Most financial advisors don't own investment properties. I do. Most financial advisors view owning rentals or other investment real estate as competing with their managed portfolio that they bill for; I don’t.
We currently own 13 units across 3 properties in 3 states and have invested in syndications and other passive real estate partnerships.
This experience shapes how I advise clients on their rental properties, not merely based on theory, but from having personally learned and grown in the due diligence, financing, management decisions, and tax implications that come with real estate investing.
Educationally, I’m a Real Estate Financial Coach (REFC), and while I haven’t finished it, I’ve begun the CCIM (Certified Commercial Investment Member) program for commercial real estate brokers. (No, I’m not a broker; I just wanted the education.)
That matters because real estate analysis requires a different skill set than stock portfolio management. Most advisors aren't equipped to help you evaluate a rental property, underwrite a syndication, or think through how a new acquisition affects your overall financial plan. That's a gap I'm specifically positioned to fill. I also pay for an additional software that helps me analyze properties at the highest level and provide my clients with detailed reports on their property’s performance on an individual basis, as well as their portfolio as a whole. This drastically helps them make better financial and management decisions regarding their portfolio!
And yes, this is also a key reason why my firm is flat-fee rather than based on a percentage of the assets I manage, as with traditional wealth management firms.
Real estate can be a powerful component of a wealth strategy. But I believe it works best as part of an overall investment portfolio, not as the only asset class. I help clients evaluate and manage real estate investments within the context of their full financial plan, including:
The goal is a cohesive plan, not a collection of disconnected investments.
I view real estate as being similar to a high-yield bond. It can generate meaningful cash flow, serve as an inflation hedge, and hold intrinsic value as a real, tangible asset. Done well, it can accelerate wealth building and provide income flexibility that purely paper-based portfolios can't replicate.
That said, I take a total return approach in most cases. Cash flow matters, but so does appreciation, tax efficiency, and how much of your time and capital the investment consumes. Many real estate investors are holding properties that have appreciated so much that they may have a very high "cash on cash" return, but their ROE (return on equity) and IRR (internal rate of return) are extremely low, indicating that their property is no longer helping them grow wealth, though it may be preserving it. However, for some people, the risk is that their ROE is so low that the return no longer covers the cost of holding the property, making them more susceptible to inflation risk over the long term.
There's a version of real estate investing that's more about identity than strategy, accumulating units for the sake of the count. I don't think that's wise. It's likely more pride driving that decision. I'd prefer to own 5 efficient rentals than 10 inefficient rentals.
The goal is efficient, effective real estate investing that earns its place in your portfolio, not real estate for real estate's sake. Like any investment, it should be evaluated against alternatives, held to a performance standard, and sized appropriately relative to your overall wealth and goals.
Real estate and equities complement each other well. Stocks offer diversification, liquidity, and truly passive exposure to global economic growth. Real estate offers cash flow, leverage, tax advantages, and a meaningful hedge against inflation. A well-constructed portfolio often benefits from both, in the right proportions for your situation.
I help clients find that balance rather than defaulting to an all-in approach in either direction.