All Forum Posts by: Sean Dezoysa

I am looking at turnkey offers in some of the reputed cash flow markets on BP. Maybe I'm not comparing apples but it seems like they go for prices in line with well priced MLS deals. If this is the case I don't see the value add compared to buying from a larger pool of MLS inventory and selecting a reputed PM.

Am I missing something or are turnkey providers roughly equivalent to well selected MLS deals with decent property management, when working in strong cash flow markets?

Good to know, thanks guys! What cash on cash returns are you targeting then? Maybe in the 12-15% range?

My expectations might be a bit lower than a local, since I expect to buy higher and also have higher expenses due to paid management.

Hi @Jim Moody, I am still ironing out my criteria, but one thing I believe I will go with is a 10% cash on cash return.

Hi everyone,

I would like one of my lease terms to stipulate automatic payment one day after the renter's paycheck date, direct to an account managed by me. Would most property managers accept a term like this? If not, what is the concern?

PS: In case of a bad payment, reported by me within a tight window, there would be a clause to allow the PM to manually pursue payment from the renter.

I was looking at this property and realized with the 50% rule, it would cash flow with a $30k @ 9% loan, assuming no repairs: https://www.zillow.com/homedet...

So either the 50% rule doesn't work well for low end properties, or investor friendly markets need private money marketing, not deal marketing.

Anyone care to comment on the validity of the 50% rule here? I know it varies by the house but I'm asking about validity for low value properties in general.

Hi everyone,

I am looking for a turnkey provider who is amenable to me using 75-80% bank financing on their properties. Also, I would like to pay for my own home inspection report. Does anyone know a reputable company in Toledo who is open to these terms?

Hi guys, I wanted to ask what is a fair split for a partner who brings their good credit to a deal (my credit is poor). Here is what each side would bring:

Them

• Acquire the commercial loan for a 2-4 unit property

Me

    Down payment and all closing costs

    Finding the deal itself and getting it under contract

What would a fair split look like?

@Chris Davidson yes I would put down the full down payment, the other party would just be there to be acquire commercial financing. Thanks for your insights!

Anyone want to be a bit bold and suggest a fair split? I lean towards 20% (loan signer) 80% me, but maybe I'm being way unfair to the other person and the value he or she is contributing!

I have a decent income but lousy credit which will remain that way for years. I wanted to ask if partnering with someone just to get financing for 2-4 unit MFH homes is a thing or not. And if so, what a reasonable equity split might look like to essentially pay someone for their good credit and access to commercial financing?

Thanks for any guidance here

More info in case it helps

My goal, if no partner were involved, is to own 20 units and cash flow $4,000 per month. That's it. If my credit were better I would have just bought the first house, and then refinanced and bought the next as my cash on hand allowed. I plan to do the same with a partner due to the credit issue but am not sure how the numbers change.

Hi everyone,

I am mostly focused on acquiring MFH properties in a high cash flow area like Birmingham, AL. I will be non-local no matter what because I spend half the year outside the US. Low cost, low appreciation markets seem to greatly simplify the equation of getting to a retirement amount of $4,000 - $5,000 per month.

A lot of people here like to not go to the cheapest markets but instead those showing solid fundamentals for appreciation. I know those payoffs can be quite large too. My concern is that it also seems to make the retirement equation harder because that same appreciation benefit will now make followup acquisitions harder. To maximize the gain you might have to focus on a rougher area of town or switch markets.

Is this logic missing something? Or is it fair to say that a high cash flow, low appreciation market is a safer and perhaps more direct, less error prone path to a retirement level of income?