All Forum Posts by: Jason S.

^^^ This I do agree with.

I agree with you in principal. My point is that we need to hide our mission. No one cares about investors. The people that agree with us will already support our ideas - we need to lure those that do not agree.

Investors buy property, do as few improvements on properties that they can get away with, rent for the most they can, and evict people that are having hard times as fast as possible.

Investors are rich, they own dozens of homes, they have extra money, they have all the advantages.

Investors bid on every avail REO and home and lure the bank in with cash offers so no regular person has a chance.

Investors charge as much as possible for a home, even if they are making a huge return. They are not satisfied with 20% they want 50%+ - they do not share.

Have you read investor forums? All about how to evict and how renters deserve concrete floors and counter tops because they will destroy them anyway - investors do not even appreciate the hardworking families that make them rich.

Investors take the labor and wages of the poor and disadvantaged to make themselves rich.

Investors caused the banking crisis, the oil crises, the gas prices, everything.

My point is that even though we have an investor driven agenda - saying so is not going to garner support from the opponents. You see we do not need to garner support from those that support our cause - we need it from those that do not support our cause.

Of course everything I said above can be countered with why investors are good for society, how they make the engine of capitalism function, etc - my avatar is Atlas Shrugging and walking away - I get it.

Anyhow this was my last post on this issue. At this point, my point is understood, if everyone disagree then y'all can.... just kidding.

Whatever others want to do they will do - I just wanted to advocate my position for the sake of understanding.

It is up to everyone to have input - in this response I am simply advocating my opinion.

Let me put down a couple other points with regard to the name etc. Once again I know for a fact I do not know everything - so if everyone wants to go another way then fine. But I am advocating my view.

@james' comment, not @ james. I too would love to make a great John Galt battle over the word "investor" but I do not believe it would further our cause. Maybe philosophically, but not with any political effectiveness.

What Democrat is going to support a bill when it is supported by the "Investors"? But they will support a bill that is supported by the National Association For Neighborhood Stability (or whatever). You see there is a lot in a name. One political ad in the primary against that democrat from their democrat opposition stating that rental laws were changed to favor landlords by a bill that this Democrat supported that was primarily advanced by the Investor Association. Or, how about that Democrat being provided cover for sponsoring a "makes sense" bill that tightened rules on eviction that was supported by the National Association For Neighborhood Stability because loose eviction laws hurt the community by causing rents to increase for the poor.

It's all in how you frame an argument - you get the same results - but one provides the least likely advocates (democrats) political cover. If you want your opponents support - give them cover.

Anyhow I could go on and on on(my opinion) how a truly effective investors association should be built.

Once again, this is all my opinion, I am not trying to start an argument, just simply advocating my position. The name is where it starts.

The organization must always stress that we are advocating a "makes sense" approach to affordable housing.

Having worked for years with lobbyists in California the first thing you need to do is frame your approach in a way that is the least offensive. Calling yourselves an "investor" group will automatically alienate a great number of people and politicians that may otherwise be sympathetic to your, our, cause.

There are precise ways to handle this and even to grow it to a semi-large national scale. But it needs to be handled carefully.

I will throw my hat in to assist, I can also provide web/technology knowledge & implementation as well as investor and political input. It could be integrated into the BP site but I honestly believe that the organization has to frame itself as being about fairness, families, functioning communities, etc - it cannot have anything to do with profits or investing. Sorry BP - but that is the reality of the political environment we are in right now.

Just as in the thread in the REO section regarding the investor purchase for rentals - that bill needs to be countered or the local landlord will see a drastic decrease in rents while the institutional investor (you didn't think they were selling those homes to you did you?) will be reaping the rewards.

Let me know if there is anything that I can do to assist - unless everyone disagrees in the above, in which case, feel free to tell me to take a hike.

Throwing in for support of the email notification of the latest post in a topic that is being monitored - the link should drop you at least on the page the post was made if not the permalink of the post itself.

That would be a great feature.

Curt,

I am throwing some support your way - your market is totally different than anything I have ever encountered. I know people in your market that if you have decent credit and $500 they will find a property, buy it in your name, re-hab it, re-finance it again with a perm loan, and then give you back a cash flow positive rental. I have a friend that has several of these in your market. $500 and the right connections in your market and you are golden.

But I have never seen that in any other market.

I recently had a fix/flip that we decided to sell FSBO. Put up a sign - no real action. Put the prospective monthly payment on the sign and my phone blew up. Now I could get away with it because I do not know any better, I am just a contractor :) - (I know there are rules about putting up a payment so be careful when/where you do this) - but it was amazing.

People have no idea how cheap it is to buy right now. People were renting in the area for $300 per month above the fixed rate payment - and the FHA down was barely more than 1st and last rent.

Anyhow not every home fits this scenario - but it worked for us. Had another home in Murrieta - same thing - 2500sqft and it could be had for $500 below rent. We sold it without posting the payment - but we did sell it to a neighbor that was renting.

Maybe will work, maybe you think it's a bad idea, I do no tknow - just throwing it out there for consideration.

I thought they were paying that back?

You are correct. You also need income.

They should be sanctioned for this of course. But in the end - if they own the house - they own the house. It is a matter of right and wrong - not legal minutiae . If they own it then fine them for forgery or even jail them if appropriate - but in the end - they still own the house.

What makes this right? The homeowner agreed to a loan and is now not paying it. The bank transferred money to the original seller and gave the current owner a house. All the bank got was a piece of paper. You now think that if the bank miss places that piece of paper the guy that got the house should not honor his debt? How is that right?

So if I go to a friend and he pays for 10 ounces of gold for me and gives me the gold on promise to pay him back. I can just not pay him if he loses the piece of paper?

You are correct. They should have followed proper procedures and as such should be punished for this. It is not excusable for someone to skirt the rules out of convenience.

When they move that real estate it finally gets marked to actual value and then is transferred to a more reasonable custodian - someone that will make their payments. The foreclosure makes a dead non performing asset where people are living in it and have been living in it for 12-24 months for free into a performing asset.

That's between the banks isn't it. I do know who does not own it - the guy living in it that long ago stopped making his payments.

Then who does? You see no matter how large the bank - if I miss place in my books whether I own or do not own a $200K piece of property makes my books out of alignment. It is not as easy as you think to lose a property. Books have to balance. If the problem of the wrong guy owning it were prevalent and not rare and hit and miss - then someone would notice it missing in their books.

The whole banking system is based on this. I hate to tell you but the do not check the signature on every check you write either - it is statistical checking and books balancing. Unbalanced books get found by bank audits (which are continuous) and/or the customer. Same with ownership -0 someone in most cases speaks up.

They do own it and they should follow the rules. They should be penalized for not following the rules. But the defaulting homeowner should not be rewarded - the asset should be put back into circulation and into the hands of someones that can handle the asset properly.

That stands to reason because of course higher rates=higher dollar=each dollar can buy more gold. I have never really studied gold are there any resources etc that any of you read etc for analysis that you recommend I read ?- I will not be investing just watching for the big crash so I can have some nice puts in place - Probably cannot pick the top so at some point I am going to put down some cash on a lot of out of the money puts on leaps - and see how it goes - but I want to watch something so I know when it is or at least know within a year. Because it is going to crash - that's for sure.

Seems to me that we are on track for another large dip in prices. Particularly in OC/LA of CA.