Login | Join Our FREE VIP Investor Group

REALTY411Guide.com

Serving the Real Estate Industry Since 2007

loans

Interview With Bruce Norris of The Norris Group, Riverside, California

By

By Christina Suter, FIBI Pasadena

I recently spoke with my industry colleague and good friend Bruce Norris about what it took for him to break through from who he was as a young man to the guru he is today. Bruce is an active investor, hard money lender, and real estate educator with over 30 years of experience. He is the founder of The Norris Group and has been involved in more than 2,000 real estate transactions as a buyer, seller, builder, and money partner. Bruce has dedicated himself to understanding the economic field in Southern California, and it shows in his work.

Photograph of Bruce Norris, courtesy of Christina Suter.

Bruce was married at 17, fired five times in a row, and eventually got the hang of getting a job. After reading How To Win Friends and Influence People, Bruce said he learned about avoiding the acute angle, which is finding a way to find an argument in everything. The book taught him to diffuse it and to enjoy the skill of learning to diffuse it.

Bruce then got a job in sales, where he sold electrical supplies for six years. One day he was invited to join a man to watch his attempt to buy a house wholesale. After the house was purchased, Bruce realized his life experiences could translate into the real estate buying business. In his electrical business, Bruce sold supplies to people who already had suppliers. In real estate, he convinced people to sell their house to him because he had cash and people could close in a few days.

One of the skills Bruce has mastered is the power to close a deal. When he negotiates with a seller, he lets them know that based on his experience, things work or they don’t, so his offer leaves with him. Bruce tells sellers if they call him back the next day, he will let them know that he’s no longer interested because he wants the power to close and know he’s telling them the truth.

Bruce has earned a reputation in the industry based on his integrity. He will often spend the first 15 minutes speaking with an owner just suggesting things for them that have nothing to do with him making a profit. Bruce will ask about their situation and make recommendations that don’t always lead to him, as a cash buyer, closing the deal.

Someone once referred a couple to go talk to him. He visited the couple for two hours. During that meeting, the husband made it clear to Bruce that he desperately wanted to move to another state, Tennessee, where he had a job waiting for him and his wife. The husband wanted such a full price without commission that he basically got in his own way, Bruce remembered.

There was an underlying desperateness to the man’s situation, so Bruce told him he could sell his house to him that night if he was willing to take less for his house. Bruce closed on their house.

Ten years later, that couple’s 21-year-old son visited his office and informed Bruce that he had been causing trouble in their house, due to his gang involvement. He told Bruce that had if he not bought their house, they wouldn’t have been able to move — and that kid would have ended up dead. He asked Bruce to teach him what he knew and how he was able to purchase his childhood home. That kid went on to open an office on Magnolia and Riverside and bought houses.

The first foreclosure Bruce ever door-knocked was an elderly woman who had $13,000 of debt on a $64,000 house. Because he didn’t want to make the woman homeless, Bruce was able to get the lender to arrange a loan for her — largely thanks to the equity she had in the house. Therefore, she was able to keep her house.

Bruce said he wants both sides of that when he’s a buyer. He wants to be able to look across the table and if he can help the seller make the decision he’d make if he were in their situation, he also wants to be kind enough to let them know when they’re making a mistake.

I asked Bruce how he switched from real estate as a job to having freedom and creating financial stability.

“It really wasn’t a priority to me, so I kept very little inventory for rentals for the first 15 year plus years; I just flipped,” he said.

Bruce added that Jack Fullerton was influential in saying, “That’s great, but what happens if you get hurt or sick? How are you going to have income coming in?”

Bruce said he took that question to heart. While on vacation in Maui, he listened to Robert Kiyosaki’s Rich Dad, Poor Dad. Thus, he learned Kiyosaki’s four ways to make income quadrant.

Bruce said he was always working for someone else or self-employed (the left side of the quadrant) — but on the right side of the quadrant, he was attracted to the two that involved running a business that didn’t need him and collecting checks from investments.

From that vacation on, Bruce changed the way he made income. He said he’s not self-employed because when he goes on vacation, his business can run without him. Thus, he runs a company. Bruce’s loan business, education business, and rentals all started to run without him, and he said he’s probably the least needed person at The Norris Group.

According to Bruce, it took him until late 2005 for his rental income to allow him to feel financially free. He had to think long term and at age 33, a $30,000 profit from a flip was more appealing to him than a cash flow of $200. Bruce said it took him a while to want to be methodical with the rental income and to actually fulfill that vision.

Bruce and The Norris Group can be reached at www.thenorrisgroup.com

 

Christina Suter

As the founder and lead consultant of Ground Level Consulting, Christina L. Suter brings two decades of real-world experience as a serial small business owner and real estate investor. She developed her extensive financial and operational skills firsthand as she faced and overcame each difficulty that appeared along the way. As a result, she started up, managed and sold several businesses successfully, while developing an extensive real estate portfolio.

In 2002, Christina made the decision to leverage her experience into helping other small business owners and property owners through a consulting practice that works the way an entrepreneur works, dealing with the pressing problems of a business on the ground level and in real time. Since then, she has supported numerous companies throughout southern California and the western United States move beyond surviving to thriving.

Christina’s solid background and education–including a Bachelors in Business, an Associates in Teaching and a Masters in Psychology–strongly influence her work with your company as a Ground Level client. Not only does she have a keen insight into what will make or break the success of your business, but she can teach you the skills you need going forward. And she does this in a warm, supportive, non-judgmental way that is always highly respectful of your personal values.

Breaking: Demystifing CARES Act and Other COVID-19 Resources for Investors

By

By Stephanie Mojica

The $2.2 trillion CARES Act is the largest economic relief program in the history of the United States and has two primary programs to offer — the Paycheck Protection Plan (PPP) and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL).

These programs, offered through the Small Business Administration (SBA), provide unprecedented economic relief for entrepreneurs, according to Rony Marootian. He is the Marketing Operations Manager for the Los Angeles-based tax preparation and financial consulting firm Robert Hall & Associates.

PPP loans are based on the average monthly payroll expenses of a business, multiplied by 2.5 and capped at $10 million, according to Marootian. They are intended to cover expenses for a business during any eight-week period between February 15, 2020 and June 30, 2020. PPP funds can be used for payroll costs, rents, mortgage interest, and utilities. If a business owner maintains a certain level of payroll expenses and employee numbers during that eight-week period, the loan is 100% forgiven; as employee numbers fall below those levels, the forgivable amount is phased out.

While business owners can get both the PPP and the EIDL, both loans cannot be used for the same purpose, Marootian said in a recent email interview with Realty411.

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “if you are able to secure a PPP loan, the $10,000 grant will be subtracted from the forgiveness amount.”

EIDLs (also known as emergency advance grants) are to be distributed within three days of a business’ application; however, the PPP program does not have deadlines for lenders to disburse loans, Marootian said.

“However, the purpose of these new programs is to get funds to small businesses struggling to stay open and keep employees paid due to COVID-19, so the CARES Act has provisions to reduce burdens in the processes and increase efficiency,” he added.

SBA PPP loans are disbursed by SBA-approved lenders. Due to the circumstances of the COVID-19 crisis, the SBA has given the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the SBA the ability to grant temporary SBA-lender status to lenders that do not currently participate in the program; this will allow more loans to be approved and disbursed as quickly as possible. The SBA does not issue PPP loans, but instead guarantees them to the lender. However, the SBA directly administers EIDLs.

“Based on our experience, we’ve not seen the government provide such a rapid response to help small businesses,” Marootian said.

“The purpose of these new programs is to keep small businesses afloat and get funds to small businesses who are struggling to continue to pay employees, so it was imperative that they responded quickly.”

According to the CARES Act, a small business is any business that operates with 500 or fewer employees. In some industries, the size may be expanded by the SBA. Self-employed professionals, independent contractors, and sole proprietors also qualify, according to Marootian.

“The SBA does not currently have an industry size standard for employee numbers for real estate brokerages, property managers, appraisers, or other activities related to real estate,” Marootian said.

Sole proprietors and “gig economy” workers will have to provide documentation to prove eligibility, including payroll tax filings to the IRS, Forms 1099-MISC, and income and expenses from the sole proprietorship, according to Marootian.

Marootian emphasized the importance of not pursuing any financial programs or making any business-related expenditures without some level of professional guidance.

“With so much uncertainty, be sure to speak to your accountant and financial advisor to review your options before you spend any money during this time,” Marootian added.

To find more information about the PPP loan program, please visit: https://www.sba.gov/funding-programs/loans/coronavirus-relief-options/paycheck-protection-program-ppp

To find more information about the EIDL, please visit: https://covid19relief.sba.gov

Robert Hall & Associates is currently offering complimentary consultations about taxes and other financial concerns. For more information, call 818-242-488 or email [email protected].

Allowing a Lender to Cross Collateralize Against Additional Property

By

By Edward Brown

There are times when a lender is going to ask for additional [real estate] collateral in order to make a borrower a loan. The most likely scenario for this is when there is not enough equity in the target property. Other scenarios include a borrower with less than stellar credit, or the type or quality of the target property may not be enough to satisfy the lender to make the loan, as most lenders are more interested in making loans that will pay them back instead of facing foreclosures. For this reason, the lender may ask the borrower to put up additional collateral satisfactory to the lender so as to give the borrower an incentive to avoid defaulting on the loan.

In many cases, this cross collateralization may not be something the borrower worries about, as the borrower intends to pay the lender in full. The general plan is for the borrower to refinance the target property at a point where a new lender does not require cross collateralization, pay off the existing lender, and the existing lender releases both properties; however, what happens when the borrower sells the crossed property, or has the opportunity to refinance the target property, and there is not enough to pay off the current lender who crossed?

The danger here is that the lender may hold up the sale because it does not want to release their lien until they are paid in full. For example, let’s say the borrower owns a rental house that is worth $500,000 and there is a first mortgage in place for $200,000. The borrower wants to buy another rental for $800,000 and has $250,000 to put as a down payment. The borrower asks a lender to loan the remaining needed $550,000, but the lender is not comfortable with the LTV [68.75%], so the lender asks what other real estate the borrower owns, so it can cross collateralize its $550,000 loan. The borrower mentions the other rental, and the lender decides to ask for crossing on the first rental. Thus, the lender has lowered its risk because of the equity in the first rental.

Now, let’s say that the borrower receives an unsolicited offer for the first rental of $525,000, and he wishes to accept it. If there was no cross collateral against this property, the borrower could accept the offer, pay off the existing first of $200,000, and pocket the $325,000 remainder. However, because the rental has been crossed, the lender has $550,000 against the property in second position. That means that there is technically $750,000 of liens showing up against the property. The borrower cannot accept the $525,000 offer without having the second [the crossed loan] release its lien.

For this reason, it is imperative for there to be an agreed upon release price in which the lender agrees ahead of time to release its interest in either properties for a specific sum. It does not necessarily have to be just the remaining equity in the first sale [$325,000 in our example]. The release price could be a smaller amount. It could also be a larger amount [up to what the lender is owed]. If the lender desires more than the $325,000, the borrower would have to come up with additional cash in order to transact the sale. This may not be all bad, as the crossed lender’s loan has then been reduced.

For example, if the crossed rental was sold at a 5 CAP rate, and the crossed lender’s interest rate was 7%, the borrower may choose to sell the rental and come up with money to satisfy the lender should the lender want more than the $325,000 net proceeds from the sale. In other words, there are times when it makes economic sense to come up with money in order to sell property. Another similar scenario like this occurs when there is a blanket loan covering multiple properties, as is the case when an apartment building has been converted to condos and the owner of the building desires to sell off one condo at a time. A typical lender on the building will usually have release prices [agreed ahead of time] under which the lender will allow each unit to be sold and the lender takes a specific amount [or percentage of each sale] as a pay-down of its loan.

The release price can be negotiated between borrower and lender. Because the lender did not take the new property alone due to the high LTV, many times the lender will reduce its pay-down to where it feels comfortable with a specific amount of its loan on the remaining property. To make this point clear, let’s say that the lender usually makes loans for rental properties at an LTV of no more than 55%. Since the new rental was purchased for $800,000, the lender would be fine with a loan balance of $440,000. Thus, in order for the lender’s exposure to be reduced from its original loan of $550,000, it may be willing to accept $110,000 from the sale of the first rental in order for the lender to release its crossed lien. In this case, the borrower would sell the first rental for $525,000, pay off the first mortgage of $200,000, and pay the lender in second position $110,000 [to release its crossed lien of $550,000], and pocket the rest of the proceeds from the sale [$215,000]. The borrower would keep $215,000 from the sale, and the only debt on the second rental would be the lender [who crossed] of $440,000.

Borrowers who overlook release prices [a specific clause in the loan documents] risk having to ask the crossed lender after the fact under what circumstances the lender would be willing to release the first property. If there is no agreement ahead of time, the borrower runs the risk of being at the mercy of the lender, as the lender does not have an obligation to release its lien for less than what it is owed.

Many lenders may be willing to work out a reasonable amount for releasing either property, as it is in the lenders best interest to reduce the borrower’s default risk. Having more than one property as collateral sounds good in principle, but the added exposure of having a loan spread out amongst more than one property may not be worth the risk. Each situation will be different, but, as a general rule, it is more conservative from the lender’s viewpoint to have a low LTV on one property compared to having crossed on one or more additional properties that have a higher LTV. Additional costs of foreclosure, if needed on more than one property, as well as having to deal with an existing first mortgage [keeping them current, so that lender does not foreclose] may not be a desirable solution to protecting the lender’s interest.

This is the primary reason why typical banks do not usually cross collateralize their loans. Most banks do not like a lot of moving parts. They want to focus on one property and the risk associated with it.

Borrowers should make sure that the lender does not hold any of the borrower’s properties hostage and that release prices are set at a point where the borrower feel comfortable.

 

Edward Brown

Edward Brown currently hosts two radio shows, The Best of Investing and Sports Econ 101. He is also in the Investor Relations department for Pacific Private Money, a private real estate lending company. Edward has published many articles in various financial magazines as well as been an expert on CNN, in addition to appearing as an expert witness and consultant in cases involving investments and analysis of financial statements and tax returns.

Why Banks Do Not Lend on Certain Loans that Appear Conservative

By

By Edward Brown

Ever wonder why banks shy away from loans that appear to be relatively conservative?

There are numerous reasons banks avoid making loans that, in general, one would think have a high likelihood of paying back. According to a banker who works for a well known bank, during the mortgage crisis of almost a decade ago, one thread seem to run through all of the bad loans on the bank’s books; late payments on even the smallest of items, such as a department store credit card. This type of information led banks to steer away from otherwise good borrowers [after the mortgage meltdown], since the banks did not want to have borrowers who tended to be late or default on mortgages. Thus, a borrower who never missed a mortgage payment but may have been late on a small credit card was seen as a bigger risk for a future default on a mortgage should there be instability in the economy.

Banks are not in the business of taking over property and do not want to be seen as predatory lenders. Even if a borrower has a “good story”, banks would rather not even entertain a loan, which, on its surface, appeared to be more likely to fall into default. Banks are very cash flow oriented. They do not want to lend to borrowers where there may be a question of how a mortgage will be serviced. In commercial real estate loans, banks use a ratio called DSCR [Debt Service Coverage Ratio]. The DSCR is a measure of the cash flow available to pay current debt obligations [principal and interest in cases of a mortgage]. It shows the ability to produce enough cash to cover the mortgage payment. In previous years [before 2007], most banks required a DSCR of at least 1.1. For example, if the mortgage payment [including principal and interest] was $10,000 per month, the net cash flow [after paying normal expenses and before the mortgage] needed to be at least $11,000 per month. This was not usually an undue burden, as most real estate investors would have expected to have at least a break even cash flow after paying the mortgage. However, after 2007, almost every bank in the nation tightened up their standards to where they insisted on a DSCR of at least 1.25 and as high as 1.35. Although this may not seem excessive, the extra 15 to 25 basis point requirement severely restricted one’s ability to borrow. The investor found would have to put down a much larger down payment [thereby a lower loan needed] on the property in order to satisfy a much higher DSCR. Many real estate investors did not possess the mandated down payment and found they could not qualify for the new higher DSCR.

Another aspect that impacted banks’ ability to make loans to less than stellar borrowers is that they are similar to corporations in that they rely on their good ratings [from S&P and Moody’s for example] in attracting either deposits or floating paper themselves [through Wall Street’s ability to attract bond financing]. From a deposit standpoint, although deposits are FDIC insured up to $250,000, many banks that have lower than AAA ratings find they have to pay higher yields to depositors in order to attract money. From a bond offering standpoint, the higher the rating, the lower rate the banks have to pay their bond holders. If a bank makes loans that appear “questionable”, they risk having their rating lowered and it ends up costing them in the long run. They find it better to avoid loans that may potentially give the bank a blemish, even though they would have earned a higher yield on the mortgage being provided to the borrower who appears to be below triple A in terms of ability to repay.

Most banks work off of a fairly slim arbitrage [due to competition], so it is not worth having loans in their portfolio that appear riskier. When a loan goes onto a “watch list” or goes into default, more of the bank’s resources are tied up and not available to be deployed into new loans. Loans that are put onto the “watch list” would be those loans in which the loan to value is not as strong as the bank had originally determined. Although the borrower may not be late on any mortgage payments, the value of the property may have declined to where bank auditors have determined that there is a more than likely potential default. For example, if the bank made a loan on a property two years ago for $100,000 on a property that had a value of $150,000 at the time the loan was made [67%], the bank would set aside a certain amount of reserves as prescribed by the FDIC. However, if the property declined in value to $117,000, the $100,000 loan [presuming the loan was interest only] now stood at over 85% LTV [Loan to Value]. Under this scenario, the bank would be required to set aside more reserves. This creates a problem for the bank in that this means less money for the bank to lend out, as the extra reserves ties up more of the bank’s capital and less is available to make loans. If the loan actually goes into default, substantially more reserves are needed to be set aside. After the mortgage crisis, stringent guidelines were handed down to banks, as the Federal Government did not want to bail more banks out. Thus, most banks found it was just not worth using their resources for potentially non-income earning activity.

There is a lot of activity in the lending arena as the economy has strengthened, and interest rates are still attractively low. With the numerous requests for loans, many banks are finding that they do not need to attract borrowers. They do not want to spend time having to explain to auditors [or even bank board members] why certain loans are being made when they have many “slam dunk” loans that are “cookie cutter”. Banks are finding that they cannot charge enough to the borrower to justify the extra time, expense, and risk to make a typical “non-bank” loan.

An alternative to conventional financing can be found with private lending companies. Private lending companies do not have the same reserve requirements and will generally provide loans with much less hassle and more expediently. These private lending companies are more interested in “equity based” lending, meaning that they are more interested in how much equity is in the property at the time they make the loan as compared to the DSCR or credit issues of the borrower. This provides the private lending companies an opportunity to fill a gap where the banks have left off – loans that are not generally considered risky but still need funding. However, the price of capital is higher because the private companies do not have the same access to capital that banks do. They cannot provide FDIC insurance to their capital resources; thus, they have to pay a higher rate than depositors of banks. In conjunction with higher access to capital costs, these private lending companies must charge the borrowers a higher [than bank] rate for the money. The benefit to the borrower is the access to otherwise unavailable capital; in addition, the borrower usually does not have to jump through as many hoops as applying with a conventional bank and will almost certainly be able to borrow in a shorter time window. Many borrowers find borrowing from private lenders worth the extra cost.

Of course, if time is not of the essence, a borrower should first attempt to obtain funding from a conventional lender; however, borrowers should not be dismayed if they are turned down by banks. Alternative sources of capital are available for funding requested loans. One only need to do a little research. Many mortgage brokers, who deal with banks, also know of private lenders. If the borrower is able to go direct with a private lender, there may possibly be a cost saving to the borrower as there is one less mouth to feed; however, many times, the mortgage broker can assist the borrower with expertise as to the pricing of private loans and which companies are reputable and which are not.

In bring a deal to a private lender, the borrower should be careful not to do a shotgun approach, which is to say that it may hurt the borrower in the long run to try many brokers at the same time for the same request. One may think this is the best way to obtain financing at the best price due to attempting to force competition, but, many times, it backfires on the borrower, as some brokers broker to other brokers. What often happens in this scenario is that there may be a chain of brokers involved, all adding their fee into the loan. A two point deal may turn into a four point deal because, by the time the loan reaches the final funding so many brokers claim they had a hand in the deal and all want to get paid. The borrower may find that a better plan of action is to find one good broker who is well connected with an array of lenders. Many times, this broker will know ahead of time what terms the borrower can expect and communicate this with the borrower, so there are no surprises. Some brokers specialize in construction loans [as due some lenders]; some will not touch personal residence loans due to the Dodd Frank regulations. It is best for a borrower to seek out a broker who is well versed in the type of loan that the borrower seeks.

 

 

Edward Brown

Edward Brown currently hosts two radio shows, The Best of Investing and Sports Econ 101. He is also in the Investor Relations department for Pacific Private Money, a private real estate lending company. Edward has published many articles in various financial magazines as well as been an expert on CNN, in addition to appearing as an expert witness and consultant in cases involving investments and analysis of financial statements and tax returns.

 

Yield Compression – Why are rates in California for alternative real estate financing declining in a rising interest rate market?

By

By Edward Brown

 

The Prime Rate has been slowly increasing over the past six months, but real estate financing in the alternative sector in California has actually decreased. Why?

Competition between private lending companies in real estate [also known as hard money lenders] has increased over the past five years. This has led to brokers shopping around on behalf of their borrowers to get the lowest rates and points. Too many lenders have had a tremendous influx of capital from the private sector [investors] because of the low rates that banks pay on deposits as well as the volatility in the stock market that has spooked investors.

Prior to 2013, the difference in rates charged by private lenders and the Prime Rate was about 5%. Although the Prime Rate stayed stagnant up until 2018, the rate differential shrunk to about 3.5%. This yield compression was primarily due to the typical economics of supply and demand. There was too much of a supply of money pouring into California by investors, as these investors saw that real estate in California had not only stabilized [since The Great Recession], but had increased substantially, lowering the perceived risks of making private loans.

The default risk of making fairly conservative loans [less than 70% LTV of purchase] was minimized even further by an increasing real estate market. By the time the loan was eventually paid off due to refinance or sale of the underlying property, the LTV had gone down to as much as 40-50%. This was especially true in the fix and flip market for seasoned borrowers with good track records. Although real estate prices seem to have cooled off from the frenzy of buyers [especially those who continually paid over asking price], many of the larger lenders in the fix and flip market have gone as far as lending over 80% of purchase and up to 100% of the anticipated rehab. The amazing part is that these lenders are willing to lend their money out to these fix and flippers at rates as low as 7% and 1 point; this is unprecedented. Not only are these lenders taking more risk than in previous markets, but they are doing so at extremely favorable rates. One can only come to the conclusion that these lenders have a tremendous supply of capital that needs a home; especially those lenders who have investors who are promised a preferred return [usually in a Fund vehicle]. In these cases, idle money is a yield drag to the Fund and jeopardizes the payout to not only the investors but the profit to the manager as is typical in a mortgage pool Fund.

Idle money in a Fund is usually held in a low interest bearing account at a bank awaiting deployment. These deposits need to be liquid, as most private lenders market themselves as speedy – one of the advantages over a typical bank. In addition, their private placement memorandums dictate that idle funds be held in an FDIC insured account; thus, the low yield on these deposits to the Fund.

When borrowers shop around for California lenders, they may find two to five lenders willing to make them the loan they need at favorable terms. Most of the time, the borrowers enlist a mortgage broker who does the shopping for them. Although the mortgage broker may have favorite lenders he/she works with, the broker also knows that many sophisticated borrowers work with more than one broker, so it is the first one who can get the deal done who usually wins out. In addition, the broker realizes that some commission is better than none. Many times, these brokers quote lower than normal rates and points in order to secure the deal. What once might have been quoted as a 9.5% and 3 point deal is now hovering around 8.75% and 1.5 points. [As pointed out earlier, certain fix and flip lenders are charging even less.] The lender usually charges points, so both the broker and the lender are earning less on each transaction because of the lowering of the points that have to be shared between them. Most of the interest rate is earned by the lender’s Fund, but there is overhead that needs to be subtracted as well as the preferred return promised to the investors of the Fund. A 7% preferred return is not uncommon, but, the economics appear to dictate that a preferred return of closer to 6% may be on the horizon.

If interest rates paid by banks to depositors stay relatively low, then investors may not balk at a lower preferred yield; however, if the Prime Rate continues to rise, one might believe that interest rates on deposits at banks will follow. At some point, in order to attract investors, private lenders will have to increase the rates paid to their investors. The only way to do that would be for these lenders to start increasing the rates they charge borrowers, as profit margins to the lenders have been squeezed to its lowest level in many years. It will be those lenders who can run their companies “lean and mean” who will have the advantage in this market and the one to come.

Outside of California, lenders have enjoyed higher yields, but that comes with the potential instability of the real estate market. Many investors have chosen to take the path of least resistance – location, location, location, and stay conservative by earning less than other states may provide, but potentially reducing the risk. Generally, stable California markets have severely reduced the risk of loss of principal and, consequently, produced lower yields to investors/lenders. However, since a loss of 20% of principal in one year means that one has to make 25% the following year just to breakeven over the two year period, the prudent investor/lender might be wiser to accept a lower yield and not balk too much at a lower yield; thus the quandary of investing in California.

 

Edward Brown

Edward Brown currently hosts two radio shows, The Best of Investing and Sports Econ 101. He is also in the Investor Relations department for Pacific Private Money, a private real estate lending company. Edward has published many articles in various financial magazines as well as been an expert on CNN, in addition to appearing as an expert witness and consultant in cases involving investments and analysis of financial statements and tax returns.

 

Warning to All Renters: Renting a House Could Cost You A Million Dollars

By

By Lex Levinrad

The Distressed Real Estate Institute has a report called “Warning to All Renters: Renting a House Could Cost You a Million Dollars!”

The report was based on the findings of a Distressed Real Estate Institute study that looked at data on thousands of single family homes in South Florida. “We looked at historical price data for these houses and completed a market analysis of how a typical first time home buyer could benefit by purchasing one of these houses today instead of renting the same house” said Lex Levinrad Founder of the Distressed Real Estate Institute.

“What we found is that prices have actually declined so much in South Florida over the past few years that in many cases it could actually be cheaper to purchase the house than to rent it” said Levinrad. “Even after accounting for property taxes and insurance in many instances it could still be cheaper to purchase a home than to rent it”. “This is a great time to buy real estate – especially if you are a first time home buyer and you can qualify for an FHA loan” said Levinrad.

The basis of the study was a comparison of the costs of a typical 3 bedroom 2 bathroom South Florida house which would appraise for approximately $100,000. There are houses in this price point in many South Florida Cities especially in Broward County cities like Fort Lauderdale, Pompano Beach, Margate and Deerfield Beach. These houses would typically rent for approximately $1,100 per month and would cost about the same in monthly mortgage payments if they were purchased with an FHA Mortgage Loan. “Our specialty is low priced single family starter homes which are most attractive for renters and first time home buyers” said Levinrad. “We know this market well because we purchase these houses directly from the bank and we often fix them up and then sell them to first time home buyers or renters that are looking for a rent to own home”.

“Many people that are currently renting in this price point have decent credit and could get approved for an FHA Mortgage” said Levinrad. “They simply do not know that they can afford to own their own home and in most cases there is no one that is marketing to them and informing them of this fact”.

The findings of the study indicate that a typical $100,000 house could be worth as much as $1,000,000 by the year 2041. This is when the 30 year FHA mortgage would be paid off assuming that they purchased in 2011. “Owning real estate always pays off in the long term” said Levinrad. “People have very short term memories and ten or twenty years from now they will wish they had purchased a home.  Making the decision to buy a home versus continuing to rent will result in a substantially better retirement” said Levinrad.

“In many cases this will be the only opportunity in their lifetime to purchase South Florida Real Estate at an affordable price where the monthly payment could be the same amount or even less than the equivalent rent. This market crash and foreclosure crisis has created a unique situation where for the first time in many years housing is actually affordable. It is a great time to buy real estate – especially for first time home buyers” said Levinrad.