All Forum Posts by: Jason S.

The problem is that you are not limiting a picture to a particular group, you are leaving it open for the masses to read.

Let's say you are a landlord and want to discuss specific tenant issues. If your picture is up, then people in your local community will quickly be able to determine who it is you are discussing. What then? If pictures were required the level of candor and openness would be restricted. I would have to hedge my advice and discussion of particular experiences, I would also have to limit what I said because those that know my specific businesses could reverse engineer the type of advice I give.

Do you want to know how we bid against the FBI on a home at TTEE sale and about how I walked away when my partner kept the home to film adult movies? If my picture and name were open to every random Google searcher and facial recognition software out there - I would probably not be that honest.

There is an unlimited amount of information that would not be shared if everyone had their full profile up.

Some of you have said some pretty rough and bad things about tenants, do you want that tenant to find your posts with a simple Google search and then bring itto the judge and say - "See what he is saying about me" - even if you did not mention names.

Do I want random people to know how many homes I can buy for cash?

Do I want everyone to know how much money I made on my last flip? Without pictures and with usernames, we can be open.

Go ahead, be honest about how many homes you have etc, post your picture, do you not think you might be bringing the wrong attention to yourself?

Privacy, Privacy, Privacy. This is why I am not on Facebook, LinkedIn, or other sites. My clients and partners do not need to find me on the internet.

I could go on and on about this, as I have already, but in the end, you will be limited the free flow of communication.

That was a great video. Of course there is no way to know one way or the other, he could be long in all of his positions and simply be trying to create a fervor, but anyone that is not properly hedged and yet fully invested in any market is taking a large risk.

I can tell you the following that I am convinced gold is going to drop and oil is going to drop - the particular hedge you put in place is up to you - but to be fully invested in either of those would be long term crazy.

The DR Horton asre listed as Condos -are they stand alone (detached) units or simply small condo/apts attached?

Interesting. Certainly something that would have an appeal to particular socioeconomic subsets. I know it would appeal to all of those living permantently in RV trailers or worse.

Have to compare it to a manufactured home in price etc - seems an MH is cheaper (park models, "guest units" etc) depending on how much you see being built for that $15K quoted above. Certainly the glorified sheds with kitchen and bathroom he has on the website would come in at less than $15K to build. Seems like, for just a little bit more $$$, you could push it out to 1000 sqft. But maybe that is not the point.

Put those babies on septics, with a community powered solar well, and a natural gas capture system on the septic tank for the gas appliances and you will be plenty green.

Interesting. Though the market demand for something too small has to be limited - but push it out a little, maybe there is something to it. Hard to say.

I suppose it is an alternative to a MH park or converted hotel to Apt bldg (small rooms).

Let's say you did it - in CA, and I would imagine elsewhere, the fees to build per unit are extraordinary and what about the infrastructure.

Maybe its a cheap alternative to building something larger on a single high density lot - similar to say low rise apts?

Help me see the vision as you see it.

This is what they are trying to avoid.

Recently I sold a fix/flip to an end buyer, the kid had made an offer on every home in the neighborhood for 18 months but had a loan, and every other home was sold to investors who kept them as rentals. Mine, which he bid on before I fixed it, he also lost to a cash investor, me. Fortunately he was able to buy from me and got a better home than he would have originally.

But in the end, investors, who were gathering up rentals, were in fact crowding out this homeowner because he did not have cash - and this is a neighborhood that needs the stability of homeowners desperately.

Seems to me, the First Look program at least gives guys like this a fighting chance.

I would be interested to know how usury laws come into play with these types of loans. I have heard so many conflicting views - any experts out there? I know its state- by state - but maybe some general guidance/info.

They do have some interesting stuff. But be certain your due diligence would catch things such as the problem I had in my post. If you are not up to catching things like, that then you may not understand what you are buying. Title was clear and everything looked fine, I found the problem when comparing their TTEE deed not to the contract, but to the note that the TTEE deed foreclosed on. It is just a warning that if you buy from them you need to do more than standard due diligence. Be careful, good luck.

Crazy company - IMHO.

I Did refer a friend and he did buy from them. Great deal really, but I was not willing to take the risk given a little issue - had to do with the APN the property was on. Loan foreclosed had 2 APN's, TTEE deed had 1 APN, home built on 1 APN, carport on the other, the APN they took to sale was the one that had the carport. There is argument for open and hostile easement - home is 70+ years old......

Anyway - For the record - they never paid me the $500 referral fee they promise on their website - so good luck with that.

Every home I have investigated from them has major, major issues. Major code violations, major problems whatever they are - with that said - I do not care about those things because I have own a company that deals with Code Issues - but still - they do not always discount enough to mitigate the problems.

Seems like everyone would like better tenants. Is there a study, or anecdotal evidence or evidence from experience that can link the bad behavior above with something identifiable before renting to the person?

For example, are the above issues from the landlord relaxing rules and renting to borderline tenants or do you find that these things are common even with your best tenants?

Is it possible that the landlord is renting to the best possible person that they can find to rent in a particular area, maybe this person is even below the standards of what you would want for another area, but the best person you can find for "this" area. As a result, are you simply reaping the problems from renting to people that are willing to live in a particular area as renters?

In other words, before speaking to change a law, can you identify that the problems are not self imposed? Maybe by having a rental in a certain area or relaxing the rules "to get it rented"?

I will tell you, I have no opinion either way, but would certainly be interested in some responses from those experienced. Certainly if the problems above are entirely random and not foreseeable based on the choices of the landlord then there would/could be more weight given to changing a law.