All Forum Posts by: Paul B.

You can use a contract with all of the bells and whistles if you want. What you want disclosed is up to you.

Whenever I've bought a house directly from the seller, however, my contracts have been very short. I typically give myself so many days to perform whatever inspections and research I need to do, with the option of kicking out from the deal at any time before closing.

If you would prefer to use a longer form, you have every right to do that.

It's a start, but we need something like half a million new jobs each and every month for the next 1-2 years to be back where we were...

There are probably too many variables for someone to give you the correct answer here.

If you can refinance and turn thing to break-even, you'll recoup your closing costs ($3K?) in eight months since you won't be losing $400/month any longer. So then the question is, "Is the property worth keeping?"

Do you see any upside here? Do you realistically think it will go up in value in the next few years?

If so, you might hang on to it since it's cash-flow neutral. Plus, rents should (hopefully) be going up a little every year.

One thing we don't know about it, are you equipped to handle something majorly expensive with your rental should it come up?

That break-even cash flow looks good right now, but inevitably you're going to have a repair or replacement which will put you at a loss. If you're not equipped to deal with this, then you might consider taking the hit and unloading the property.

Since you apparently have several thousand dollars a month in excess income, however, this doesn't sound like it would apply to you. if that's right, then I think your only real question is, will this property appreciate any time soon?

There's nothing you can do to give yourself priority over other lenders apart from taking collateral. You most certainly can't have a side agreement in place that says, "Even if you go bankrupt, you still promise to pay me before all others." That's a sure-fire way for you to end up in jail.

I think you need to think through what risk you're really afraid of here, then address it. People generally can't go bankrupt willy-nilly; they have to be legitimately broke. If somene's broke, they can't pay their bills and loans. Point being, if your borrower doesn't have any money, whether he/she goes bankrupt is just about moot. People can't pay what they don't have.

Again, if you're trying to find a way to the front of the line, that's probably not going to happen.

Not sure what you're attempting to prove or what I'm supposed to explain. There's nothing in the article -- at least from what I saw -- that suggests the ONLY buyer for Treasurys is the Fed.

I don't disagree, and we could discuss semantics and nomeclature, but I think they are more or less the same thing.

Perhaps the real goal is not lower interest rates, per se, but perhaps we can agree that the flood of money is meant to do one thing: inflate asset prices. So, assuming that bond prices inflate, too, their yields (and other related interest rates) go down.

One thing I think we can for sure agree on is that it's the blackest of magic.

As an aside, I found this video very entertaining:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k

Over $500 billion worth of Treasury bonds trade each and every day. I don't think the Fed alone would be capable of manipulating this market to the extent that you're suggesting. There are plenty of buyers for Treasurys. Granted, the Fed's actions do drive up prices by artificially stimulating demand, but as you know that is precisely the goal.

I think the only meaningful number to keep your eye on is the new jobs number. As long as we're stuck at 10% for unemployment and approaching 20% for underemployment, we'll continue to tread water.

The simple fact is that for people to have more money, you need the money supply to grow, and then you need that money to be spent by the consumer. Until lately, that was done with HELOCs (to be repaid at some point when the house continued to go up in value) and credit cards.

Now, through will and/or force, consumers are scaling back their borrowing. As a result, the credit bubble is not being reinflated any time soon. And the money that they ARE spending? Well, it's the money that would otherwise go towards mortgage payments that they're no longer making, without fear of being foreclosed on, at least for the time being.

And as long as consumers are stuck in neutral, businesses will be, too. That's why they sit on trillions in cash -- because they have nowhere to put it where it will support a revenue-generating business.

IMHO, what we need at this stage is "the next big thing," and I'm thinking that needs to be in the area of domestic energy independence. (It should also be something, however, that other countries will pay us dearly to have access to. Are we or are we not a technology leader?) We need something massive that will put people back to work by the hundreds of thousands.

Without that, I think we're going to bump along at 8-10% unemployment for the next 5-7 years, at least.

Hyperinflation? Nah, probably not. Economic doomsday? Nope, don't see it. On the "gloomy" side of the equation, though, I think there's a 5-10% chance we'll have a major global conflict in the next few years. Not overly probable, but just enough that it's on my radar.

All my $0.02 -- overvalued at that.

This is an interesting thread because I'm considering starting my own property management company. Between having bought, renovated, and sold a number of houses, plus currently being a landlord myself, I figure I'm well positioned to provide this service to other investors who would prefer to be hands-off. Plus, I've already run my own small business (in marketing) for 12 years now.

It does seem, however, that this business is full of property managers who provide poor service (or no service), or who perhaps don't have the skills or desire to manage properties professionally or to run a small business. On one hand, that's a shame, because it gives the entire industry a bad name, but on the other hand, it creates opportunity for people like me who will do their very best.

I'm sorry that Steve L. didn't have a good experience, but I will say that, yes, I think a good manager sees a vacancy as troubling as you would. A vacancy is just money sitting out there waiting to be made, and on a recurring basis at that. To me it's no different than if a marketing client said, "Do this for me and I'll pay you," and then I said, "Nah, never mind." What logical businessperson turns away business that is ready to go?

Not to mention, it's clear that good property managers are hard to find, and word-of-mouth can grow your business very quickly. Landlords invariably know other landlords, and they talk. Do a good job for one, and another will almost certainly fall into your lap shortly.

Annelise, if you have other opportunities where you can put your time to better use, and if you can find someone who will provide you with excellent service, I do think letting go of the day-to-day management can be more profitable for you in the long run.

In my opinion, all of this talk of establishing business credit (presumably because your personal credit stinks!) is a farce. Particularly in today's climate, you are NOT getting financing unless you have your affairs in order. I see these companies offering to help you build your business credit by offering to sell you an "aged corporation," as if the simple fact that a corporation is old is going to induce a lender to make a loan. More nonsense. You can get all the Staples cards and other trade accounts you want. It's not going to keep your lender from doing a traditional underwriting when you're asking for a loan of ANY meaningful size. And to anyone who insists on pursuing this, never, EVER pay any money up front for ANY service related to this effort.