Ok, so I'm building an absentee owners list is a small affluent college town. The number of undefined leads in my geographical area is 38K. I whittled this down to about 3,000. I then added 40-100% equity and I get a whopping 150ish total leads for absentee owners. I am suspect...
For kicks I changed the equity parameter to 1-100%.
According to List Source, out of my total geographical area (38k) there are only 10k properties with 1-100% equity. When I add my other parameters the grand total is 299 leads with 1-100% equity.
Am I missing something? Should I just use "Last Market Sale Date" >7 years instead?
I seem to remember reading from @Dev Horn that when selecting the equity screening tool or the length of ownership (can't remember which) with Listsource it gets funky. I did some searching but couldn't find the post. If I recall right, the way it handles the default value screens it out instead of in. Hopefully he will see this and clear it up.
Hey guys. We find "holes" in the Listsource data sometimes when we use a filter and the lead count drops too dramatically like that. I think you're right Nick that - for whatever reason - Listource does not have complete data for that filter for your area. And I'd also agree with you that a good alternative, when %Equity is not available, is to use Last Market Sale Date to weed out more recent buyers (who may have less equity). But you may want to go back more than 7 years. 7 years ago was 2008 and we were at the height of the market so many of the people that bought close to 08 may have less or no equity. If you go back 10 years, you're talking 2005 and before - I'd feel a bit better about that selection... Best wishes!
Thanks for the input guys!
I would agree with what @Dev Horn on this. I actually compiled lists from two different sources, List Source and PropertyRadar, with the same area and criteria and came up with vastly different results. I thought that to be strange. Maybe they pull from different sources, or there are bugs affecting one service compared to another? I think these services are a bit wonky in areas and the UI isn't always the best leading to "holes" in the data so to speak. Best thing to do is try to compile a list after playing around with the criteria for a while to deduce what would be the best possible list. Then suppress when you buy new lists to make sure you aren't paying twice for the same lead. Good luck!
@Benjamin S. let me also add that most data providers have better data the more recent the data is. It depends on the particular county, as various providers have different "depth" (years of history) for each county, you'll note that transfer date for example becomes almost worthless at some point (when you exceed that providers depth in that county). So transfer date pretty much always works great for the last 5-10 and maybe 15-20 years depending on areas, but anything greater than that depth cut off and you'll get very few results. What you really want at that point is Transfer Date > 7 years, or Transfer Date IS NULL. Saying IS NULL, is essentially asking to see all the properties that have no transfer date at all - which should only be those transferred BEFORE whatever the cutoff date is for depth in that county. Hopefully that makes sense.
Sean OToole, PropertyRadar.com | http://www.propertyradar.com
This is helpful. I also built a list with list source with equity 41-100% for a 5 county area and got like 177 results. It doesn't seem like a realistic count.
Free eBook from BiggerPockets!
- Actionable advice for getting started,
- Discover the 10 Most Lucrative Real Estate Niches,
- Learn how to get started with or without money,
- Explore Real-Life Strategies for Building Wealth,
- And a LOT more.
Sign up below to download the eBook for FREE today!
We hate spam just as much as you
You must be a BiggerPockets member to post on the forums
Join the world's largest, most open Real Estate Investing Community online, 100% free forever!