Hi everyone, I have been investing in Mexico over the last two years thanks to connections in the local real estate world so I follow all things Mexico on here I know a thing or two about investing in real estate there. Therefore, I will allow myself to set the record straight on a few things that have been mentioned in this thread.
I love what does and it makes total sense, although there's another way she could have done things. I've never been to Oaxaca but $200,000 for a fixer upper sounds an awful lot there, unless it's very big of course. I'm also not sure why she paid in USD given that Oaxaca is not one of the internationalized markets where properties are traded in USD.
What Trudy does makes sense because she wants to move to Oaxaca and live in that very house that she most likely carefully selected to suit her tastes.
As a pure investment though, it wouldn't make any sense. Let's assume the best case: the renovation costs are 0, the costs to hold the property are 0 and the property is rented continuously from day 1.
You put $50,000 and you get seller financing for $150,000. You'd be levered 3 to 1 in Mexico. That sounds awesome at first glance but when you dig a bit you realize that this is not seller financing. At least not as we understand it in North America. The whole idea of seller financing is to limit the amount of cash that has to come out of your own pocket since the loan from the seller is going to be paid by the cash flow of the property. In this case, you would make $15,600 in rental income, which would just pay for the interest on the loan. Therefore, the whole $150,000 to repay the loan will have to come from your own pockets.
So basically, you have to pay the whole $200,000 price tag in cash. The seller just gives you 3 years to pay but none of the cost of the house will come from the income it generates. This is a 100% cash deal, not a seller financing deal.
Finally, the deal doesn't clear the 1% rule. With $200,000 in the US, you can easily get more than $1,300 in rent and then you can put on leverage to get a much higher return. Why would go through the headaches and take the risks of investing in Mexico for making much less money than at home. I invest in Mexico only because I can make much more money than at home.
@Trudy Pachon in your reply to @Joe Splitrock, you rightfully mentioned that, if you want to buy property along the coast, you need to do it through a fideicomiso (you can actually also use a Mexican corporation) and then you say no thanks. There is nothing wrong with buying through a fideicomiso. It's exactly the same as buying in your own name. I know you don't want to be on the coast but those who do shouldn't refrain from buying because they have to do it through a fideicomiso, especially since the real money in Mexican real estate is done on the coasts.
Which leads me to an alternative strategy you could have followed. I've been buying pre-construction luxury condos in the Riviera Maya with investors there for less than $200,000. We get "real" seller financing that will get paid out of the cash flow from the property but I won't even go there since most people cannot get that. People have been renting similar condos part time for $60,000. This is 4 times what you'd make in Oaxaca and you don't even have to pay for rehab. Granted, most people wouldn't be as good with short-term rentals but you could reasonably get your invested money back in rental income over 5 years. I know you wouldn't want to live there but then you could pay for a similar house in Oaxaca with that rental money. You would then live in the property in Oaxaca and get the rental money from the big cash flowing property on the coast.
@Account Closedundefined