All Forum Posts by: William Coet

It goes deeper than that.

NYC Liberal policies, including strong tenant protections, increases the risk of failure so much that the risk far outweighs the rewards.

Financial ruin is just around the corner for the small Mom and Pop Property Investor that it doesn't make sense for them.

The Tenants will have free Attorneys that are bent on delaying eviction cases so long that it stretches into years while Mom and Pop suffer from lack of rental income and still have to pay all the bills and do the management.

Additionally, the increase in homeless living rough in the streets due to Sanctuary laws causing a lack of shelter beds, then evicting shelter residents after 30 days creating more homelessness, policies that tie up the Police's ability to arrest perpetrators, etc. only causes Mom and Pop to sell out at large discounts to larger Landlords who are capable to use Economies of Scale to eek out a profit.

These larger Landlords will eventually turn a much higher profit as the pendulum will eventually swing towards the middle when the NYC Voting population eventually realizes that it's not a conspiracy of the Rich that's causing the Wealth Gap to increase.

It's the same liberal laws that encourage people to become lifelong tenants, small Entrepreneurs (including Property Owners and small Mom and Pop Businesses) to be destroyed, and Rents to rise astronomically as housing becomes scarer even when the population declines by as much as 7% in the last several years. 

So, to answer the question, "Why Does the Big-Money Invest in Landlord Unfriendly Cities?" They buy at deep discounts and have economies of Scale to be able to wait out the time when Homes Prices and Rent Prices must rise eventually.

It's a lose-lose for Mom and Pop but a Win-Win for Big Money Landlords.

It's the complete opposite of what the Liberal's intentions wanted and they will fall into self-delusion that it's a Conspiracy of the Rich.

When vetting a syndication, every investor will do it differently because every investor has a different risk tolerance, comes from a different financial situation and has different financial goals. So a deal that look great to one investor will look horrible to another and vice versa.

I'm a very conservative investor and may look through a hundred deals a month, and at the end of the year only invest in 4-5. Here's how I do my due diligence:

1) Portfolio matching: (takes 30 seconds per deal)

a) Have an educated opinion on where I think we are in the real estate cycles (financial and physical market cycles)

b) Then and only then do I pick the strategies, capital stack, and specialized asset subclasses that make sense for that opinion. For example, I am a little concerned about some aspects of the business cycle recovery and a potential for a double-dip so I lean toward the safest part of capital stack which is debt (or low-debt equity). I won't go with the riskiest opportunistic strategies, and will stick to core and core plus mostly with some value-added. I won't be investing in the riskiest/most supportable asset subclasses such as hotels, and tilt my portfolio the ones that have historically been more stable such as multifamily and single-family housing. I also don't want refinancing risk, so any deals with only 3 to 5 year debt are out for me. For someone that's not as conservative, or a different view on the cycle, they might have a different opinion than me on all of this.

2) Sponsor quality check: (takes about 45 minutes per deal)

I believe that a great sponsor can take an average looking deal and make it great, and that in mediocre sponsor can take a fantastic looking deal and make it bad (especially if there is a severe recession). So I start with the sponsor first. Again, others might disagree.

a) Track Record: Get the entire track record for the strategy. As easy as this sounds, it's not simple and usually like pulling teeth. Many times they will claim it's wonderful and then try to hide their worst deals by only showing completed deals. Make sure to get unexited deals. Or if they are doing value-added multifamily, they will show you their hotel experience. That doesn't cut it for me. I want a specialist that's an expert, and not a jack of all trades and master of none. Also, in a mainstream asset class like value-added multifamily, I see no reason to take a risk on a sponsor that doesn't have full real estate cycle experience or that lost anything more than a small amount of money (and prefer no money lost). Again, other might feel differently here.

b) Skin in the game: as a conservative investor, I understand that the dirty secret of industries that the waterfall compensation is in the line with me and incentivizes sponsors to take more risk. So I require skin in the game (average is 5% to 15%) to offset this. Contrary to popular belief, this is not set because I believe it will give me a higher return. I believe it tends to give me a slightly lower return, because the sponsor is going to be more careful, and if there is a severe downturn will prevent me from taking catastrophic losses. Someone that is more aggressive, may want lesser even though skin in the game. Also, if the sponsor is new, I am fine with less skin in the game as long as it is significant to their net worth. On the other hand if they are a sponsor that is experienced in stopping a skin in the game, that's a huge red flag for me.

c) how open to scrutiny are they? I always discuss investments with others in an investor club because other people might think of things that I might miss. And even though virtually every sponsor agreement allows me to share investment information with others who might be advising me on it (especially when club members are bound by an NDA), I still ask the sponsor if I can share it, because it's a test. Most are fine with that, but a few will have problems with it and claim there are legal issues, etc.. That's a red flag for me.

d) death by Google: I Google everything I can about the sponsor. I check the SEC, FINRA, ratings websites for inside information on the principals in the company. I also look for lawsuits and see what happened in them. Many times it's an easy red flag. Sometimes it's ambiguous, but even then, why should I bother with the company that has numerous unresolved lawsuits, versus another company that is virtually the same but has none. Again, others might feel differently here.

3) property level due diligence: (takes seconds to weeks per deal): here is where I drill in with the low-level details.

a) pro forma popping: I examine all the assumptions, and see if they are overoptimistic or not. I look at every single item in the pro forma and imagine that it is complete BS, and see if I can challenge it. If there's a hole, it may be a red flag.

b) sensitivity analysis: I examine all the assumptions, and make sure I can live with the worst case scenarios.

c) "Stall and see": if they are getting money over multiple years, and there is no penalty for investing later, I would usually wait so I get some real performance data, versus having to look at theoretical pro forma information.

d) Recession stress test: I will not invest in anything, until I subject it to recession level stress and see if I can live with the result. And I take the worst recession I can find in the recent past. Sometimes there is only great recession data, and that recession was pretty mild on some asset classes, versus previous recessions. So I will usually 1.5x or 2.0x the stress. If the deal collapses and I would lose everything, I'm out. Others might be fine with taking risk, but least by doing this a person can get an idea of what might go wrong.

e) Legal document analysis: it will usually take a few days to go through the legal document properly, as almost inevitably there are tons of gotchas that either have to be explained, or mitigated with a side letter.

That is the very short summary of what I do. If you want more information, p.m. me and I can give you a lot more details.

@William Coet

When I go to invest here is my criteria:

1. Do I understand what u am investing in?

2. What is the risk involved?

3. Where am I in the capital stack

4. Has the sponsor been there done this?

I have about 250 questions I ask a sponsor and spend probably 10 hours easily researching them. Many will say this is crazy but if I am spending tens of thousands of dollars I am not spending 30 minutes and making the decision on the flip of a coin.

I think so at least for the ones we read about on BP..

I had the same experience total loss on multiple syndication deals

So I am feeling pretty good about how we are doing.. No one is perfect though in RE

if your doing volume your going to have a few that are bummers but at least in our program

there is control.. not this feeling of helplessness when you hand your money over to a syndicate and they go dark your totally out of control of your funds.. So investor need to choose wisely.