Originally posted by @Cameron Enger:
Hello,
So I'm trying to get into real estate investing and have a house in mind. The owner is older and just wants out and is taking $50,000 for a $100,000 non rehabbed home. Ideally I'd like to get this home for renting, but it's on a flood plain. I would still cash flow if I decided to rent, but only around $30.
1) should I still buy to rent?
2) should I buy to flip, even with it being in a flood plain? Comps are around $120,000 so I would be profitable based on numbers I plugged in.
3) to get creative financing doesn't it make sense to go to owner and ask them if I could rehab it, sell it for them, pay him his $50,000 he is asking for and 10% profits? Am I missing anything with this scenario?
Thanks all and I look forward to seeing the responses.
It sounds like you got a great deal so I would suggest going with whichever option gets you the biggest ROI. You'd prefer to keep it as a rental but if it's not making you good cashflow then what's the point? Also, make sure your numbers are correct for the flip option as well. For example, make sure your rehab costs are accurate; you've accounted for holding costs; determined how long you can afford to hold it; accurate ARV; etc
Would you mind posting your numbers. I'm not sure how you would only make $30/mo cashflow on a 50K property in Chicago. Is the rent that low in your area? or are the expenses that high? A little of column A, a little of column B lol
Good luck!