Can you still do it? Is it worthwhile? It seems to me that there are soo many deals out there that it may be a waste fo time to take over the current mortgages. Are the banks even willing to work with people?
Can you still do it? Is it worthwhile? It seems to me that there are soo many deals out there that it may be a waste fo time to take over the current mortgages. Are the banks even willing to work with people?
Buying sub to is not assuming a mortgage. Most loans these days are not "assumable". Buying sub to refers to keeping the loan in the "seller's" name and you, the buyer, "promising" to pay that mortgage on time.
The only way this method works is if the loan is "worth" taking over, meaning that it is not some ARM or high interest adjustable loan and that there is enough equity remaining. You must find a jewel with a decent loan rate and term AND plenty of remaining equity.
Will Barnard, Barnard Enterprises, Inc.
E-Mail: info@barnardenterprises.com
Website: http://www.barnardenterprises.com
info@barnardenterprises.com
Thanks for the reply, This is kind of what I am asking about. I know about the land trusts and taking over the house getting the deed as I did it a few times in the late 90's early 00's. Do the banks even work with people any more when you get the deed on the house? There just does not seem to be much need for this right now as there is not much equity out ther is there? I guess you would have to just look at one deal at a time.
You said it, one deal at a time. You need to find the "desperate" seller who has had a death in the family, job loss, job transfer, or some other desperate situation where they had not planned on selling or moving, but now have to and have that equity position. The equity is key, and although it is hard to find, they are out there. I have an associate of mine who has been successful completing these deals here in CA.
Will Barnard, Barnard Enterprises, Inc.
E-Mail: info@barnardenterprises.com
Website: http://www.barnardenterprises.com
info@barnardenterprises.com
The general rule is that the loan amount + the cost to bring payment current + any cash to the seller + repairs should be "at minimum" under 85% of current value.
The payment should also be less than or equal to the current market rent amount.
I agree you want 15% or more in equity, but not that the loan payment should be equal to the market rent, otherwise, you have negative cash flow. The only way you would Ever want the figures to come out that way, is if your purchase was a speculation play, to cash out a large chunck of equity down the road and you could support negative cash flow each month.
Will Barnard, Barnard Enterprises, Inc.
E-Mail: info@barnardenterprises.com
Website: http://www.barnardenterprises.com
info@barnardenterprises.com
Will,
I agree completely... I probably should have mentioned the necessary reserves and the potential exit strategies, but I wanted to stick to generic acquisition costs.
If the home you were looking at did have over 15% equity, but lacked the ability to have a good cash flow would you consider lease optioning it?
I know you have the risk while renting it out but you would catch all the equity at the end. I am a newbie and trying to learn so I just want to see what all of you think.
Probably not... I only say probably because there are certain situations in which I would recommend it. If there are low out-of-pocket acquisition costs then you can take a greater risk. The most important part is to ensure that you have "realistic" exit strategies. This is the biggest mistake I see new investors making.
The main obstacles are the following...
1. Finding a lease option tenant with the ability to place a large enough deposit to cover the overhead very quickly. This is often times harder than it looks, and there is nothing worse than paying on a vacant home...
2. The acquisition price should be well under 85% if you're going to risk it, closer to 70-75% and your reserves should be sufficient enough to handle at least 6 months.
Ultimately what you are risking is your good name. If you do not have enough equity and the cash flow is not sufficient, why take the deal. If the value drops, your lease option tenant will not excersie the option and you could be upside down. At that point, you run the risk of not affording to pay the mortgage as YOU promised to do so. That original seller, who is still on the hook for the mortgage, will no doubt tell everyone that you did not live up to the promise.
Your name and integrity is all you have in this business, or at least a large portion of it.
Will Barnard, Barnard Enterprises, Inc.
E-Mail: info@barnardenterprises.com
Website: http://www.barnardenterprises.com
info@barnardenterprises.com
That original seller, who is still on the hook for the mortgage, will no doubt tell everyone that you did not live up to the promise.
Not to mention that the original seller is going to sue you and they just might win. I know, I know that you attended some guru course that gave you an iron clad contract and disclosure that the seller signed. Unfortunately, you can NOT sign away your rights and the tenant can still sue you. In this environment where we're looking for scapegoats, an evil investor who took advantage of an naive homeowner is a prime candidate to lose a lawsuit.
Mike
Great point Mike. That is absolutely correct, which is why it is imperative to not only have proper contracts and disclosures, but to make proper financial choices to use this strategy only when the numbers work. Having little or no equity or upside down cash flow is not a good business prectice when utilizing this strategy.
Will Barnard, Barnard Enterprises, Inc.
E-Mail: info@barnardenterprises.com
Website: http://www.barnardenterprises.com
info@barnardenterprises.com