He inherited property jointly with family. They could not hold it together, so they sold everything. Now he wants to put the proceeds straight back into concentrated Greek property. A full financial plan has to respect that instinct and correct it at the same time.
The capital exists because inherited property had to be sold. Several heirs, one illiquid asset, no way to divide it. The only exit was to liquidate the lot.
His instinct now is to put €1.2m back into concentrated Greek property, this time with leverage on top.
Naming that is most of the job. Everything else in the plan follows from it.
But the correction cannot be an override. He understands property, he is comfortable with it, and a plan built on assets he does not understand would not survive its first bad month. His goal is achievable almost entirely through real estate — the arithmetic works. That does not make it advisable, and the distinction between what can be done and what should be done is the entire value of the advice.
At three or more rental properties, Greek rental income is reclassified as business activity. This plan holds four. The structure question is therefore not optional — the only choice is whether he crosses that line deliberately or has it happen to him.
Having crossed it, the arithmetic is decisive. For an individual, rental income is taxed on a scale reaching 45% with only a 5% deemed repairs allowance, and mortgage interest is not deductible at all. For a company, interest and real costs are deductible against 22% corporate tax, plus 5% on distribution.
On a taxable base of €52,144, because the base is gross rent less 5%, with no relief for the interest already paid to the bank.
Interest and depreciation are deductible, so taxable profit is negative in year one. Only the distribution is taxed.
Identical properties, identical rents, identical debt. The only variable is who owns them.
That is the most misunderstood feature of Greek property investment, and it is why the structure decision is worth more than any individual purchase in the plan.
The property portfolio delivers about €6,051 of cash in year one. Against €407,500 of income-producing equity that looks poor, and a client checking his bank balance will conclude the plan has not worked.
It has. The properties generate €21,895 of genuine economic return. Only a quarter arrives as spendable cash because €18,025 goes to repaying mortgage principal — which is not a cost. It is forced saving that buys equity he keeps.
Telling him this before year one rather than explaining it afterwards is the difference between a client who trusts the plan and one who abandons it.
On the headline goal: year one produces €5,167 a month against the €5,200 target. Thirty-three euros short, cleared in year two, €6,500 by year ten, and a sharp step up around year eighteen when the mortgages clear. He also stops paying rent, removing roughly €800 a month of expense the income line does not capture.
The €33 is a real choice rather than a rounding error. The plan carries a €3,000 voluntary mortgage overpayment each year. Suspending it for twelve months closes the gap immediately; keeping it clears the debt two years sooner. That is his decision, and putting it to him is better advice than quietly picking one.
He is 33, with 34 years to state pension age. Passive income covers his personal spending by age 36 and never falls behind again.
At 67, on these assumptions, he holds roughly €6.6 million. A 3.5% withdrawal rate covers his inflated spending need four and a half times over.
Which reframes the recommendation to invest a further €600 a month. That should not be labelled retirement saving — retirement is solved by year three of a 34-year horizon. It is discretionary capital: a deposit on a further property within eight years, an opportunity reserve, or the means to stop working long before 67.
And it compounds. The portfolio reaches €893,000 by year ten and €1.77m by year twenty, taking net worth from €1.26m to €3.45m.
A plan that only shows the good outcome is not a plan.
On protection, his salary is not proportionate to his wealth because the wealth was inherited rather than earned. That inverts the usual analysis: replacing income matters less, protecting the debt matters more. Decreasing term cover matched to the mortgage means his wife inherits the properties unencumbered rather than the debt along with them. Total protection cost €1,340 a year, 2.2% of household income.
The technically optimal allocation is not the answer if the client abandons it. Steering the instinct beats overriding it, and that is a judgement rather than a calculation.
Which properties he buys matters less than who owns them. Most of the value in this plan sits in a decision that is invisible on a property listing.
A levered portfolio can look like it earns nothing while building equity quickly. Explaining that in advance is part of the plan, not an afterthought.
He asked how to reach €5,200 a month. The thing he most needed to hear was about concentration, which he never raised.
Non-deductible interest, the three-property threshold, the 15/25/35/45 scale, ENFIA on zone price rather than market value. None of this appears in a textbook on portfolio theory.
Sixteen sheets covering client position and goals, balance sheet and income statement, ratio analysis, and supporting schedules for property, debt, portfolio, company tax, retirement, protection, estate and stress testing. 658 formulas, nine integrity checks. Greek tax treatment throughout at 2026 rates.
Real case, used with permission. Amounts, locations, property types and personal details altered so the individual cannot be identified; the analysis is unchanged. Not investment, tax or legal advice.