Skip to content
×
Try PRO Free Today!
BiggerPockets Pro offers you a comprehensive suite of tools and resources
Market and Deal Finder Tools
Deal Analysis Calculators
Property Management Software
Exclusive discounts to Home Depot, RentRedi, and more
$0
7 days free
$828/yr or $69/mo when billed monthly.
$390/yr or $32.5/mo when billed annually.
7 days free. Cancel anytime.
Already a Pro Member? Sign in here
Pick markets, find deals, analyze and manage properties. Try BiggerPockets PRO.
x
Results (5,754+)
Shmuel Harris 70% ARV In NYC? Practical?
13 December 2015 | 6 replies
The 70% rule is merely a rule of thumb.
Jackson Barr How I settled over $18k of debt with less then $6k in 14 days!!!
18 April 2017 | 51 replies
And with that after a mere 14 days of due diligence and complete persistence, I was able to relinquish myself of $18,675 of debt with only $5.5k.
Ken F. tax reform....sell primary use equity for real estate investing
23 December 2017 | 3 replies
I have spoken with too many people who are merely reading blurbs and assuming a lot.
Harris L. Yet Another LLC Question
14 May 2018 | 2 replies
Obviously if a foreign LLC is registered in California, it's on the hook for the $800.But if a foreign LLC isn't registered in California, the issue is whether or not the LLC is doing business in California.And the mere fact that a California resident is a member of the LLC does not necessarily mean that the LLC is doing business in California.If you, for example, while residing in California, perform in any capacity on behalf of the LLC, the FTB says that this LLC is deemed to be doing business in California and would subject to the $800 and tax filing.However, if you are truly a mere passive investor with, say, a partner who lives in Georgia (for example) and manages the Georgia properties owned by the Georgia LLC, the Georgia LLC is not considered to be doing business in California and is not subject to the $800 and tax filing.There are a handful of states where residency of a member/partner will trigger a filing requirement for an LLC or limited partnership, but California isn't one of them."
Vincent John Tucci Wisconsin - City Hid Condemned House Status Until After Purchase
7 August 2019 | 21 replies
By the way I am not saying anyone should be devoting their lives to such things, but merely that this is the case.If I am wrong that is news to me and apparently to the Wisconsin Supreme court as well.
Janice V. STR- Short term rental investors in Maui Hawaii what’s your plan?
20 August 2020 | 15 replies
My intention was merely to make the point that the pool of potential buyers who will pay premium prices for vacation rental condos on Maui is significantly reduced during a global pandemic.I do know that my favorite Maui broker team reports that while single-family home activity remains strong, Maui condo sale listings were up 18% and pending sales were down 24% in June 2020 vs June 2019.
John Johnson CAP rate
28 June 2016 | 13 replies
It merely shows what the market values the property/NOI. 
Joshua Manning I finally passed my exam!
16 July 2017 | 6 replies
This is a huge step for me personally.For so long I have been merely studying and talking about the industry, but now I can finally actually get out there andexperience firsthand what it is like to work in real estate. 
KJ Miller Is this a horrible idea?
15 December 2015 | 59 replies
I merely think so bc you are uninformed right now on what is required to succeed and to even get started in this strategy - but that is not something that can't be rectified with time, hard work, networking, and education.
Chris S. setting up LLC in Ohio
8 January 2016 | 5 replies
In determining whether the company is the alter ego of the individual, Ohio courts consider the following factors:(1) grossly inadequate capitalization, (2) failure to observe corporate formalities, (3) insolvency of the debtor corporation at the time the debt is incurred, (4) shareholders holding themselves out as personally liable for certain corporate obligations, (5) diversion of funds or other property of the company property for personal use, (6) absence of corporate records, and (7) the fact that the corporation was a mere facade for the operations of the dominant shareholder(s).The Ohio Supreme Court has recently revisited the Belvedere test in Dombroski v.