When there is "No Equity" - Posted by Justin

Posted by Jim Pasquini on December 11, 2000 at 10:31:58:

If you don’t want to reveal yourself then don’t. Probably will go a long way to reaching the goals you want to attain in life if you’d worry a little less about looking stupid, though. I guess it boils down to this, do you want to ask a question and look stupid or keep your mouth shut and remain stupid?

I don’t mean that to be harsh, but I am serious in telling you I want to understand what it is we do. Very honestly, I could make a lot more money if I decided to be a full time investor. Instead I have chosen to undertake a noble quest and start teaching this same thing to others. You’d make me feel a lot better about this if you’d call and say something like, “You know, Jim, I was at your seminar in Weedpatch, California. You guys were really tied up with folks and I had to leave to pick my kids up from soccer practice, but I had a couple of questions I wish you could clear up for me. Do you have a second?”

The answer will be yes, unless I really and truly don’t. (Hey, I do some important things, too!) At that point I’ll either transfer you to Bill himself, or make arrangements to call you back. Don’t cheat yourself. I don’t care if you didn’t understand it the first time and won’t even look cross eyed at you for it, but I do care if the opportunity is there for a second chance and you still don’t want it.

When there is “No Equity” - Posted by Justin

Posted by Justin on December 10, 2000 at 14:39:27:

I like to offer up the “Subject To” proposal. It gets me in with only closing costs. (Title search & Insurance)

I also like to offer to the seller (When they do have some equity) the “Subject To” offer along with a small portion of their equity and payments on the remainder over a period of time. (Good for future discounting), and if neither of these are feasable to the seller then the Lease Option & Option are offered as well.

Keep in mind that I am a LeGrand follower and bank qualifying is OUT OF THE QUESTION for me, so an assumption of mortgage is not in my dictionary!

Are there any other ways of offering sellers a solution that I can do that I am not mentioning here?

Just Wondering

Justin

Re: When there is “No Equity” - Posted by dewCO

Posted by dewCO on December 10, 2000 at 18:00:28:

The PACTrust. Go to www.cal-equity.com and read about it.

Re: other solutions - Posted by BillW.

Posted by BillW. on December 10, 2000 at 17:46:10:

How about a land contract or a wrap? Just remember though, you are trying to get the biggest part of the equity for yourself by solving their problem.

I’ve been to the seminar - Posted by John

Posted by John on December 10, 2000 at 18:07:59:

But it is way too overwhelming for me. I understand how a regular trust agreement works and do it that way. I sat in that seminar all day and still don’t get it. I paid to get in there and just don’t want to get involved anymore with it. Maybe somewhere down the road after I make some money I’ll get more educated on it but for now, I’m just taking title via land trusts and thats it.

Thanks for your suggestion though

John

Help me out here… - Posted by Jim Pasquini

Posted by Jim Pasquini on December 10, 2000 at 22:47:08:

because I am not so sure what is overwhelming to you about a PACTrust.

You understand the trust. Great. That is half the battle. Under a PACTrust arrangement you do it the same way. Put the property into trust. Don’t see the problem so far.

Next, you have the original owner transfer you the beneficial interest. Same way it is done under a PACTrust, except under a PACTrust you have the property retain a portion of the beneficial interest so you do not have a DOS violation. It also gives you an opportunity to show the owner how they have more ‘security’. Seems to me we are doing the same thing as you are proposing so far. Still don’t see the confusion, but I’ll keep looking.

When you buy the properties we are talking about in this thread with no equity what do you then do with them? You sure don’t flip them. I suppose you rent them out, unless you then sell on some other sort of creative financing arrangement. PACTrust allows you to structure it exactly the same way based on how you set it up, but it does so much more safely and effectively than any other arrangement you might cook up. Still don’t see the problem. I’m going to need some help from you here.

Once again for everybody out there, the PACTrust isn’t hard. Put the property in a trust, share the beneficial interest, and lease it from the trust are the basic components. Sure, we share a lot more of the details, nuances, hows and whys becuase that is where much of the power of the methodology comes into play and that is what interests most people that attend, but that doesn’t change the basics.

The simple fact of the matter is if you sat through one of our seminars and still don’t “get it” then we failed you. Not sure how we did it…we don’t duck any questions, we don’t get to take breaks during the breaks since we are always talking with attendees that have questions, I’ve been known to have one-on-one’s with students that aren’t getting it outside during the workshop, and we stay after the meeting (as late as 10:00 in the past) talking to students after the workshops. Do me this favor…rather than resigning yourself to not understanding it call me at your convenience on our nickel (800.207.4273) and I’ll do everything in my power to see you can never tell anyone you don’t understand the PACTrust ever again.

Re: Help me out here… - Posted by JohnBoy

Posted by JohnBoy on December 11, 2000 at 01:38:53:

“”“except under a PACTrust you have the property retain a portion of the beneficial interest so you do not have a DOS violation.”""

Did you mean “property” or mean to say the “seller/owner”?

The part I’m still confused about on this part is the DOS clause states if ANY portion of the owners beneficial interest of a trust is transfered it is a violation of the DOS clause. I know Bill explained this once before and if memory serves me correctly, I think it had something to do with personality?

Sorry Bill, but WHEN are you going to break yourself away from the west coast and get it together over here with one of these seminars for us midwest folks???

Answers - Posted by Trust Man John

Posted by Trust Man John on December 10, 2000 at 23:46:49:

It was just confusing to me and intimidating as well. Bill had certain individuals in the class that seemed to be more up on investing than a newbie like myself and was making them the examples in all discussion. He was directing the questions to them and they were quick to the draw with answers and Bill was saying how smart the group was! Well yeah! those guys were, and for anewbie like myself to be among that is good but it makes it hard for us to ask questions that these smart guys think are so easy to answer.

Bottom line, I just felt intimidated in the class and afraid to ask the questions I needed answers to. I’d love to take you up on your offer to consult, but don’t want to reveal myself for fear of humilliation.

I do understand the trust agreement as mentioned earlier and will utilize that for now. Perhaps I can continue to read the posts here and learn more. I can then attend the seminar later on and with more knowledge feel more comfortable with it.

Thanks again and God Bless you all at Cal Equity especially Mr Gatten.

Yep… - Posted by Jim Pasquini

Posted by Jim Pasquini on December 11, 2000 at 10:18:14:

Meant to say the seller. Guess I need to add the computer to things like heavy machinery that are on the list of things I need to avoid operating when I return from a long workshop weekend.

Your confusion is still caused by a terrible malady you are afflicted with, cognitive rigidity. It can be cured so all hope is not lost. With any luck we’ll be able to hold a telethon this year to get the funds we need to really go about stamping it out. :slight_smile:

You could be referring to one of two DOS clauses so I’ll run through them both.

One of them will follow this with “and if borrower is not a natural person” they can accelerate. Problem is most people that take out loans ARE natural people. The only time this clause would come into play is if the original loan was made to a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc.

The other starts out by saying “If permitted by applicable law, and with the prior approval of the secretary”. The fact is it ISN’T permitted by applicable law. Under Garn-St.Germain you are permitted to put your property into a land trust as long as the buyer is and remains “A” beneficiary. That “a” is the million dollar indefinite article.

Bill does get away from the West Coast, as long as he gets to bring his favorite teddy bear. As far as coming to the Midwest that is a pretty broad definition. You may have to spell it out a little more clearly for me. I don’t see us heading to Keokuk, Iowa anytime soon, but there is at least reasonable certainty we will be setting something up for Chicago next year.