Skip to content
×
PRO
Pro Members Get Full Access!
Get off the sidelines and take action in real estate investing with BiggerPockets Pro. Our comprehensive suite of tools and resources minimize mistakes, support informed decisions, and propel you to success.
Advanced networking features
Market and Deal Finder tools
Property analysis calculators
Landlord Command Center
$0
TODAY
$69.00/month when billed monthly.
$32.50/month when billed annually.
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime
Already a Pro Member? Sign in here
Pick markets, find deals, analyze and manage properties. Try BiggerPockets PRO.
x
All Forum Categories
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

All Forum Posts by: Troy Zsofka

Troy Zsofka has started 5 posts and replied 134 times.

Post: Wholesaling in unethical... why or why not?

Troy ZsofkaPosted
  • Investor
  • Hillsborough, NH
  • Posts 137
  • Votes 126

@Doug Pretorius -

Apparently I misunderstood your post entirely and jumped to the conclusion that you were justifying the tactics used by so many wholesalers who misrepresent themselves every day.

My sincerest apologies for that. 

Anyone who is honest with their clients about what they do is, in my book, acting ethically. The legality of it is probably more nuanced and varies by locale, but as far as I'm concerned, as long as there is no deception involved, the ethics are clean, and an action can be ethical while still violating a technical provision of the law. Anyway, having never assigned a deal, I don't concern myself with the legalities and am no expert on the matter.

Post: Wholesaling in unethical... why or why not?

Troy ZsofkaPosted
  • Investor
  • Hillsborough, NH
  • Posts 137
  • Votes 126

This is a topic that has certainly been kicked around quite a lot.

The main theme that I notice every time is that those who call themselves "wholesalers" (but are actually assignors) tend to push the conversation towards whether or not the practice is legal, even though the topic usually starts out concerning whether it is ethical. I think there is a pretty obvious reason for that.

That issue aside, I think the answer to the question of ethics is fairly simple:

a) If you tell a seller that you are going to buy their house, from your marketing pieces all the way to the execution of contract, but you have no intention of actually buying it, you are lying and, last time I checked, lying is unethical.

b) If you explain to a seller that you have access to cash buyers who have no way of knowing about their house otherwise, and you intend to solve their problem by putting their home under contract and then assigning the contract to one of these buyers, then you are solving people's problems in an ethical manner and bravo to you; you are adding value and making money doing so.

Many of you will say that sellers won't work with you unless you tell them that you are a cash buyer so you have no choice. If that's your excuse to purposefully lie to people, and you think that it therefore makes it okay, then you, in my opinion, are unethical. You always have a choice. If you believe that it becomes okay to lie to someone as long as the end result is that you are solving their problem, then your core principals need to be re-examined. 

Bottom line is this: If you've never bought a house with cash, or even if you have but you have no intention of buying the one in question, then to represent otherwise is an intentional lie, and is therefore unethical.

I think that @Doug Pretorius put it perfectly in his first post on page 1 of this thread, and the number of votes he received is a good indication of where a lot of self-proclaimed "wholesalers" stand on this topic.

Originally posted by @Doug Pretorius:

@Michael Guzik Don't waste your time trying to change the perceptions of the general public. There are only 3 groups of people who's opinions matter:

1. Sellers. If they're motivated they don't care about anything other than: "Can you solve my problem?"
2. Buyers. If they're motivated they don't care about anything other than: "Can you solve my problem?"
3. Friends and family. Just tell them you flip houses. They'll think you're a rock star.

The perceived need to represent yourself as a cash-buyer, and the ethical justification that it's okay to do this even if it is a lie because you're solving their problem, is a slippery slope. Next thing you know, you're so used to misrepresenting what it is that you actually do, that you're advising others on a web forum to lie to their friends and family about what they do. What's perhaps even more troubling is that this advice got 19 votes! Come on people.

Now, if you actually do buy houses, but you also assign ones that don't fit your specific criteria or when you have too many to handle yourself, then you are not lying, and you are not unethical in my opinion. If you also flip houses yourself, then saying so to your friends and family is obviously not a lie. However, if all you do is assign contracts from sellers whom you originally told that you buy houses, you are a liar, plain and simple. Don't lie to your friends and family too just to make them think you're a rock star...

Lastly, if you are actually wholesaling, meaning that you close on the house with your own money, turn around, and resell it at a profit, then stating in your marketing and in person that you buy houses is perfectly fine because it is not a lie, and this thread doesn't really even apply to your model.

No question I just p'd off a lot of people but, at least in my mind, the line between ethical and unethical is pretty clear.

Post: Security deposit and my lovely mother cleaning

Troy ZsofkaPosted
  • Investor
  • Hillsborough, NH
  • Posts 137
  • Votes 126

@Megan Frank

I agree with @Matthew Paul and @Nathan Gesner that you can pay her if you do so with a check, and if you pay her a reasonable rate, say $15-25/hr. It would definitely be better, however, if she were not your mother; as a tenant-friendly judge might not look highly upon it.

However, you are correct that you can not charge for your time, and you can not mark up any costs that you incur. It's ridiculous, because time is money, and we should be able to charge for the opportunity cost associated with rectifying conditions left by former tenants. However, we can not, as far as I understand.

One other thing to consider:

You do not have to prorate the rent. In NH, the entire month is due if the tenant uses any of it, and if it was the tenant who terminated the lease in the middle of the rent period. Conversely, if a landlord terminates the lease in the middle of a rent period, no rent is due for that month.

Now, there is a caveat whereby, while a tenant can not voluntarily relinquish any of their rights under law, a landlord can. In other words, if the tenant agrees to pay prorated rent even though the landlord terminated the lease, they still don't have to, even though they agreed to. However, if a landlord agrees to only charge a prorated rent to a tenant who terminates the lease or requests additional time, the landlord is stuck to the agreement that they made. In other words, the law protects tenants from themselves, but it does not do the same for landlords.

So, if you didn't agree in writing that they could stay through the 8th and pay a prorated rent, you can retain their entire security deposit to cover the month of June.

Keep in mind, however, that if you told them you would prorate it, it's rather disingenuous to go back on your word. Conversely, if they told you that they'd clean, remove trash, and mow the lawn, and they didn't or don't, then they went back on their word first. Whether you reciprocate or not is a judgment call that is up to you.

Oh yeah, by the way: The above is not legal advice and you should seek the advice of a local attorney. The information provided is merely the opinion of a non-attorney and should not be relied upon to make any decisions.

Happy investing

Post: The rental real estate market

Troy ZsofkaPosted
  • Investor
  • Hillsborough, NH
  • Posts 137
  • Votes 126

@Marc Middleton and @Christopher James -

8 Cap seems pretty good in this market. I'm wondering the property and location class. Of course, with only 1 vacant unit, it's probably a decent property in a decent market and location, not a D asset in a war zone.

SFH isn't performing as well these days.

Rents are going up, and finding qualified tenants is not a problem (we always have a replacement tenant lined up with lease signed and SecDep collected before the previous tenant moves out), but the metrics have suffered due to rising SFH values.

Where we used to be at a GRM around 8.33 (or so-called "1% rule"); thereby yielding a 6.6 Cap assuming a 45% OER, prices have increased disproportionately to rents and our portfolio Cap Rate is now closer to 5.5% or lower (fact is, even if your SFH is fully remodeled like ours are and therefore have very little R&M or Replacement Reserves, NH RE Taxes are high enough to put you at or near 45% OER).

Not that I'm complaining about our asset values heading up (it's about time the RE recovery came to the tertiary markets of NH), but the ROE it's causing is tough to live with; especially given the lost economies of scale when comparing a portfolio of SFH to a large MFH complex. It's just not passive enough for the ROE it produces.

I'm becoming more and more interested in parlaying our equity into large MFH; preferably 150 units or more in order to support on-site in-house management and maintenance. Ideally something with a value-add play if a such a thing can still be found without going into C- or lower areas. 

A C+ property in a B or B+ area where the B properties are fully leased, thereby suggesting that there's demand for more B units, would be ideal.

If anyone in the area is interested in pursuing one or two properties like that, I'd be interested in discussing the possibility of combining our abilities and capital to make it happen.

Post: Debt to rental income ratio?

Troy ZsofkaPosted
  • Investor
  • Hillsborough, NH
  • Posts 137
  • Votes 126

I think that @Cara Lonsdale hit the nail pretty close to the head on this one.

From my experience, for a residential (1-4 unit) loan, the bank is going to use standard underwriting practices including DTI (unless they are going to portfolio the loan, in which case looking at DSCR would be the wisest choice in my opinion).

However, just to clarify a bit:

My experience is that they are going to do a personal DTI, not a property-only DTI (again, unless they portfolio, in which case they can do whatever they want). In other words, they are going to take 75% of each rental property's rental income, subtract the PITI payment from that, and then add what's left to your income (or to your debt if it's negative). Then, once each rental is done this way and applied to income or debt, they are going calculate your DTI and qualify or deny you based on the DTI requirements of that particular loan program (28%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 60+% back in 2005, whatever).

The above underwriting method is know as "washing" the debt of each rental property with its income.

Another way that they do it is they simply take the PITI of each property straight to the debt, and the rental income from each property straight to the income (usually also reduced to 75%); rather than washing it first.

It is advantageous to the borrower's qualifications to "wash" the PITI with the rental income and then apply the remainder, whether positive or negative, to income or debt.

To see why:

Let's say the property in question (loan subject property or not) rents for $1K/month and the PITI is $700/month. $750 (75% of rent) minus $700 equals $50 added to your income; thereby moving DTI in your favor.

On the other hand, let's say that the $750 is added to income, but the $700 to debt. The DTI for this portion alone equals 93.33% which moves the global DTI against your favor. In fact, even if they don't reduce the income and give you the whole $1K, it still results in a 70% DTI which still moves you in the wrong direction.

So, if your qualifications are tight, but your properties cash flow, find a bank that washes PITI with a portion of rental income before applying it to DTI.

Happy Investing,

Troy

Post: Evicting Previous Owner New Hampshire

Troy ZsofkaPosted
  • Investor
  • Hillsborough, NH
  • Posts 137
  • Votes 126

@Jonathan Ramos

@Jonathan Ramos

Best bet is to talk to the homeowner.

Offer them 30 days rent free and $1,500 once they're out as long as they're out when agreed, remove their belongings, and don't damage the property. You should be able to gauge their character during that conversation.

The eviction process in NH is fairly simple and straightforward, but it's important, as @Richard Dale-Mesaros said, to follow it to the letter, or it will get thrown out. Probably best to use an atty on the first one if you don't know how.

As for your 4th question, the homeowner/squatter/evictee will be responsible for any electricity in their name. Not sure about water/sewer bills due, unless they grew into actual liens, in which case they would be tacked on to your bid at auction.

As for your 3rd question, really? 

I get that they're facing foreclosure solely because they stopped paying the mortgage, but whatever the underlying reasons for doing so, they are now in a financial hardship. They just lost their home and you're trying to figure out if you can claim their personal belongings? C'mon man...

Apologies, of course, if I misinterpreted the intentions of your question. Most likely, once you evict them, you will have to hold onto their belongings for 7 days and allow them reasonable access to retrieve them. After the 7 days, you may dispose of them, but you can not keep or sell them. I'm not an attorney so don't rely on that; instead, consult your attorney.

Happy investing,

Troy

Post: Southern New Hampshire Rental LLC

Troy ZsofkaPosted
  • Investor
  • Hillsborough, NH
  • Posts 137
  • Votes 126

@Mark McDonnell

I don't know the answer to your first question, but I doubt that would be necessary.

If you own everything under one LLC, you haven't limited your liability a whole lot.

However, the more LLC's you have, the more expenses (annual State registration filing, accountant fees for tax filing, etc).

When I own large multi-families, I will own each under its own LLC. However, for single family homes with NOI's of $7-12K/year, spending an extra several hundred on each one to have it in its own LLC is cost-prohibitive. (Besides, here in NH, you'll need that money to give to the town for the fifth half of your real estate taxes.) By putting several into each LLC, I can reduce those costs while still reducing potential liability by not putting all of my eggs in one basket. Call it a happy medium...

These are my personal opinions, I'm not an attorney or accountant, blah blah blah.

@Tucker McCarthy -

Your NH accountant is giving you legal advice that coincidentally results in more business for him/her. Conflict of interest? Maybe, maybe not. Just a thought...

Post: Southern New Hampshire Rental LLC

Troy ZsofkaPosted
  • Investor
  • Hillsborough, NH
  • Posts 137
  • Votes 126

@Mark McDonnell

The 1065 partnership return is due one month prior to individual 1040's. This is new as of 2017 so that individual members have ample time to receive their K-1's and file their 1040's on time.

This means March 15th, or September 15th (if an extension was filed).

Double check with your accountant or tax attorney, I am neither, and the above is solely my opinion and not to be trusted as fact or taken as actionable advice...

Happy investing,

Troy

Post: New investor from underrated Southern New Hampshire:)

Troy ZsofkaPosted
  • Investor
  • Hillsborough, NH
  • Posts 137
  • Votes 126

Hi @Michael Chadinha

I'm a local investor out of Hillsborough. Actually just made an offer on one in Peterborough, and looking at properties in New Ipswich and Jaffrey this afternoon.

I'm happy to be a local resource to you if you ever need anything.

Happy investing,

Troy

Post: Crusty, dried-out, poopy toilets.......

Troy ZsofkaPosted
  • Investor
  • Hillsborough, NH
  • Posts 137
  • Votes 126

@Richard Dale-Mesaros

It's always a good idea to pull the toilet and replace the wax ring anyway. Every time we make a new acquisition or have a vacancy, doing so is par for the course. Better to spend $5 on a wax ring and 10 minutes to swap it then to end up with a rotting subfloor that your tenant doesn't notice or mention until it's too late, and now you have to pull the toilet, vanity, and baseboard in order to replace the entire floor after you've cut out and patched the subfloor. Then you get to reinstall the vanity and baseboard, caulk and spackle, and touchup paint. A lot of time and money to spend while unable to shake the feeling that you should have just reset the toilet to be safe in the first place.

Point is, if you're going to pull the toilets anyway to do this preventive maintenance, it at least reduces the cost of replacement to just the cost of the new toilets. By the way, don't use a plumber; it's not rocket-surgery. I get the whole idea that, as investors, our time is too valuable to spend being a handyman, but swapping out a couple toilets takes about the same amount of time as coordinating a plumber to do it for you. 

Also, if you've got 'em clean at this point, a new guts rebuild kit is small money, and another thing you can do in a few minutes. 

When we renovate a new acquisition, if the toilets are in good condition, we always change the wax ring, supply line, and usually the seat, and we'll swap out the guts unless they're working perfectly. I hate callbacks for 10 minute repairs that could have been prevented while our crew was there renovating in the first place. That 10 minutes multiplies when you consider the commute and the inevitable chatting with the tenant. Heck, I believe in throwing away a perfectly functional water heater if it's over 7 years old. Takes 45 minutes to swap it while we're there renovating anyway, or it takes a half day to inevitably go back a year later when the call comes in.