Real Estate Investing Depot
The World's Largest Directory of Resources for Real Estate Investors
SubscribeReal Estate Investing DepotCoursesBooksTapesSoftwareServices
     to our "What's New" Newsletter!
NEW Resources!   NEW Forms!
NEW Articles!   NEW Reviews!

FREE Foreclosure eBook
Search options
Learn how to make a Fortune Investing in Real Estate
Visit Real Estate Investing Depot Shop!
real estate investing depot  
authors / gurus  
submit article  

M O R E    R E S O U R C E S

Quick Start Success Pack by Bill Gatten

Quick Start Success Pack
by Bill Gatten

Article by Bill J. Gatten


  Question: If I buy a property for $50,000 and sell it two days later for $100,000, have I cheated anyone…or was this just a good business transaction for myself? For the analogy, let's consider the following seller types, and see if the "type" of seller makes any difference:

  1. The seller is an elderly woman whose husband recently passed-away, and who knows virtually nothing about finances, much less real estate values. She is distraught and sees me as one who can save her from financial ruin if I can only help her convert her only rental property to cash without too much delay.

  2. The seller is a young couple with income property, whom have grown weary of managing rental real estate and just want "out." They find themselves in a serious financial bind, and just are willing to take my word and my sales pitch relative to the value of the property, if only I can convince them that I am trustworthy.

  3. The seller is a fellow real-estate investor, who is anxious to sell at a good discount, being wholly unaware that the city's formerly announced plans to build a freeway immediately adjacent to property (which he fails to tell me about) had been permanently cancelled just this morning (a fact to which only I am privy).

  In each case, I have seen an ad in the newspaper that says" Property for Sale, Seller will Carry. Make an Offer." I answer the ad and set up an appointment with the seller. I make my low-ball ($50,000 offer), justifying it with the assertion that repairs, refurbishment and remarketing costs are going to be exorbitant, and that I need to build-in at least a 20% profit for myself. I then explain that even though the property may be worth $100,000 I’m probably going to receive no serious offers higher and $90,000. At first, they decline, holding out for more money, but being over-the-barrel, they quickly recant when they see me about to walk way. At that, the seller accepts my story and clearly sees that I know my business and am a real professional.

  Now (a week later, let’s say)…I do a NARS PACTrust™ at a Mutually Agreed Value of $95,000 to a couple acquiring their first home. I show them comps at $110,000 and minimize the cost of the repairs that will need to be made. I walk away with $45,000 less a few costs.

  Now the real question: Who got cheated here? A, B or C…and why would/should it make a difference? Honesty is honesty, isn’t it…irrespective of whom you’re dealing with? Of course most people would say that the deal would have been OK with client "C," and maybe even Mr. and Mrs. "B," but that I shouldn’t have done such a thing to little old Missus "A."

  The key here, in my opinion, lies within the phrase "Fair Market Value." Let's analyze the words for which the initials "FMV" stand and see if any one of the three sets off any bells or whistles in our conscience? Not that we’re not supposed to stand and salute when the phrase is uttered: but "FMV" is what a reasonable buyer acting on reasonable (accurate and honest) data is expected to pay, as long as its "FAIR." When I am the buyer, I determine the amount I'm willing to pay (take it or leave it: Golden Rule... "I got the gold I make the rules"); when I'm the seller, however, I don't have the right to trick someone into paying more for something than I know its worth…especially by withholding information or misrepresenting pertinent facts ('got burned like that once myself on a mail order I placed for some Sea Monkeys). As a professional... I'm someone who sells wholly because of assertions that I personally make, and can prove, re. my integrity and trustworthiness (as you undoubtedly do as well): as a buyer I am one to check out all the possibilities and verify all the data for myself, rather than expecting someone to be particularly honest or do it for me.

  Here’s the true key to success (and fairness) in all business transactions (called the Hubbard Principal):

  1. Show up
  2. Pay attention
  3. Be honest
  4. Remain unattached to the end-result

  That’s it! As simplistic as this saying may seem at first glance, it is truly the most complete road map to fair dealing and success in business that I have ever come across. It simply will not (can not) fail you. Remember that buying a Tiffany lamp for ten dollars at a garage sale, and selling it the next day $20,000 (although a "dealer" might be subject to scrutiny), is not the same as selling a ten dollar K-Mart look-alike for $20,000 by sticking a fake Tiffany label on it. "Caveat Emptor ("buyer beware") went the way of Snake Oil, mood rings and Spiro Agnew (and those stupid do-nothing Sea Monkeys) a long time ago. Wait! Wait! Better example...too close to the fire to see the woods (to mix a non-metaphor)! I frequently (very frequently, as a matter of fact) buy and sell SFR properties for more than they're worth. Sometimes, a lot more than they’re worth. But the reason I do that is because when I buy them, I get something of significant value in addition to the property itself... I get "terms" and "concessions" (no down, no bank qualifying; no credit qualifying; no risk, no argument...just shut up and take it). In all of these cases, I’m willing pay for those extras that I get. Then, when I eventually bring a resident co-beneficiary into this property (via a two-tiered PACTriust™), the property’s true value is fully disclosed and completely understood. Then to that "true value" I add the value of the terms and concessions that I am willing to extend (no down, no credit qualifying, no penalty for BK’s, past foreclosure, etc.).

  This all then adds up to my own "MAVI (i.e., Mutually Agreed Value at Inception)," which is always the true appraisal value, OR the underlying loan amount: whichever is greater…plus the value of all my concessions. Why shouldn’t one pay more if they don’t have to qualify, and if I’m going to trust them when no one else would (lenders, other sellers, etc.). Now…whose being cheated? Me? My resident co-beneficiary? Or…is it the seller, whom, if he knew as much as I do about land trust conveyances, could have done the same thing himself, and not had to relinquish his property ownership at all? Why, he might even have been able to earn back all that equity he lost, and all the appreciation he missed out on due to the preceding recessionary period. Now I’m the one who will profit. Fair? Unfair? Honest or dishonest?

Please check Quick Start Success Pack by Bill Gatten    

Bill Gatten, is an accomplished Real Estate Investor, Author, Lecturer and Sales Trainer. With over 40 years experience in banking, equipment financing and leasing, and real estate investing, Bill is considered among the top Creative Real Estate trainers in the U.S. today. His book, No Down! No New Loan! is now in its second printing. A new book for investors is due out in 2002: 'Making it BIG in Creative Real Estate...for the Cash, Credit, Income and Experience Challenged.'
Back to Real Estate Investing Articles
© Real Estate Investing Depot
Start Building Your Real Estate Empire Today!