All Forum Posts by: David Rundle

I have an opportunity to purchase a home tomorrow subject to the existing mortgage (~60k) which will give me immediate ~25k or so in equity.

Do any of you had advice to purchase subject to with the due on sale clause or to avoid the transaction?

Thanks for the reply Richard, I'm sending a colleague request. Good luck in Lawton.

Welcome Sara! I love Europe. Be glad you're not in OKC today, potential ice storm tomorrow.

@Jon K. , what do you mean by "deal with all of this". $100 a month passive income seems pretty nice depending on what "deal with all of this" means.

@Deborah Burian - interesting! What's the benefit of choosing the 15yr versus the 30yr when financing an investment property?

Todd here's two general rules. I'll give you them with the disclaimer I'm currently not a landlord and am simply regurgitating what I've read here at BP and in books I buy.

50% rule: At least 50% of your rental income will be spent on expenses. So if you get $800 a month in rent, $400 will be spent on expenses external to your mortgage/cost of capital. This is stated to be a conservative rule. Someone else can weigh in on that.

2% rule: Each month you should earn 2% on your investment. So if your house cost $50k, rent should be .02 * 50k = $1k

There are also many other calculations to do a real estate investment analysis that I've summarized on my bigger pockets blog.

@Deborah Burian is that after the 50% rule?

Welcome Todd, I currently find deals in SE OKC.

Ryan I sent you a college request so we can exchange information.

@Eric F. - Congrats again, sounds like you're having a great week so far.

@Ken Rishel the example you gave is about an Auto Sales group. Link: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/doj-settles-fair-lending-case-against-au-25772/

From what I can tell from the court case, they were NOT seller financing.

From the article: The amended complaint alleged that there was a “statistically significant” disparity between the dealer markups charged to Asian and non-Asian borrowers; many of the non-Asian borrowers were Hispanic. In addition, the DOJ alleged that the higher rates charged to non-Asian borrowers stemmed from Union Auto’s practice of giving its employees “discretion to engage in subjective decision-making and set overages within broad parameters.”

The article goes on to say: In March, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued guidance on Indirect Auto Lending and Compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The guidance targets dealer markups. The CFPB’s focus on indirect auto lenders is likely to generate increased referrals to the DOJ of alleged fair lending violations by both lenders and auto dealers.

It sounds like a scumbag car dealer got was coming to him/her. I don't see how this relates. If the auto dealer charged the same amount to Asians and non-Asians there would have been no discrimination.