I definitely have never felt that the conventional wisdom is that all-cash is best. Rather, leverage without *overleveraging* is best IMO (and closer to the broad opinion). That is to say, you should put down an appropriate amount to be able to weather a market downturn. What is better if you have $100K and are buying, say, $50K properties that rent for $1000/month?
Cash:
Two properties purchased
$2000 total rents per month
- $1000 in expenses (50% rule)
-------------------------
$1000 cashflow/mo
25% down, 4.5% interest rate:
Four properties purchased
$4000 total rents per month
- $2000 in expenses (50% rule)
- $760 in mortgage (~$190/month/property)
-------------------------
$1240 cashflow/mo
In addition to just cashflowing more on the same amount invested, you have diversified your investment and are more capable of weathering a vacancy. You have 2x the chance of appreciation. Where people get themselves into trouble with financing is when they try to "hack" it such that they only put a couple percent down (or nothing down), leaving themselves open to being in serious trouble if a bubble bursts, a recession, etc.
Above are very quick spitball numbers, but hopefully it makes some sense.
