Ever buy with No Equity?

Question

Answer

There is always value in a good loan you can take over, even if you're eligible for other funding. I've never kept a sub2 property longer than a year, but looking forward to a longer term deal. But keeping a good loan in place for the rehab can be some cheap money. I'm making an offer on a property today where my offer is taking over a loan that is 50% of equity and is fixed at 3%. Keeping that in place even for as little as 4 months is a good deal. Low interest, no fees.

Answer

Pay attention to this, guys, this is GOLD: "Deals are made on the buying side, you can't really bring a property up to profit on the sale side, legally and ethically, without applying a greater degree of forced appreciation. :)" As a rehabber, you make all your money when you buy. Like Bill said, you can create value too, I like to buy small houses in areas that sell for $200+ sq/ft and do add ons that cost $85/ft to build. Those deals work even if you are buying at over 70% of CURRENT value because you are creating the value with the additional square footage. If you are doing rentals, its a completely different ballgame. No equity deals are fine is certain markets. There is nothing wrong with buying a $50k house for $50k if it rents for $1,000/mo. The math works. I think if/when interest rates get back to historical norms of 6%+/- that taking a no equity deal sub2 with a good loan (3%) and no equity will make sense. There is value in a good loan. Hell there is value in just about any loan to someone that cant get one. I've definitely bought a few well over the 70% mark, done a light rehab and sold them at 110% owner financed. Created a good monthly spread, and on the 20% or so that actually exercise the option I got a nice back end. That works well in an appreciating market. Depreciating one, not so much. Some of my better deals have been low equity, good loan deals. I had a few interest only loans that cash flowed like crazy back in the day...There are other plays like Brian said on no equity deals, you just have to structure them right. The gurus were/are teaching a L/O strategy with you keeping the option money. Basically you get a seller with no equity and find them a tenant buyer with a long term option and you keep the option money and possibly a spread on payments. Probably not in compliance with Dodd/Frank, but I'd still do it if one fell in my lap...

Answer

I would like to reiterate something: Lease Option Assignments and Sub2 purchase then renting or Lease 2 Own need CAUTION: These aren't in the Wholesaling model below median prices. These are houses ABOVE the median in good school districts in safe neighborhoods where demand for 3-4 bedrooms, 2 bath + houses is high with fenced in yards with 2 car garages with internal access The existing financing is a low rate and fixed not an ARM The Seller wants to do this because the alternative to renting out or selling with an agent is not attractive. Get the house right, get the existing financing right, get the attitude of the seller right as to the risks if the tenant buyer does not get financing, get insurance in case of damage with a landlord tenant policy, etc. This model has an educational component of increasing FICO with getting new credit references (secured installment loan, secure VISA, etc), how to get a home loan with either FHA or other low down payment, decreasing D/E under 43%, going through a mortgage broker with tenant buyer, etc. Like a Property Manager, staying on the the buyer to be as to the importance of keeping the priority of home ownership high. And assisting the Seller in managing the performance of the Tenant Buyer as to making rent on time and keeping them informed of the underwriting of the Tenant Buyer. Low Equity Deals in desirable areas fill fast, non desirable areas are a nightmare.

Answer

The issue with thin deals is that the thinner they get the more knowledge and experience you need. There is no room for slop or messing up. There is no room about misjudging the end buyer. You need to cut the normal expenses, like listing/Realtor fees. I've had buyers clean up a place to shave expenses. The thinking that you would be buying at 70% less repairs in my market is far fetched, if that's your plan you better be carrying a 300+K property so you can live off your minor repairs profits for that year as that's about how many deals you'd get that year. You really need to identify properties that can be improved to another level or change use or that will rent much higher than its carrying costs. I, like most, got into the thought of doing just about anything that came along if I saw any money in it or thought I could build a profit. I'd solve a problem for a grand, sometimes as a favor for a Realtor (cheap advertising). Starting out many go here, thinking a grand is better than nothing. Not exactly, it depends on what the deal is and the problem you get involved with. In reality, you can't make a good decision about what to get involved with unless you really have in depth knowledge of what can or could go wrong. Frankly, new investors won't know. Every time you put your name on a contract you take on liabilities. The risks involved just aren't worth getting involved at a grand, for that I'd guide someone in a matter but never get involved. It takes 5K in hand as a minimum to be involved in any contract, IMO. If you're in business you must value your time. The interruptions and brain damage that some small deal causes, usually, is the same as a much larger deal. You'll find that buyers are not concerned about how thin your profit is, or the LTV held by a seller or much about the issues at hand, they are making a major purchase and be it retail or a flip to an investor, they will have demands of time and effort. At 5K, everything needs to flow without a bunch of issues. A smooth transaction while being at risk as a seller or buyer or in a straw man position needs to isn't a valued use of time for less as a business. You may need $1,800 that month to live on and do something to meet your personal needs but that's not really being in business as much as it is scraping by. In my area, if you get a hammer out, if you can't pull 20K more in a sale price, increasing the value, just keep moving on. That has nothing to do with how thin it may be, it's about increasing the value. It gets hard to pull 25% profits from improvements and at 20K you're getting about 5K. General rule in my area. It's all about the market and location. You can pay retail for an 80K home, put 20K in it and sell for 135 or so or more. The general rule for rehabbers buying at 70% is pretty much true as to cookie cutter deals, the thinner it gets the greater the knowledge required to increase the value side. Deals are made on the buying side, you can't really bring a property up to profit on the sale side, legally and ethically, without applying a greater degree of forced appreciation. :)

Answer

Yes, once. And never again. Unless it's with some type of seller terms. But with my own money or with a bank loan? Never again.

Answer

No kidding on the marketing thing. My markets are saturated with mail marketing by the rehab players, the ones that do 5-10 houses a month. They used to only buy at trustee's sale but now they have branched out. They pay more too because they work on much thinner margins. I'm working equity problems and legal problems they don't, but I need to find more.

Answer

@K. Marie Poe Newbies better become transaction engineers cuz... 1. The big boys will muscle you out with their big marketing 2. The deals are harder to get for many reasons. Low inventory is a big one. 3. There is more competitive folks for wholesale deals than ever before (more people in the game). 4. People arent getting home loans any easier either, so Retailing is harder too. Soooo, sub2, wraps- AITDs, seller carrys, cfds, all good to buy with. :)

Answer

All these questions about no equity and sub2. It's like the late 90s again. Short sales are a drag. Time for everyone to put on their deal maker hats.

Answer

There are two ways to look at a zero equity situation: is this your personal home or a rental property? As a personal residence, equity is like a tightrope walker's net. It pads you against economic downturns; it can provide emergency cash through a HELOC and it allows lenders to give you better loan terms (or a loan at all). I see no reason to pay above market value for a home. Equity is created through two ways: mortgage pay down and market appreciation. If you can crystal ball a sizable market appreciation within 5 years and are willing to take the financial risk and can afford to do it - well... just weigh the pros and cons to other available properties. As an income property, it is a little different. The primary concern should be cash flow. If you have a property that gives you good cash flow and creates a reasonable cash on cash return, zero equity is not such a concern. Hope that helps but if you want to get a more specific answer, we would need to consider a specific scenario.

Answer

Thanks for all of the responses @Simon Campbell , @Brian Gibbons , @k. Kristine Marie Poe ! The question comes from some (almost everything) of the stuff I've seen and read where when looking for a property ideally you're looking to pay 70% minus Repairs of the ARV, so anyone looking for that passes on anything without any equity. From what you guys are saying there are ways to profit from a lead where someone if just bought a house, then soon after were transferred elsewhere and would rather not be a landlord, but they owe about market value, especially after a 5% - 6% Realtor commission might even have pay out of pocket. This would increase the number of potential deals then right? Can you guys give an example of either where you would, or have, done this sort of thing and made it work? Thanks in advance! My question is already doing significantly better than I had originally expected.