Discussion
drainbrain said:
Someone please explain to Mr Theory how property sourcing works.
Instantaneously? Even faster sometimes. How's THAT done? lol! (it's a secret, but I'll share if you ask nicely).
More personal snipes. How dull.Instantaneously? Even faster sometimes. How's THAT done? lol! (it's a secret, but I'll share if you ask nicely).
Your claims don't make sense and don't address the OP's requirements.
sidicks said:
drainbrain said:
Tell me, in your thoretical experience do you ever think about a property managing sourcer who's disposing of a property for an existing client who may well make no charge to the buyer on condition that they retain it's management at 10% (and may also charge the seller for the disposal)?
Given that (according to you) there's numerous people desperately waiting to purchase this property, why would they need to do this?sidicks said:
drainbrain said:
Someone please explain to Mr Theory how property sourcing works.
Instantaneously? Even faster sometimes. How's THAT done? lol! (it's a secret, but I'll share if you ask nicely).
More personal snipes. How dull.Instantaneously? Even faster sometimes. How's THAT done? lol! (it's a secret, but I'll share if you ask nicely).
Your claims don't make sense and don't address the OP's requirements.
drainbrain said:
walm said:
What's so wonderful about these people is that they do it for free too.
Tell me, in your thoretical experience do you ever think about a property managing sourcer who's disposing of a property for an existing client who may well make no charge to the buyer on condition that they retain it's management at 10% (and may also charge the seller for the disposal)?What, in theory, would that cost the buyer?
drainbrain said:
Would someone please explain to Mr Theory how 'business' works?
Apparently it has zero transaction costs, assets only go one way and don't forget you can get a 10% ROI risk free.That's how business works in the real world.
Today and forever more.
Here endeth the lesson.
Thanks for schooling us all drainbrain with your decades of experience, I really feel like my decades of experience investing in multiple asset classes was a total waste.
walm said:
drainbrain said:
walm said:
What's so wonderful about these people is that they do it for free too.
Tell me, in your thoretical experience do you ever think about a property managing sourcer who's disposing of a property for an existing client who may well make no charge to the buyer on condition that they retain it's management at 10% (and may also charge the seller for the disposal)?What, in theory, would that cost the buyer?
Claro?
drainbrain said:
walm said:
drainbrain said:
walm said:
What's so wonderful about these people is that they do it for free too.
Tell me, in your thoretical experience do you ever think about a property managing sourcer who's disposing of a property for an existing client who may well make no charge to the buyer on condition that they retain it's management at 10% (and may also charge the seller for the disposal)?What, in theory, would that cost the buyer?
Claro?
Given that an investor has to be both - the relevant question is do the sourcers do it for nothing?
Capisce?
walm said:
Apparently it has zero transaction costs, assets only go one way and don't forget you can get a 10% ROI risk free.
That's how business works in the real world.
Today and forever more.
Here endeth the lesson.
Thanks for schooling us all drainbrain with your decades of experience, I really feel like my decades of experience investing in multiple asset classes was a total waste.
Y'know, that's (total waste) not impossible by any means. Some people spend a lifetime doing something without really understanding it. But this isn't fair, because you really haven't ever been involved in any business at all, have you? So it's unsurprising that you haven't the foggiest idea of all the possible manners and permutations available to the sourcer. That's how business works in the real world.
Today and forever more.
Here endeth the lesson.
Thanks for schooling us all drainbrain with your decades of experience, I really feel like my decades of experience investing in multiple asset classes was a total waste.
I quite like sourcers. They'll always make a deal. Very pure business.
walm said:
So he "may" charge the seller or the buyer.
Given that an investor has to be both - the relevant question is do the sourcers do it for nothing?
Capisce?
Yeah, yeah….you're getting it! Given that an investor has to be both - the relevant question is do the sourcers do it for nothing?
Capisce?
He may charge one, or both, or neither. Different circumstances different deal! He's a sourcer/manager. There are many.
He may do the business just to retain the management. Or to finesse subsequent business. Or even as a favour, or thank you. Or this or that or the next thing. Not really hard to grasp, is it?
In btl an investor doesn't have to be both. Some want in with no exit plan, or realistic plan because the exit is foreseen as too far away in time. For many, freeing the capital doesn't require liquidating the asset. etc etc etc
Should I be charging for this?
Next, how do you sell a property before it's even on sale? Coincidentally I was involved in one of these today.
walm said:
No. Never.
All that time my team was parachuted in to rescue businesses going down the crapper wasn't an "involvement".
We just theorised from the sidelines, you're right.
Kind of flibber flabber that banks do when it dawns on them their risk assessments weren't quite as good in practice as they were in theory…...
walm said:
drainbrain said:
In btl an investor doesn't have to be both. Some want in with no exit plan...
Should I be charging for this?
Yeah - it's gold, Jerry, gold.Should I be charging for this?
"No exit plan."
"10% risk free."
"Zero transaction costs."
It's all so wonderful in the real world.
I wish I lived there.
10% and risk free, other than fanciful risks. Easy to do. Such property available on the mainstream market never mind off market where 100% yield to cost is achievable. Of course, that's fantasy, isn't it?
Zero sourcing cost may well be available under all kinds of circumstances.
And it's not always wonderful in the real world, but it's certainly not always a nightmare either.
If you want to live in the real world of business - and it's a great experience in so many ways - you don't have to wish for it, you just do it. Millions upon millions do it. Including in the financial industry.
At the point where you've handed in your notice and about to start carrying financial risk (which is, in simplification, that you'll make insufficient profit) you will realise at that moment that all your risk assessment is theoretical and in your opinion. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Why a self-proclaimed risk assessment guru shouldn't do this I cannot even imagine. Have a bit of confidence in your theories. Give it a bash.
drainbrain said:
Yep that's right. No exit plan. 25 and 30 year olds buying btls which will never be sold. Dads buying them for infants to get when they're married (once, probably still, popular esp with asian community).No point in trying to plan something that won't happen for decades. And IF an exit is forced, then it's sell. Possibly bvm if it's a tricky property or a super fast sale is required. You are aware there is a (busy) bvm market are you not?
You are aware that the OP is asking about someone elderly who is looking for an income in retirement and wants easy access to cash?i.e. totally the opposite of the situation described above!
drainbrain said:
10% and risk free, other than fanciful risks. Easy to do. Such property available on the mainstream market never mind off market where 100% yield to cost is achievable. Of course, that's fantasy, isn't it?
Zero sourcing cost may well be available under all kinds of circumstances.
And it's not always wonderful in the real world, but it's certainly not always a nightmare either.
If you want to live in the real world of business - and it's a great experience in so many ways - you don't have to wish for it, you just do it. Millions upon millions do it. Including in the financial industry.
At the point where you've handed in your notice and about to start carrying financial risk (which is, in simplification, that you'll make insufficient profit) you will realise at that moment that all your risk assessment is theoretical and in your opinion. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Why a self-proclaimed risk assessment guru shouldn't do this I cannot even imagine. Have a bit of confidence in your theories. Give it a bash.
Demonstrating once again that you don't understand risk.Zero sourcing cost may well be available under all kinds of circumstances.
And it's not always wonderful in the real world, but it's certainly not always a nightmare either.
If you want to live in the real world of business - and it's a great experience in so many ways - you don't have to wish for it, you just do it. Millions upon millions do it. Including in the financial industry.
At the point where you've handed in your notice and about to start carrying financial risk (which is, in simplification, that you'll make insufficient profit) you will realise at that moment that all your risk assessment is theoretical and in your opinion. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Why a self-proclaimed risk assessment guru shouldn't do this I cannot even imagine. Have a bit of confidence in your theories. Give it a bash.
sidicks said:
Demonstrating once again that you don't understand risk.
Let's take this slowly, one step at a time.Assessing risk is something (almost) everyone does prior to commencing trading. Some less skilfully than others. Some formally and some informally (by just thinking it out). Or even unconsciously.
So:
Why might a business's principal want to understand risk? Quite possibly, though not necessarily, via a risk assessment as part of the business's financial plan?
Or, put another way, what fundamental business risk would he wish to avoid by trying to understand risk prior to even commencing operation?
I'm going to give you a hint here:
F_ _ L _ R _
Can you answer that straightforwardly?
drainbrain said:
Let's take this slowly, one step at a time.
Assessing risk is something (almost) everyone does prior to commencing trading. Some less skilfully than others. Some formally and some informally (by just thinking it out). Or even unconsciously.
So:
Why might a business's principal want to understand risk? Quite possibly, though not necessarily, via a risk assessment as part of the business's financial plan?
Or, put another way, what fundamental business risk would he wish to avoid by trying to understand risk prior to even commencing operation?
I'm going to give you a hint here:
F_ _ L _ R _
Can you answer that straightforwardly?
From a risk perspective, what has 'making insufficient profit' got to do wth the OP?Assessing risk is something (almost) everyone does prior to commencing trading. Some less skilfully than others. Some formally and some informally (by just thinking it out). Or even unconsciously.
So:
Why might a business's principal want to understand risk? Quite possibly, though not necessarily, via a risk assessment as part of the business's financial plan?
Or, put another way, what fundamental business risk would he wish to avoid by trying to understand risk prior to even commencing operation?
I'm going to give you a hint here:
F_ _ L _ R _
Can you answer that straightforwardly?
Making insufficient profit / income is probably the fundamental downside risk that the OP wants to avoid when enacting a strategy with his ma's cash.
And in my opinion, the overarching downside risk of entering any business is that it makes insufficient profit- aka fails.
Ok there are exceptions. Banks make losses but are not considered failures so loss making is not a risk to them. And there are modern business concepts such as the so-called 'unicorn' businesses which also make losses or at least don't make any profits, but are considered hugely successful and of huge value. I do not understand this but it is what I hear.
And in my opinion, the overarching downside risk of entering any business is that it makes insufficient profit- aka fails.
Ok there are exceptions. Banks make losses but are not considered failures so loss making is not a risk to them. And there are modern business concepts such as the so-called 'unicorn' businesses which also make losses or at least don't make any profits, but are considered hugely successful and of huge value. I do not understand this but it is what I hear.
drainbrain said:
Making insufficient profit / income is probably the fundamental downside risk that the OP wants to avoid when enacting a strategy with his ma's cash.
Profit and income are entirely different things - no wonder you are confused!drainbrain said:
And in my opinion, the overarching downside risk of entering any business is that it makes insufficient profit- aka fails.
Yes, but that's not the main concern of the OP.Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff