Note Buyer Interview With Americus Financial

We are pleased to bring you this Note Buyer interview with Mark Donoghue of Americus Financial Group, a national note buying company located in Spokane, WA.

What is the current focus of Americus Financial Group?

To maintain our reputation as the recognized leader in the purchasing of real estate notes nationwide. In addition, with our knowledge and experience we strive to assure that each transaction is fast, satisfying, and stress-free.

How did you get your start in the note business?

Buying and selling real estate in the mid 80’s. I was introduced to seller-financed real estate early in my real estate career and in 1988 was hired to purchase real estate receivables, structured settlements and lotteries for a multi-billion dollar financial services corporation until my departure in 2003 to start Americus Financial Group.

What unique benefits does your note buying company provide?

We do ALL our own underwriting, pay for ALL appraisals and we are the only investor to my knowledge that does not require the servicing to be released.

What type of notes or transactions will your company consider funding?

Each transaction (as long as it is secured by real estate) is reviewed based on the following criteria in order:

1. Equity
2. Seasoning
3. Collateral Type (SFR, Commercial, Land)
4. Credit

What type of note deals would just waste your time?

Simultaneous closings and “flips”

How do you handle commissions to note brokers or consultants?

They are paid at funding (when we close the transaction). Most fees are wired to our brokers.

What advice would you give to new professionals just starting out in the note industry?

This is a vocation/profession so treat as such – educate yourself and understand that you will ultimately be rewarded with the amount of time and effort you truly put into it.

What is the most common business mistake you see people make?

Requiring and gathering too much information from the note holder before they have the transaction even under contract.

Given the current economy, have you made any changes in the way you buy mortgage notes?

Yes we have –

• As noted above, we no longer purchase simultaneous closings or flips
• We require a minimum of 20% cash equity on most note purchases.

Where can someone contact you to obtain more information?

www.AmericusBuysNotes.com

Editor’s Note:  You can also view the Americus Financial Group listing in the current edition of the Note Buyers Directory for more details!  This updated directory is available for download in the Member’s area of the Finding Cash Flow Notes Training or can be found in the bookstore.

Note Business Holiday Giveaway

 

We Are Giving Away One Note Present Each Day For The Next 12 Days!

And there are TWO WAYS you can win… Read more

Note Buyer Convention by NoteWorthy Nov. 10-13, 2011

NoteWorthy is holding their 25th annual note buyer and note brokers convention November 10-13, 2011, in Las Vegas at the The Palms Casino and Resort!

The Noteworthy Convention Main Event is Friday-Sunday, November 11-13th

It offers three days of sessions focusing on building wealth and generating income with seller financing, distressed assets, creative real estate investing, private lending, and more. There will be expert panel discussions, Q&A sessions, introductions to key vendors, and networking events throughout.

They are currently offering Early Bird Registration for $399 until October 16th with several “Early Bird” Bonus Items:

1) The NoteWorthy Pre-Convention Workshop on Thursday, November 10th

A half-day workshop that runs from 1-5 pm will be taught by Note industry veterans. This ‘Making Money with Notes 101′ workshop is geared towards new note brokers or investors wanting a refresher course in the economic fundamentals of note buying.

 2) $477 in proprietary software for your note business

 3)  Discounts on additional spouse or partner tickets

The convention will focus on turning a down real estate market into a viable note business by harnessing the power of seller financing and private mortgage notes. We all know real estate investing in most markets is pretty tough right now. Here are just a few of the challenges:

• You can’t count on property appreciation anymore. In fact, most investors LOST equity in their properties over the past 3-5  years.

•  You can’t count on you (or your buyers) getting financed by the banks.

• Short sales flips are pretty much DOA.

• It’s tough to get private money for your deals.

We could go on and on, but we all know the challenges already, right?  After all, they are the reasons we are seeing seller financing making a huge comeback.

You can view the full NoteWorthy Convention Video here.

(Spoiler alert…..the secret niche is….the note business!)

Russ Dalbey Lawsuit FTC Update on Winning in the Cash Flow Business

People seeking refunds from the Russ Dalbey lawsuit may just have been scammed out of money by a different company, according to an update posted by the FTC.

(Editor’s Note: Information on the Dalbey Bankruptcy Chapter 7 Filing can be found in the update posted at the bottom of this article.)

Imagine feeling misled by an infomercial, attempting to get some money back, and losing even more hard earned dollars paid to a company claiming they could get you a refund.

Sadly, this is how the story unfolded.

Earlier this year the Federal Trade Commission and Colorado Attorney General filed a lawsuit charging Dalbey with defrauding consumers.  Feeling misled, some buyers of the “Find ‘Em, List ‘Em, and Make Money” system went in search of a refund.

Just take a look at the heartfelt comments left under the original article entitled Russ Dalbey’s Winning in the Cash Flow Business In FTC Lawsuit to see how angry and hurt many felt.

Next enters a company, RMI Associates, claiming they can help people get refunds from the Dalbey Eduction group, but first they need hundreds of dollars upfront.

This led the FTC to recently update their page on the Dalbey lawsuit with the following:

“A company named RMI Associates has been claiming it can help people get refunds from Dalbey, but first the company wants a fee of several hundred dollars. The FTC believes that this company is attempting to defraud you. Neither the FTC nor the Colorado Attorney General is working with any company. A Court has ordered RMI Associates to stop making claims that it is working with the FTC or that it has a track record of having obtained refunds for consumers.”  Source: FTC Website Update On Dalbey Lawsuit

The Colorado Attorney General also issued their own cash flow business scam alert:

PRESS RELEASE
Colorado Department of Law
Attorney General John W. Suthers

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 21, 2011

CONTACT
Mike Saccone, Communications Director
303-866-5632

ATTORNEY GENERAL ANNOUNCES ORDER BARRING DENVER COMPANY FROM CONTINUING CONSUMER-RESTITUTION SCAM

DENVER — Colorado Attorney General John Suthers announced today that his office has obtained an order barring Denver-based RMI Associates from providing consumers with assistance in filing a consumer complaint with the state for a fee. The court order also requires that RMI Associates refund any fees it has accepted from consumers to assist them in filing a complaint with the Office of the Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission.

The order follows an August lawsuit the state filed against RMI Associates alleging that the company claimed that in exchange for an upfront fee it could help victims recover their losses related to a federal consumer-protection lawsuit against Westminster-based Dalbey Education Institute, formerly known as American’s Note Network.

“This order underlines that consumers should never pay for a service they can obtain for free from the state,” Suthers said. “Any private business that claims a ‘special relationship’ with my office or any other state or federal consumer protection agency is misleading you. You should never pay a fee to file a consumer complaint with the state of Colorado.”

Consumers can file a complaint for free via the Office of the Attorney General’s Web site at www.coloradoattorneygeneral.gov/complaint. Consumer also can file complaints via 1-800-222-4444 or stop.fraud@state.co.us.

The Office of the Attorney General warned consumers about RMI Associates’ fraudulent services in early August after consumers began filing complaints against the company. Consumers should never contract with a company or pay any fees in order to get their complaint submitted to state or federal authorities.  Source: Colorado Attorney General Press Release

At the time of publishing this article there has not been a Court decision on the government’s lawsuit against Russ Dalbey and Winning in the Cash Flow Business. As additional information becomes available we will post updates for our readers and subscribers.

Update 12/1/11 – Dalbey Education Group Has Filed Bankruptcy

According to an article published November 16, 2011, by CBS Denver News the company owned by Russ Dalbey, Promoter of Winning in the Cash Flow Business, has filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.  Here are a couple of key points from the report:

• 308 People have filed complaints with the Colorado Attorney Generals office claiming the Dalbey cash flow business was a scam.
• Gross income for Dalbey Education Institute was around $62 million in 2009, $50 million in 2010, and $21 million this year (2011).
• Assets are normally sold to pay creditors in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy after which a company basically disappears.
• The State of Colorado in conjunction with the FTC continues to pursue restitution along with fines and fees feeling these claims are not dischargable.
• Complaints were still being accepted.

The full article entitled  Company That Promised to Help People Get Rich is Broker by CBS Denver News can be found here: Dalbey Bankruptcy Filing

 

Note Buyer Interview With Eddie Speed Founder of Note School

Join us as we sit down with Eddie Speed, founder of Note School and author of Streetwise Seller Financing, for this month’s Note Buyer Interview.

Eddie Speed of Colonial Funding Group has been buying and selling notes for over 30 years and has transacted more than 30,000 deals.

To know Eddie is to know a few of his “Eddie-isms”.

I still remember hearing one of his trademark sayings when first introduced back in the late 1980′s.  You see I was helping place funds for a large institutional investor on the West Coast and we’d just expanded into buying Notes in Texas. Unfamiliar with regional differences, our underwriters and legal team were requiring something unreasonable to get a deal funded. Read more

Owner Financing, Seller Financing, Dodd Frank, Safe Act, and You!

Tired of hearing about owner financing laws?

We share your pain.

First the Safe Act had a say on Seller Financing and then the Dodd Frank Act.

Why the government would want to slow the housing rebound further by putting stringent restrictions on seller financing – one of the few alternatives to bank financing available in today’s struggling economy- is beyond us.

And it’s not over yet.

Government agencies are still sorting through how to implement portions of the laws affecting both seller financing and lenders in general. The outcome will affect sellers that want to owner finance and when they want to “sell my note!”

Ric Thom, a long time note buyer and servicing agent, shares our concerns.  He recently wrote in to urge NoteInvestor.com readers to take action by commenting on proposed rules before an upcoming deadline. He’s spent considerable time researching the issues and you are sure to find his following thoughts insightful.

Owner Financing Laws – From the Desk of Ric Thom

The Federal Reserve is requesting comments on the proposed rule of the ability-to-repay.  NAR refers to it as Qualified Mortgage which appears on page 10 of the proposed rule.

This standard would be applied to seller financing.  It’s the same underwriting standards that banks are required to perform.  The bottom line is that the only people who will be able to use seller financing are the same people who would be able to qualify for conventional financing.

This rule also allows the buyer a three year right of rescission if the seller did not properly qualify them.  This right to rescission also applies to anyone who has bought the note.

Comments are due before or on July 22, 2011.  I have attached my comments.  Please get the word out.

I have also given a link to the National Association of Realtors (NAR) website which summarizes the final SAFE Act rule as it pertains to seller financing and a brief update on Dodd-Frank.

My Comments on the Dodd-Frank Act and Seller Financing

Submitted by Ric Thom President of Security Escrow Corporation

The Dodd-Frank Act does not exempt property owners who wish to use seller financing (installment sale) even though no money is lent, there is no table funding, and under the Truth and Lending Act they are not considered creditors.

The Dodd-Frank Act (ACT) does exempt property owners who offer seller financing from having to become Mortgage Loan Originators (MLO) provided they only sell 3 properties or less in a 12 month period and they follow the restrictions below. Yet, the Act subjects the property owner to the same liability as an MLO.

Title XIV Section 1401 (2) (E)

1. The seller did not construct the home to which the financing is being applied.

2. The loan is fully amortizing (no balloon mortgages allowed).

3. The seller determines in good faith and documents the buyer has a reasonable ability to repay the loan.

4. The loan has a fixed rate or is adjustable after 5 or more years, subject to reasonable annual and lifetime caps.

5. The loan meets other criteria set by the Federal Reserve Board.

Under this Act the only buyers who will be able to use seller financing are the buyers who can already qualify for conventional financing with perhaps the exception of how much of a down payment they need. Seller financing has always been the alternative to government regulated financing. It is a meeting of the minds between two private individuals who negotiate an arm’s length contract to purchase property using an installment sale.

The following is a breakdown of these restrictions. I listed them in order of greatest impact on property owners, buyers and the economy.

3. The seller determines in good faith and documents the buyer has a reasonable ability to repay the loan

The implication is that the seller must use the ability-to-repay underwriting requirements when offering seller financing consistent with the Dodd-Frank Act which amends the Truth in Lending Act. This new, proposed rule is 169 pages long. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-05-11/html/2011-9766.htm

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has spent a lot of energy developing a new, easy to read, two page mortgage disclosure form. It is unreasonable to expect sellers and buyers to fully understand and apply this 169 page rule. If buyer’s and seller’s negotiations deviate in the least the buyer has up to three years to rescind the sale and demand back all money paid to the seller, or anyone that the seller might have assigned rights and interest to, or any bank who takes the note as a collateral assignment.

This could be financially devastating to the seller. Let’s not forget that today’s buyer will be tomorrow’s seller. These sellers are a diverse group. They come from all walks of life: low income, high income, non-English speaking, seniors, widows, minorities but this requirement places the same standards on individuals as banks and mortgage lenders, only with more risk – the banker is in the business of mortgage loan origination and factors that risk into his business plan, whereas the individual seller does not have capital reserves and doesn’t do this as a business. Also, unlike a bank, they do not carry errors and omission insurance.

Unlike banks and mortgage lenders, both the buyer and seller are consumers. They should both be equally protected. The buyer is purchasing real property and the seller is investing in/creating a financial product where they receive their equity over time. The seller is relying on the buyer to make monthly payments and maintain and protect the property. Terms are not dictated to either party, but rather they are negotiated between the parties.

Requiring the buyer to turn over all their financial information to a stranger opens the door for Identification theft and fraud. Furthermore, why should the buyer be required to divulge their income and assets to the very person with whom they are negotiating the terms of a sale? This is not required when there is a 3rd party lender.

This also creates the opportunity for predatory borrowing. This is where an unscrupulous buyer knowledgeable about the Dodd-Frank Act leads an uninformed seller (and this will be the majority of sellers) into negotiations not in compliance with the ability-to-repay requirements. (An example of that could be a balloon, an interest rate greater than 1.49% above a standard mortgage, or the seller did not know how to calculate the income to debit ratio correctly, or know what residual income means). That buyer lives in the property trying to resell it for a profit and if they are not successful within three years they rescind the sale and get all their money back.

The SAFE Act does not put in place the ability to repay requirements, or any other requirements, unless the individual habitually and repeatedly uses seller financing in a commercial context. So there is some consistency between the two laws the Dodd-Frank Act should not require sellers to use the standard of the ability-to-repay unless they use seller financing more than three times in a 12 month period. It is HUD’s feeling that Congress never intended under the SAFE Act to restrict private property owners from using seller financing, unless they did it as a business.

2. The loan is fully amortizing (no balloon mortgages allowed).

There is a good chance that a seller 55 years or older will die before receiving all their equity by not allowing them to negotiate a balloon payment. A lot of seniors have invested in real property with the intent of selling it using seller financing (an installment sale) in order to supplement their income in retirement, but also with the hope that they would not be stuck with a 30 year investment. The Dodd-Frank Act does the same thing insurance companies do who sell 30 year annuities to seniors. Our government has criticized this deplorable practice because seniors will die before they receive all their investment.

The restriction of no balloon doesn’t affect just seniors, it has financial consequences for anyone using seller financing. Under the Dodd-Frank Act community banks are allowed to originate fully amortizing loans with a five year balloon. The rationale is that they hold these loans in their own portfolios and the government recognizes their need to hedge against inflation and rising interest rates. Yet, the Act refuses to recognize that private property owners who have 100% skin in the game need the same protection. Obviously the Act does not feel that a five year balloon is predatory lending. This restriction should not be placed on seller financing until a property owner sells more than three properties in a 12 month period. If there has to be a restriction it should at the very least be the same allowance given to community banks of a balloon in 5 years.

4. The loan has a fixed rate or is adjustable after 5 or more years, subject to reasonable annual and lifetime caps.

This restriction is reasonable, but it will eliminate the ability for any buyer to wrap an existing obligation that has an adjustable rate even if they feel they can afford any rate increase. Again, for consistency with the SAFE Act there should not be any restrictions on any property owner that uses seller financing 3 or fewer times in a 12 month period. If the seller does not know about the ability-to-repay requirements and that they are not able to have a balloon, they certainly will not know that you have to have a fixed interest rate for the first five years.

1. The seller did not construct the home to which the financing is being applied.

There are a lot of small builders that have a spec house or two that they can’t sell unless they offer great terms using seller financing. Otherwise they have to let these properties go back to the bank which does not help housing or the economy. There is also that group of out of work construction workers who built their own homes when times were good and now need to sell. This takes away their ability to use seller financing. Builders should not be subject to any restrictions unless they sell more than three properties in a 12 month period using seller financing. Builders are in the business of building; not of originating loans.

Using a mortgage loan originator to facilitate a seller financed transaction creates additional risk and expense for both the buyer and the seller.

It has been said that a seller financing the sale of his or her own property would completely avoid the issue of licensing by retaining the services of a licensed loan originator. If a mortgage loan originator (MLO) fails to properly follow the ability-to-repay guidelines the buyer still has three years in which to rescind the sale which leaves the seller at risk and will most likely bankrupt them. Furthermore, there is no provision in a MLO’s errors and omission insurance that covers seller financing. None of the continuing education classes or the exams that an MLO must complete has a single chapter or question regarding seller financing.

Who is supposed to pay the MLO? MLOs can charge a flat fee or up to 3% of the transaction. The only advertisements I have seen so far advertise a flat nonrefundable fee of $450. This fee has to be paid in advance, which makes sense because why would a MLO spend hours and hours on an installment sale transaction which might not close? If the buyer pays the fee, then this is a forced origination fee never before imposed on buyers seeking seller financing. Why should the buyer have to pay money just to have an offer presented to the seller? A lot of buyers use seller financing because they are low income and seller financing, up to now, has been an inexpensive way to purchase property. If the seller pays they will have to pay money for the simple act of the MLO forwarding them the installment sale offer. If the seller receives multiple offers this could easily run into thousands of dollars in MLO fees just to sell their property. A lot of sellers are also low income individuals. The MLO will have to be a part of every offer and counteroffer because the sale and terms of an installment sale are one and the same and cannot be separated. For instance, the buyer might be willing to pay a higher interest rate if the seller is willing to come down on the price and down payment. A lot of seller financing takes place in rural areas that are underserved by mortgage lenders and banks. It is going to be very difficult to find a MLO in those areas who are also willing to take the risk facilitating a seller financed transaction. This has the potential of pushing seller financing underground – not a desired result.

The Dodd-Frank Act allows a property owner to use seller financing without having to become a mortgage loan originator as long as they don’t use it more than three times in a 12 month period and comply with the above restrictions. In the SAFE Act there are no restrictions to the number of times seller financing can be used as long as you are not in the business of being a mortgage loan originator. The coauthor of the Dodd-Frank Act, Representative Barney Frank, sent a letter to HUD on July 22, 2010 urging them to place the maximum amount of seller transactions that an individual could do before becoming a MLO, or having other restrictions on them, at five in a 12 month period. I would propose that the Dodd-Frank Act adopt that same number and place no restrictions on seller financing until 5 is surpassed. The only restrictions that should apply to 5 or less are those restrictions that the States already impose either through state statute or case law.

Under The Act loan officers at community banks do not have to become a Mortgage Loan Originator if they originate 5 or less transactions in a 12 month period. The rationale is that this is burdensome, costly and there is not enough volume to create a systemic risk. Ma and Pa on Main Street should be granted those same allowances. The Act puts more restrictions and risk on Ma and Pa than it does on financial institutions.

In watching the debates in Congress last summer it was repeatedly said that the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Financial Protection Act would not negatively affect or over regulate Ma and Pa on Main Street. If this doesn’t negatively affect and regulate seniors, minorities, and lower income individuals on Main Street I don’t know what does. These restrictions will all but do away with seller financing which will have a negative impact on housing, existing property owners, those desiring to be property owners and the economy.

Related Articles on Owner Financing Laws From NoteInvestor.com

Dodd-Frank Hijacks Seller Financing

Safe Act and HR 4173 Update – Is it Good News for Seller Financing?

How HUD Safe Act Will Hurt Seller Financing

Russ Dalbey’s Winning in the Cash Flow Business In FTC Lawsuit

The FTC and Colorado Attorney General have filed a complaint against Russ Dalbey for allegedly defrauding consumers with his “Winning in the Cash Flow Business” system. You may have seen the TV infomercials with Dalbey claiming people could make big sums of money as a note broker in three easy steps… Find ‘Em, List ‘Em, and Make Money… in just minutes a day.

The claims were backed by testimonials from students that are also being questioned.  The courts are seeking an order to stop any misleading claims and obtain money for refunds.

The Truth About the Cash Flow Note Business

The cash flow business is like any other business.  It takes hard work, commitment, time, knowledge and a strong marketing plan to make money buying or referring notes.  For real answers and straight talk about the note business check out these articles:

Note Brokers: Guru Rhymes With Screw You
Note Brokers: How Much Money Will I Make in the Cash Flow Business?

Reading the recent FTC filings will likely make one think…“If it sounds too good to be true then it probably is!”

Excerpt from FTC Press Release on May 31, 2011 entitled:

FTC Charges Promissory Note Pitchman with Deceiving Consumers Read more

Selling Mortgage Notes – Mortgage Donation Or Write Off?

Someone wants to sell their mortgage note but they haven’t received payments for a year, are in second position, or facing foreclosure. They need help but what can be done?

Here is an option for non performing mortgage notes you might not have heard about…donating to charity.  Our guest author works with a non profit organization with a unique solution to defaulted notes.

(Editor’s Note: This article is not intended as legal or tax advice.  Please seek the assistance of a competent attorney and/or accountant for legal or tax advice.)

Selling Mortgage Notes – Is a Mortgage Donation Better Than a Write Off?

By Dr. Ken Rich

What do you do with a mortgage, promissory note or deed of trust when the debtor stops paying?

After the probabilities of payment in full and resell at a discount are exhausted – is it worthless? What if the property is worth less than the 1st mortgage? What if you’ve heard that the bank is foreclosing on their 1st? What’s going to happen to you?

There are still three options available to debt instrument holders: Read more

Do I Need a License To Be a Note Broker In CA?

This is a common question with a straight forward answer.  Earlier this week we responded to this email inquiry and we’d like to share our answer with readers!

Note Broker Question:

Hi, Can you please tell me if you need a license to be a note broker in Ca.?

Thanks, Marie

Note Buyer Answer:

Hello Marie!

Thanks for visiting NoteInvestor.com. While I am not an attorney (so unable to give legal advice), I’m happy to share with you my knowledge and resources.

California is one of the few states that have specific laws relating to note brokers and they license them under a similar structure at real estate agents.

Here is some helpful information straight from the Q&A section of the Department of Real Estate (DRE) in California.

Q. – I am not licensed as a real estate broker or real estate salesperson and I am only going to assist private parties who wish to sell their notes (secured by real property) for cash to another party (investor), perhaps in another state. Is a real estate license required if I conduct this activity in California?

A. – The activity described, so-called note brokering, requires a real estate license if performed in California. This includes the solicitation of California note owners, whether in person, by mail, telephone, or other means of communication. One of the definitions of a real estate broker is:

“…a person who, for a compensation or in expectation of a compensation, regardless of the form or time of payment, does or negotiates to do one or more of the following acts for another or others:

.(e) Sells or offers to sell, buys or offers to buy, or exchanges or offers to exchange a real property sales contract, or a promissory note secured directly or collaterally by a lien on real property or on a business opportunity, and performs services for the holders thereof.”

There are companies engaged in the discounted purchase of certain mortgages, primarily those carried back by residential sellers and secured by the transferred real property. The companies hold seminars to recruit people to solicit and negotiate the sale of these mortgages. Seminar attendees are informed that they do not need a real estate license to engage in this activity. In California, this is wrong because the activity fits the definition quoted above. Source: http://www.dre.ca.gov/faq_mlb.html

As you can see from above, the California DRE is very clear in their answer! Yes, you need a license in CA to be a note broker.

California has also been known to actively monitor licensing in past years.  If you run an ad in a CA paper that you buy notes, it is very likely you will receive a letter from CA DRE asking for your licensing information.  It is safest to comply with the law or transact business in states without these requirements.

To you success,

Tracy Z. Rewey

The “NOT” so fine print…This information is not intended as legal or financial advice.  Please consult with competent legal counsel pertaining to your individual situation. We are not attorneys at law – nor do we play one on TV

 

Become Your Own Note Buyer!

Are we buying notes on cruise boats now?

Well…sort of.

Last weekend we were asked to present our 5 strategies for moving from note finder to note investor.  The seminar was sponsored by Read more

Next Page »