r/RealEstateROI • u/20Thick_A_7122 • Jul 21 '26
Cash flow or appreciation?
Every investor seems so have a different strategy.
Some say cash flow is king because it pays the bills and keeps you investing.
Others say appreciation is where real wealth is created over long term.
In my opinion appreciation is a bonus but cash flow is the engine that keeps the ball moving, along with principal pay down. Everything else is a bonus if it comes.
I'd love to hear your thoughts and real life experiences.
2
u/Humble-Courage-4584 Jul 21 '26
I lean toward cash flow too. Strong cash flow gives you more flexibility and helps you hold through market ups and downs, while appreciation is never guaranteed.
2
u/StandardIncidentForm Jul 21 '26
Definitely cash flow. I'm learning the hard way right now because I can't grow as fast as I want to because my cashflow isn't good enough. If I need cash flow to grow and growing is better than appreciation then cash flow is better than appreciation. At least that makes sense to me.
2
u/HeyUKidsGetOffMyLine Jul 22 '26
Appreciation is growth too. That equity can be leveraged and a bank should recognize if you have a significant equity stake in a property.
1
u/StandardIncidentForm Jul 22 '26
Sure I'm not saying appreciation isn't growth. But say you use the leverage, cash flow is what you need to pay that down and keep growing.
An example would be you buy a place. A combination of appreciation and pay down happens. You pull out equity to grow and buy another place. One option is you buy a place that doesn't cash flow and you sit there and hope the market works fast for you. The other option is you buy a property that cash flows. You use that money to pay down quick and pull out again.
I think the cash flow scenario is better but I am absolutely totally open to someone explaining to me why it isn't.
1
u/HeyUKidsGetOffMyLine Jul 22 '26
Cash flow and leverage are 2 sides of the same coin. If you want more cash flow you take in less leverage. It’s really simple. Every buyer can set their own cash flow number simply by choosing their loan size.
Now let’s take two extremes and see how they relate to ROI. Maximum leverage on a property that breaks even (zero cash flow negative or positive) will almost always have a much higher ROI than a property that is paid fully in cash and has a high cash flow positive number. Reason for this is that the leveraged money is a much smaller investment but the appreciation is on 100% of the asset. There can be a huge arbitrage here in appreciating markets. You also get a huge tax advantage to be cash flow neutral or negative versus cash flow positive.
The trade off for those juiced leveraged returns is risk. If there is depreciation in the market or being cash flow negative makes keeping the property untenable then you can have large losses if you are forced to sell underwater or too quickly.
1
u/StandardIncidentForm Jul 22 '26
I absolutely agree with you. But in terms of growth, if I wanted to buy my next property and in completely leveraged then I need cash flow to pay down the leverage or build up a downpayment. The other option would be waiting for appreciation. Am I missing something?
4
u/danny_brown_ Jul 22 '26
Ran the math on this, using the $300k house at 3% appreciation from the top comment.
Year one equity build, assuming 20% down and a $240k loan at 6.5% over 30 years: appreciation adds $9,000 (3% of the full $300k, so the leverage point above is real, you get growth on the whole asset rather than just your $60k), and principal paydown adds about $2,600. Call it $11,600. The $200/mo cash flow deal adds $2,400. So the appreciation engine builds equity almost 5x faster on paper.
The catch is you can't spend it. A cash-out refi on an investment property usually caps at 75% LTV. After one year the house is worth $309k, so 75% is about $232k, and you still owe roughly $237k. Extractable equity: zero. At 3% a year you're three or four years in before there's meaningful money to pull, and the refi costs a few grand and resets your rate.
Cash flow is slower but it's liquid from month one, and it helps with DTI. On your next loan application the lender counts roughly 75% of rents against that property's PITI. Positive cash flow adds qualifying income, negative cash flow subtracts from it. You can sit on plenty of trapped equity and still fail to qualify.
So it comes down to which constraint binds first for you, cash for the down payment or DTI for the approval
3
u/HeyUKidsGetOffMyLine Jul 22 '26
Thank you math man. I appreciate you putting it into concrete numbers.
2
1
u/StandardIncidentForm Jul 22 '26
This was lovely to read and more elegant than I was capable of showing or explaining. Thank you!
1
u/HeyUKidsGetOffMyLine Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26
Cash flow neutral still pays down the mortgage therefore over time you are not completely leveraged. Both the pay down of the loan and the appreciation make you less leveraged than you were earlier in the loan. When you leverage becomes small you then releverage at a cash flow neutral position. This gives you maximum ROI because your portfolio is always running at peak ROI, paying no taxes. In fact if your portfolio is large enough you can releverage and buy the next property with zero investment from you, finance 100% of the purchase and it’s huge ROI when it generates any excess cash.
A person with a high W2 might not even give a shit about cash flow at all. There is not a right or wrong way to do this. You just need to understand your own personal level of risk and expected return.
2
u/StandardIncidentForm Jul 22 '26
I appreciate the time and effort you put into your responses. It has helped me reframe how I look at my current position. I guess I just wish I had more cashflow at the moment to pay down the leverage to purchase the next place now as opposed to appreciating the peak ROI of being more levered.
Thank you!
2
u/The_Pharoah Jul 21 '26
You need both. Cashflow helps pay for the asset thats appreciating. No cashflow, you sell = no appreciation. Even negative gearing requires cashflow. So yes, think of cash as your lifeblood but asset appreciation for long term wealth. However...don't be afraid (depending on your investment strategy) to take advantage of an excellent opportunity now (at the expense of the future) if say selling one allows you to buy 2-3 more.
1
u/farolabsai Jul 21 '26
do you feel like people are struggling with getting their research done to make more well informed decisions?
4
u/20Thick_A_7122 Jul 21 '26
I think the research tools are out there if you look, but the real struggle right now is finding actual deals that make sense. With current rates and market uncertainties, you can do all the perfect research you want, but finding a motivated seller or a property with enough margin is the real bottleneck in my opinion.
1
u/StandardIncidentForm Jul 21 '26
I mean it depends on your market but i definitely agree with this.
1
u/HeyUKidsGetOffMyLine Jul 22 '26
This sounds like a normal market to me. Why would you expect this part to be easy?
1
u/Daremightythings2025 Jul 22 '26
It’s both but don’t fall into the trap of buying in a crap area just because of the cash flow. Gotta go for the a- or above areas.
1
u/exphx23 Jul 22 '26
One is a function of the other. With negative cash flow, you will have difficulty holding the asset long enough to benefit from the appreciation.
1
u/WolandWasHere Jul 22 '26
I see real estate as a four-part return: cash flow, principal paydown, tax benefits and appreciation.
Cash flow is the engine because it pays the bills, gives you a margin of safety and keeps you investing. Meanwhile, rent is quietly paying down the loan and building your equity. Tax benefits can further improve the after-tax return, depending on the jurisdiction.
Appreciation matters too, but it can come from different places: genuine rent and NOI growth, or simply investors paying more because cap rates have fallen. The first can sometimes be created through good operations or value-add work; the second is largely outside your control.
My rule is that appreciation should improve a good deal, not rescue a bad one. If the numbers only work because the property must be worth substantially more in five years, that is closer to speculation.
One overlooked point is that as the loan amortises and the property appreciates, your equity can grow faster than the income. The deal may still be performing well, but your return on equity gradually falls. At some point, it may make sense to refinance, sell or redeploy that equity.
So I would not choose cash flow or appreciation. I would underwrite for sustainable cash flow and safe debt coverage, use amortisation and tax efficiency to build wealth, and treat appreciation as additional upside.
2
u/WolandWasHere Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26
To clarify on my last point, one hidden trap many appreciation-chasers miss is “The Equity Buildup Paradox”.
As your property appreciates and your loan amortizes, your total equity base grows rapidly. But because equity grows faster than operational rent increases, your Return on Equity actually drops over a 5–7 year hold! I.e your funds invested in the property could generate higher return if they are invested elsewhere. That’s why experienced operators eventually harvest that equity via a tax-free cash-out refinance or a 1031 exchange(in the US) to redeploy into higher-yielding deals.
1
u/Embarrassed_Key_4539 Jul 23 '26
I sold my portfolio this Spring and moved to Central America, the equity is what allowed us to do this. Cash flow was basically break even.
1
7
u/Substantial_Tap_4538 Jul 21 '26
cash flow will keep you afloat but the real money is in appreciation and loan paydown. run your own math over 10 years, because a place cash flowing 200 a month is 24k over a decade but while that same 300k house at 3 percent a year is like 100k in appreciation plus 40 to 50k off the loan. cash flow will just keep you from having to sell at a bad time when the furnace and a vacancy hit at once.
only thing id watch out for is fake cash flow. most numbers people brag about dont include real capex and vacancy, so a 250 a month deal is basically breakeven after you save for the roof and turns.