
19 November 2011 | 2 replies
We could probably use a few other states from other fund principals too.

22 November 2011 | 7 replies
So at a 10 CAP this property according to YOUR NUMBERS would be worth 55,000 and the seller wants 130,000.Also you are banking on 0.00 percent interest and straight principal pay down.Many sellers won't finance below market interest rates because of the imputed tax provision ( I believe it's called that ).Remember owner finance isn't always a good thing.You still have to get a decent deal AND the owner finance.If you got owner finance with no money down and no personal guarantee and a non-recourse loan then if they took it back then no big deal.Sounds like you need to move on to another property.

19 December 2011 | 3 replies
I was thinking he should ask for everything he put down out of pocket, plus all principal paid so far, plus a "fee" for his trouble, to include storage/moving expenses, dealing with the BS, etc.Sounds like $10K might be a good round number?

30 January 2012 | 9 replies
Target your planned time (36 months) to be at a specific equity level by paying your principal down.

29 January 2012 | 12 replies
The basic principal for us is that we don’t care much about cash flow, although we do like to break even.

4 February 2012 | 2 replies
Any of the deferred interest was added to the principal amount of the loan.

4 February 2012 | 3 replies
I have 10 properties in total, and these are the two which have the least favorable financing terms and also the lowest principal balances as $39k and $6k.

15 May 2012 | 15 replies
Payments don't change much as when you get deeper into the amortization and at a lower principal amount lenders refi with shorter amortizations keeping payment at an amount worth fooling with.

9 February 2012 | 2 replies
You assign a contract, double close, buy in an LLC and sell the LLC or some other technique that makes you a principal to the deal, but the basic idea is you find a buyer, find a seller, put them together and collect a fee.

7 February 2012 | 13 replies
you're right, it was a good deal, however, in principal, it's wrong because the HOA is taking advantage of real estate conditions.