the relationship.  If they are not comfortable with that much formality, it's probably best not to do it, I'm not saying that you should not do this - but that you need to think about these type of scenarios before committing to a house purchase. "...instead of all of us draining our money into a landlord... Instead, you are suggesting that still everyone (except you) will drain their money into a landlord, just that now the landlord is you.  I guess what that really means is that you will need to have landlord tenant agreements between you and your roommates. When things break or need replacing you'll have to foot the bill and as your tenants, your ""roomies"" might not be too forgiving when things need fixing. When the fridge breaks down, you'll have to buy a new one immediately. Yard work is your sole responsibility, unless you offer discounted rent or other perks. What about service bills: energy, water, sewage, internet, television, etc?" "There is a term for this. If you google ""House Hacking"" you will get lots of articles and advice.  Some of it will pertain to multifamily properties but a good amount should be owner occupied and renting bedrooms. I would play with a mortgage calculator like Whats My Payment.  Include Principle, interest, taxes and insurance see how much it will cost.  At 110k your monthly fixed payments will depend on a number of factors (down payment, interest, real estate tax rate and insurance cost) but $700-$1000 would be a decent guess in my area.  Going off that with two roommates willing to pay $500 a month you would have no living expenses except any maintenance or utilities.  With your income I would expect you could make the payment alone if needed (and it may be needed) so it seems fairly low risk from my perspective. You need somewhere to live you are used to roommates and you can pay the entire cost yourself in a worst case. Some more things to consider.. Insurance will be more expensive, you want to ensure you as the landlord you are covered if anything happens.  If a tenant burns down your house or trips and falls and decides to sue you insurance will protect you.   Capital Expenses (CapEx) replacing things as they wear out. On a home the roof, siding, flooring and all mechanicals(furnace, water heater, etc.) have a lifespan and will need to be replaced.  On rental properties a portion of rent should be set aside to replace these things in the future.  If a roof lasts 20yrs,costs $8,000 and your roof is 10years old you should be setting aside $70 a month so in the  future when this know expense comes up it is not a hardship. Taxes Yes there is a special way to report income from an arrangement like this.  You will fill out a Schedule E form in addition to your regular tax documents. You will also be able to write off a percent of housing expenses and depreciation on the home.  I have been told it is not a simple tax situation and to consult a CPA that specializes in real estate." I've done this, both as one of the renters and (in a different house) as the landlord. I had roommates I had not lived with before though. It's definitely doable, but can get awkward. Some advice in no particular order Make sure you can afford the house on your own. This avoids the awkward situation of making you financially dependent on your friends. Also, it shouldn't be a problem for a 110k house on a 70k salary. Set the rent below market rates. The arrangement should be financially beneficial to everyone, not just yourself. Expect your roommates to leave eventually. These days people will go where job opportunities take them. It's doable, but there's a fair amount of risk involved. The biggest issue is that your roommates could move out. It's possible that they could have a falling out, get a job in a different city, or just move on. How difficult would it be to find another roommate? How many roommates can you lose and still afford to pay the mortgage, insurance, taxes, and all the rest of your living expenses? Even if you you retain all of your roommates until the mortgage is paid off, there's still some risk involved. If you were to lose your job, could you continue to make mortgage payments? Worst case scenario is that you could become unemployed for a time while home values in your State/City/neighborhood are crashing. Last, the position on landlord has the potential to be lucrative, but also comes with a fair amount of responsibility. It will be a drain on your time to maintain the house and to make sure you always have tenants. I know you said that your roommates are good about paying on time, but are you willing to evict a friend because they won't/can't pay rent? It's easier to ask the landlord for an extension on rent when you're friends. All that being said, I think that this idea is worth considering. My recommendation is that you consider every aspect of it, and proceed cautiously if you choose to do so. Mixing friendship and money, whether that's loans or landlording, is risky. Often things work out, but sometimes the unexpected happens, and it doesn't. If things go wrong, are you prepared to walk away from either the friendship or the money? After you've considered that, the next question is how your roommates feel about the deal. You're looking to charge your friends $2000 to rent part of a property that, from the sound of it, they could rent much cheaper from a stranger. Maybe the market is different in Cleveland, but in my area, I'd expect to pay $2000 in rent for a place worth closer to $300,000 than $100,000. Have your roommates expressed interest in the idea, and have you discussed dollar values with them? Are you still interested if they ended up paying $1600 in rent? $1000?
Let me add a few thoughts that have not been mentioned so far in the other answers.  Note that for the decision of buying vs. renting a home i.e. for personal use, not for renting out there's a rule of thumb that if the price for buying is more than 20 year's (cold) rents it is considered rather expensive. I don't know how localized this rule of thumb is, but I know it for Germany which is apparently the OP's country, too. There are obviously differences between buying a house/flat for yourself and in order to rent it out. As others have said, maintenance is a major factor for house owners - and here a lot depends on how much of that you do yourself (i.e. do you have the possibility to trade working hours for costs - which is closely related to financial risk exposure, e.g. increasing income by cutting costs as you do maintenance work yourself if you loose your day-time job?).  This plays a crucial role for landlords I know (they're all small-scale landlords, and most of them do put in substantial work themselves): I know quite a number of people who rent out flats in the house where they actually live. Some of the houses were built with flats and the owner lives in one of the flats, another rather typical setup is that people built their house in the way that a smaller flat can easily be separated and let once the kids moved out (note also that the legal situation for the landlord is easier in that special case). I also know someone who owns a house several 100 km away from where they live and they say they intentionally ask a rent somewhat below the market price for that (nice) kind of flat so that they have lots of applicants at the same time and tenants don't move out as finding a new tenant is lots of work and costly because of the distance.   My personal conclusion from those points is that as an investment (i.e. not for immediate or future personal use) I'd say that the exact circumstances are very important: if you are (stably) based in a region where the buying-to-rental-price ratio is favorable, you have the necessary time and are able to do maintenance work yourself and there is a chance to buy a suitable house closeby then why not. If this is not the case, some other form of investing in real estate may be better. On the other hand, investing in further real estate closeby where you live in your own house means increased lump risk - you miss diversification into regions where the value of real estate may develop very differently.  There is one important psychological point that may play a role with the observed relation between being rich and being landlord. First of all, remember that the median wealth (without pensions) for Germany is about 51 k€, and someone owning a morgage-free 150 k€ flat and nothing else is somewhere in the 7th decile of wealth. To put it the other way round: the question whether to invest 150 k€ into becoming a landlord is of practical relevance only for rich (in terms of wealth) people. Also, asking this question is typically only relevant for people who already own the home they live in as buying for personal use will typically have a better return than buying in order to rent. But already people who buy for personal use are on average wealthier (or at least on the track to become more wealthy in case of fresh home owners) than people who rent. This is attributed to personal characteristics and the fact that the downpayment of the mortgage enforces saving behaviour (which is typically kept up once the house is paid, and is anyways found to be more pronounced than for non-house-owners). In contrast, many people who decide never to buy a home fall short of their initial savings/investment plans (e.g. putting the 150 k€ into an ETF for the next 21 years) and in the end spend considerably more money - and this group of people rarely invests into directly becoming a landlord.  Assuming that you can read German, here's a relevant newspaper article and a related press release. To start, I hope you are aware that the properties' basis gets stepped up to market value on inheritance.  The new basis is the start for the depreciation that must be applied each year after being placed in service as rental units. This is not optional. Upon selling the units, depreciation is recaptured whether it's taken each year or not. There is no rule of thumb for such matters. Some owners would simply collect the rent, keep a reserve for expenses or empty units, and pocket the difference. Others would refinance to take cash out and leverage to buy more property. The banker is not your friend, by the way. He is a salesman looking to get his cut. The market has had a good recent run, doubling from its lows. Right now, I'm not rushing to prepay my 3.5% mortgage sooner than it's due, nor am I looking to pull out $500K to throw into the market.  Your proposal may very well work if the market sees a return higher than the mortgage rate. On the flip side I'm compelled to ask - if the market drops 40% right after you buy in, will you lose sleep?  And a fellow poster (@littleadv) is whispering to me - ask a pro if the tax on a rental mortgage is still deductible when used for other purposes, e.g. a stock purchase unrelated to the properties.   Last, there are those who suggest that if you want to keep investing in real estate, leverage is fine as long as the numbers work. From the scenario you described, you plan to leverage into an already pretty high (in terms of PE10) and simply magnifying your risk. So if my father signed up for the military at age 18, became an officer, worked 30 years and spent very little (buying used cars eating in &amp; having roommates) to afford to buy me a car and pay for my education.  An education Where I worked worked extremely hard at to become a civil engineer with a high GPA and spent at least 100 hours perfecting my resume and interview skills to get a high paying entry level job where I replicate my fathers habits while being single, choosing to not have children until I build capital, learn to invest in my free time, and live off of 35% of my income by leveraging wealth and having roommates.   Your telling me that since I am able to retire at age 35 on my current plan it is all due to luck? Luck?   Sure I'm thankful that my dad sacrificed and gave me a privileged life with free education but that wasn't luck, that's hard god damn work and I thank him everyday what he did for me. To tell me it's luck is borderline crazy.   If you didn't have what I stated above be the person who works his ass off so your kids can have the privilege to retire at 40 if they make SMART choices.  Or better yet, borrow capital to get an education that pays you 60,000 pay it back and retire at 40? Stop trying to act like it's impossible. Investing isn't gambling, it's foolish to think so. If you invest in index funds it will grow over a long period of time.   The medical scenario is completely different and is mostly caused due to a lack of a free market and insurance system. This is effed and should be fixed as a wealthy society.   ^^^^there are ways to ensure you have medical coverage but again, it's difficult and should be made easier. If it is US, you need to take tax implications into account.  Profit taken from sale of your home is taxable.  One approach would be to take the tax hit, pay down the student loans, rent, and focus any extra that you can on paying off the student loans quickly.  The tax is on realized gains when you sell the property.  I think that any equity under the original purchase price is taxed at a lower rate (or zero).  Consult a tax pro in your area. Do not blindly assume buying is better than renting.  Run the numbers.  Rent Vs buy is not a question with a single answer.  It depends greatly on the real estate market where you are, and to a lesser extent on your personal situation.  Be sure to include maintenance and HOA fees, if any, on the ownership side.  Breakeven time on a new roof or a new HVAC unit or an HOA assessment can be years, tipping the scales towards renting.  Include the opportunity cost by including the rate of return on the 100k on the renting side (or subtracting it on the ownership side).  Be sure to include the tax implications on the ownership side, especially taxes on any profits from the sale. If the numbers say ownership in your area is better, then try for as small of a mortgage as you can get in a growing area.   Assuming that the numbers add up to buying:  buy small and live frugally, focus on increasing discretionary spending, and using it to pay down debt and then build wealth. If they add up to renting, same thing but rent small. If you are able to buy a 150K home for 50K now that would be a good deal!  However, you can't you have to borrow 100K in order to make this deal happen.  This dramatically increases the risk of any investment, and I would no longer classify it as passive income.   The mortgage on a 150K place would be about 710/month (30 year fixed).  Reasonably I would expect no more than 1200/month in rent, or 14,400.  A good rule of thumb is to assume that half of rental revenue can be counted as profit before debt service.  So in your case 7200, but you would have a mortgage payment of 473/month.  Leaving you a profit of 1524 after debt service.  This is suspiciously like 2K per year.  Things, in the financial world, tend to move toward an equilibrium. The benefit of rental property you can make a lot more than the numbers suggest.  For example the home could increase in value, and you can have fewer than expected repairs.  So you have two ways to profit:  rental revenue and asset appreciation. However, you said that you needed passive income.  What happens if you have a vacancy or the tenant does not pay?  What happens if you have greater than expected repairs?  What happens if you get a fine from the HOA or a special assessment?  Not only will you have dip into your pocket to cover the payment, you might also have to dip into your pocket to cover the actual event! In a way this would be no different than if you borrowed 100K to buy dividend paying stocks.  If the fund/company does not pay out that month you would still have to make the loan payment.  Where does the money come from?  Your pocket.  At least dividend paying companies don't collect money from their shareholders. Yes you can make more money, but you can also lose more.  Leverage is a two edged sword and rental properties can be great if you are financial able to absorb the shocks that are normal with ownership. "Get everything in writing. That includes ownership %, money in, money out, who is allowed to use the place, how much they need to pay the other partners, who pays for repairs, whether to provide 'friends and family' discounts, who is allowed to sell, what happens if someone dies, how is the mortgage set up, what to do if one of you becomes delinquent, etc. etc. etc. Money and friends don't mix. And that's mostly because people have different ideas in their head about what 'fair' means. Anything you don't have in writing, if it comes up in a disagreement, could cause a friendship-ending fight. Even if you are able to agree on every term and condition under the sun, there's still a problem - what if 5 years from now, someone decides that a certain clause isn't fair? Imagine one of you needs to move into the condo because your primary residence was pulled out from under you. They crash at the condo because they have no where else to go. You try to demand payment, but they lost their job. The agreement might say ""you must pay the partnership if you use the condo personally, at the standard monthly rate * # of days"". But what is the penalty clause - is everything under penalty of eviction, and forced sale of the condo and distribution of profits? Following through on such a penalty means the friendship would be over. You would feel guilty about doing it, and also about not doing it [at the same time, your other partner loses their job, and can't make 1/3rd of the mortgage payments anymore! They need the rent or the bank will foreclose on their house!] etc etc etc Even things like maintenance - are the 3 of you going to do it yourselves? Labour distributed how? Will anyone get a management fee? What about a referral fee for a new renter? Once you've thought of all possible circumstances and rules, and drafted it in writing, go talk to a lawyer, and maybe an accountant. There will be many things you won't have considered yet, and paying a few grand today will save you money and friends in the future." Let me add a few thoughts that have not been mentioned so far in the other answers.  Note that for the decision of buying vs. renting a home i.e. for personal use, not for renting out there's a rule of thumb that if the price for buying is more than 20 year's (cold) rents it is considered rather expensive. I don't know how localized this rule of thumb is, but I know it for Germany which is apparently the OP's country, too. There are obviously differences between buying a house/flat for yourself and in order to rent it out. As others have said, maintenance is a major factor for house owners - and here a lot depends on how much of that you do yourself (i.e. do you have the possibility to trade working hours for costs - which is closely related to financial risk exposure, e.g. increasing income by cutting costs as you do maintenance work yourself if you loose your day-time job?).  This plays a crucial role for landlords I know (they're all small-scale landlords, and most of them do put in substantial work themselves): I know quite a number of people who rent out flats in the house where they actually live. Some of the houses were built with flats and the owner lives in one of the flats, another rather typical setup is that people built their house in the way that a smaller flat can easily be separated and let once the kids moved out (note also that the legal situation for the landlord is easier in that special case). I also know someone who owns a house several 100 km away from where they live and they say they intentionally ask a rent somewhat below the market price for that (nice) kind of flat so that they have lots of applicants at the same time and tenants don't move out as finding a new tenant is lots of work and costly because of the distance.   My personal conclusion from those points is that as an investment (i.e. not for immediate or future personal use) I'd say that the exact circumstances are very important: if you are (stably) based in a region where the buying-to-rental-price ratio is favorable, you have the necessary time and are able to do maintenance work yourself and there is a chance to buy a suitable house closeby then why not. If this is not the case, some other form of investing in real estate may be better. On the other hand, investing in further real estate closeby where you live in your own house means increased lump risk - you miss diversification into regions where the value of real estate may develop very differently.  There is one important psychological point that may play a role with the observed relation between being rich and being landlord. First of all, remember that the median wealth (without pensions) for Germany is about 51 k€, and someone owning a morgage-free 150 k€ flat and nothing else is somewhere in the 7th decile of wealth. To put it the other way round: the question whether to invest 150 k€ into becoming a landlord is of practical relevance only for rich (in terms of wealth) people. Also, asking this question is typically only relevant for people who already own the home they live in as buying for personal use will typically have a better return than buying in order to rent. But already people who buy for personal use are on average wealthier (or at least on the track to become more wealthy in case of fresh home owners) than people who rent. This is attributed to personal characteristics and the fact that the downpayment of the mortgage enforces saving behaviour (which is typically kept up once the house is paid, and is anyways found to be more pronounced than for non-house-owners). In contrast, many people who decide never to buy a home fall short of their initial savings/investment plans (e.g. putting the 150 k€ into an ETF for the next 21 years) and in the end spend considerably more money - and this group of people rarely invests into directly becoming a landlord.  Assuming that you can read German, here's a relevant newspaper article and a related press release. "If it was me, I would sell the house and use the proceeds to work on/pay off the second.   You don't speak to your income, but it must be pretty darn healthy to convince someone to lend you ~$809K on two homes.  Given this situation, I am not sure what income I would have to have to feel comfortable.  I am thinking around 500K/year would start to make me feel okay, but I would probably want it higher than that. think I can rent out the 1st house for $1500, and after property management fees, take home about $435 per month. That is not including any additional taxes on that income, or deductions based on repair work, etc. So this is why.  Given that your income is probably pretty high, would something less than $435 really move your net worth needle?  No.  It is worth the reduction in risk to give up that amount of ""passive"" income.  Keeping the home opens you up to all kinds of risk.  Your $435 per month could easily evaporate into something negative given taxes, likely rise in insurance rates and repairs.  You have a great shovel to build wealth there is no reason to assume this kind of exposure.  You will become wealthy if you invest and work to reduce your debt."