Flip

W

WebBoard

Guest
From: Mike .


Interesting read
From: The Wife
Date: 7/21/00
Time: 9:24:55 PM

Howdy All!, saw this posted elsewhere, thought I might bring it back over here for all to look at, if theres some sorta copyright, none of you know me ok!

....................................................................................

Hi there...

I think you have the ratio worked out OK, but let's work through one to be sure!

Let's say I'm interested in a house that rents for $140 per week, so the max I'm willing to pay is $70,000.

What we do is flip them (houses), selling them at 20% above our cost plus if they (next buyer) get finance from us it's +2% on our cost of finance.

We sell the house to them for $84,000 and finance it back to them at our rate +2%. We need a 20% deposit (or $14,000) and we receive back 20% deposit ($16,800). Their repayments are based on $67,200, ours is based on $56,000. This, together with the 2% differential provides a +ve cash return for the period of the loan.

Some houses are straight rentals too. We picked up one the other week for $42,000 which rents for $140 per week.

The average house provides a positive net cash flow of about $50 per week (allowing for all expenses and a vacancy factor of four weeks a year).

I was working on a rough rule of thumb that has worked for us. It's a good way to eliminate a lot of properties that won't meet the criteria straight away.

......................................................................................

Howdy Again, Of course good common sense is needed, you would want to buy something brick, something thats not going to be resumed by the local government for whatever reason ( unless they pay well), something that has been 'okay' maintained, near transport...you know, the usuall stuff, and what about Lease/options??...i think they are pretty good. Its good to have some long term investments, but i want some money now as well, to do other things with, besides, an income producing property is such a bonus , your borrowing power just JUMPS!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pierre

Reply: 1
From: Mike .


Re: Interesting read
From: Pierre
Date: 7/21/00
Time: 10:05:59 PM

Love that 17% odd return!! I also have my eye on a property that I can get for $35000 renting for $110 pw (currently tenanted) - 16.34% yield. Catch is of course, it's in country Victoria. In fact, you can get loads of these kinds of properties in the country - I found a heap on the net in Glen Innes, and other NSW country towns - all aound $40000 odd, renting for $100 - $150.

So, question is, is it worth buying in the country? Great yield, pretty crappy growth, questionable vacancy rate.

Where was the $42000 property? Let me guess - being a Canberra-ite, I reckon Queenbeyan.

Please TW, share your thoughts ....

Pierre
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jane P

Reply: 1.1
From: Mike .


Re: Interesting read
From: Jane P
Date: 7/22/00
Time: 8:01:15 AM

I was going to say - great yield but poor CG. But, hey, if you're just wanting positive cashflow to fund something else, what better way?? I'm thinking this would fund further IP purchases, allow you to get out of the rat race, etc. etc. I don't think it's such a bad idea especially if the capital outlay is only $45K-ish. Depending on how long you had the property (assumming long term) you could actually calculate the return on investment from that and the additional investments this would fund. What do you think??

Cheers Jane P
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pierre

Reply: 1.1.1
From: Mike .


Re: Interesting read
From: Pierre
Date: 7/22/00
Time: 10:38:49 AM

One thing I was thinking was that on a very cheap property with such a high yield, it may actually pay to pay off P&I. If the property was paid off quick smart, it would simply become a nice little earner.

Tax deductions aren't everything!

Pierre
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Red

Reply: 1.1.1.1
From: Mike .


Re: Interesting read
From: RED
Date: 7/23/00
Time: 7:18:05 PM

What we do is flip them???, selling them at 20% above our cost plus if they get finance from us it's +2% on our cost of finance.

We sell the house to them for $84,000 and finance it back to them???? at our rate +2%. We need a 20% deposit (or $14,000) and we receive back 20% deposit ($16,800). Their repayments are based on $67,200, ours is based on $56,000. This, together with the 2% differential provides a +ve cash return for the period of the loan.


Can some one please explain what is going on here?

Regards, Ross.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Les

Reply: 1.1.1.1.1
From: Mike .


Re: Interesting read
From: Les
Date: 7/23/00
Time: 10:31:56 PM

G'day Ross,

Seems to be too many "them"s in the story, eh?

Here is a rough translation:-

"What we do is flip them (buy and resell the houses), selling them at 20% above our cost, plus if they (the new buyers) get finance from us it's +2% on our cost of finance".

"We sell the house to them (the new buyers) for $84,000 and finance it back to them (the new buyers) at our rate +2%. We need a 20% deposit (or $14,000) and we receive back 20% deposit ($16,800). Their repayments are based on $67,200, ours is based on $56,000. This, together with the 2% differential provides a +ve cash return for the period of the loan".

Here, the investor is making finance available to buyers that can't get finance for themselves. For taking that risk, the investor is receiving an extra 2% on top of the current Interest that the Bank is charging him.

Hope that helps,

Regards, Les
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Red

Reply: 1.1.1.1.1.1
From: Mike .


Re: Interesting read. Thanks Les
From: Red
Date: 7/24/00
Time: 5:47:01 PM

Thanks Les, it makes sense now. It is always easier when you understand the jargon. It would be good if someone could post an exhaustive list that a novice like me could use.

Regards, Ross.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
G in Indo

Reply: 1.1.1.1.1.1.1
From: Mike .


Re: Interesting read
From: G in Indo - Addition to Les' comments
Date: 7/31/00
Time: 10:07:16 PM

The explanation of the flip I thought was a little light so I thought I might add a little (hope you don't mind Les). A flip is when you put a house under contract and then sell to another buyer before the closing. Both contracts then close at the same time, thus the title goes directly from the original seller to the final buyer without the person doing the flip taking title (ownership). Sometimes, I believe, it is done using only one contract, where the flipper assigns the contract to the new buyer. (Les, I can see why you didn't give too many details, the more I write the more I can think of to put)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Colin

Reply: 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
From: Mike .


Re: Interesting read. Are "flips" legal?
From: Colin
Date: 8/3/00
Time: 12:42:28 PM

Is doing a flip legal in Australia?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
G in Indo

Reply: 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
From: Mike .


Re: Interesting read. Are "flips" legal?
From: G in Indo
Date: 8/3/00
Time: 3:33:53 PM

As far as I know they are, have known a few people who have done it. Personally I have never done it, so check with a solicitor first.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top