All Forum Posts by: Nate Marshall

as an investor in the notes, I can say that yes we knew what it was and that it was risky, but wanted to try something a little different.  Marco's team told us he was using the funds to fund his ecommerce businesses as well as the mastermind and training/speaking programs.  Also funding broadway play prodctions and other irons he had in the fire.  Now that he has converted the notes to "stock" in the "company", I do not expect the payments to be resumed at all and am just hoping we will get the remainder of the principal back out...but not holding my breath!  Put it down in the stupid tax column and the cost of learning about the different types of alternative invesements that are out there.  As I said, we knew it was pushing the envelope, but thought we would try and see!  Please keep the comments coming on what folks find out....I too got Marco to send a follow up email that didn't really clarify anything.  Then a few days later got another email asking if we wanted to invest in another note program!!  

This  for me is the issue. All Investments has inherent risk, some more than others, but if Marco(Norada Capital) had information that there were significant problems with the investment since as early as December 2023 and continued to advertise and market his funds as doing well and never missing a payment, thus attracting new investor deposits. They were accepting deposits to their accounts just weeks prior to announcing conversion to equity.  If Marco(Norada Capital) knew  of significant problems that changed the baseline risk, but continued to market as usual with the intent to use the equity conversion clause, then that is a problem, ethically and likely legal as well. But it's early yet and we await Marco Response for more clarity on the situation. Interesting though, they have removed mention of the offering from their site as of yesterday

Very surprised at this turn. I just invested in a Note this past March and received the first few monthly payments. As others have pointed out, and equity share in the note making part of Norada does not seem valuable at all. I've been following Marco for years and his councilors have steered me correctly regarding real estate, so I'll hold off until I find out more. I really hope Marco is transparent with what is going on and not use vague language like "economic conditions" to describe the change of events. The REV pump up pyramid scheme looks like the root of the issue.

Quote from @Nate Marshall:

ment like an interstate compact regarding wholesaling. 

 Oh, please, I don't want to hear words "ethical" and "businessman" in one sentence. It is so hypocritical when someone unethical starts preaching ethics to the rest. Given the fact that people say "ethics" and usually mean "saint, loving and caring to all as Jesus of Nazareth was", the very idea of such "ethics" can't exist in the business environment. Businessmen are predators, they are jungle animals, and bigger the size of the business the more they act like predators. Anyone who is against predators should start from the very top, like Boeing Corp. who makes $*tty planes that keep falling off the skies lately, so CEO can earn tens of millions in bonuses for cutting the costs of production and delivering planes to airlines sooner than the engineers can properly test them for safety issues. That, by the way, is not merely "unethical" (no one would expect a business of such scale to be operated by Jesus-minded CEO), but it's criminal.

There is one thing and one line no one should cross in any business, IMHO: don't commit crimes! Don't murder seller to steal his house, don't get him sign a Deed and steal his house without paying him what you agreed to, don't assign non-existent contract to investor , take his money in cash and run away. There are a lot of DON'Ts in business, wholesaling is no different from the rest. But being like Jesus is not what any businessman must be. As a businessman you don't have to be liked, it's ok to be hated (and you will be hated, make no mistake about it. The more you succeed the more there will be people who will hate your guts for it and will wish to harm you to deprive you of the fruits of your work). So, being hated is perfectly fine with me. I will just mind my business and do exactly what I CAN DO in order to be profitable. Send all your AG's and tap my phones, computers, homes etc. if you wish, I couldn't care less about it. I have learned to be shrewd to survive in a pack of wolves.

Quote from @Shane H.:

Quote from @Account Closed:

Quote from @Shane H.:

Quote from @Account Closed:

Quote from @Shane H.:

Quote from @Account Closed:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

Quote from @Account Closed:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

Quote from @Account Closed:

Quote from @Alan Asriants:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

Quote from @Account Closed:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

Yes and this is where the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade an​d Consum​er Protection (DATCP) comes in as the state’s primary consumer protection agency. They are worried about buyers and sellers not being protected by the law and a brokers' fiduciary duties. I am not saying that I am in favor of this notion, but that's where the rub is

 I get it. I just don't like it when state starts to "worry" about adults making conscious decisions in their own lives. It never serves interests of the ordinary people, it always serves the state that collects taxes, increases revenues to create inflated bureaucracy and stifles to death any entrepreneurial spirit. It's an irony that California that spends billions of state/tax dollars to fight homelessness also has the highest number of homeless people on the streets. Anything state touches rots. 

There should be criminal laws in place to penalize those who cross the line and do outrageous things. And state may not have resources to prosecute all, but if it prosecutes few and makes headlines it will serve as a warning and deterrent, to let all know that the cost benefit ratio is not to the advantage of the potential criminal. But everything else should be left to adults to work out and for market forces to decide. I am also not against registering wholesalers and running their fingerprints through FBI's database, like they do with gun licensing. This way wronged people can file a report against registered wholesaler and those who deal with wholesalers would be assured that he is not a convicted swindler and career criminal, but someone without criminal records. Anything beyond that is going to have destructive consequences for everyone involved.  

Yeah, I am definitely not pro-regulations. I have lived in Europe long enough to know what that looks like. But there is a happy medium. Law is how we function as a society. You need to be able to rely on things, weaker or ealerdly members of society get scammed enough. Like having your deed recorded, nobody worries that anyone will steal your real estate. (Even thought it happened to David Greene last year if I remember the BP podcast correctly.) There is a happy medium and I'd rather see a legal framework. I like what you said about registered wholesalers. And I imagine it would even help when you could say to a homeowner you are making an offer in accordance to State regulations.. My bank told me that their tellers have a piece of paper ready when someone comes in and wants a large amount of cash while on the phone with someone. They usually say its for home improvement. They have this at least once a week and got a paper ready that says: "if you are being pressured by someone on the phone to withdraw a large sum of cash, please nodd." Then they will verbally play along, say they will get the money and show them a second sign that says. Please put your phone here on the counter and follow me to discuss how we can help you. That's where we are as a society....!!

 I totally agree. Free society doesn't mean lawless bandit society. I took wills, trusts and estates class in the college and remember that if you sign something under duress or are mentally incapable of consenting to the terms of the agreement you sign, then that agreement or will is null and void in the eyes of the law. May be we should have non-profits or pro-bono attorneys representing mentally challenged and elderly individuals who were unfairly and unlawfully taken advantage of. And state's AG's should concurrently prosecute those cases in criminal courts. We do need law and order, not just in wholesaling but in ALL things we do as individuals in a society. 

 Either get rid of real estate licenses or get rid of unlicensed wholesaling. One way or the other. 

True wholesaling looks like an investor/flipper who has an abundance of deals on the table and sells one of those deals to another investor. 

The type of wholesaling I see is a “wholesaler” putting a home under contract under false pretenses. Couldn’t close on the home without an end buyer. Asks the end buyer to pretend they’re a contractor, or “partner.” Every experience I’ve had with a wholesaler has been a negative experience, where they’re clearly criminals masquerading as businessmen. If you’re selling a contract you show me the contract not the property. If you’re showing me the property that you do not yet own, you’re acting as an agent. 

 Doesn't ANYONE out there (speaking of end buyers) sign a contract on property, in hopes that financing will come trough and pay for it? There is a lot said about wholesalers not coming through on closed deals, but how many times buyers go under contract and fail to buy RE simply because the bank underwriters deny the loan the last minute? Every time I go to check on new houses that builds put up I always get offered a "special deal" with large discount. I am told by a realtor that this and that deal fell through, buyer was under contract with builder, builder built the home and at the last moment underwriters at the bank denied the mortgage. Now I can get builder build what I want from the scratch or buy this ready to move home, with a discount on it. 

Do you realize that with the exception of few cash investors with piles of money in bank accounts, almost every other buyer relies on a lender/bank to finance the purchase of real estate? Do you realize that de facto buyers of all financed properties are mortgage companies/banks that finance them and get the Deeds of Trust? What should we do now? Outlaw all home purchases, except for those who have a cash to close? "Buyer, bring a cash to table and close the deal in 30 days or we will put you in jail"? What will that do to real estate industry?

Some people are so unreasonable, it's hard to believe that they believe in what they are advocating for. 

The difference is that when a buyer has a contractor for financing it’s stated.  And if the seller has an agent they’re being told what the contract says. 

What wholesalers do is tell them they are the cash buyer. That is a lie. Technically the contract is invalid. Once when I went around an unscrupulous wholesaler and contacted the seller he was super upset to find out that’s why they were dragging it out. Poor old man was under undo stress waiting to get out of this property and couldn’t understand why the cash buyer had brought half a dozen contractors to look at the property but never closed. Does that sound like a guy who knew what he was signing? I explained what the person was doing to him, but unfortunately the property turned out not to be a good fit for me or I would have purchased it from him directly. 

I wouldn’t mind seeing a requirement that the top line of every wholesale contract state in bold letters, “I AM NOT A CASH BUYER. I ONLY HOPE TO FIND SUCH BUYER BEFORE THIS CONTRACT EXPIRES, IF I DO NOT FIND A CASH BUYER I WILL USE ONE IF THE FOLLOWING WEASEL CLAUSES TO ESCAPE THIS CONTRACT.” Followed by those clauses. Then the rest of the standard stuff can follow. 

At the end of the day I see no De Facto difference (set the legalize aside) transaction wise between the guy who "buys" house on retail market and takes a mortgage on it to finance his purchase, and a wholesaler who depends on a third party to pay cash for the purchase. Both lack CASH when they come to table. The retail buyer obviously can own the property in the end if he pays off the balance, wholesaler has nothing to do with it once he assigns the contract, but we are talking about transaction, everything that occurs before CLOSING. NEITHER retail buyer nor the wholesaler have the actual CASH to buy the home, as mentioned before. However, BOTH come to seller and say "I will have you paid in full for this property", both sign their contracts and both seek an actual BUYER: an investor, if you are a wholesaler, or a mortgage/bank if you are a retail buyer. Hundreds of retail contracts fail, especially in current market, where underwriters go beyond Dodd Frank and deny loans at the last moment (those are underwriters who work for the same bank that issued initial pre-approval to sign a contract). So, where is your concern for sellers in those cases? Who will make them whole? Once mortgage is denied seller is left high and dry, 30 days and sometimes 6 months into the contract (sometimes even longer, in cases where seller is a builder who built the whole $700K mansion for you, in firm belief that your bank will come through and finance the entire purchase at the end). So, what do you suggest to do with those "buyers" (who are in fact middle-men, the actual buyer is the bank), when their financing falls through and they don't get final approval from underwriters to "help sellers" get rid of the property? May be we should fine and put in jail retail "buyers" when they can't get an actual buyer (a mortgage/bank) to pay for their home and secure a deed of trust with the county government? Or may be we should jail and fine mortgage loan officers who issued pre-approvals and then approved the deal/contract with buyer before underwriters went over every dot and T in all the documents submitted buy seller and retail buyer? Answer this, please. I am curious if you are for applying the same standard for all, or if you have a beef with wholesalers only. 

Did you miss or purposely skip over the parts that didn’t suit your argument? If I buy with a financing contingency it is spelled out in detail in the contract. There is no misleading. I’ve yet to meet a wholesaler who discloses their true intent. By my standard I suppose we can put a bold lettered warning at the top. DEAL DEPENDS ON BANK FINANCING. Though, I think they’re already aware unlike in the wholesaler situation. If you can’t see a difference between lying to secure a contract and not lying but having the already agreed to financer bail…. Wait. You definitely do see the difference you just refuse to admit it. 

imagine if this were the other way around. The wholesaler assigning a contract they didn’t secure yet. 

Also in a normal deal there’s usually 1% or $1,000 down. Wholesalers give far less from what I’ve seen in practice and in “training.” 

First of all there is a new law in the books in state of MD, which takes effect on October 1, 2024, and mandates wholesaler to disclose in the contract that they are wholesalers and will benefit from the assignment of the contract. So, this point is effectively moot. As to your other points, why is it any of your concern how much money wholesaler puts in EMD if seller is happy to get what he is offered? Do you work for CFPB? I will offer $20 to seller in EMD, he can either take it or be stuck with his property. He is free to go find his own buyers and get the most money out of the deal. Who is to say what I have to pay in EMD if sellers agrees to take what I offer?

I have read this forum extensively, ever since I have registered 6 years ago. Here is what my understanding is: almost everyone (not all, though) who persistently badmouths wholesalers doesn't give rats behind about sellers per se, but they are all realtors or brokers. These are people who feel pain in you know where when they see wholesaler walking off with $10K is assigning fee. They feel jealous, angry and motivated to destroy wholesaler, so (as they think) all the assigning fee can sink in their pockets. This is so simple. Knowing people and human nature you find out by the time you reach my age that there is no such a thing as predators caring for sellers. Money is the only factor that moves them and they will lobby the state to pass regulations and laws which will forcefully redistribute share of the pie in their favor. So, there is no moral argument, it's all smoke screen there. Therefore the question I asked earlier remained unanswered.





So, what do you suggest to do with those "buyers" (who are in fact middle-men, the actual buyer is the bank), when their financing falls through and they don't get final approval from underwriters to "help sellers" get rid of the property? May be we should fine and put in jail retail "buyers" when they can't get an actual buyer (a mortgage/bank) to pay for their home and secure a deed of trust with the county government? Or may be we should jail and fine mortgage loan officers who issued pre-approvals and then approved the deal/contract with buyer before underwriters went over every dot and T in all the documents submitted buy seller and retail buyer? Answer this, please. I am curious if you are for applying the same standard for all, or if you have a beef with wholesalers only.

Quote from @Shane H.:

Quote from @Account Closed:

Quote from @Shane H.:

Quote from @Account Closed:

Quote from @Shane H.:

Quote from @Account Closed:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

Quote from @Account Closed:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

Quote from @Account Closed:

Quote from @Alan Asriants:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

Quote from @Account Closed:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

Yes and this is where the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade an​d Consum​er Protection (DATCP) comes in as the state’s primary consumer protection agency. They are worried about buyers and sellers not being protected by the law and a brokers' fiduciary duties. I am not saying that I am in favor of this notion, but that's where the rub is

 I get it. I just don't like it when state starts to "worry" about adults making conscious decisions in their own lives. It never serves interests of the ordinary people, it always serves the state that collects taxes, increases revenues to create inflated bureaucracy and stifles to death any entrepreneurial spirit. It's an irony that California that spends billions of state/tax dollars to fight homelessness also has the highest number of homeless people on the streets. Anything state touches rots. 

There should be criminal laws in place to penalize those who cross the line and do outrageous things. And state may not have resources to prosecute all, but if it prosecutes few and makes headlines it will serve as a warning and deterrent, to let all know that the cost benefit ratio is not to the advantage of the potential criminal. But everything else should be left to adults to work out and for market forces to decide. I am also not against registering wholesalers and running their fingerprints through FBI's database, like they do with gun licensing. This way wronged people can file a report against registered wholesaler and those who deal with wholesalers would be assured that he is not a convicted swindler and career criminal, but someone without criminal records. Anything beyond that is going to have destructive consequences for everyone involved.  

Yeah, I am definitely not pro-regulations. I have lived in Europe long enough to know what that looks like. But there is a happy medium. Law is how we function as a society. You need to be able to rely on things, weaker or ealerdly members of society get scammed enough. Like having your deed recorded, nobody worries that anyone will steal your real estate. (Even thought it happened to David Greene last year if I remember the BP podcast correctly.) There is a happy medium and I'd rather see a legal framework. I like what you said about registered wholesalers. And I imagine it would even help when you could say to a homeowner you are making an offer in accordance to State regulations.. My bank told me that their tellers have a piece of paper ready when someone comes in and wants a large amount of cash while on the phone with someone. They usually say its for home improvement. They have this at least once a week and got a paper ready that says: "if you are being pressured by someone on the phone to withdraw a large sum of cash, please nodd." Then they will verbally play along, say they will get the money and show them a second sign that says. Please put your phone here on the counter and follow me to discuss how we can help you. That's where we are as a society....!!

 I totally agree. Free society doesn't mean lawless bandit society. I took wills, trusts and estates class in the college and remember that if you sign something under duress or are mentally incapable of consenting to the terms of the agreement you sign, then that agreement or will is null and void in the eyes of the law. May be we should have non-profits or pro-bono attorneys representing mentally challenged and elderly individuals who were unfairly and unlawfully taken advantage of. And state's AG's should concurrently prosecute those cases in criminal courts. We do need law and order, not just in wholesaling but in ALL things we do as individuals in a society. 

 Either get rid of real estate licenses or get rid of unlicensed wholesaling. One way or the other. 

True wholesaling looks like an investor/flipper who has an abundance of deals on the table and sells one of those deals to another investor. 

The type of wholesaling I see is a “wholesaler” putting a home under contract under false pretenses. Couldn’t close on the home without an end buyer. Asks the end buyer to pretend they’re a contractor, or “partner.” Every experience I’ve had with a wholesaler has been a negative experience, where they’re clearly criminals masquerading as businessmen. If you’re selling a contract you show me the contract not the property. If you’re showing me the property that you do not yet own, you’re acting as an agent. 

 Doesn't ANYONE out there (speaking of end buyers) sign a contract on property, in hopes that financing will come trough and pay for it? There is a lot said about wholesalers not coming through on closed deals, but how many times buyers go under contract and fail to buy RE simply because the bank underwriters deny the loan the last minute? Every time I go to check on new houses that builds put up I always get offered a "special deal" with large discount. I am told by a realtor that this and that deal fell through, buyer was under contract with builder, builder built the home and at the last moment underwriters at the bank denied the mortgage. Now I can get builder build what I want from the scratch or buy this ready to move home, with a discount on it. 

Do you realize that with the exception of few cash investors with piles of money in bank accounts, almost every other buyer relies on a lender/bank to finance the purchase of real estate? Do you realize that de facto buyers of all financed properties are mortgage companies/banks that finance them and get the Deeds of Trust? What should we do now? Outlaw all home purchases, except for those who have a cash to close? "Buyer, bring a cash to table and close the deal in 30 days or we will put you in jail"? What will that do to real estate industry?

Some people are so unreasonable, it's hard to believe that they believe in what they are advocating for. 

The difference is that when a buyer has a contractor for financing it’s stated.  And if the seller has an agent they’re being told what the contract says. 

What wholesalers do is tell them they are the cash buyer. That is a lie. Technically the contract is invalid. Once when I went around an unscrupulous wholesaler and contacted the seller he was super upset to find out that’s why they were dragging it out. Poor old man was under undo stress waiting to get out of this property and couldn’t understand why the cash buyer had brought half a dozen contractors to look at the property but never closed. Does that sound like a guy who knew what he was signing? I explained what the person was doing to him, but unfortunately the property turned out not to be a good fit for me or I would have purchased it from him directly. 

I wouldn’t mind seeing a requirement that the top line of every wholesale contract state in bold letters, “I AM NOT A CASH BUYER. I ONLY HOPE TO FIND SUCH BUYER BEFORE THIS CONTRACT EXPIRES, IF I DO NOT FIND A CASH BUYER I WILL USE ONE IF THE FOLLOWING WEASEL CLAUSES TO ESCAPE THIS CONTRACT.” Followed by those clauses. Then the rest of the standard stuff can follow. 

At the end of the day I see no De Facto difference (set the legalize aside) transaction wise between the guy who "buys" house on retail market and takes a mortgage on it to finance his purchase, and a wholesaler who depends on a third party to pay cash for the purchase. Both lack CASH when they come to table. The retail buyer obviously can own the property in the end if he pays off the balance, wholesaler has nothing to do with it once he assigns the contract, but we are talking about transaction, everything that occurs before CLOSING. NEITHER retail buyer nor the wholesaler have the actual CASH to buy the home, as mentioned before. However, BOTH come to seller and say "I will have you paid in full for this property", both sign their contracts and both seek an actual BUYER: an investor, if you are a wholesaler, or a mortgage/bank if you are a retail buyer. Hundreds of retail contracts fail, especially in current market, where underwriters go beyond Dodd Frank and deny loans at the last moment (those are underwriters who work for the same bank that issued initial pre-approval to sign a contract). So, where is your concern for sellers in those cases? Who will make them whole? Once mortgage is denied seller is left high and dry, 30 days and sometimes 6 months into the contract (sometimes even longer, in cases where seller is a builder who built the whole $700K mansion for you, in firm belief that your bank will come through and finance the entire purchase at the end). So, what do you suggest to do with those "buyers" (who are in fact middle-men, the actual buyer is the bank), when their financing falls through and they don't get final approval from underwriters to "help sellers" get rid of the property? May be we should fine and put in jail retail "buyers" when they can't get an actual buyer (a mortgage/bank) to pay for their home and secure a deed of trust with the county government? Or may be we should jail and fine mortgage loan officers who issued pre-approvals and then approved the deal/contract with buyer before underwriters went over every dot and T in all the documents submitted buy seller and retail buyer? Answer this, please. I am curious if you are for applying the same standard for all, or if you have a beef with wholesalers only. 

Did you miss or purposely skip over the parts that didn’t suit your argument? If I buy with a financing contingency it is spelled out in detail in the contract. There is no misleading. I’ve yet to meet a wholesaler who discloses their true intent. By my standard I suppose we can put a bold lettered warning at the top. DEAL DEPENDS ON BANK FINANCING. Though, I think they’re already aware unlike in the wholesaler situation. If you can’t see a difference between lying to secure a contract and not lying but having the already agreed to financer bail…. Wait. You definitely do see the difference you just refuse to admit it. 

imagine if this were the other way around. The wholesaler assigning a contract they didn’t secure yet. 

Also in a normal deal there’s usually 1% or $1,000 down. Wholesalers give far less from what I’ve seen in practice and in “training.” 

First of all there is a new law in the books in state of MD, which takes effect on October 1, 2024, and mandates wholesaler to disclose in the contract that they are wholesalers and will benefit from the assignment of the contract. So, this point is effectively moot. As to your other points, why is it any of your concern how much money wholesaler puts in EMD if seller is happy to get what he is offered? Do you work for CFPB? I will offer $20 to seller in EMD, he can either take it or be stuck with his property. He is free to go find his own buyers and get the most money out of the deal. Who is to say what I have to pay in EMD if sellers agrees to take what I offer?

I have read this forum extensively, ever since I have registered 6 years ago. Here is what my understanding is: almost everyone (not all, though) who persistently badmouths wholesalers doesn't give rats behind about sellers per se, but they are all realtors or brokers. These are people who feel pain in you know where when they see wholesaler walking off with $10K is assigning fee. They feel jealous, angry and motivated to destroy wholesaler, so (as they think) all the assigning fee can sink in their pockets. This is so simple. Knowing people and human nature you find out by the time you reach my age that there is no such a thing as predators caring for sellers. Money is the only factor that moves them and they will lobby the state to pass regulations and laws which will forcefully redistribute share of the pie in their favor. So, there is no moral argument, it's all smoke screen there. Therefore the question I asked earlier remained unanswered.





So, what do you suggest to do with those "buyers" (who are in fact middle-men, the actual buyer is the bank), when their financing falls through and they don't get final approval from underwriters to "help sellers" get rid of the property? May be we should fine and put in jail retail "buyers" when they can't get an actual buyer (a mortgage/bank) to pay for their home and secure a deed of trust with the county government? Or may be we should jail and fine mortgage loan officers who issued pre-approvals and then approved the deal/contract with buyer before underwriters went over every dot and T in all the documents submitted buy seller and retail buyer? Answer this, please. I am curious if you are for applying the same standard for all, or if you have a beef with wholesalers only.

@Alan Asriants there is a ton of nuance to these situations, but I am personally done with wholesalers who require me to tell an owner that I am their "business partner."

Transparency is best for all those acting in good faith.

@Chris Seveney

Their notes and turnkey real estate business are separate entities. I did view their financials in January of this year they looked good to me. I'm not sure what the economic conditions are.

I see the original thread on the syndicator who went dark and the LP had to find out on BP that the property was foreclosed on has been removed. Maybe the GP (who is very active posting on BP as an "expert" looking for suckers) has good enough lawyers to threaten BP into deleting the original thread?

These GPs have a great interest in keeping their potential LPs (marks) ignorant so they will be protecting those interest mob style (dealing with rats). Especially as they keep raising funds from new suckers like that particular GP who is now raising funds for another multifamily value add deal as we speak.