Why I gave up Bandit Signs....Today.

Why I gave up Bandit Signs....Today.

Norwalk, CA · Member since 2019 · 26 posts · 10 votes

As a developing/newbie wholesaler you learn that you should follow basic steps to get in the game: put up bandit signs, door knock, drive for dollars, etc. So that's exactly what I've done.

I started with Bandit Signs. Experimented with different colors, font, messaging, and even language. Hundreds and hundreds of bandit signs later, I've given up on this as a viable, scalable strategy. Yes, I've had a few calls from signs: found a couple buyers, a potential lead that went nowhere, and callers who just needed someone to talk to (those were my favorite). I can even say that I enjoyed the rush of being an "outlaw" while putting up my signs.

I knew the day would come. The dreaded phone call....and it did. The city called and wanted to speak to me about my outlaw activities. That was probably the final nail in the coffin for me when it comes to being a bandit with these signs. The truth is I had already come to the conclusion that bandit signs are not worth the money, time, and effort they require and are not a sustainable, scalable business practice. Bandit signs, you will NOT be missed.

How has your Bandit Sign journey worked out?

4Reply
134 views

Most Popular Reply

Will BarnardPro Member
Moderator
Developer · Santa Clarita, CA · Member since 2008 · 15k+ posts · 10k+ votes
6y
Originally posted by @Dennis M.:

Your not supposed to use your own phone number on these ! You use a google voice number . If the code guys call tell them to pound salt , it’s not traceable if you set this up correctly 

I see, never mind that it is illegal, as long as you don’t get caught and use some google voice number, it must be ok.

Really!!! I think you bandit sign people should pound sand. 

See this reply in the discussion

60 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Flipper/Rehabber · Wilton, CT · Member since 2015 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:
    Originally posted by @Jerryll Noorden:

    while you all are fighting over bandit-signs...

    I am sitting on my butt effortlessly taking all the leads away from y'all!

    YAAAAAAWN..

    Oh snaps, just got an other lead.

    Oops sorry.. my bad.. TWO more leads.

    Actually.. again my bad.

    Make that THREE new leads.

    when will you people ever learn....

     Hey Jerryll.....don't I know you?

     Wait till we crush it together!

  • Will BarnardPro Member
    Moderator
    Developer · Santa Clarita, CA · Member since 2008 · 15k+ posts · 10k+ votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Storm S.:
    Originally posted by @Will Barnard:
    Originally posted by @Storm S.:
    Originally posted by @Will Barnard:
    Originally posted by @Storm S.:

    Assigning purchase and sale agreements on a one-off basis with the original intent to close does not violate the law but its specifically mentioned if you do it 8 times you need to be a broker

    Again, we all would like to see this verbiage from the CA department of real estate you claim you have.

    My research on the subject direct from the CA DRE states: “Without a license, an individual cannot receive compensation for the performance of any of the acts defined as being within the purview of a licensed broker or salesperson. In addition, the law provides penalties for a person who acts or purports to act as a real estate broker or salesperson without being duly licensed.”

    Acts defined within the purview of a licensed broker or salesperson include bringing a buyer and seller together with the expectation of receiving a fee & publicly marketing a property you do not own or hold title to. Anyone expecting to negotiate a purchase contract with a seller with an assignment clause, then marketing that property and/or contract for sale to other potential buyers and receiving an assignment fee fully violates CA DRE regulations and is a misdemeanor punishable by fines, jail, and/or restitution. Feel free to read the CA DRE regs yourself if you don’t believe me. There are no 8 freebies to the rule.

    Perhaps you are confusing becoming “dealer status” as defined by the IRS which has nothing to do with the legalities of brokering without a license as defined by the CA DRE and most other states real estate department statutes.

     I am definitely not mixing it up with dealer status. Here is a link to the state law in the Business and Professions Code.

    https://leginfo.legislature.ca...
    10131.

    A real estate broker within the meaning of this part is a person who, for a compensation or in expectation of a compensation, regardless of the form or time of payment, does or negotiates to do one or more of the following acts for another or others:

    (a) Sells or offers to sell, buys or offers to buy, solicits prospective sellers or buyers of, solicits or obtains listings of, or negotiates the purchase, sale, or exchange of real property or a business opportunity.

    (b) Leases or rents or offers to lease or rent, or places for rent, or solicits listings of places for rent, or solicits for prospective tenants, or negotiates the sale, purchase, or exchanges of leases on real property, or on a business opportunity, or collects rents from real property, or improvements thereon, or from business opportunities.

    (c) Assists or offers to assist in filing an application for the purchase or lease of, or in locating or entering upon, lands owned by the state or federal government.

    (d) Solicits borrowers or lenders for or negotiates loans or collects payments or performs services for borrowers or lenders or note owners in connection with loans secured directly or collaterally by liens on real property or on a business opportunity.

    (e) Sells or offers to sell, buys or offers to buy, or exchanges or offers to exchange a real property sales contract, or a promissory note secured directly or collaterally by a lien on real property or on a business opportunity, and performs services for the holders thereof.

    https://leginfo.legislature.ca...


    10131.1.

    (a) A real estate broker within the meaning of this part is also a person who engages as a principal in the business of making loans or buying from, selling to, or exchanging with the public, real property sales contracts or promissory notes secured directly or collaterally by liens on real property, or who makes agreements with the public for the collection of payments or for the performance of services in connection with real property sales contracts or promissory notes secured directly or collaterally by liens on real property.

    (b) As used in this section:

    (1) “In the business” means any of the following:

    (A) The acquisition for resale to the public, and not as an investment, of eight or more real property sales contracts or promissory notes secured directly or collaterally by liens on real property during a calendar year.

    (B) The sale to or exchange with the public of eight or more real property sales contracts or promissory notes secured directly or collaterally by liens on real property during a calendar year. However, no transaction negotiated through a real estate licensee shall be considered in determining whether a person is a real estate broker within the meaning of this section.

    (C) The making of eight or more loans in a calendar year from the person’s own funds to the public when those loans are held or resold and are secured directly or collaterally by a lien on residential real property consisting of a single dwelling unit in a condominium or cooperative or on any parcel containing only residential buildings if the total number of units on the parcel is four or less. However, no transaction negotiated through a real estate broker who meets the criteria of subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 10232 shall be considered in determining whether a person is a real estate broker within the meaning of this section.

    (2) “Sale,” “resale,” and “exchange” include every disposition of any interest in a real property sales contract or promissory note secured directly or collaterally by a lien on real property, except the original issuance of a promissory note by a borrower or a real property sales contract by a vendor, either of which is to be secured directly by a lien on real property owned by the borrower or vendor.

    (3) “Own funds” means either of the following:

    (A) Cash, corporate capital, or warehouse credit lines at commercial banks, savings banks, savings and loan associations, industrial loan companies, or other sources that are liability items on the person’s financial statements, whether secured or unsecured.

    (B) Cash, corporate capital, or warehouse credit lines at commercial banks, savings banks, savings and loan associations, industrial loan companies, or other sources that are liability items on the financial statement of an affiliate of the person, whether secured or unsecured.

    (4) “Own funds” does not include funds provided by a third party to fund a loan on condition that the third party will subsequently purchase or accept an assignment of the loan.

    This is pretty cut and dry to me if you do more than 8 wholesale deals a year and you are unlicensed there are no loopholes to save you.

     So I have read your post and reviewed the info from the CA legislature for each link you provided. Only in section 10131.1 under subsection C does it ever state the number eight and in doing so, it explicitly refers to the making of 8 or more loans. This section has nothing to do with wholesaling in a format of contracting with a seller on a purchase and sales agreement, having an assignment clause, marketing that property and contract to locate a buyer, contracting that buyer through assignment fee and collecting said fee. If you do this one time in CA without being licensed, you are brokering without a license and you don’t get to do it 7 times per CAR or per the CA real estate licensing laws without being licensed.

    So I standby my original argument and have yet to be shown I am wrong. If anyone else wants to show me how I am wrong (from CA), feel free, I’m all ears.

  • Real Estate Agent · Santa Barbara, CA · Member since 2016 · 518 posts · 283 votes
    6y

    @Will Barnard I’m not sure what you mean I bolded the parts where it explicitly talks about acquiring purchase and sales agreements with the intent of reselling to the public as a principle or in an agent role. The loans are another thing subject to this rule that also got highlighted because it’s in the same clause

  • Will BarnardPro Member
    Moderator
    Developer · Santa Clarita, CA · Member since 2008 · 15k+ posts · 10k+ votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Storm S.:

    @Will Barnard I’m not sure what you mean I bolded the parts where it explicitly talks about acquiring purchase and sales agreements with the intent of reselling to the public as a principle or in an agent role. The loans are another thing subject to this rule that also got highlighted because it’s in the same clause

    I guess I’m failing to understand how this can override and contradict the rules and regs put out by the CA real estate Board. I would also question that the wholesaler in the scenario I laid out, is not a “principle” in the transaction, merely a middle man collecting a fee for brining a buyer and seller together. I guess I will need some authoritative explanation and proof on this as it goes directly against what I have been told and informed by my broker and by the rules governed by the real estate board (which is NOT the same as the CA legislature).

  • Real Estate Agent · Santa Barbara, CA · Member since 2016 · 518 posts · 283 votes
    6y

    @Will Barnard I’m not disagreeing with you on the views by the DRE, I was just presenting what the state legislature has come up with, I highlighted two sections the first covered when acting an a agency position and the second covered when acting as a principle. I agree with your view that people shouldn’t wholesale in California because it’s just unlicensed brokering. I just pointing out that the state legislature has determined if your assigning contracts for the purpose of reselling them, doing that 8 time is enough proof of your intent and that your breaking the law and need to be licensed.

  • Will BarnardPro Member
    Moderator
    Developer · Santa Clarita, CA · Member since 2008 · 15k+ posts · 10k+ votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Storm S.:

    @Will Barnard I’m not disagreeing with you on the views by the DRE, I was just presenting what the state legislature has come up with, I highlighted two sections the first covered when acting an a agency position and the second covered when acting as a principle. I agree with your view that people shouldn’t wholesale in California because it’s just unlicensed brokering. I just pointing out that the state legislature has determined if your assigning contracts for the purpose of reselling them, doing that 8 time is enough proof of your intent and that your breaking the law and need to be licensed.

    I see, fair enough. Even wearing my reading glasses, I somehow missed that in two sections it mentioned the number 8, my bad and thanks for clarifying. I see after reading this response we are more on the same page than I originally thought and the DRE is the one going after unlicensed brokering, not the CA legislature so hopefully the readers understand that.

  • Real Estate Agent · Santa Barbara, CA · Member since 2016 · 518 posts · 283 votes
    6y

    @Will Barnard I could be wrong but I thought that the state legislators, wrote all the real estate laws and the purpose of the CA DRE is to enforce the laws not to make them, and in the case of conflicting laws the stronger/ more restrictive one is the one that takes effect. My view was that this law was meant to be a tool for the DRE to crack down on wholesalers easily. I would love to seek a link to something by the DRE showing a more restrictive version of this if you have one. 

  • Will BarnardPro Member
    Moderator
    Developer · Santa Clarita, CA · Member since 2008 · 15k+ posts · 10k+ votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Storm S.:

    @Will Barnard I could be wrong but I thought that the state legislators, wrote all the real estate laws and the purpose of the CA DRE is to enforce the laws not to make them, and in the case of conflicting laws the stronger/ more restrictive one is the one that takes effect. My view was that this law was meant to be a tool for the DRE to crack down on wholesalers easily. I would love to seek a link to something by the DRE showing a more restrictive version of this if you have one. 

    This whole debate has got me thinking about this. I need to dig back in and find at a for sure answer on all of this.

  • Daniel MendezPro Member
    Investor · Dallas, TX · Member since 2018 · 254 posts · 48 votes
    6y

    @Efrain Diaz

    Efrain, in your opinion what marketing Avenue is working the most for you? Is it direct mail? Social media?

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.