All Topics / The Treasure Chest / re, re, investment property

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Profile photo of wannabewannabe
    Member
    @wannabe
    Join Date: 2003
    Post Count: 16
    August 5, 2003 - 5:03 am

    Hi, if neologism is right & tennants are not found for IPSwhat then, & how does Steve do it with over 100IPS, how are all costs covered then?

    Profile photo of DramDram
    Member
    @dram
    Join Date: 2003
    Post Count: 82
    August 5, 2003 - 6:04 am

    I believe it’s all about spreading your risks. I would think the chances of 100+ properties all being vacant at any one time is pretty slim.

    As I’ve been told many times, it’s better to own 5 * $100k properties than 1 * $500k property. This way if one property is vanacnt you still have an income stream.

    Cheers

    Profile photo of MarcoMarco
    Member
    @marco
    Join Date: 2003
    Post Count: 66
    August 6, 2003 - 3:51 am

    Hi Wannabe

    Steve advocates that the tenant is the investment, not the property (so much). To this extent he finds the tenant first, who then finds the property, tells you the investor about it who then negotiates a prices.

    Doing it this way you won’t have a vacant house unless they leave.

    Does that make sense?

    Marco

    Profile photo of ErikaErika
    Member
    @erika
    Join Date: 2002
    Post Count: 151
    August 6, 2003 - 4:07 am

    Hi Marco
    Just a quick question about how you find this tenant. And if they are finding the properties I guess you don’t need to go out looking at all.
    This is a good idea it would free up a lot of time spent looking for IPs.
    Where do you look for these tenants?

    Erika

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)

The topic ‘re, re, investment property’ is closed to new replies.