Archive for the ‘Buying’ Category
Today, I’m going to try something new: Taking a look at a deal in one of our neighborhoods so that we can get a sense for what the numbers look like for the new owner.
So, let’s take a look at an East Hollywood duplex that sold yesterday. I should start out by saying I didn’t offer on the property and do not know the agents, the buyer or the seller. So I have no special information about anyones’ motives here. My intention is just to take a look at the deal from several different perspectives to see if I can figure out why the buyer chose to buy this particular property at this particular price.
Here is the headline information from the MLS and ZIMAS:
- List price: $549,000
- Sale price: $563,000 (so, above list)
- Two 2 bed / 1 bath bungalows totaling 1,443 sq ft
- 6,200 sq ft lot zoned RD1.5
- Rents of $851 and $557 (so, $16,896 / year)
And here are some ballpark estimates for the actual annual costs of ownership:
- Property tax: $563,000 x 1.25% = $7,037.50
- Insurance: $1,800
- Water/sewer: $1,200
- Gardener: $1,200
- Pest control: $550
- Repairs and maintenance: $1,800
So, my guess is that the total annual costs of owning the property are approx. $13,600.
Let’s take a look at this deal through a few different lenses in order to see if we can understand what the buyer was thinking.
Buy and hold investment deal
The first, and simplest way to think about this deal is as a buy and hold where the new owner is just hoping to sit there, collect the rent, pay the expenses and keep whatever is left over as a return on his money. For simplicity, let’s start by assuming the buyer pays all cash. Assuming the above numbers are correct, the owner pays $563,000 in cash and gets, in exchange, $16,900 (rents) – $13,600 (expenses) = $3,300 in net operating income.
Then, divide the $3,300 NOI by the purchase price of $563,000 to get your cap rate… or, on second thought, don’t because you’ll plotz (that’s Yiddish for “drop dead”). All I’ll say is that, if you know anyone who’s interested in investing $563,000 of their hard-earned money in exchange for a return of 0.5% annual, please send them my way.
Probably someone reading is thinking “Ah, but what if you borrowed the money, rather than paying cash”? Well, that’s even worse. Say the buyer borrowed 75% of the purchase price ($422,250) at 4.25% fixed for 30 years. His mortgage payment is 2,077 / month, or $24,924 / year. Of course, he’s getting $3,300 in NOI, so his actual annual cashflow is only $-21,624. Another way of saying that is: For the pleasure of investing $140,750 of his cash, he gets the right to lose $21,624 in the first year. Again, not something I’d recommend!
Ok, but some of you are thinking, what about if the owner intends to move into one of the units? Does that make this a reasonable deal? Let’s see…
Owner-occupier needs to live in the property, so will have to relocate one of the two tenants. Because both tenants live in similarly sized 2/1 bed units, the city will force the owner to bump the tenant who moved in more recently, which is presumably the one paying $851. The cost of doing so will be around $15k, plus whatever the new owner wants to spend fixing up the unit for him/her to live in.
Let’s assume the new owner buys with a mortgage, because no owner-occupiers buy beat-up duplexes all cash… people that rich don’t live in beat-up duplexes!
What do the numbers look like? Well, the annual expenses are still $13,600. The rent from the remaining occupied unit is $557 x 12 = $6,684. That means the new owner will have to cover $13,600-6,684 = $6,916 / year in expenses out of pocket, or $576 / month. But there’s also the mortgage to consider… which is going to be $2,077 / month.
So, our new owner-occupier would be putting down $140,750 plus $14k for the tenant relocation plus, say $15k for renovations to the unit, for a total of $169,750 for the privilege of paying $2653 / month to live in an apartment which he could probably just rent for $2200. That, friends, is a terrible deal.
Maybe our buyer is a developer. Maybe he doesn’t care about the existing rents or structures and is instead going to build something new on the lot.
Here’s what he’s thinking:
- 6200 sq ft lot
- RD1.5, meaning 1,500 sq ft / dwelling
- So, 6200 / 1500 = 4 dwelling units (you always round down with zoning calcs like this)
- That’s [$563,000 + ($18,600 x 2)] / 4 = $150,000 per unit of developable land (the $18,600 is what you’d have to pay to reloc each tenant under the Ellis Act)
The simplest way to go would be to try to build four 800 sq ft apartments. At, say, $200 / sq ft to build, that’s 800 x $200 = $160k / unit in construction costs.
$160k construction plus $150k in land costs = $310k / unit. Assuming rent of $2500 (brand new construction) x 12 months = $30,000 annual rent for each unit, that’s a GRM of $310k / $30k = 10x… decent, but really not anywhere near good enough to justify the hassle.
Hopefully, it’s clear from the above that the buyer is not a buy and hold investor, an owner-occupier, or a developer. He must have more creative plans for the property… perhaps he plans to steal a page from Moses’ book and reposition the property.
Maybe he’s thinking:
- Buy for $563k
- Relocate the tenants for, say, $40k total (unlikely, but possible)
- Renovate for $100k ($50k / unit is cheap for separate structures)
- All in for $703k (this assumes it’s his money and that he doesn’t need to pay interest on it)
So, what’s the thing worth? Well, maybe he gets $2400 / month in rent / unit. That’s possible if he does a good job. $2400 x 2 units x 12 months = $57,600 / year in rent. Do we have a home-run on our hands? Well, the yield is now $57,600 (rent) – $15k in expenses (up a bit, because prop tax and insurance will be higher in this scenario) = $42,600 / year in NOI. That’s an unlevered return of $42,600 / $703,000 = 6%. Not bad, but, again, not really worth the work
And, unfortunately, the deal’s not flippable. With $57,600 in rent, even at 12x (a stretch with the rents maxed), you’re exiting at a price of $691,000, less than you put into the property (and that’s before paying brokers, transfer taxes, etc.)
Again, I don’t know the people who did this deal. It’s totally possible that they know something about this property that I don’t. But unless it’s sitting on an oil field or something, I can’t, for the life of me, figure out what the buyer was thinking. Any ideas?
Not to beat a dead horse, but:
We have a reasonably interesting, off-market 4plex deal that we’re going to send out tomorrow.
It’s not going to set anyone’s world on fire, but we think it’s a worthwhile project for someone who likes Silver Lake and is willing to do some work to add value.
And the end result would be a fully-renovated building in an area which is already great and still improving rapidly at a material discount to the cost of just buying something similar on the open market.
If this is the kind of deal you’re interested in seeing, do everyone a favor and join the mailing list.
If you’re at all active in real estate, your email account is spammed daily by brokers announcing the closings of their latest deals.
Why do they do this?
Because doing so:
- Shows everyone in the market how active the broker is
- Keeps the brokers’ name in front of potential clients, increasing the chances potential clients call them when it’s time to buy or sell
Seems reasonable, right? So why doesn’t Adaptive send out these kinds of emails?
It’s pretty simple, really. We are primarily in the business of placing capital in specific neighborhoods. In order to do this effectively, we spend a ton of time thinking about acquisition prices, rehab prices, and achievable rents. When we find a neighborhood that works, we and our clients want to buy as much fairly-priced product in that neighborhood as possible.
If we sent out emails every time we closed deals, anyone with a brain could figure out what neighborhoods we like and then just piggy-back on our hard work / insight to compete with us.
So, yes, Adaptive closed a bunch of deals last week. But no, we won’t announce the addresses or deal sizes. Because we don’t want you to compete with us / our clients.
When you make an offer on a building, what you’re really saying to the owner is: “Please give me the exclusive right to consider buying your building at this price for the next 21 (or 30 or 60) days.”
For an owner to accept, she needs to be ok with your price and, crucially, as confident as she can be that you have the intention and ability to deliver your price. Otherwise, she has to worry that you’re going to tie-up her building, waste her time, and then not have the dough to close.
In order to give the owner confidence, the listing broker will usually insist on seeing “proof of funds” from the buyer.
The proof of funds is typically a bank statement or something similar showing liquid assets (cash, stocks or bonds) at least equal to the amount of cash the buyer requires to close the transaction. In other words, if you’re offering $1MM for the building with 30% down, the listing broker is going to want to see at least $300k in liquid assets before allowing the seller to accept the offer.
The above is totally fine for rich people, but it creates some real hassle for money managers like me. Why?
I use other peoples’ money to make deals. In order to get the ability to use that money, I usually need to offer a preferred return on it. I say something like “If you give me your money, then I will give you a 5% (or 6% or 7%, whatever) return on the money for the time I have it (plus upside, obviously), before I get to take any of the profits.”
Can you see how this creates a problem for me?
If I get $2.5MM committed on a fund, I have zero interest in calling it down from the investors until I have something to buy. Otherwise, I’m sitting there with $2.5MM in a 0% checking account and accruing $10,416 / month in preferred return (assuming a 5% pref) which I will owe my investors before I see a dime of profits.
So, because I refuse to call money down until I’m confident I’m going to close on a deal, I always end up in these annoying conversations with listing brokers, where I need to convince them that I actually have the money and they think I’m full of it.
What’s especially annoying about this problem is that, of all the potential buyers with whom they might go under contract, I’m nearly always the one most likely to close on the terms I’m offering, because:
- I’ve done a million deals, so I know before I make an offer what I’m going to do with the building and how much it’s going to cost;
- Because I’m going to renovate, I don’t care that much about the physical condition of the building (so I’m not going to ask for a price reduction because the light switches don’t work); and
- Because I do so many deals in such a small area, I try as hard as I possibly can not to chip price, ever… because getting a reputation for doing this is a sure way not to be able to do any more deals going forward
Compared to your typical lawyer or doctor who has $2.5MM sitting there in cash and does a deal every 2-3 years, I’m far, far more likely to actually close.
The good news is that, because we close almost every single time, over time, more and more brokers are seeing that we’re serious. And the second time around, they trust that we’re going to do what we say we’re going to do.
(Obligatory legalese: This post is not a solicitation of investment or an offer to sell any security.)
Most people think that the way to get ahead is to get a job and work hard.
Their salary goes up a bit.
They save a little money.
They immediately go buy a house with the biggest mortgage they can get.
They think the loan is against the house, but really it’s a loan against THEM.
Now they’re stuck working harder and harder to keep up with the payments.
God forbid they lose their job(s)… bye bye house / credit / etc.
Even if they keep their job, they’re stuck working in it for decades to service that big loan.
They levered up to the hilt to buy an asset with negative cashflow which is likely to appreciate only a bit faster than inflation.
Bottom line: That’s a recipe for being financially dependent forever. There is definitely, 100% a better way of doing things.
Sometimes clients ask me why we’re so focused on Northeast LA (Silver Lake, Echo Park, Highland Park, etc.). After all, LA is a big place and there are plenty of other places to buy apartment buildings. So why the focus on the hipster areas?
Hint: It ain’t because we love asymmetrical haircuts, beards and artisanal pickles.
Regular readers know I would do deals on the moon if the numbers made sense.
The reason we focus on those key areas of NELA is because that’s where the money is!
There are still plenty of owners who have run-down buildings which they stopped maintaining years ago.
When those owners get sick of running slum buildings or pass away and leave them to their children, we have the opportunity to buy them, fix them up (a lot!), and charge rents sufficiently high to make the whole thing worthwhile.
I’m constantly on the lookout for more areas where our model works (using this equation), but for right now, NELA is where it’s at.
Back in the 1980s, Japanese companies flush with cash acquired a ton of office buildings (and maybe hotels, too?) in LA at very high prices.
In the recession of the early-to-mid-1990s, they got their asses handed to them.
Now, there is a wave of Chinese developers flush with cash buying up office buildings, hotels, and development projects in LA.
But there is a ton of apartment / condo / hotel product getting built right now, especially downtown, where many of the target properties are located.
The question these developers need to ask themselves is pretty simple: Will the current cycle persist long enough for the market to absorb all this new product?
I’m not ready to say that the Chinese money is going to get crushed the way the Japanese money did.
But I’m not sure I’d be making the bets they’re making.
As prices continue to rise for the kind of beat-up, badly managed assets that are our bread-and-butter, we are spending more time looking at new neighborhoods.
Am I going to tell you which ones I’m focusing on? No, because a bunch of people who compete with me read this blog.
But I will share with you the way that I think about these things.
There is an equation that underpins our whole business: (rent – operating expenses) / (acquisition price + rehab) = yield
1. The cost of renovating a building doesn’t change much, no matter where you do it. No one charges you less for washer / dryers because you’re putting them in Compton, or more for ACs because you’re putting them in Beverly Hills.
2. The operating expenses don’t change much, no matter where in the city you are. You pay roughly the same amount for property taxes, water, management, repairs, etc. wherever your building is.
Given that your rehab and operating expense stay proportionately the same, what does move around?
1. The acquisition price of the building. Obviously, in the equation above, the lower the acquisition price, the smaller the denominator, and the higher the yield (all things being equal).
2. The rents. The higher the rents, the larger the numerator, and therefore the higher the yield (again, all things being equal).
What does all of this mean? Because all the stuff in the middle (the capex and the opex) doesn’t change much, you need to look for neighborhoods where you can buy cheap and rent expensive. Those are the areas where you ought to be able to generate excess yields.
The trick, of course, is to distinguish a truly improving neighborhood (one where you can buy cheap but rent dear) from a dumpy one (where you can buy cheap but can’t get the rents to work).
One couple, two incomes.
Live on one, save the other.
Buy first 4plex FHA.
Live in one unit, accelerating savings.
Accumulate downpayment for building #2.
Buy building #2 with 25% down.
Resist temptation to increase spending; saving accelerates due to income from building #2.
Buy building #3.
Assuming we’re talking about 4plexes that cost in the range of $800-900k, repeating the above strategy four times results in you retiring with $3+MM (maybe much more, depending on how good the deals were) in equity in today’s dollars 30 years from now.
I spend a lot of time on this blog talking about preventing bad things from happening on deals.
That’s what due diligence is all about: Trying to identify all of the things that could potentially go wrong on a deal and then either ensuring they do not or else planning to mitigate the negative consequences.
But sometimes deals surprise on the upside.
What do I mean by that? Sometimes you inspect and find out the units have more potential than you thought. Sometimes you find that rent controlled units you thought were occupied are, in fact, vacant. Sometimes the electrical was upgraded with permits, saving you from having to do it yourself. And so on.
The thing is, you never get to benefit from these positive surprises if you don’t make offers, get into escrow and see.
Now, I’m not advocating tying up deals that are way off working in hopes that something amazing will come to light that will save you. That’s unrealistic, because the likelihood of a material upside surprise is pretty low.
But, if a deal is on the margin, there is often something to be gained by being aggressive and getting control of the deal.
Sometimes, you find out that what was marginal is actually pretty sweet.