When Doing a Sub2, Is the Purchase Price Important on an Underwater Home?

If I am looking to do a deal on a Sub2 that I may want to assign to another buyer, and the value of the home is less than the balance of the mortgage, what should be the purchase price? Can it be set at a discount to the market value of the property? going to the extreme, can it be set to a very low amount in order to reduce the transfer taxes when the deed is recorded? I understand that if it is to be purchase as an investment property, a low price will increase the capital gains taxes that a buyer would face when he resells it. But for a typical residential home, what are the pricing strategies that are used?

Thanks!

Those are great questions…!

Not every house should be purchased sub2 just because you can.

Frankly, I do buy and resell underwater houses. However, I don’t recommend this, until you’ve got three or four solid deals under your belt, so that you know what to look for; what buyers will buy; how long it takes to sell, etc. Otherwise, you might be surprised how long it takes to market an underwater house for any appreciable amount of money up front.

If a seller has 10% equity in his house, realistically speaking, he “realistically” has zero equity in his house. If he sells it conventionally, the agent fees and closing costs will eat up every dime of that equity… and if he has to drop the price for a quicker sale, he might have to come out of pocket to get his house sold using an agent. That’s why so many sellers decide they’ll try FSBO’ing (for sale by owner’ing) their house instead. They simply need a sale, but can’t pay the agent.

Well, imagine finding a seller that is completely threatened by the idea of selling themselves. Imagine coupling that with one or two failed escrows, and a job offer out of state… You’ve got a motivated seller. And they’ll really get excited when they find out you’ll take over their payments, protect their credit, and not have to pay anything out of pocket to make it all happen… And (drum roll) you offer them two or three thousand to move out! Yes, you could offer them nothing, and I do, but sometimes the deal is good enough to actually pay the seller to move out, and this tips the scales in your favor, if its a decision to stay and save moving money, or get out of Dodge in two weeks.

Meantime, buying at 10% below retail is NOT hard whatsoever. However, finding that gem is the issue. Buying at 10% under retail, is effectively buying a house with zero equity. If you had to sell using an agent, you would be in the same boat as the original seller.

In this case, you’re simply assuming the seller’s equity position, but using a sophisticated method to reselling to actually make money, and solve the original seller’s “liquidation” problem.

I mark up the price about 10% over retail regardless of the other financing issues. However, the underlying loan terms have GOT to be marketable. You dont’ want to Sub2 properties with loans that “explode” since you don’t know for sure if you’ll have the loans paid off in a certain time frame, or not. Sometimes we sell a house a couple of times before a buyer finally pays us off. That could mean a four or five year stint with a given property. That also means we collected multiple down payments in the $10 to $15k range ($30,000!).

In my experience, the attractiveness/location of the house is the primary concern; the payment/financing is next, and finally the price is last (when selling). If it’s affordable, even the buyers that are wary of the price, will still pull the trigger …if the neighborhood and houses are attractive enough. Hope springs eternal that they can get a loan. Since we hold title, we can offer financing for as long as it takes for the price to match the market. That’s the fantastic flexibility we have as sub2 investors.

Meanwhile, to answer your question about price more specifically, we’ve sold houses that were literally priced at 20% over retail. The houses were REALLY nice and the payment seemed good by comparison. One home WAS older, but it had granite counters, stainless appliances, a 180 view of the valley, RV parking, storage, and the den looked like it as from a cabin in the woods with vaulted wood, open beam ceilings, and wood/gas fireplace and deep, natural-wood, raised paneling …and it was situated out of view of neighbors. Just a gem.

You don’t need to lie about the price. Just pay the transfer taxes and take the money from your new buyer’s down payments. It’s the cost of doing business in the freest country in the world. Don’t muck up your deals with nickel and dime short cuts.

Thanks for the nice reply. However, I don’t think my main question got answered, that being what is the actual purchase price you put on the agreement? Is it the balance of the mortgage, is it the estimated market value, or something else?

Thanks

Whoops. You list the purchase price, or whatever the total of the loan(s) and equity you are agreeing to pay the seller.

If you are taking over a loan, and not giving the seller any equity, or moving money, or anything, then the sale price is the loan balance as of the day of closing. That figure will be different from the original loan balance, which is irrelevant to the sale price, since the loan will probably have been paid down a few hundred/thousand dollars.

Meantime, when you record the Deed, the transfer amount should reflect the sale price. Current loan balance(s) plus any/all equity.

I’m not understanding the question if this doesn’t help.

Javipa is correct on all counts, however I believe Joe is asking what is the sales price when selling the sub2. I may be wrong.

If that’s what you’re asking Joe, well Javipa actually answered that as well…you sell it for whatever the market will bear. If it’s a great house in a great neighborhood and you’re selling it with no bank qualifying then you can certainly sell that house for more than market value. Market value is what a buyer who has bank financing will pay…you’re making it easy to buy (no bank qualifying) therefore the house IS worth more than market value to that buyer. So therefore you can sell it at a premium. So if someone is 100% financed you can still mark the sales price up and make money.

But you can’t get carried away here. If someone owes $200k on a $100k house it just won’t work sub2…period. This very situation is common all across the country as I type. No matter how beautiful the house is, no one in their right mind will pay that much unless they just don’t know any better. This is a deal you’ll probably want to refer to a short sale Realtor.

If you’re asking can you sell it sub2 for less than the seller owes on it, the answer is no. Example if the seller owes $120k and market value is $100k you can’t sell it for $100k. You gotta at least get the underlying loan covered in the sales price to the end buyer and remember you gotta make money somehow. There isn’t much opportunity to make any money in such a deal.

Long story short, if they owe more on the house than it’s worth, don’t try any type of sub2 until you REALLY know what you’re doing. Focus on people who are say, 90-95% financed or less.

Hi everyone,

Thanks for the clarification. Does anyone else have any confirmation of nsu’s reply on the purchase price? If the house is worth $200,000 and the loan balance is $240,000, then the purchase price must be at least $240,000? Why can’t you purchase it for market value, subject to the higher mortgage? The main reason I ask this is that in PA, there is a transfer tax based on the sale price. In Philly, you can make that 4%. It would not make sense to pay the transfer tax on the artificial (old) value of the property, but instead, the new, lower market value.

Any other thoughts on this, or must the purchase price from the seller be at least the balance of the mortgage(s)?

  • Joe

Joe, I think you’re doing Sub2’s in the wrong state… :banghead

If you aren’t using the loan balance(s) to establish the minimum purchase price, then what would keep you from stating that the property was a “gift?” If that happened, the tax assessor would assume the tax value has stayed the same as it was before, and would still want the transfer taxed based on the FMV, correct?

Then you have the IRS to think about. If you set a low price, what are you going to set the resale price at? If there’s a big disparity between what you technically/legally purchased the house for and what you technically/legally resold the house for, you’re could to incur a HUGE capital gains tax liability (also influenced by the way the title is held, of course).

I would just set the price at the loan balance and pay the transfer tax. This way, you’re not looking over your shoulder in fear of a shoe dropping in the night. Keep it straight forward and legal.

BTW, you figure in all these costs at the get-got, so that you can determine if this is a deal worth doing or not.

If this isn’t just the most beautiful home of all homes with lots of extras and special appointments, I would stay away from it. Otherwise, you’re gonna have the hardest time reselling it.

To answer your original question… Yes, underwater homes are usually a disaster to contract on, unless there is some extreme upside to the property for both you AND the end/user buyer to realize.

Otherwise, there’s too many deals to be had on properties with at least “some equity.” And there’s a TON of seller financing competition in the market right now.

All the answers here are excellent advice, I would submit one more thought to this process.

In the sub2 world all things are negotiable, so with that being the case, why dont you ask the seller to split the difference between MV and the loan balance with you? They most likley will say they cant cover a cash outlay of that amount, so then offer to get them to lower the monthly payment to them. In other words you agree to a monthly of 1500.00 and now because your going to split the amount they are underwater, they now need to accept an 1100.00 payment for the next 3-4 years instead.

This saves their credit, and allows them to move on and buy another house that is at todays pricing…you save them a lot of sleepless nights…oh and if instead they defaulted on this debt, they would then have to pay the IRS based on the deficiency that lender had as if it were 1099 income. Personally who would they rather owe money to…you or the IRS?

Get negotiating!!!