Thinking about skipping the refinance on my third one

Option 2 with a building that age, and I say that from the construction side rather than the finance side. Four units, one sewer line already failed, that tells you something about what's under the slab and what the rest of the lateral looks like. You did not budget for the next one and you will get a next one.

The 350 a month across four doors in option 1 isn't a cash flow number, it's a rounding error. One water heater and one turnover and you're funding the building out of pocket for the year. And you'd be doing that while holding 318k of debt against it.

Question though, when you say 82k across four units, did that include roof and any of the mechanicals or was it interiors? Because if the roof has under eight years on it, that's a 20k line item you're carrying unfunded either way, and it changes how I'd read option 3.

tally, that's the distinction, and it's the one I got wrong for about a year. A deal can be fine and still be a bad node in a strategy that depends on recycling capital.

cairn, the thing I'd want to know is what you'd do with the 40k if option 1 gave it to you. If there's no next deal you actually like right now, you're paying a permanently higher payment on this building to hold cash that sits in an account. I'd rather have the coverage. I own for income and I have never once been glad I borrowed more.

I've never done a deal like this so take it for what it's worth, but option 3 confuses me. If you sell you pay all the selling costs and you're back to hunting, and the 82k of work you just did goes to the next owner. That seems like the most expensive way to get liquid.

Also 70k net on 95k in, after all that work and a sewer line, doesn't sound like a win to me? Or is the point that speed matters more than the size of the number when you're recycling capital.