Follow Us on Social Media

email icon rss icon linked.in icon google plus icon twitter icon facebook icon

Is There a Problem with Buying Properties Subject-to Existing Financing?

by Karen Rittenhouse on March 26, 2013 · 59 comments

  
Subject to

Back in 1978 (I don’t want to know how many of you weren’t even born yet) my husband and I bought our very first house and we bought it the only way we could qualify; by assuming the existing financing. Assuming a loan was not only very easy, but the common practice in those days. The house was $100,000 – the seller’s balance was $40,000 – so we were able to take that over and had to come up with only the remaining $60,000.

Those were wonderful times. But wonderful times have a way of fading into a memory. Interest rates were soaring, and one fateful day the lenders woke up and thought, “Wait a minute! Homebuyers are taking over loans we’ve already created at lower interest rates. If we stop letting them assume those lower rate loans, we’ll make a fortune!!”
(Early 1971 interest rates were around seven percent and continued to increase to a peak in 1981 of more than eighteen percent.)

Subject-To Wrench in the Gears: The Due-on-Sale Clause.

Originally, loan assumption was a state issue and many states continued to allow loan assumptions and disallow due-on-sale enforcement unless the banks could prove that the purchaser could not qualify to make the payments. In 1982, however, the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act made due-on-sale clauses a federal issue which struck fear in the heart of both buyer and seller.

Very quickly, the banks ran themselves right into the ground. Buyers could not qualify for the entire loan meaning sellers could no longer sell their homes meaning banks began getting properties back at an alarming rate. Sound familiar? This is not the first market to see banks create a housing crisis.

Even though lenders no longer work with buyers and sellers allowing loan assumptions, acquiring properties subject-to existing financing continues. Yes, it is legal. It shows up on the HUD1 on lines 203 and 503.This is an excellent way to acquire properties anytime the seller agrees to sell by transferring title to the property while leaving the financing in their name. Interestingly, we get very little push-back from homeowners when we present the facts for this type of transaction. That surprised me in the beginning; now I take it for granted.

And, we don’t have a problem from the lenders. They have so many non-performing properties on their books that they’re happy to get a payment and don’t necessarily care who it comes from. We have received letters from lenders stating that they’ve seen a change in the insurance premium and a change on the title so, while they’re not sure exactly what is going on, they want us to continue sending payments to “x” address. I’m pretty sure they know exactly what’s going on, it’s simply a matter of don’t-ask / don’t tell.

We did have one Credit Union call to say that they wouldn’t allow us to take over their existing financing so they were calling the loan due. Jim had a conversation with as many people up the ladder as it took to convince them that they had a performing asset on their hands and we were good for the loan. They let us continue and have not contacted us again since.

Source of Concern:

So, if the sellers are ok with subject-to and the lenders are thrilled to keep the asset performing, where’s the problem?

It’s the prosecutors we worry about. There are far too many hungry attorneys looking for ways to feed their families. If a seller comes back at a later date and wants “their” property back, many attorneys are only too willing to go to court in an attempt to prove the investor stole the property from their unsuspecting seller. We know several investors who spent as much as five figures in court defending that what they’d done when taking a property subject-to was perfectly legal. They were ultimately found not-guilty of any wrong doing, but nevertheless spent funds to prove their innocence – over a year of their time – and untold emotional aggravation. As a real estate investor, you are absolutely guilty until proven innocent…

* What’s the message in this story? Never “convince” a seller to sell to you this way. Make sure your seller is thrilled that you have a way to solve their problem and that they are only too happy to do whatever it takes to make the transaction work.

In our state, we have the added concern of an Attorney General who is, naturally, angered by “scammers” who take properties subject-to and don’t bother to keep up the mortgage payments, as well as any who attempt to conceal the transfer and not pay transfer taxes which our state requires. We do not conceal any part of our transaction and we do pay transfer tax on all properties we take subject-to. To say our Attorney General is not a fan of subject-to is an understatement. In our business practice, subject-to mortgages are the mortgages that are the MOST important to pay. Make sure they’re your top priority as well.

And So the Good News…

Transferring title to a property secured by a “due-on-sale” mortgage is not illegal. Turns out, there is no federal or state law which makes it a crime to violate a due-on-sale clause. The due-on-sale clause gives the lender the right to demand payment of the remaining balance of the loan when the property is sold. This is a contractual right, not a law. The lender has the “option” to call the loan but is not required to do so. In our experience and the experience of many, many investors across the country, lenders prefer to keep a performing asset on their books rather than risk the time and expense of foreclosure and holding a non-performing asset.

Besides, why would the HUD1 closing document contain appropriate spaces if it were a crime to take property subject-to an existing loan?

Going Forward

As I’ve emphasized, lenders seem to prefer keeping a performing asset on their books rather than exercising their option to call the loan due.
* Big Word of Caution however. – Once interest rates start jumping, all that may change. If you’ve taken over low interest rate loans, pay special attention to climbing rates and be prepared to refinance or pay it off if needed.

We remain very conservative and cautious when buying this way. But, when done right, subject-to purchases are a legitimate way to buy properties and work well for both the buyer and the seller.

Are you willing to take a property subject-to a mortgage containing a due-on-sale clause?

Photo: roarofthefour

Email *
  



{ 59 comments… read them below or add one }

Brian Gibbons March 26, 2013 at 2:03 pm

This is probably the BEST article on Sub2 or subject to existing financing for both the new and experienced REIs.

A few comments…

Land trusts are not mentioned for privacy. Karen do you use them?

I have heard the FBI and the AG of many states getting involved with equity skimming and sub2s done on the kitchen table. Do you use an attorney to create the docs and to close?

There was recent appeals court in CA that ruled if a lender accepted 4 or more payments they have agreed in principle not to call the loan due, I will find that case and post it. The Sub2 investor had paid over 20 payments in that case.

Bottom line, there is no due on sale jail.
Just be prudent and aware of the climate with mortgage interest rates and local prosecutors!

Wonderful article, Karen, thanks so much!

Brian

Reply

Karen Rittenhouse March 26, 2013 at 3:30 pm

Hi Brian:
Yes, we buy our properties in trusts for privacy and for estate planning purposes.
Yes, we close all deals with attorneys – everything.

Thanks for your praise of the article! So many people warn us we shouldn’t be buying properties subject-to. When I ask “why?”, they’re never quite sure.

To your success!

Reply

Jason March 29, 2013 at 8:54 am

If interest rates go up, and the bank decides they want their money now, rather than later, don’t you think it would be prudent to be able to cover it?

Your loan may not be “locked in” so the numbers that make the deal work now could change.

That’s one reason why I wouldn’t do it, but I suppose your not taking any credit risk right? It’s the seller taking the credit risk with these subject 2 deals?

Because that risk is there, I feel personally, it’s not 100% ethical, due to the fact that if the numbers go upside down for you, the investor, how long are you likely to keep performing, and not screw the seller? Maybe I don’t fully understand these deals, but that’s what I’m getting out of it.

Reply

Karen Rittenhouse March 29, 2013 at 9:04 am

Jason:
Absolutely, it would be prudent to be able to cover the loan if the bank calls it. Or have enough equity to be able to sell to get out of it. We never buy unless the property has equity AND good cash flow, just like we require for any other type of purchase.

By, “the loan may not be locked-in”, you mean interest rate? That’s true, which is why I recommend not assuming variable rates. We have negotiated with lenders to “fix” the rates before we take over for that very reason. In the recent past, many loans with adjustables have adjusted down (sweet!) but that is, no doubt, about to change!

It is or is not ethical depending upon the ethics of the investor taking over the loan because, as you say, the loan risk remains with the seller. Our contracts also add that, should we not be able to make the payments, once payments become 30 days past due, the seller is able to take the property back which includes all of the repairs and principle pay down since we’ve owned it. These mortgages should always receive top priority and I would hope anyone taking a loan subject-to would take only properties they can afford and never let default.

Anyone not comfortable with subject-to should absolutely not do them.

Peter April 2, 2013 at 1:37 pm

Do you know if there is some sort of “statute of limitations” for triggering the due on sale clause in other states? Whenever the title passes this triggers the due on sale clause because this is breach of contract and puts the property in technical default. You said that in California courts have ruled that if the lender accepts four payments that this is an acceptance of the change of title, and the lender loses the right to foreclose on the property. Are there any other instances where the lender would be waiving the right to foreclose so the investor could eliminate the uncertainty of buying subject to existing financing?

Reply

Karen Rittenhouse April 2, 2013 at 6:19 pm

Hi Peter:

I know of no “statute of limitations.” @BrianGibbons mentioned the issue in the state of California which was interesting news to me!

Check your state laws, always. As I’ve said, we have no problem talking with the lenders and getting their permission to take the loan subject-to. We’ve even re-negotiated terms and interest rates on the subject-to mortgages. Lenders are not as opposed to this transaction as many here seem to think.

Reply

Sharon Vornholt March 26, 2013 at 2:32 pm

Boy Karen; that is a blast from the past.

When I bought my second house we were thrilled to assume the existing mortgage. It was about 7 1/2 % which was a steal when the interest rates were at 14-15%. It was a great way to buy a house then and like you said it was pretty common.

I have bought several houses with “subject to” financing. It worked seamlessly every time. I always had an attorney close the deal so there was never a question of whether or not they knew what we were doing.

Anyone that can buy a house today with these historically low rates should buy now. You really can’t imagine what a big gift this is if you haven’t been a part of historically high interest rates. Just think about how much less house you could buy with rates of even 7 or 8% not to mention 14 or 15%.

Sharon

Reply

Karen Rittenhouse March 26, 2013 at 3:32 pm

Sharon:

When I talk to our students about the “recent” double digit interest rates, so many look totally confused. It really wasn’t that long ago! Truly, today we can borrow free money from the banks.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Reply

James Hiddle March 26, 2013 at 4:02 pm

The biggest risk is those who take over the property Sub2 but can’t qualify for a standard loan. If interest rates go up than they’re now in hot water because if they can’t qualify for a standard loan than surely they can’t qualify for a refi.

That can be both an investor or the average joe. Something to think about.

Reply

Karen Rittenhouse March 26, 2013 at 4:19 pm

Hi James:

You’re so right! No one should take over a loan that they can’t afford to make payments on. And, don’t take over adjustable loans. Those payments can jump quickly once interest rates begin to rise.

Thanks for your comment!

Reply

Dennis March 26, 2013 at 6:50 pm

The best way to avoid the due on sale clause and also keep the lender from demanding payment when future interest rates hit the stratosphere is the deed the property from the owner into a trust.

If done in this manner the lender is sent a letter from the owner (former) instructing the lender to deal only with the named trustee period. The owner (former) transfers his 100% beneficial interest in the property to the new beneficiary (you). Under my State and local laws, transfer tax is not due if a property is moved into a trust, but as normal course and not wanting to fight City hall I pay transfer taxes.

So in the future is the lender going to call a loan due that is on the surface controlled by the same owner?

The former owner is not just allowed to walk away without also signing a irrevocable power of attorney concerning this property, which is executed. Believe me there is no way the former owner is going to make a case they didn’t know what was going to happen. I also have the former owner in his own handwriting explain what is happening in this transaction and how he asked me to take over his deed, this letter is also executed.

My deals with owners are all above board, at this time in my life an owner in trouble is going to need to get down on his knees and beg me to buy his house in some areas of my City.

Reply

Karen Rittenhouse March 26, 2013 at 8:40 pm

Hi Dennis:

Like you, we also have our properties in trust. The concern with the scenario you describe is that the seller is named in the trust. According to Garn St. Germain, an owner may transfer his/her property into trust without prompting the due on sale clause. Once that title is transferred, however, Garn St. Germain is no longer in effect and the due on sale is activated.

Be sure to read the Garn St. Germain act and you may need to tweak your method slightly.

Thanks for commenting.

Reply

Greg March 26, 2013 at 11:08 pm

From what I’ve read, you can transfer the property into a trust, but as soon as you transfer the beneficial interest of the trust to someone else, you will have triggered the “due on sale” clause. This may very well hide said transaction from the bank, but I cannot in good conscience do something that wouldn’t withstand full disclosure to all interested parties and sleep at night.

Reply

Karen Rittenhouse March 27, 2013 at 7:05 am

Greg:
100% correct. Doing this is exactly what our Attorney General looks for and considers fraudulent. He deems it attempting to conceal the true transaction (concealment of the transfer).

Jeff Brown March 26, 2013 at 7:11 pm

I completely disagree. When interest rates reach whatever level triggers lenders’ ire, they will repeat the slaughter of the late 70s and early 80s. The only difference is that this time they have precedent, federal law, and Supreme Court rulings in their favor. It’s gonna be a massacre.

‘Course, that opinion, my experience, and $10 bucks will get us coffee ‘n cookies, right?

Reply

Karen Rittenhouse March 26, 2013 at 8:44 pm

Could be, Jeff, which is why the caution to pay attention. We are focused entirely now on paying off those loans while the market is rockin’. But buying subject-to can be a beautiful thing!

Thanks for the comment.

Reply

Tim Norris March 26, 2013 at 9:17 pm

Nice piece, Karen. Thanks! Another point to consider is how to handle the insurance—correctly. Here is a link to an article I had written a few years back:

http://www.nreinsurance.com/Insurance-Issues-for-the-Sub2-Deal.pdf

Hope it helps…

Reply

Karen Rittenhouse March 27, 2013 at 7:22 am

Tim:
Great article! Yes, yes, yes. That has been our insurance process.

New issue, however. In the last 90 days, we have had 3 lenders insist that both we and the sellers be on the insurance as “primary insured.” (Yes, our lenders know we’re taking over the payments. Talk about full disclosure!) This is new. We have, up until now, done insurance as you describe. Apparently, with all the foreclosures, etc., of late, the banks realize the liability that these sellers continue to carry by remaining on the loan and the lenders want to be sure there is no issue with potential insurance claims, just as you describe there could be. I think this is smart on the lenders part.

Thanks for becoming a part of the discussion!

Reply

Mark January 2, 2014 at 8:52 pm

Will you please provide me with the sub2 insurance tips/information? The link to your article no longer works. Thanks ,Mark

Reply

Mark January 2, 2014 at 8:53 pm

Tim do you still have this insurance info? Looks as if the article is no longer active

Reply

kyle hipp March 26, 2013 at 11:01 pm

I purchased two properties sunject to existing financing inside a land contract in the last 18 months. I just finished up refinancing out of both of them. I learned a lot along the way as one had some wrinkles involving an estate and a partnership. That one was also an adjustable rate mortgage which gave us not troubles at all, I was happy as can be to pay 2.75% on an investment loan. I love this strategy buy it must be done with eyes wide open with full understanding of the risks and challenges involved. Great post!!

Reply

Karen Rittenhouse March 27, 2013 at 7:26 am

Wow, Kyle, you’ve already financed out of both? What was your reason for doing that?

Adjustable rate mortgages are perfectly fine in this economy. For the last few years, in fact, they have only been adjusting down (sweet!). My warning about taking over adjustables at this time is because rates are almost guaranteed to jump significantly in the next 5 years, and I don’t want anyone taking over a property that they ultimately won’t be able to afford making payments on.

Thanks for commenting and congratulations to you on the two successes!

Reply

kyle hipp March 27, 2013 at 7:18 pm

I set them up to balloon in a year on one and 18 months on the other. I was able to get the price I wanted then as well as put money into rehab instead of downpayment. Then when I refinanced I was able to have the option to pull cash out or keep a low monthly payment. I havn’t attempted to purchase a property subject to existing mortgage to keep that financing for a long time.

Reply

Karen Rittenhouse March 28, 2013 at 9:03 am

Thanks for answering!

That’s so interesting. Why the balloon? Glad you were so successful in accomplishing your goal. Congratulations!

Erion Shehaj March 27, 2013 at 7:26 am

Hi Karen

So the gist of the argument is that buying subject-to is a great way to buy properties if you don’t really need to buy properties subject-to and can refinance in a flash when the lender comes a-knockin.

Fair enough. My only concern is that I mostly see subject-to deals being done by the “no money, no credit” crowd. So when the interest rates rise, and they will rise, there will be trouble for the majority of them.

Thanks for sharing the story. That experience is invaluable.

Reply

Karen Rittenhouse March 27, 2013 at 7:38 am

Hi Erion:

Maybe. But we typically buy subject-to the same way we buy any property, with plenty of equity and good cash flow. We buy with multiple exit strategies and won’t take on a property that we can’t sell or partner with in a flash. (With as many as we own, refinance is probably not an option!)

And neither we nor our students nor the investors we know across the nation are part of the “no money, no credit” crowd, so let me change your perception! Subject-to is an amazing way to buy for any investor.

But I did want to put in that word of caution. Especially about taking over adjustables in this economy. ANY purchase should be done conservatively, subject-to or not.

Thanks for reading and commenting!

Reply

Erion Shehaj March 27, 2013 at 7:57 am

Karen

I wasn’t suggesting that you our your investors were part of that crowd. I just said that the deals I see done that way are done by investors who cannot buy property any other way.

Multiple exit strategies would be required for sure and it seems like you’ve got that handled.

Reply

Karen Rittenhouse March 27, 2013 at 8:08 am

Oh, Erion, I didn’t think you were including us in that statement! :)

I just want to be sure you’re not ignoring that buying strategy by categorizing it for only “buyers in need.” It’s such a great way to buy!

Tim Norris March 27, 2013 at 7:42 am

Be wary of naming the prior owner as a first insured, as many carriers will issue claims checks to all named. If you do handle the insurance with them named, ensure your PoA (or whatever appropriate documents) allows you to endorse the claim check(s). Last thin you want is to chase them down for an endorsement to repair damages on your house. We’ve yet to have a lender push back on the method I described. Thanks!

Reply

Karen Rittenhouse March 27, 2013 at 8:03 am

Tim: that’s the ideal. Times could be-a-changin’ (again…). We definitely have POAs with every deal.

Thanks!

Reply

Brandon Foken March 27, 2013 at 9:34 am

Thanks for the excellent primer, Karen. I listened to your podcast where this was brought up as well. All good information. I’ve listened to the BP audio summit’s role-playing session and there was a segment where they touched on buying properties subject-to. Can you share some of your techniques or ways you broach the subject of buying a property subject-to? Not sure I know what that initial “hook” is. Thanks and keep up the great content!

Reply

Karen Rittenhouse March 27, 2013 at 9:41 am

Hi Brandon:
I supposed the best initial “hook” is that, naturally, we can pay more for a property where we don’t have to go out and acquire our own financing. The money and effort saved by taking over the existing financing is passed on to the seller. I like to give multiple offers with this one as the highest offer, down to our cash offer which is substantially lower.

To your success!

Reply

Dawn A. March 27, 2013 at 9:43 am

Great article! I actually found a newspaper recently from 1966 and there were several ads in there with sellers advertising the buyers taking over the existing GI loans. 4.5% to 5.75% were the rates mentioned. (Now that was before I was born!)

Reply

Karen Rittenhouse March 27, 2013 at 10:01 am

Hi Dawn:
A lot of “younger” people don’t realize how much interest rates have fluctuated over the years. We are in a SWEET spot with such low rates again!

To your success!

Reply

Jeff Brown March 27, 2013 at 9:51 am

In a subject-to transaction, the seller is knowingly violating the contract by which they agreed to abide. They’re recruiting the buyer to conspire with them to do it. In court they will lose. Most of the time the buyer will not suffer, as they’re not on the note. And yeah, I know how the subject-to buyer proponents go outa their way to inform sellers of these facts.

The fact remains, the buyer and seller are conspiring to violate a contract to the detriment of one of the parties to that contract. We can debate ’til the cows come home, but that’s what it is from Day 1, and that’s what the courts will rule. The rest is HappyTalk.

Reply

Karen Rittenhouse March 27, 2013 at 10:10 am

Hi Jeff:
Not necessarily. As I wrote, the due-on-sale is a right, not a law.

And we have no problem bringing the lenders into the conversation. As I commented to @TimNorris above, “In the last 90 days, we have had 3 lenders insist that both we and the sellers be on the insurance as “primary insured.” (Yes, our lenders know we’re taking over the payments. Talk about full disclosure!) ”

We’ve even contacted lenders, renegotiated interest rates, and they still kept the loan in the seller’s name. They didn’t have a problem with it at all.

Now, there are people out there trying to do things that are deceptive in many different types of transactions, not only subject-to. But just because it’s a subject-to does not mean it is a contract violation. I have known buyers who went to court over this issue and every one was ultimately deemed a legal transaction.

Reply

Jeff Brown March 27, 2013 at 10:17 am

Hey Karen — When it happened before, as you so accurately mentioned in the post, the lenders won in a route, without the help of much court precedent, any specific federal statute, or a favorable Supreme Court ruling. They now have all three in spades.

I never said it was ‘illegal’. I said in court it will be relatively easily shown as a clear and inarguable breach of contract. It’ll be in civil court, not criminal. The properties lost buy buyers, and the financial harm to the sellers will be significant, to say the least. In the end, a breach of contract is a breach of contract no matter what it’s called, or how it’s camoflauged.

This is one of those times when we’ll agree to disagree and go have a beer together. :)

Reply

Greg March 27, 2013 at 10:43 am

I found http://www.johntreed.com/dueonsale.html very illuminating on all the details of the regulations, laws, etc. It really does shine a light on the realm of subject-to’s, how “due-on-sale” is a misnomer, and in the end, I couldn’t do this myself.

Karen Rittenhouse March 27, 2013 at 11:22 am

Cheers!

Karen Rittenhouse March 27, 2013 at 11:37 am

Thanks for that, Greg.
I don’t like the title “getting around due on sale clauses.” :(
Immediately sounds fishy when it doesn’t need to be at all.

If the seller doesn’t want it and the lender doesn’t want it, I don’t want to do it, for sure!

Yes, when interest rates soar, I would expect lenders to go back after the low interest rates that have been “assumed”. There are, apparently, some court cases showing they waive their right to do that after they’ve accepted a certain number of payments from the new payee. I have no intention of testing that theory, but some probably will.

And, as suggested in your article, those who can’t afford the property have no right to take it over subject-to in the first place.

Dawn A. March 27, 2013 at 9:51 am

Karen,

Do you have a book written on this topic? It would be great if you could have a step-by step on all the forms, documents, etc. needed and how to discuss with sellers? I think this would be a great book!

Reply

Karen Rittenhouse March 27, 2013 at 10:46 am

Dawn:
No book, but I agree! Would be a great one.

Problem is forms, documents, step-by-steps vary by state. This is why so many get into trouble when buying guru packets and simply reproducing them….

If I could, I would!

Reply

Dawn A. March 27, 2013 at 10:57 am

How did you figure out what forms, documents, and steps were right for your state then? Did you work with an attorney on this or learn from someone else in your state who was doing this?

Reply

Karen Rittenhouse March 27, 2013 at 11:41 am

Heard a national guru, went home and checked state and local laws with 3 different legal firms. We alter our contracts every time state laws change. State amendments used to happen annually – now change seems to happen randomly!

It definitely takes time and effort to stay abreast of regulations. We spend a great deal of time and effort working with our state legislators.

Carl March 28, 2013 at 11:43 am

I’ve never done a sub2 but read a book where the authors suggested contacting the lender and just tell them what’s going on. If they agree to it, get written authorization. Document your notice to them. In the event they don’t respond or later come back to enforce the due on sale clause, you’ll be in much better shape/ Anyone tried being up front with the lender at the on-set?

Reply

Karen Rittenhouse March 28, 2013 at 12:58 pm

Hi Carl:
We’ve been up front with the lender on a lot of the deals we’ve done subject-to. Mostly when there was an issue we needed to confirm or clear up. And, we’ve contacted them when the seller is behind in payments saying we want to take over the loan if they’ll agree.

We’ve also contacted them when we want to take over a loan but the interest rate is too high. If they agree to lower the rate, we agree to take over payments. Yes, we have gotten approval for this.

As I’ve mentioned in the post, taking over a loan subject-to is not illegal so don’t know that you need to do this every time. And, don’t know that their written authorization gives you any ultimate security. I would be of the mindset that they can call the loan later if they decide to.

Reply

De March 28, 2013 at 11:59 am

Great Post. and Great information in the comments. Thank all of you above.
I am on the side of transparency and disclosure when it comes to using this technique to buy houses. I have to be.
Would someone tell me when is it best notify the lender? Would you notify BEFORE execution of the contract or AFTER recording the warranty deed?.
Also, I would like to know if any of you are licensed real estate agents ?

Reply

Karen Rittenhouse March 28, 2013 at 1:02 pm

De:
If you plan to notify the lender, you want to do it BEFORE closing on the transaction to confirm their approval. If you notify them AFTER recording the deed and they decide to call the loan due, it could ruin your whole day…

I am not a licensed real estate agent, but I own a brokerage and employ licensed agents.

Reply

Fred Helm March 28, 2013 at 9:43 pm

Hello,

I was wondering, what would you say have been your most successful marketing strategies you’ve used to get Sub2 deals,? Thanks

Fred

Reply

Karen Rittenhouse March 29, 2013 at 6:17 am

Hi Fred.

Direct mail to the neighborhoods and homes we’d like to own with a simple ‘We Can Buy Your House’ message.

Thanks for asking.

Reply

ci March 29, 2013 at 10:14 pm

Does anyone have any advice on how current sub2’s in my rental portfolio will affect my ability to get a new conventional mortgage in my name? Will the lender frown upon this? And will it be considered in my debt/income ratio? Any guidance is appreciated.

Reply

Karen Rittenhouse March 30, 2013 at 7:19 pm

Ci:
It does not count against the number of loans you can get because it is not in your name.

It does, however, count against your debt to income ratio because it is still debt. It is counted just like any other rental property in that they consider the income against the debt.

Let me know how it goes!

Reply

Laurence April 18, 2013 at 12:17 pm

I buy subject to the existing financing on 95% of the deals I do.

However, I recently have developed a better understanding on how banks and the monetary system really work and based on that, it is highly unlikely for a lender to call a performing (conventional) loan due because it limits their ability to lend money.

I was explaining to someone recently that the mortgage or loan is based on the persons ability to pay on the note and not based on the house.

The house is collateral against the loan.

The bank could care less about the house. They care about the performing loan and their ability to use that as a reserve based on the fractional reserve system to lend even more money.

I highly recommend watch a documentary “Money as debt” to get a better idea of the true nature of banking and lending.

Reply

Karen Rittenhouse June 10, 2013 at 8:35 pm

Fantastic, Laurence. I absolutely get what you’re saying and have tried to explain this to others. Banks make money by lending, not by repossessing a performing asset (loan).

Thanks for making that point.

Reply

David June 9, 2013 at 12:04 pm

In the rising rate scenario, it seems very possible that a bank (or more likely, a servicer, or Fannie Mae, or a trustee for a mortgage-backed security holding the loan) that becomes aware of assumptions in these notes (and yes they’ll have great incentive to look) will attempt to compel a refinance/reset to current market rates. They have absolutely nothing to lose by doing so, and everything to gain, and they hold a lot of cards.

You have to consider how loans are valued by Wall Street in the secondary market (where the vast majority of them end up). Consider a loan made at 4% for $150K, with 25 yrs remaining to maturity. Intuitively we know that as rates rise, the current value of that loan goes down; an investor will pay less for a 4% coupon rate in order to earn the now higher market rates. Each 1% rise in rates causes Wall Street to decrease the value of this existing loan by 10-12%. So if market rates rise from 4% to 8%, then the value of the loan would drop by around 40%. If the lender can force the loan to be retired/refinanced at full price, and a new loan taken out at market rates, they just “earned” $60K (real cash in the secondary market) for very little effort.

They wouldn’t want to force anyone into foreclosure, however, so it would be a game of cat-and-mouse and threats, which would be very stressful to the seller who is still on the loan. The lender would likely offer a streamlined refinance to market rates, perhaps with both seller and buyer named on the loan under the new higher rate.

I think an entire boutique industry would likely spring up to track these situations down, through insurance policies and tax assessor data.

Reply

Karen Rittenhouse June 9, 2013 at 1:58 pm

Absolutely right, David, could happen.
And, maybe not.

We all certainly need to be prepared in case it does happen. Our average rate loan is about 6% so it will be a bit before the banks have the time or the staff to look for them. And, the case you laid out is a logical one. Logic is not what we’ve seen from lenders in the past.

At any rate, we personally got while the getting was good. We’re now in the flipping business paying all of these loans off at a very accelerated rate and prepared to pay off any that may be called in the future.

Thanks for taking the time to write that great response.

Reply

Brian F June 10, 2013 at 4:15 pm

I am currently getting into the sub 2 market in Seattle and it has so far been difficult to find motivated sellers due to the current market (low inventory, many buyers, houses sell fast traditionally). I am also marketing to slightly underwater homes and selling/holding for cash flow, but still hard to find motivated sellers.

Karen, what “type” of homes/owners are you marketing to in your neighborhoods? I am pulling lists and sending yellow letters, may start with the post cards as a follow up, but my list criteria has not produced the leads that I was expecting. Was hoping for 15% call back, 5% offer, 1% deal and am getting way less than that.

Reply

Karen Rittenhouse June 10, 2013 at 8:34 pm

Hi Brian:
To begin with, this is truly a numbers game. You have to market to enough buyers and hit them probably 7 times to begin getting calls. It takes more hits than ever because of the amount of ads we are all exposed to today. Try to count the number of ads on Facebook alone!

We marketed to one large area every month for over a year before we got the first call. Just when Jim said he was giving up marketing that area, we bought 4 houses there in one month. You must be consistent.

We market to neighborhoods and pick the criteria we want specifically. We started with single family houses, 10 years old or newer (we didn’t have the money for repairs), minimum 3 bedroom 2 bath (2 bedrooms are harder to rent), no condos (we thought harder to rent and for sure they don’t appreciate like SFH). Neighborhoods had to be median price point or below (where most of the population wants to live) and good schools.

Be sure to check for neighborhood newsletters. They usually let you advertise or write articles for free. Hit the houses as often as you can in as many different ways as you can. They need to keep thinking, “there’s that company again.”

Good luck and keep me posted!

Reply

Nuno December 23, 2013 at 4:06 pm

Leave a Comment

Comment Policy:

• Use your real name and only your name in the field designated for your name.
• No keywords allowed as anchor text in the name or comment fields.
• No signature links allowed under your comments
• You may use links in the body of your comment, but it must be relevant to the discussion at hand, and not merely be some promotional link.
• We will have NO reservations about deleting your content if we feel you are posting merely to get a link without adding value to our discussion.
If you add value, but still post keywords, we'll use your comment, but remove your link and keywords.
• For more information about acceptable practice, see our site rules.

Want your photo to appear next to your comments? Set up your Gravatar today.

Previous post:

Next post: