4 ms·

>Sounds OK in theory Sounds terrible in theory!

toomuchtodo 7y ago
It’s not if the income stream and high yield rate from a seller financing deal is more important to you (as the maker of the note) than a lump sum of cash. Everyone has different financial requirements, collateral they’re willing to put at risk, etc. You’re using today’s dollars (or assets) to find ways to buy more of tomorrow’s dollars (“investing”). The paperwork isn’t too difficult to put together either.
- zaroth 7y ago
  You don’t want to be the “Bank” with only one note tying up a large percentage of your capital. Just ask Donald Trump.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    You do if you need the risk adjusted return and can’t get it elsewhere.
    - dymk 7y ago
      I suppose that’s fine if we’re agreeing it’s a last ditch effort
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Jack Boggle and others have stated you’re not getting above 5 percent risk adjusted returns in the public markets over the next decade at least. You can realize 7-10% returns making a note seller financing. I would assume we’re already of the understanding a last ditch effort is necessary to obtain necessary returns.
    - URSpider94 7y ago
      I think the issue is diversification. Carrying the note for a buyer can be a decent idea for a developer who owns 100 properties, but probably not if the loan represents 50% of your assets. Calculations like "risk adjusted return" start to fall apart when you get out of continuous statistics and into single-event probabilities ...
- Jesus_Jones 7y ago
  I can't imagine why this ever would make sense. Only scammers would benefit would accept this, because of the lack of clarity in ownership, it's like a deliberate attempt to circumvent normal financial transactions, which only benefits scammers. It strikes me as the same thing as the fake-check auto purchase scams that infest different on-line auto sales channels.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    You should read more on seller/owner financing to understand why one would use it in a transaction before dismissing it as a scam. To think only scammers would benefit is an ignorant position to hold if you don't understand why counterparties in a real estate transaction would elect this financing mechanism over conventional financing. Ownership interest is still recorded with the local jurisdiction, so nothing is hidden (although with a land trust, you can hide beneficial interest [it's treated as personal property and handled with trust docs; you could think of it as tracking real estate ownership "off ledger" since it's not recorded with a deed] so people don't know who own a parcel).
wolco 7y ago
Not with a 20% down payment.

It’s not if the income stream and high yield rate from a seller financing deal is more important to you (as the maker of the note) than a lump sum of cash. Everyone has different financial requirements, collateral they’re willing to put at risk, etc. You’re using today’s dollars (or assets) to find ways to buy more of tomorrow’s dollars (“investing”). The paperwork isn’t too difficult to put together either.

zaroth 7y ago
You don’t want to be the “Bank” with only one note tying up a large percentage of your capital. Just ask Donald Trump.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  You do if you need the risk adjusted return and can’t get it elsewhere.
  - dymk 7y ago
    I suppose that’s fine if we’re agreeing it’s a last ditch effort
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Jack Boggle and others have stated you’re not getting above 5 percent risk adjusted returns in the public markets over the next decade at least. You can realize 7-10% returns making a note seller financing. I would assume we’re already of the understanding a last ditch effort is necessary to obtain necessary returns.
  - URSpider94 7y ago
    I think the issue is diversification. Carrying the note for a buyer can be a decent idea for a developer who owns 100 properties, but probably not if the loan represents 50% of your assets. Calculations like "risk adjusted return" start to fall apart when you get out of continuous statistics and into single-event probabilities ...
Jesus_Jones 7y ago
I can't imagine why this ever would make sense. Only scammers would benefit would accept this, because of the lack of clarity in ownership, it's like a deliberate attempt to circumvent normal financial transactions, which only benefits scammers. It strikes me as the same thing as the fake-check auto purchase scams that infest different on-line auto sales channels.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  You should read more on seller/owner financing to understand why one would use it in a transaction before dismissing it as a scam. To think only scammers would benefit is an ignorant position to hold if you don't understand why counterparties in a real estate transaction would elect this financing mechanism over conventional financing. Ownership interest is still recorded with the local jurisdiction, so nothing is hidden (although with a land trust, you can hide beneficial interest [it's treated as personal property and handled with trust docs; you could think of it as tracking real estate ownership "off ledger" since it's not recorded with a deed] so people don't know who own a parcel).

wolco 7y ago

Not with a 20% down payment.