Using property to achieve financial independence
I wrote this in another thread but is also applicable here. In general people make some key mistakes with property: Not factoring in depreciation properly. Houses are perpetually falling down, and if you are renting them perpetually being trashed by the tenants as well - particularly in bad areas. Accurate depreciation costs can often run in the 5-20% range per year depending on the property/area. Add insurance to this as well or be prepared to lose the whole thing in a disaster. Related to 1), they take the index price of house price rises as something they can achieve, when in reality a lot of the house price 'rise' is just everyone having to spend a lot of money keeping them standing up. No investor can actually track a house price graph due to 1) so be careful to make reasonable assumptions about actual achievable future growth (in your example, they could well be lagging inflation/barely growing if you are not pricing in upkeep and depreciation properly). Failure to price in the huge transaction costs (often 5%+ per sale) and capital gains/other taxes (depends on the exact tax structure where you are). These add up very fast if you are buying and selling at all frequently. Costs in either time or fees to real estate rental agents. Having to fill, check, evict, fix and maintain rental properties is a lot more work than most people realise, and you either have to pay this in your own time or someone else’s. Again, has to be factored in. Liquidity issues. Selling houses in down markets is very, very hard. They are not like stocks where they can be moved quickly. Houses can often sit on the market for years before sale if you are not prepared to take low prices. As the bank owns your house if you fail to pay the mortgage (rents collapse, loss of job etc) they can force you to fire sale it leaving you in a whole world of pain depending on the exact legal system (negative equity etc). These factors are generally correlated if you work in the same cities you are buying in so quite a lot of potential long tail risk if the regional economy collapses. Finally, if you’re young they can tie you to areas where your earnings potential is limited. Renting can be immensely beneficial early on in a career as it gives you huge freedom to up sticks and leave fast when new opportunities arise. Locking yourself into 20 yr+ contracts/landlord activities when young can be hugely inhibiting to your earnings potential. Without more details on the exact legal framework, area, house type etc it’s hard to give more specific advise, but in general you need a very large margin of safety with property due to all of the above, so if the numbers you’re running are coming out close (and they are here), it’s probably not worth it, and you’re better of sticking with more hands off investments like stocks and bonds. Be very careful about buying property because it has been going up quickly in recent years.  There are some fundamental factors that limit the amount real-estate can appreciate over time.  In a nutshell, the general real-estate market growth is supported by the entry-level property market.  That is, when values are appreciating, people can sell and use the capital gains to buy more valuable property.  This drives up the prices in higher value properties whose owners can use that to purchase more expensive properties and so on and so forth. At some point in a rising market, the entry-level properties start to become hard for entry-level buyers to afford.  The machine of rising prices throughout the market starts grinding to a halt.  This price-level can be calculated by looking at average incomes in an area.  At some percentage of income, people cannot buy into the market without crazy loans and if those become popular, watch out because things can get really ugly.  If you want an example, just look back to the US in 2007-2009 and the nearly apocalyptic financial crisis that ensued. As with most investing, you want to buy low and sell high.  Buying into a hot market is generally not very profitable.  Buying when the market is abnormally low tends to be a more effective strategy. Will buying a flat which generates $250 rent per month be a good decision? Whether investing in real estate is a good decision or not depends on many things, including the current and future supply/demand for rental units in your particular area. There are many questions on this site about this topic, and another answer to this question which already addresses many risks associated with owning property (though there are also benefits to consider). I just want to focus on this point you raised: I personally think yes, because rent adjusts with inflation and the rise in the price of the property is another benefit. Could this help me become financially independent in the long run since inflation is getting adjusted in it? In my opinion, the fact that rental income general adjusts with 'inflation' is a hedge against some types of economic risk, not an absolute increase in value. First, consider buying a house to live in, instead of to rent:  If you pay off your mortgage before your retire, then you have reduced your cost of accommodations to only utilities, property taxes, and repairs. This gives you a (relatively) known, fixed requirement of cash outflows. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - it doesn't cost you anything extra, because you already own your house. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, then you don't save anything, because you already own your house. If you instead rent your whole life, and save money each month (instead of paying off a mortgage), then when you retire, you will have a larger amount of savings which you can use to pay your monthly rental costs each month. By the time you retire, your cost of accommodations will be the market price for rent at that time. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - you will have to pay more on rent. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, you will save money on rent. You will have larger savings, but your cash outflow will be a little bit less certain, because you don't know what the market price for rent will be. You can see that, because you need to put a roof over your own head, just by existing you bear risk of the cost of property rising. So, buying your own home can be a hedge against that risk. This is called a 'natural hedge', where two competing risks can mitigate each-other just by existing. This doesn't mean buying a house is always the right thing to do, it is just one piece of the puzzle to comparing the two alternatives [see many other threads on buying vs renting on this site, or on google]. Now, consider buying a house to rent out to other people:  In the extreme scenario, assume that you do everything you can to buy as much property as possible. Maybe by the time you retire, you own a small apartment building with 11 units, where you live in one of them (as an example), and you have no other savings. Before, owning your own home was, among other pros and cons, a natural hedge against the risk of your own personal cost of accommodations going up. But now, the risk of your many rental units is far greater than the risk of your own personal accommodations. That is, if rent goes up by $100 after you retire, your rental income goes up by $1,000, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes up by $100. If rent goes down by $50 after you retire, your rental income goes down by $500, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes down by $50. You can see that only investing in rental properties puts you at great risk of fluctuations in the rental market. This risk is larger than if you simply bought your own home, because at least in that case, you are guaranteeing your cost of accommodations, which you know you will need to pay one way or another. This is why most investment advice suggests that you diversify your investment portfolio. That means buying some stocks, some bonds, etc.. If you invest to heavily in a single thing, then you bear huge risks for that particular market. In the case of property, each investment is so large that you are often 'undiversified' if you invest heavily in it (you can't just buy a house $100 at a time, like you could a stock or bond). Of course, my above examples are very simplified. I am only trying to suggest the underlying principle, not the full complexities of the real estate market. Note also that there are many types of investments which typically adjust with inflation / cost of living; real estate is only one of them.
Insurance - get estimate from an insurance agent who works with policies for commercial real estate.  See comments below regarding incorporation. Taxes - if this was basic income for a simple LLC, estimating 25-40% and adjusting over time might work.  Rental property is a whole different prospect.  Financial experts who specialize in rental properties would be a good source of advice, and worth the cost.  See below regarding incorporating. Real estate appreciation - not something you can count on for developed property.  Appreciation used to be almost guaranteed to at least keep up with inflation.  Now property values are not even guaranteed to go up.  Never have been but the general rule was improved real estate in good repair appreciated in price.  Even if property values increase over time, rental properties depreciate.  In fact, for rental properties, you can claim a certain rate of depreciation over time as an expense on taxes.  This depreciation could mean selling for less than you paid for the property after a number of years, and owing capital gains taxes, since you would owe the difference between the depreciated value and the sale price. Related to taxes are local codes.  Some areas require you to have a property management license to handle buildings with more than a certain number of units. If you are going to own rental properties, you should protect your private financial life by incorporating.  Form a company.  The company will own the property and hire any maintenance people or property managers or security staff or any similar employment activities.  The company takes out the insurance and pays taxes.  The company can pay you a salary.  So, bottom line, you can have the company pay all the expenses and take all the risks.  Then, assuming there's any money left after expenses, the company can pay you a manager's salary.  That way if the worst happens and a tenant breaks their hip in the shower and sues you for ONE MILLION DOLLARS and wins, the company folds and you walk away.  You might even consider two companies.  One to own the property and lease it to a property management company.  The property management company can then go bankrupt in case of some sort of liability issue, in which case you still keep the property, form a new management company, repaint and rename the property and move on. TL;DR:  Get insurance advice from insurance agent before you buy.  Same for taxes from an accountant.  Get trained as a property manager if your local codes require it (might be a good idea anyway).  Incorporate and have the company take all the risks. a) Talk to the financial aid counselors at your school. There's a very good chance they have at least a partial solution for you. Let them know your dependency status has changed (if it has). I declared myself to be financially independent from my parents (I really was) and qualified for more aide. b) How much austerity are you willing to endure? I once spent two years eating beans & rice twice a day (lots of protein and other nutrients) while I worked full-time and went back to school to pursue a second degree part-time. I also shunned all forms of recreation (not even a movie) to save money (and so I could focus on staying current with assignments). During another period in my life, I gave up cable, cell-phone, land-line (and used Skype only), and avoided unnecessary use of my car, so I could clear a debt. You'd be amazed at how much you can squeeze from a budget if you're willing to endure austerity temporarily. c) Consider going to school part-time, taking as few as one course at a time if allowed. It's a lot easier to pay for one or two courses than to pay for 4 or 5. It may take longer, but at least you won't lose your credits and it won't take forever. The best way is for X to work as Independent consultant fro c.com from India by raising monthly invoices for the work done. This will avoid the complications and paperwork associated by registering a LLC in US by XF and then employing X as independent consultant in India. X may need to fill out W8-BEN forms so that there is no withholding in US Edit: Independent consultant means without having to register any legal entity either in India or in US. There are no legal regulations in US or in India to hire an independent contractor / consultant. There maybe internal policy of C.com not to have independent consultants. Payments can be made via transfer to Bank account. "There's truth to that, although I'm not sure if the ratio is quite 6 to 1. It IS true that they are processing foreclosures much slower now after the robo-signing fiasco, and also that there is some justification for letting a house stay occupied rather than sit empty.  I disagree with your assertion that ""smart banks"" would dump massive amounts of property at a loss. Selling their inventory quickly would slim their balance sheet (which they been trying to do) and let huge losses flow through their income statement. That's a bad way to achieve a good end, even though the changes are purely accounting and not economic. That's not smart for any business, operating in a vacuum and independent of competition, whether a bank or a retailer. Should GM and Ford sell their backlogs of cars at a massive loss now, just to get rid of the property? There's underlying, economic, intrinsic value.  Properties in the biggest bust markets, like LV and Phoenix, are down 2/3rds from the prices around 05/06; one would argue that the prices are so low they fail to make economic sense. Florida was a huge bust market, but today's NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/us/miami-courts-free-spending-brazilians.html?_r=1&amp;scp=2&amp;sq=brazil&amp;st=cse) talks about a recovery in property values, fueled by Brazilians.  Given that cities like Vancouver and throughout the SF Bay Area have seen property prices recover, in part fueled by foreign purchasers (mostly China, etc) why would a bank not want to hold onto the property until it gets a good price?" "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." @victor has the most descriptive and basic idea on how this is done.  The only thing I would add is that one benefit to real estate is that you can control how much the property is worth.  By increasing rents and making the property one of the best in the neighborhood, you increase the value. As for the comment that this is the type of investing that caused the 1929 stock market crash, there are many other aspects that are overlooked.  Taking equity out of real estate has been happening long before and after the depression.  People do it all the time by taking out home equity loans, just not everyone uses it to purchase another investment. This probably isn't worthy of being more than a comment, is not specific to your needs (other answers cover that better), and I am a big advocate of NOT owning property but investing the money in the markets instead (potentially higher rates of return), however, if I were going to buy a property I would do so sooner rather than later as a rise in interest rates is not a matter of if but when. Borrow now when it is cheaper to do so and lock in the rate by taking out a fixed rate mortgage - the rate might be higher than variable rate mortgages but their rates will go up above your fixed rate very quickly. To what end would you want to break the law? Why would you think it is beneficial to you in any way? The reason for these limitations is to protect people who have no financial reserves and are not sophisticated investors from making dangerous and risky investments with the little money they have to invest. You need to remember that there's no guarantee of principal with these loans and the rate of default is pretty high. From my own personal experience with Lending Club (and I've only invested in A and some B-rated loans) - rate of default is about 10%. This may be a nice exercise in microlending - but if you want to put all your savings into this, you're taking a huge risk. Risk which is completely unjustified since not only the returns are pretty low (again - from my aforementioned experience: <6% APR, you take higher rate loans - you get higher rate of defaults), but they're also taxed as ordinary gains. Why would you not, instead, invest in a more conservative bond or bond/stock mix fund which will pay you dividends that will get preferential tax treatment and appreciation would be subject to capital gains tax? No reason. And the limitation on who can invest in Lending Club is there for exactly this purpose - to weed out people like you who have no idea of what they're doing.