Browse All Tribes or choose a Tribe below:
By signing up I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions
Already a PT member? Log In
Sign Up With Facebook, Twitter, or Google
By signing up, I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions
Already a PT member? Log In
Don't have an account? Sign Up
To reset your password just enter the email address you registered with and we'll send you a link to access a new password.
I attended KG's one day seminar in London last week. I wont go in much details about how much value it is as I believe most experienced users on here are aware its mainly an upsell on his paid courses and how rich he is .
However there was a carrot dangling which I believe kept many ( including myself ) interested and one of the reasons many of use went back after lunch . It was called Repossession rescue - his words "you can make upto 20G by next Friday without investing a single penny". It was BS and I dint fall for it but i did come out wondering if repo rescue is unfair on the property owners. Let me explain what KG said and then I will ask my doubts:
A house which was purchased for 80K , with current fair market value of 100K( appreciation of 20K), is up for reposession. There is 40K outstanding debt to be paid to the Bank.
So KG says they help this owners by contacting some lenders( or his contacts investors) and paying off the 40K to the bank. This leaves them with a property worth 100K which they sell for 80K . Which means now they have profit of 40K. And of this because they are generous they give the owners 15K and find them a place to live.
My questions: 1. Am I not right in thinking that in this scenario they owners are robbed because they in theory they had 60K equity (100k FMV minus 40K debt of bank ) ? instead they only get 15K ( because KG is generous !!! ).
AM I missing something here?
This is completely bizarre, you are right.
So Kevin Green is given the house with 60k in equity in it, sells it and gives the owners 15k? Doesn't make any sense to me.
Are you sure you have this right? Although given what some of these "gurus" claim it sounds par for the course.
If it sounds too good to be true etc. etc.
Learn Change and Adapt ?????
All comments are for casual information purposes only. If you wish to rely on any advice I have given please ensure you obtain independent specialist advice from a third party. No liability is accepted for comments made.
I attended also about a month or so ago.
My impression it was more high end value properties which struggle to sell quickly or rental does not cover mortgage.
1. couple move to London, well paid jobs - max out mortgage on property
1.1 Happily working and paying off mortgage on repayment circa 10 years
2. redundancy, mortgage becomes untenable
3. cant find job - bank begins to twist the gonads
4. seller becomes distressed calls for SOS
5. KG steps in and become attorney to deal with affairs directly with bank
6. negotiates a reduced settlement with bank. PP 400k Outstanding 250k FMV 700k - settles with bank at 160-180K
7. KG lets them stay in one of his properties until find themselves (sweetner to the deal)
8. seller receives few quid & time to compose themselves
9. bank happy for quick sale - mitigate ongoing fees and liability of property being on market and or the the risk of auction
Think the key to this is knowing who, how and when?
Looking at it logically, these deals would find you (not the other way round).
And, I would envisage they would be 'very distressed'....clarity of mind would see many more viable exits.
balance of business mind - are you helping or taking advantage.
Major flaw with the 1st scenario is that the Bank are DUTY BOUND to receive the Highest Possible price for the Property so they put it to an agent to market it - usually now by Auction - & will continue to take offers right up to completion.They cannot simply take what they are owed.Unless he was talking about getting in with the Distressed seller BEFORE the bank had repossessed - then its possible to do a deal.Back in the day ( pre credit crunch ) this happened a lot when Vendors had 2nd & 3rd charges on the Property & were in negative equity, it was possible to "help" vendors out by negotiating with Lenders to take less on the premise that if Property was repossessed they could end up with £0.I guess its still possible today to do a deal with Vendor & Bank to pay off Mortgage but a fairer way would be a 50/50 joint venture.
Save Money on All of Your Utilities Attract Prospects to Your MLM Business
...and if in any way shape or form a sell and rent back arrangement then only FCA regulated firms can offer them.
DISCLAIMER just my personal opinion - for legal advice consult a qualified professional grown-up.