All Forum Posts by: Bernard Joseph S.

We are seeking advice and guidance as we embark on our journey to invest in real estate in Florida. Our goal is to purchase a new construction home as our first investment, with plans to acquire four more properties in the next three years (4/2 around 400k with 25% down dscr loan) . We have carefully studied our options and are considering the best ways to structure our investments.

One option is to purchase the properties through a LLC for liability protection. However, we have discovered that this may result in unfavorable tax implications for us in Europe. As such, we are considering owning the properties in our own names to minimize tax burdens.

Our primary motivation for investing in real estate is appreciation, as current projections show neutral cash flow. We are now seeking advice on how to protect our assets while owning the properties in our own names, without incurring excessive costs that could lead to negative cash flow.

We are open to exploring creative solutions that strike a balance between asset protection and financial stability. Any insights, advice, or suggestions on how we can achieve our investment goals while safeguarding our assets would be greatly appreciated. We are eager to learn and make informed decisions that will set us up for success in our real estate ventures.

Am totally new to investing, but every training session i read or listen to, says to start in your back yard.  Am in queens, NY is not landlord friendly.  Since this is new to me should I still consider NY like bklyn and queens or should I just stay away?  If yes to invest in NY, what would be the recommendation criteria that I can implement to protect me to some degree.

 The problem is that certain (usually) well-meaning individuals don't understand that policies like that end up promoting the very problems they're up against. For example, just using Seattle as an example - well, if you can't evict anyone until they've killed your cash flow and destroyed your property, then you will either end up with less rental properties overall as landlords sell, or higher rents overall to absorb the losses elsewhere. In either case, you're going to end up with a higher cost of housing relative to wages. You're going to end up with more people not being able to afford rents or becoming homeless, the very thing you claim you want to fight. The other problem is that there's a certain percentage of any population that cannot be helped, any way shape or form. You have to just give up on that section and focus on the 95-97% of the rest of society. 

Just over Easter we had this very discussion at my house. Some friends of ours were over for Easter dinner, and they have a bunch of rentals as well. They are as conservative as they come, yet they won't raise the rent because they feel sorry for the people that are in the units, and one of them (the husband) is bitter now and wants to sell all the rentals because they aren't making any money and costs are getting prohibitive. How does that make any sense? If they sell, it will take more rentals off the market and make the market more competitive, raising the rents for everyone else - how is that going to help their current renters? I'm a pretty liberal guy but if I can't make money providing a good service, I'm out of here. I don't feel 5 cents of sorry for raising the rent - it's the cost of doing business. This isn't a charity. 

The point is a single person can hold more than one idea. One can believe in a safety net and basic social equity and protections without rewarding bums and criminals. Take living conditions as an example. If a city wants to ensure landlords meet basic living conditions as a requirement for permitting that commerce, fine - but no tenant should *ever* be allowed to live somewhere without paying the rent. If that means the rent goes into an escrow account that's released to the landlord when S/he meets conditions, fine - or if it gets paid to the court as part of the LL's restitution for not maintaining conditions - whatever. The point is no one gets to live for free. If you let people live for free, then a certain contingent of bums and losers are going to do so, and you are going to make life infinitely harder for the other people who are on the edge but working as hard as they can to keep from falling off the precipice. Like I said, I'm pretty liberal but I'd burn my own house down before I'd let squatters stay there.  

Everything in life doesn't have to be one way or the other. Most of life is differing shades of gray. Too far in any direction is a recipe for disaster. 

 What do you mean exactly, rapid decline?

As an out of state investor, my goal is to purchase properties long term for cash flow to start off. I know there’s pros & cons against this turnkey strategy.

For me i personally felt since I'm investing remotely, cutting out the rehab part, dealing with contractors would be less of a headache going into my first rental.

I also understand that I won’t have any appreciation to start off or built in equity.

I just need some advice here regarding turnkey properties and the best way to go about it.

To me I feel like this can be a smart move starting out until get comfortable in the market I’m in & I’m able to build connections overtime and eventually I can really do the whole BRRRR strategy.

Please let me know your thoughts whether it’s good or bad. Peace ✌🏻