Skip to content
×
Pro Members Get
Full Access!
Get off the sidelines and take action in real estate investing with BiggerPockets Pro. Our comprehensive suite of tools and resources minimize mistakes, support informed decisions, and propel you to success.
Advanced networking features
Market and Deal Finder tools
Property analysis calculators
Landlord Command Center
ANNUAL Save 54%
$32.50 /mo
$390 billed annualy
MONTHLY
$69 /mo
billed monthly
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime
×
Take Your Forum Experience
to the Next Level
Create a free account and join over 3 million investors sharing
their journeys and helping each other succeed.
Use your real name
By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions.
Already a member?  Login here
Buying & Selling Real Estate
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

Updated about 6 years ago on . Most recent reply

User Stats

82
Posts
55
Votes
Albert L.
  • Bay Area
55
Votes |
82
Posts

does this hard money, brrrr combo strategy look right?

Albert L.
  • Bay Area
Posted

Hi folks,

I've been studying the BRRRR method and would love to run this hypothetical analysis with you to make sure there's nothing I'm missing, especially with the added complexity with using a HML.

POTENTIAL CONCERNS:

  • I'm okay with the trade-off with less cash flow given my goals.
  • I know it'll be a million times easier to go with the private lender route but I wanted to run numbers to see what it would look like using HML.
  • I know it's going to very hard, maybe impossible to find anything with the purchase price so low but again, this is an experiment to make sure I understand how these numbers work

REFINANCE / CASH FLOW ANALYSIS:

https://www.biggerpockets.com/calculators/shared/593575/4c4d609b-475b-4c09-81a1-39f0280f291d

  • ARV: 90,000
  • NOI: 1,400
  • Expenses (PITI + Repairs + Vacancy + CapEx + Utilities + Property Manager) : 1,300
  • Cash flow: $100

BUY + REHAB:

  • Financing: I'll be using a HML that can finance 90% of acquisition and 90% of rehab. 10.5% interest rate on full note amount, 12 month term. 3% origination fee.
  • LTV: 75% but let's use 70% as conservative estimate in case unplanned scenarios pop (i.e, appraisal comes in lower):
  • Rehab: 25,000
  • Holding cost: 2,000
  • Closing cost: 5,000
  • HML cost: 45,000 * 10.5% = 4,725. Let's say it takes us 3 months to rehab and rent out (or at least make it seem like we're about to have a tenant move in). Because we're using HML, I believe we would also be able to bypass the seasoning period typically needed for a conventional loan. 4,725 / 3 = 1,575
  • Out of pocket to cover 10% of acquisition and rehab: 2,500 + 2,500 = 5,000
  • Purchase: (90,000 * .70) - 25,000 - 2,000 - 5,000 - 1,575 - 5,000 = 25,000 (rounded up a few hundred to make it an even number).

Actionable Next Steps:

I need to find a property that will sell for around 25,000. I have some wiggle room with the conservative LTV refinance number and it can of course change depending on what the actual rehab costs are but assuming it's around 25,000.

Is there anything I'm missing here?

Thanks y'all!

Most Popular Reply

User Stats

130
Posts
104
Votes
Jack Inman
  • Attorney
  • Memphis, Tn
104
Votes |
130
Posts
Jack Inman
  • Attorney
  • Memphis, Tn
Replied

Hey Albert, 

Your holding costs seem kind of high for a property in that price range; since you've already factored the loan holding costs separate, your remaining holding costs should just be taxes and insurance for the 3 month vacant period.  

Couple things:

  • 1,400 isn't your NOI it's your monthly rental rate
  • If you have the HML for 3 months, then divide the annual interest rate by 4
  • Your 10% ($5,000) out-of-pocket cost doesn't need to be deducted from the all-in price. You only need to deduct the costs associated with borrowing the acquisition capital, not the capital itself. 

That's all I've noticed; looks like the rest of the math is correct. Good work!

Loading replies...