It was John D Rockefeller, the American industrialist and philanthropist, who claimed we should control everything and own nothing. Was he right? In a climate when capital growth is scarce, apart from London, sensible investors should be investing for cash flow and not relying on capital appreciation and if the focus is cash flow does it really matter if we only control the asset and not own it? After all if you buy a property with a mortgage do you actually own it or are you just in control of the property until you pay off the bank? Stop paying the mortgage and see what happens.

I am an old fashioned investor, in that I like to pay down debt on the properties which I own. I like to own my assets so I'm in total control and not reliant on the market appreciating to benefit or at the mercy of any lending institution who decides to call in any loans if the market collapses as it did in 2008.

This debt repayment and asset ownership strategy is in stark contrast to the common belief of many modern day buy to let investor-landlords who will re-finance everything as capital values increase with the market, take out the tax free cash and then rack up even more debt in the hope that the market continues to rise. Of course like them I also hope the market rises but I'm not relying on it, and it will be a bonus if it does but then again if it falls I'm not that worried either as my debt levels are well balanced and always reducing. What's important to me is the cash flow and Return on Investment (ROI) from day one.

The post credit crunch investor that has emerged over the past few years, often after doing a handful of property courses, would argue that you should control everything and own nothing via lease options, delayed completions, rent to rent strategies (where you secure a property on a single let rental and then multi let the individual rooms for a profit) and Instalment Contracts. However, they would say that wouldn't they when few, if any, have or had any substantial cash reserves or access to debt finance?