All Forum Posts by: Konstantin Ginzburg

 It's not difficult to do. It depends on the lender but it typically just requires you to sign a document provided by the lender that states you are intending on moving to the property and staying for a year. Keep in mind though, you should follow through with this agreement and move to the property since you can be liable and risk the lender coming after you if you decide not to move following closing. 

@Tracy Cheon

The best strategy would be getting multiple bids on the work you want to get done. Once you have chosen a contractor, there are ways in order to lower the price such as choosing to accept lower cost material. Keep in mind though, that picking the lowest cost bid might not be the best strategy since quality of work/materials should be weighed against price as well. Selecting the cheapest general contractor might result in having to spend additional money later on as sub-par work may need to be corrected down the road. This can wind up costing you more in the long run compared with picking a higher quality general contract at the start of the job, even if they might cost a bit more up front. 

@Shane Duncan

If you are willing to move into the property for a period, you can try to look into primary residence loans such as FHA which have a 3.5% down payment requirement. To meet the terms of a primary residence loan, you will need to live in the property for a year. After the year, you can move back to your current house while keeping the FHA loan.

@Julissa Rivera

First things first would be to identify what your goals are. Are you looking to turn real estate into a full time career? Are you looking for quick cash infusions? Are you looking to build generational wealth or a long period of time? Depending on which goal you have, you should tailor your investment strategy to this goal.

Full time career: real estate agent, mortgage originator, wholesaler are all potential options to look into.

Quick cash: House flipping or wholesaling can also fit into this category

Long-term wealth: Buy and hold would be a good strategy with possibly using house-hacking as an entry point here

There are many ways to invest in real estate but once you identify your criteria and goals; finding the information to accomplish that is fairly easy with podcast, local real estate meetups, this forum, or books.

Good morning BiggerPockets,

I am currently entering the third year of my real estate investing journey. To this point, my portfolio has consisted of single family homes and 4-plexes within the Louisiana market. My goal is begin shifting towards small apartment complexes in the 10-20 unit range. I am open to several markets within the US; one of which is Pittsburgh, PA. I had previously lived in Pittsburgh while I was attending college at the University of Pittsburgh. My ideal property profile would be 1 or 2 bedroom units within the Squirrel Hill or Shadyside neighborhoods that caters to student housing for those attending Carnegie Mellon University. We have a lot of success renting our New Orleans property to Tulane graduate students and are hoping to recreate this business model with Carnegie Melon. I am currently looking for lenders, brokers, real estate agents, as well as those with experience renting in this area. Any referrals or introductions would be greatly appreciated. 

@Jeffrey Audije

Once a lease expires, you can provide a new lease agreement that will have your increased rent on it but it is generally not acceptable to raise rent in the middle of an existing lease unless there are specific clauses within the existing lease that would allow that. Many areas also require a written intent to raise rent be given to the tenant prior to this occurring. We do this 30 days prior but different states have different requirements so it is best to check with the requirements in your region to ensure you stay compliant with local laws. If the core reason you want to do this is due to an increase in utility costs, then placing utility costs onto the tenant can also be a good idea. This is usually easily accomplished if the utilities are separately metered. 

@Sandy G.

I agree with the others in this post. Find what the legal process is for beginning an eviction in your area and begin that process immediately. Personally, in the past, I had started the eviction regardless of the sob story (there is always a sob story). If the tenant shows good faith effort to meet their financial obligation as well as maintaining acceptable communication and follow-through on the promises they make; I am willing to work with them if they are going through a rough patch. If however, they are intentionally avoiding communication in the way you described and forcing me to chase them down for rent; then I continue with the eviction procedure. Once the day of court proceedings comes; my rule is: no further negotiations are accepted and the eviction continues through due process. By beginning the eviction process immediately and having the court set a trial date, you are able to set the time table for events to play out rather than allowing the tenant to attempt to set the time table. As others have stated here: a security deposit should not be taken as a rent payment. 

@Paul DeBoer

If the tenant is not communication; what you can and can not legally do is really dictated by where you live. The landlord-tenant laws vary drastically from state to state and even have differences city to city within the same state. It may be best to reach out to those familiar with local legislation in the area your rental is for the best course of action to take. I was in a similar position earlier so I know how stressfull it can be. Best of luck!

@Account Closed

The preference in flipping vs renting comes down to what the goals of an individual investor are. If the investor needs a quick influx of capital, then a flip would be their ideal strategy since they would receive a large payment at sale. If they choose to rent however, there will be no large up front infusion of immediate capital but in the long term; there will be a much higher return on their investment. Many investors prefer this delayed gratification strategy and rent for a pro-longed period of time. There are many reasons why renting does lead to a greater long term payoff. During a flip, your primary source of profit is from the forced appreciation value of the property. If you rent a property out, your revenue sources are forced appreciation of property, passive appreciation of property over time due to inflation, rental income, debt paydown of mortgage, depreciation expenses that provide tax benefits, as well as several other sources. There is no right or wrong way to invest since both renting and flipping strategies do work. It is simply a matter of: do you need the money now or are you ok waiting for more money later? 

Since you stated that your goal is putting people into homes they own (this is a very noble goal); one option I would advise you look into is a lease to own business model. In summary, this model has investors purchasing a home and then leasing it to renters with the caveat that the renter has the option to assume the loan or buy the property after a few years if they meet certain requirements. 

@Mary Jay

I don't view this as a realistic law that will pass for several reasons. The first problem is that is represents severe government over reach since this would force private entities to sell off their private assets. This is not a power that government is granted. The second problem is enforceability. This would be very difficult for this law to be enforced since all it would take is the formation of subsidiaries with unique entity names to be created and these smaller entities would be able to take over ownership of real estate from the original parent company, leading to no actual shift in inventory. While home affordability is currently a problem in the US, this attempt at solving the issue appears less as a realistic proposal put forth that is meant to solve the problem in a reasonable way and more as a method of obtaining political pandering points from their voter base since as they had stated in the article: they do not believe this measure will actually pass. This means this is a cheap way of getting some publicity without taking on any actual risk. 

I also find it personally disheartening that this is the measure they are proposing without taking accountability for the part they played in causing this situation to begin with. While many factors played into the previous high inflationary environment, supply chain interrupts due to lock-ins and large amounts of stimulus spending was a noticeable contributing factor; as was the rapid rise in interest rates. I do not think that the entity that contributed to the current problem is suited to be the primary source of a solution. A solution that has a higher probability to fix the issue is more likely to come from private businesses. At its root, the affordability problem is a case of limited housing supply far outpacing housing demand. In order to help alleviate affordability, additional housing supply should be encouraged. While the government can assist in this through actions such as lowering borrowing rates, providing construction incentives, or streamlining the permitting process for builders; I can't see a realistic law that can be passed that would provide a real solution to the problem and wouldn't revolve substantial over reaches of power.