Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]JP etal,
Client control does not pertain to what or whether they should buy but rather their performance according to the terms of the legal agreement they have signed once a legal agreement has been reached.[/quote]I agree with this, sdr, and by the same token, with buyers, the Buyer-Broker Agency Agreement will be the first “legal” agreement they enter into with me because it will be executed before I do any business with buyers.
Buyers quickly become “mesmerized” by “cosmetic enhancements” and I have saved more than a few of them from making a bad purchase mistake that would be difficult to recover from because I remembered something terribly wrong with that address, block or complex from back in ’92 or ’87 (or whenever) and complete an up-to-date due diligence on it for my buyer. Most of this stuff is typically NOT disclosed by the current seller, whether they knew about it themselves or not. Any other agent would have just let them purchase and collect the commission. Look at all the recent agents that put their buyers in “exploding loans” just to make a commission! Most per probably so ignorant, they didn’t even understand the loans themselves.
A relatively-new (lic. under ten yrs.) agent can’t possibly know that certain corner or side of a particular block all had cracked slabs at one time, an entire family was murdered in a property, a Shell pipeline runs under that street or that septic tank hasn’t worked property in x years and needs to be dug out unless you have specialized area-experience and a memory like a clock to go along with the exp. I have been in so many addresses at one time or the other, I can remember things about a particular property once I come back to it, even if the property looks entirely different now. An agent can’t “buy” this experience or learn it it class and the beauty of this is that it is all in my head (except for my actual full-size and letter-size plat map archives) which come in VERY HANDY at times – LOL!
[side rant] I’m a firm believer that agents should only stick to areas they are intimately familiar with and farm out clients to other agents for a “referral fee” upon close of escrow. For instance, in the past, I have “farmed out” buyer-clients who wanted to shop in PQ to an agent I personally knew who grew up and worked in PQ as I would be doing a disservice to those clients stumbling around those sts. on their “behalf” with a Thomas Guide, not being familiar with the the tracts and floor plans, etc. I also never wanted waste a lot of time and gas driving up and down the fwy long distances to do business. In other words, if an agent doesn’t know who owns that corner store or what the names of their watchdog and son who works the late shift are, they have no business working in that ‘hood, because there are plenty of agents who do. I believe a tract-area agent should be able to picture a certain street in their minds, note what business is on the corner, if any, yr. of construction, types of roofs, recent complete remodels, name of builder and no. of floorplans, which are prem. lots, which sides of the st face upslope/downslope, etc. ALL FROM LYING ON THE COUCH OR ON A TOWEL AT THE BEACH. If they can’t do this, they don’t have enough inventory knowledge and experience in their area of specialty to be “practicing” in it and should become an assistant to or work under an agent or “Broker-Salesperson” that does, in order to get that experience. [end of side-rant]
Yes, I believe, with first-time buyers and sellers especially, the agent needs to have a firm control of their clients and all aspects of the showings and escrow. Many, many sellers DO NOT understand that they will need to change the way they live while their properties are marketed in competition with cleaned and repaired bank-owned properties. This “control” keeps the agent from “spinning their wheels” and wasting a lot of time with unmotivated principals.
Sure, a buyer can choose between a “cute” 20 or 30-something miniskirt or get me, for the same commission arrangement which doesn’t require they pay anything out-of-pocket. But if my license was activated at this time, my services would come with a 90-day Buyer-Broker Agency Agreement chained to their ankle. It’s a free country. Take your pick.
Oh, and BTW, I DO have some short skirts that still look great on me, but haven’t worn them in years :}
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]JP etal,
Client control does not pertain to what or whether they should buy but rather their performance according to the terms of the legal agreement they have signed once a legal agreement has been reached.[/quote]I agree with this, sdr, and by the same token, with buyers, the Buyer-Broker Agency Agreement will be the first “legal” agreement they enter into with me because it will be executed before I do any business with buyers.
Buyers quickly become “mesmerized” by “cosmetic enhancements” and I have saved more than a few of them from making a bad purchase mistake that would be difficult to recover from because I remembered something terribly wrong with that address, block or complex from back in ’92 or ’87 (or whenever) and complete an up-to-date due diligence on it for my buyer. Most of this stuff is typically NOT disclosed by the current seller, whether they knew about it themselves or not. Any other agent would have just let them purchase and collect the commission. Look at all the recent agents that put their buyers in “exploding loans” just to make a commission! Most per probably so ignorant, they didn’t even understand the loans themselves.
A relatively-new (lic. under ten yrs.) agent can’t possibly know that certain corner or side of a particular block all had cracked slabs at one time, an entire family was murdered in a property, a Shell pipeline runs under that street or that septic tank hasn’t worked property in x years and needs to be dug out unless you have specialized area-experience and a memory like a clock to go along with the exp. I have been in so many addresses at one time or the other, I can remember things about a particular property once I come back to it, even if the property looks entirely different now. An agent can’t “buy” this experience or learn it it class and the beauty of this is that it is all in my head (except for my actual full-size and letter-size plat map archives) which come in VERY HANDY at times – LOL!
[side rant] I’m a firm believer that agents should only stick to areas they are intimately familiar with and farm out clients to other agents for a “referral fee” upon close of escrow. For instance, in the past, I have “farmed out” buyer-clients who wanted to shop in PQ to an agent I personally knew who grew up and worked in PQ as I would be doing a disservice to those clients stumbling around those sts. on their “behalf” with a Thomas Guide, not being familiar with the the tracts and floor plans, etc. I also never wanted waste a lot of time and gas driving up and down the fwy long distances to do business. In other words, if an agent doesn’t know who owns that corner store or what the names of their watchdog and son who works the late shift are, they have no business working in that ‘hood, because there are plenty of agents who do. I believe a tract-area agent should be able to picture a certain street in their minds, note what business is on the corner, if any, yr. of construction, types of roofs, recent complete remodels, name of builder and no. of floorplans, which are prem. lots, which sides of the st face upslope/downslope, etc. ALL FROM LYING ON THE COUCH OR ON A TOWEL AT THE BEACH. If they can’t do this, they don’t have enough inventory knowledge and experience in their area of specialty to be “practicing” in it and should become an assistant to or work under an agent or “Broker-Salesperson” that does, in order to get that experience. [end of side-rant]
Yes, I believe, with first-time buyers and sellers especially, the agent needs to have a firm control of their clients and all aspects of the showings and escrow. Many, many sellers DO NOT understand that they will need to change the way they live while their properties are marketed in competition with cleaned and repaired bank-owned properties. This “control” keeps the agent from “spinning their wheels” and wasting a lot of time with unmotivated principals.
Sure, a buyer can choose between a “cute” 20 or 30-something miniskirt or get me, for the same commission arrangement which doesn’t require they pay anything out-of-pocket. But if my license was activated at this time, my services would come with a 90-day Buyer-Broker Agency Agreement chained to their ankle. It’s a free country. Take your pick.
Oh, and BTW, I DO have some short skirts that still look great on me, but haven’t worn them in years :}
Participant[quote=XBoxBoy]. . . for someone to save 20k off their tax bill wouldn’t that have to pay over 50k a year in interest? Does anyone think the average californian who’s paying a mortgage is paying over 50k a year in motgage interest?[/quote]
As far as I know XBoxBoy, mortgage interest is only deductible up to $25K per year. Folks who are paying more interest than that can only deduct $25K of it.
Any accountant geek-Piggs out there reading this please correct me if this law has changed.
Participant[quote=XBoxBoy]. . . for someone to save 20k off their tax bill wouldn’t that have to pay over 50k a year in interest? Does anyone think the average californian who’s paying a mortgage is paying over 50k a year in motgage interest?[/quote]
As far as I know XBoxBoy, mortgage interest is only deductible up to $25K per year. Folks who are paying more interest than that can only deduct $25K of it.
Any accountant geek-Piggs out there reading this please correct me if this law has changed.
Participant[quote=XBoxBoy]. . . for someone to save 20k off their tax bill wouldn’t that have to pay over 50k a year in interest? Does anyone think the average californian who’s paying a mortgage is paying over 50k a year in motgage interest?[/quote]
As far as I know XBoxBoy, mortgage interest is only deductible up to $25K per year. Folks who are paying more interest than that can only deduct $25K of it.
Any accountant geek-Piggs out there reading this please correct me if this law has changed.
Participant[quote=XBoxBoy]. . . for someone to save 20k off their tax bill wouldn’t that have to pay over 50k a year in interest? Does anyone think the average californian who’s paying a mortgage is paying over 50k a year in motgage interest?[/quote]
As far as I know XBoxBoy, mortgage interest is only deductible up to $25K per year. Folks who are paying more interest than that can only deduct $25K of it.
Any accountant geek-Piggs out there reading this please correct me if this law has changed.
Participant[quote=XBoxBoy]. . . for someone to save 20k off their tax bill wouldn’t that have to pay over 50k a year in interest? Does anyone think the average californian who’s paying a mortgage is paying over 50k a year in motgage interest?[/quote]
As far as I know XBoxBoy, mortgage interest is only deductible up to $25K per year. Folks who are paying more interest than that can only deduct $25K of it.
Any accountant geek-Piggs out there reading this please correct me if this law has changed.
Participant[quote=murf2222]Qwerty…….”very little skin in the game”? I would hardly call 45% “very little skin”.
I for one, wouldn’t mind a bit if the borrower defaulted and I was handed the keys along with 40-50 percent instant equity.
As we all know, selling a property if priced at what it’s worth is pretty easy right now (at least in SD county). As long as you have an accurate/current appraisal going in, I still don’t see the downside here. . . [/quote]
murf, I do see a downside to even having 50-55% equity if it is a “niche” business property that is difficult to put the right tenant into. You, as a trust-deed investor that was forced to foreclose have to now service the debt on the property plus the taxes and insurance. Likewise, if the property is in a rental-area that is transient or difficult to obtain a qualified tenant. I don’t think these types of properties sell easily or quickly.
As an individual trust-deed investor, you can’t “throw caution to the wind” just because your trustor has some “skin in the game.” When choosing which trust deeds to buy, you still have to adhere to the principles of “location, location, location” and stick with property types and areas you personally are intimately familiar with. If you find yourself an “overnight” business-property owner, it helps to have a contact list of friends and acquaintances that would be able to give you legitimate tenant referrals.
If a trust-deed investor was not able to manage his newly-acquired property by himself, this would significantly add to the carrying costs of this investment, esp. if that property was commercial.
Participant[quote=murf2222]Qwerty…….”very little skin in the game”? I would hardly call 45% “very little skin”.
I for one, wouldn’t mind a bit if the borrower defaulted and I was handed the keys along with 40-50 percent instant equity.
As we all know, selling a property if priced at what it’s worth is pretty easy right now (at least in SD county). As long as you have an accurate/current appraisal going in, I still don’t see the downside here. . . [/quote]
murf, I do see a downside to even having 50-55% equity if it is a “niche” business property that is difficult to put the right tenant into. You, as a trust-deed investor that was forced to foreclose have to now service the debt on the property plus the taxes and insurance. Likewise, if the property is in a rental-area that is transient or difficult to obtain a qualified tenant. I don’t think these types of properties sell easily or quickly.
As an individual trust-deed investor, you can’t “throw caution to the wind” just because your trustor has some “skin in the game.” When choosing which trust deeds to buy, you still have to adhere to the principles of “location, location, location” and stick with property types and areas you personally are intimately familiar with. If you find yourself an “overnight” business-property owner, it helps to have a contact list of friends and acquaintances that would be able to give you legitimate tenant referrals.
If a trust-deed investor was not able to manage his newly-acquired property by himself, this would significantly add to the carrying costs of this investment, esp. if that property was commercial.
Participant[quote=murf2222]Qwerty…….”very little skin in the game”? I would hardly call 45% “very little skin”.
I for one, wouldn’t mind a bit if the borrower defaulted and I was handed the keys along with 40-50 percent instant equity.
As we all know, selling a property if priced at what it’s worth is pretty easy right now (at least in SD county). As long as you have an accurate/current appraisal going in, I still don’t see the downside here. . . [/quote]
murf, I do see a downside to even having 50-55% equity if it is a “niche” business property that is difficult to put the right tenant into. You, as a trust-deed investor that was forced to foreclose have to now service the debt on the property plus the taxes and insurance. Likewise, if the property is in a rental-area that is transient or difficult to obtain a qualified tenant. I don’t think these types of properties sell easily or quickly.
As an individual trust-deed investor, you can’t “throw caution to the wind” just because your trustor has some “skin in the game.” When choosing which trust deeds to buy, you still have to adhere to the principles of “location, location, location” and stick with property types and areas you personally are intimately familiar with. If you find yourself an “overnight” business-property owner, it helps to have a contact list of friends and acquaintances that would be able to give you legitimate tenant referrals.
If a trust-deed investor was not able to manage his newly-acquired property by himself, this would significantly add to the carrying costs of this investment, esp. if that property was commercial.
Participant[quote=murf2222]Qwerty…….”very little skin in the game”? I would hardly call 45% “very little skin”.
I for one, wouldn’t mind a bit if the borrower defaulted and I was handed the keys along with 40-50 percent instant equity.
As we all know, selling a property if priced at what it’s worth is pretty easy right now (at least in SD county). As long as you have an accurate/current appraisal going in, I still don’t see the downside here. . . [/quote]
murf, I do see a downside to even having 50-55% equity if it is a “niche” business property that is difficult to put the right tenant into. You, as a trust-deed investor that was forced to foreclose have to now service the debt on the property plus the taxes and insurance. Likewise, if the property is in a rental-area that is transient or difficult to obtain a qualified tenant. I don’t think these types of properties sell easily or quickly.
As an individual trust-deed investor, you can’t “throw caution to the wind” just because your trustor has some “skin in the game.” When choosing which trust deeds to buy, you still have to adhere to the principles of “location, location, location” and stick with property types and areas you personally are intimately familiar with. If you find yourself an “overnight” business-property owner, it helps to have a contact list of friends and acquaintances that would be able to give you legitimate tenant referrals.
If a trust-deed investor was not able to manage his newly-acquired property by himself, this would significantly add to the carrying costs of this investment, esp. if that property was commercial.
Participant[quote=murf2222]Qwerty…….”very little skin in the game”? I would hardly call 45% “very little skin”.
I for one, wouldn’t mind a bit if the borrower defaulted and I was handed the keys along with 40-50 percent instant equity.
As we all know, selling a property if priced at what it’s worth is pretty easy right now (at least in SD county). As long as you have an accurate/current appraisal going in, I still don’t see the downside here. . . [/quote]
murf, I do see a downside to even having 50-55% equity if it is a “niche” business property that is difficult to put the right tenant into. You, as a trust-deed investor that was forced to foreclose have to now service the debt on the property plus the taxes and insurance. Likewise, if the property is in a rental-area that is transient or difficult to obtain a qualified tenant. I don’t think these types of properties sell easily or quickly.
As an individual trust-deed investor, you can’t “throw caution to the wind” just because your trustor has some “skin in the game.” When choosing which trust deeds to buy, you still have to adhere to the principles of “location, location, location” and stick with property types and areas you personally are intimately familiar with. If you find yourself an “overnight” business-property owner, it helps to have a contact list of friends and acquaintances that would be able to give you legitimate tenant referrals.
If a trust-deed investor was not able to manage his newly-acquired property by himself, this would significantly add to the carrying costs of this investment, esp. if that property was commercial.
Participant[quote=northparkbuyer]The owner almost certainly had a will, but from what I know she may have placed everything in trust to her grandkids (also living in the house) and made the daughter/tenant the executor of the trust. For whatever reason, she didn’t use the estate funds to pay the mortgage.
Thanks bearishgurl, for the information. It was very helpful.[/quote]
northparkbuyer, if what you say is true here, there is a GOOD REASON why someone would use a “generation-skipping trust” in favor of their grandchildren instead of their own child. IMO, the decedent’s “fatal error” here was appointing her daughter (the “mom”) as executor of that trust as it completely defeated the purpose of it.
Participant[quote=northparkbuyer]The owner almost certainly had a will, but from what I know she may have placed everything in trust to her grandkids (also living in the house) and made the daughter/tenant the executor of the trust. For whatever reason, she didn’t use the estate funds to pay the mortgage.
Thanks bearishgurl, for the information. It was very helpful.[/quote]
northparkbuyer, if what you say is true here, there is a GOOD REASON why someone would use a “generation-skipping trust” in favor of their grandchildren instead of their own child. IMO, the decedent’s “fatal error” here was appointing her daughter (the “mom”) as executor of that trust as it completely defeated the purpose of it.
-
AuthorPosts
