All Forum Posts by: Alvin Grier

Reading this made me think about another related question...

Do you send the same postcard or letter over and over, or do you "switch-it-up?"

It seems as if sending the same mailed envelope, with the same return address over-and-over is a quick way to get your mail thrown in the trash, whereas switching-it-up with perhaps a postcard/letter alternating situation might increase your chances of getting your mailings read... 

Thoughts?

Thanks for the feedback, everyone.  

I've been checking my list for sold properties each month, and it looks like it's smart to do so, and that I should plan on mailing these people until either the property's sold, or 'till they call me and say they don't wanna sell.

When you're mailing probate leads, obviously it's vital to contact them over-and-over, and not just once.

But at what point do you just move on and assume that the PR/Executor simply has no plans on selling the property?

I've heard some investors say that they just keep mailing to the lead until they discover that the property has been sold.  

I completely understand that logic, but seems like you could be spending a lot of money sending subsequent mailings to someone years down the line that has no intent on selling the property and just never took the time to contact you to tell you.

So again, at what point do you just move on from a particular lead, or do you just keep mailing and/or calling until you find that the subject property is sold?

I've been mailing the Executors/Personal Reps (P.R.'s) regarding properties owned by decedents for a long time now.

Sometimes, the P.R. isn't a family member, it's the attorney in-charge of the probate proceedings for that specific estate.

I've never gotten a reply from an attorney from one of my mailings. 

Is it something going on behind the scenes with cases where the attorney's the P.R. that make it a waste of time to mail them or something?

I was thinking that maybe, by law, that attorneys aren't allowed to liquidate the real estate in estates or something, perhaps? 

As investors, we know that sometimes we have to make offers to homeowners that they might feel is way too low, right?

Well, in our business, we put a lot of pride and effort into developing a rapport with our prospective sellers, and like anything else in life, this "rapport" has it's positives and negatives.

The negative, is that we've found that some of these people like us so much that they're afraid to tell us that our offer is too low.

Instead, they might tell us via email (instead of calling us back) to tell us that our offer is too low...  sometimes, we never hear from them again.

Our goal, is for them to at least reply with a counter offer, instead of them just saying that our offer "won't work," and leaving it at that.

When it comes to dealing with fellow investors, we all know that there's usually some "wiggle room" for negotiations, thus getting a counteroffer from another investor happens all the time.

Homeowners aren't always willing to counter, so therein lies the challenge.

So my question:

How do you go about encouraging homeowners to reply with a counter-offer if they don't like your initial offer?

Nope.

I've noticed that our response rates for our absentee owner mailings in the suburbs are nowhere near as high as they are in the city.  

I was just wondering if anyone else has ever experienced or observed that as well.

The big city I'm closest to is Detroit, and I compare the responses there with what we get on the surrounding suburbs.

I've also noticed that very few SFR's in the suburbs sell FSBO, and it's the complete opposite with the city of Detroit.

Outside of the huge difference in property values in the city vs. in the 'burbs, are suburban sellers just more sophisticated, and tend to sell via REALTORS more so than their inner-city counterparts?

How do you go about co-mingling investors on a single property, then, if no one is willing to accept a second lien position?

That's understandable.

However, when more than what one of the investors has available is necessary for a property, how is the co-mingling addressed, then, if it's so rare for investors to accept a second lien position?

We have a few meetings coming up over the next week with some prospective private lenders.  Thus, I'm in the midst of putting together the finishing touches on our program.

My question, is how do I go about figuring out what the minimum investment amount should be that we require our investors to make available?  

I was thinking $100,000, as that would cover the expenses required to purchase, rehab, etc., the SFR houses we're currently focusing on.

On the other hand, requiring $100,000 could prevent some from getting involved.  My rebuttal to that, though, is that I'm not interested in co-mingling funds from 3, 4, or 5 people on a single deal...  not only does it complicate things, but I think it also makes the investment a security by SEC standards, from what I understand.

I don't even want to mix 2 investors on a single deal, if I can avoid it.

Yet and still, if a deal required, say, $90k, I could give Investor A, whom invests $50k first lien position, and Investor B, that invests $40k, second position, and do it that way, right?

OK, I'll stop thinking out aloud, now.  :-) 

In summary, I guess I'm just trying to get some help on how I should be thinking as I determine the minimum amount we're going to accept from those we agree to work with.  Thanks in advance for your help.