We Read This Crap So You Don’t Have To: Preston Ely for Dave Durell

Our trusty Crap-O-Meter has been flirting with a perfect “10″ score for awhile. That is, a marketing pitch that’s not just misleading, not just over-the-top, but blatantly inaccurate. Well, friends, we’ve hit the jackpot. Today’s a solid “10.”

The pitch is by Preston (or Pre$ton as he sometimes signs his e-mails) Ely for an exercise and fitness program by Dave Durell. (Yes, this is a real estate blog, and the pitch has nothing to do with real estate. But what we rate here is the marketing, not the underlying product. And Preston promotes a lot of real estate products. Don’t get us wrong: Health and fitness are admirable goals and Durell’s product may very well be worth every penny. It’s the pitch we have problems with. Yes, here we’re “shooting the messenger,” not arguing with the message.)

OK. Here’s the pitch:

Preston Ely's Pitch for David Durell's Exercise Program

Preston begins by explaining that he was rushed to the hospital after complications following back surgery. We’ll accept that at face value. That’s serious, and our best wishes truly go out to Preston.

But he uses that to set the stage for what he writes next:

This could have all been avoided had I been smarter with my exercise routine when I was younger. As it was, I made a ton of mistakes which basically cost me my health.

It didn’t have to be that way.

My friend Dave Durell (ex-physical therapist for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers) just released a special report titled “The 7 Deadly Workout Mistakes & How To Avoid Them.” I highly suggest you read this right now and spare yourself this pain. Do it for yourself. Do it for your kids. You’ll thank me.

Note that Ely seems to be linking his workout routine to his present poor health. Now, while it’s certainly possible that a poor workout routine can negatively affect one’s health, 99 times out of 100 it’s the lack of a workout routine that leads to poor health.

Further, Ely is pushing a report titled “The 7 Deadly Workout Mistakes & How To Avoid Them.” Uh, oh. Deadly workout mistakes? Like ignoring the signs of a stroke or heart attack? Like dehydration? Like not using spotters when lifting weights? Deadly?

We’ll get to those in a moment. But you get the picture. This is serious.

Problem is, ol’ Preston has a bunch of his facts wrong. He claims that Durell is “ex-physical therapist for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.” Umm. No. Durell isn’t a physical therapist at all. Never has been. In fact, he doesn’t even claim to be. On the sales page, he states, correctly, that he’s a physical therapist assistant. The educational requirement is a 2 year associate degree, generally from a community college. In Durell’s case, he earned his associate’s degree in 1995 from Housatonic Community College. He then passed an exam to become a physical therapist assistant. And that’s fine. Problem is, to become a physical therapist today requires a clinical doctorate. Back in 1995, it generally required a master’s degree, not an associate’s degree.

Beyond that, Ely claims that Durell was a physical therapist for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. A double “nope” here. Not only was he not a physical therapist. His role with Tampa Bay was not connected to physical therapy. Durell’s sales page explains that he was a “strength and conditioning assistant” with Tampa Bay. Again, that’s perfectly fine and perfectly respectable. But he sure as heck wasn’t acting as a physical therapist (or even physical therapist assistant) with Tampa Bay.

Here’s the top part of Durell’s sales page:

Dave Durell's sales page for his exercise program

Now, as for Ely’s linkage of his poor health to his former exercise routine–and his promotion of a report dealing with “The 7 Deadly Workout Mistakes,” there’s a–ahem–slight problem. True, that’s the title of Durell’s “Special Report.” But the report has nothing to do with “deadly” workout mistakes. It’s just seven pieces of advice–good advice, but pretty basic–on how to maximize an exercise program.

Here are the “deadly mistakes”:

• Working out for too long
• Not working out hard enough
• Not working out progressively
• Not recording your workouts
• Working out too frequently
• Not having a positive attitude
• Not making a commitment

Even the few items that might conceivably be “deadly,” such as “working out for too long” or “working out too frequently,” don’t contain any major fear-inducing points. So, there’s room to fault Durell for the name of his report, but let’s chalk that up to a bit of marketing hype. And as you’ll see, the program that Durell is selling is designed to help you “Get The Lean, Healthy, Sexy Body You Want In Only Minutes A Day…
… Discover The Proven, Easy-To-Follow System That Will Get You Into Awesome Shape, Despite Your Jam-Packed Schedule!”

On the other hand, Ely’s pitch–tieing in “deadly mistakes” with emergency surgery and leaking spinal fluid–coupled with a misrepresentation of credentials is enough to earn this pitch a 10 on our Crap-O-Meter.

Government First-Time Home Buyer Tax Credit Can Be Used For Closing Costs, Interest Rate Buy-Downs

New home buyers seeking to use the 10% tax credit can use that money up front to help pay for closing costs or to “buy down” their mortgage rate, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

That’s significant: While the 10% tax credit is great (buy an $80,000 property; get an $8,000 tax credit), buyers used to have to wait until they filed their tax returns to actually benefit from the credit. Now there’s a way to instantly monetize the credit.

And although the tax credit can’t be used for the minimum 3.5% downpayment required by FHA, it can be used to supplement it. And numerous states offer buyers programs to help cover that 3.5%.

[For information on the tax credit itself, see my earlier post at http://realestatesolutions3d.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/first-time-homebuyer-tax-credit-fact-sheet/ ]

Here’s a summary from the National Association of Realtors:

Under the guidance, FHA-approved lenders can develop bridge loans that home buyers can use to help cover their closing costs, buy down their interest rate, or put down more than the minimum 3.5 percent.

The loans can’t be used to cover the minimum 3.5 percent, senior HUD officials told reporters on a conference call Friday morning.

Thus, buyers applying for FHA-backed financing with an FHA-approved lender that offers a bridge-loan program can get a bridge loan to bring down the upfront costs of buying a home significantly but would still have to come up with the minimum 3.5 percent downpayment.

There remain many sources of assistance for buyers needing help with the 3.5 percent downpayment, including many state and local government instrumentalities and nonprofit lenders.

In addition, some state housing finance agencies have developed their own tax credit bridge loan programs, so buyers in states whose HFAs offer such programs can monetize the tax credit upfront to cover all or part of their downpayment. These programs are separate from what HUD announced today.

The first-time homebuyer tax credit was enacted last year–and improved upon earlier this year–to help encourage households to enter the housing market while interest rates are low and affordability is high. The credit is worth up to $8,000 and is available to households that haven’t owned a home in at least three years. The credit does not have to be repaid, and is fully reimbursable, so households can get their credit returned to them in the form of a payment.

We Read This Crap So You Don’t Have To: Bryan Ellis’ Blog

This post is a bit different. It’s not about some outlandish e-mail I’ve received hawking the latest “get rich quick while you’re in your pajamas” scheme. Rather, it’s a blog posting from a Bryan Ellis, a real estate investment program promoter. I’ll admit I was surprised by some of what he said.

Here it is in its entirety:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why I Won’t Participate In Product Launches With The “Gurus”

Posted by Bryan Ellis on Wednesday, February 4th 2009

Have you noticed that there is a “Guru’s Club” consisting of several real estate “gurus” who all promote each other’s products and services? Not only that – they all send the exact same emails to you at nearly the exact same time.

The net result is that you get duplicate copies of the same CRAP from multiple gurus. They make very little – if any – attempt to actually assist you in any way (as the example below will show). To the objective observer, it appears that they simply are gunning for your wallet, with no other motivation in mind.

I think a backlash to this type of marketing is likely in 2009 or 2010.

Before I continue, let me make something clear: I don’t have a problem with people selling products to their readers. I do it too – it’s the way that we bring in income to cover the high expense of providing this website and lots of free resources.

But I do have a problem with the complete disrespect that happens to these guru’s subscribers when the guru doesn’t even bother to try to send out anything of value, and instead sends out almost nothing but product pitches.

Remember this: If most of what you receive from your “guru” is pitches for the latest product launch, they are showing profound disrespect for you and view you as nothing more than a wallet with an email address.

I’ll now give you some examples of what I mean. I don’t mean any disrespect to these folks, and I’m sure they all have good information to provide. But these stats are prima facie evidence of their regard for you as a source of revenue and little else.

A Real Example:

One particular “guru” has sent me 10 emails during the past week or so. I’m not going to tell you who this is, but you see the subject lines used below, so you can probably find out by searching your own email.

Anyway, here is the date, subject line and topic of each of the most recent 10 emails sent by this guru:

Date: February 4
Subject Line: did you win?
Topic: Promotion of Gerald Romine’s product launch

Date: February 3
Subject Line: Millard Fuller (1935-2009) another good man leaves us
Topic: Paying respects to Millard Fuller
Note: This is the only email of the past 10 that isn’t purely promotional in nature.

Date: February 3
Subject Line: sell houses before you buy them? come on!
Topic: Webinar promotion

Date: January 31
Subject Line: Than Merrill is a dork
Topic: Than Merrill’s Product Launch

Date: January 31
Subject Line: URGENT:how Than makes over 2 mill a year on the internet
Topic: Than Merrill’s Product Launch

Date: January 30
Subject Line: gotta get this to you fast
Topic: Than Merrill’s Product Launch

Date: January 30
Subject Line: Good Morning! Happy Friday!
Topic: Than Merrill’s Product Launch

Date: January 29
Subject Line: WholesalingU kicks off today at 12nn
Topic: Than Merrill’s Product Launch

Date: January 28
Subject Line: life’s too short to get rich slow
Topic: Than Merrill’s Product Launch

Date: January 27
Subject Line: a boatload of buyers drooling at the mouth
Topic: Than Merrill’s Product Launch

So the net result is that literally 90% of the last 10 emails I’ve received from this guy have been purely promotional in nature. And this isn’t the only example. There is a group of about 10-15 of these folks who do almost nothing but promote each other’s product launches, yet make little or no attempt to give anything else of value. This is, as I said a moment ago, very similar to treating you as a wallet with an email address. It’s disrespectful and very short-term thinking.

I am not completely free of guilt from this either. In December, I participated in Jeff Kaller’s launch of his short sale program. I did it because Jeff has some great info that I think is worthwhile. But if I had it to do over again, I wouldn’t. There’s nothing wrong with Jeff or his products or services. In fact, I think they’re great and worthwhile, and I have every intention of continuing to promote him in the future (outside of product launches) because I believe in what he’s doing. But I’ve realized in the intervening period that sending you the exact same promotional material as everybody else is not good for you and it’s not good for me.

And like I said above, I’m not disparaging anyone from selling products. I do it to, and I’m even doing it this week. But come on, guys: Have a little respect for your readers.

You are welcomed to sound off about this below. Thank you for reading RealEstate.BryanEllis.com!

http://realestate.bryanellis.com/1167/why-i-wont-participate-in-product-launches-with-the-gurus/#ixzz0HWMEJJqI&D

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Incidentally, the responses and comments to Bryan Ellis’ blog are also interesting and revealing.

On our trusty old Crap-O-Meter, this one scores a very respectable 1.5 out of 10.

Bankruptcies, Home Losses Tied To Failed Health Care System

More than half a million families who own homes will file for bankruptcy this year because of illness and medical bills, according to a new study by the Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP). The study will be published in the August issue of the American Journal of Medicine. PNHP, a membership organization of over 16,000 physicians, supports a single-payer national health insurance program. 

Himmelstein D, Thorne D, Warren E, Woolhandler, S. National bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: results of a national study. American Journal of Medicine. [August: prepublication] Available online at http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study or through the American Journal of Medicine, aimmedia@elsevier.com (212) 633-3944. 

The PNHP study was a broader look at medical bankruptcy: Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study. (But because we’re a real estate blog, we’re especially considering the real estate implications of the study.)

The study looked at bankruptcy data from 2007. It found that:

• Illness and medical bills were a cause of at least 62.1% of all personal bankruptcies that year.
• Based on the current bankruptcy rate (expected to reach 1.4 million in 2009), the study’s authors project that medical bankruptcies will total 866,000.
• The proportion of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6% between 2001 and 2007.

Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by medical problems had health insurance. More than three-quarters (77.9%) were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness, including 60.3% who had private coverage. Most of the medically bankrupt were middle class before their financial problems. Two-thirds (66.4%) had owned a home.

Out-of-pocket medical costs averaged $17,943 for all medically bankrupt families ($26,971 for uninsured patients, $17,749 for those with private insurance at the outset, $14,633 for those with Medicaid, $12,021 for those with Medicare, and $6,545 for those with VA/military coverage).

Among common diagnoses, nonstroke neurologic illnesses such as multiple sclerosis were associated with the highest out-of-pocket expenditures (mean $34,167), followed by diabetes ($26,971), injuries ($25,096), stroke ($23,380), mental illness ($23,178), and heart disease ($21,955).

Bottom line (according to an accompanying Q&A paper): “It appears that health insurance offers only modest protection against medical bankruptcy.” And from the study itself: “Being uninsured at filing did not predict a medical cause of bankruptcy.”

Among the items that did predict the filing of medical bankruptcy: a gap in coverage, older age, marriage, being female, larger household, and lower income quartile.

The study concludes: “The US health care financing system is broken, and not only for the poor and uninsured. Middle-class families frequently collapse under the strain of a health care system that treats physical wounds, but often inflicts financial ones.”

While the study didn’t get into the real estate implications, other than to observe that 66.4% had owned a home, it would appear that a steady stream of foreclosures will continue–in fact, increase–regardless of what Congress or the Administration does if those actions only address lending practices or other specific real estate issues. What appears to be needed, from my reading of the implications of the report, is a multimodal approach that addresses the underlying causes of bankruptcies. And that includes . . . well, I was going to say a restructuring of the health care system, but maybe something more radical is needed. After all, to borrow a phrase from the last Presidential election, stopping at a so-called restructuring might be akin to putting lipstick on a pig.

We Read This Crap So You Don’t Have To: Bryan West for Damian Lafranchi

I received an e-mail today from Bryan West promoting a product for Damian Lanfranchi. And I have to wonder: Was the e-mail written so poorly, with such bad spelling and grammar, intentionally? If so, is the goal to make the sender seem more “human” and easy to relate to? Or is it just to speak to recipients at what the writer believes is their level of reading and writing ability? (A clever Dan Kennedy-type ploy?)

On the other hand, is this just the way Lanfranche (who I’d guess wrote the pitch) speaks and writes?

Who knows? Maybe more to the point: Who cares?

Here are just a few excerpts from the pitch e-mail:

• “This MAJOR news affects you) This DIRECTLY AFFECTS YOU”: [OK, OK. I get the point!]
• “I made 40,000$ on the easiest deal…I am in just for the 427$…” [What's with the dollar sign placement?]
• “Plus Damian and Starbuck Dog are Hallarious.” [I guess that's a lot funnier than hilarious.]
• “I can not over look it, you won’t either So that’s why I am sharing them with you” ["can not" for "cannot," "over look" for "overlook." No periods at the end of the sentences. And is ol' Hollis sharing Starbuck's knowledge with us, too?]

As for the actual pitch from Damian (and his trusty companion, Starbuck the Dog), he claims to be the creator of “the only automated, multimedia, deal-generating system on Planet Earth.” I guess modesty may not be Damian’s strong suit. The only automated, multimedia, deal-generating system on Planet Earth? Wow!

Again, we’re not rating the actual product here, just the pitch. The product may be great. (Though you have to wonder whether it can live up to that claim.) What we’re rating is the pitch e-mail and the pitch squeeze page.

Based on the illiteracy of the e-mail and the claim on the video, this earns an 8 out of 10 on our trusty Crap-O-Meter. (We liked the dog. A canine-free pitch would have earned a strong 9.)

 

Bryan West Pitch E-Mail for Damian Lanfranchi

Video of Damian and Starbuck

We Read This Crap So You Don’t Have To: Nathan Jurewicz

“We Read This Crap So You Don’t Have To” features claims–primarily by e-mail–from real estate promoters. Note: We’re not evaluating the actual programs, though we may have some comments on the programs as described in the e-mails and sales pages. Rather, we’re examining the claims and pitches of these promoters and real estate gurus.

In the future, we’ll present some that are honest, straightforward, and actually full of good information. (Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus!) But since it seems that about 90% of everything is crap–exceeding that old 80/20 rule–most of what you’ll read here deals with questionable claims and over-hyped pitches. And so it is with this posting.

I received an e-mail (a portion appears below) from another real estate promoter, Larry Goins. I’ve provided the emphasis in red.

“Your whole short sales business works by itself…on automatic! That’s right, just crank it up, then stand back, and let it rip! Find out how right here.“

And for good measure:

I STILL don’t know why Nathan’s letting out his secrets. If you’ve seen his “Short Sales Riches” course, he sells everything he’s talking about on this fr-ee DVD for $497. So why would he be giving it away for free? I’m not sure, but if I were you, I’d hustle over there now before he realizes what he’s doing.”

So ol’ Nathan is giving away a free DVD containing his short sale secrets? What a wonderful guy! Gotta love him.  

Except, of course, there’s no information on the sales page. Just the requisite overwritten hype, along with some amazingly low-quality videos. Plus the opportunity to buy his program for $1,497 . . . or $1,694 for two payments, the second just 15 days after the first. Except, of course, it really costs more, as you find out when you get to the order page. It’s $1,497  (or $1,694) plus a month of coaching for $1, followed by continued coaching at $197 a month. That’s a 1-year investment of either $3,861 or $4,058. That’s sure a far cry from “fr-ee.” (Hmmm. Maybe the definition of “fr-ee” in the real estate promotor’s dictionary is: “Four gRand-Each and Every.” 

Again, the program may or may not be worth it. You can be the judge of that. What I’m addressing is the crap . . . the hype . . . the claims versus the facts of the promotion.

This rates a 9 out of 10 on the Crap-O-Meter.

Larry Goins email pitching Nathan Jurewicz's short sale package. Note his claim at the bottom that the information offered on a "fr-ee DVD."

Top of Nathan Jurewicz's pitch page for his short sale program

 

Bottom of Jurewicz's Pitch Page. Note the price, but no mention of additional monthly payments for coaching.

Purchase page for Nathan Jurewicz's short sale package. Note the additional $197 per month for coaching.

Little Boxes

While browsing online for something else, I came across “Little Boxes,” a song popularized by Pete Seeger in the 1960s (and repopularized by Linkin Park as the theme song for “Weeds”).

I don’t think I need to provide any commentary. The song speaks for itself.

Here are the lyrics. And here’s how it sounds as sung by its author, Malvina Reynolds.

1. Little boxes on the hillside, Little boxes made of ticky-tacky, Little boxes on the hillside, Little boxes, all the same. There’s a green one and a pink one And a blue one and a yellow one And they’re all made out of ticky-tacky And they all look just the same.2. And the people in the houses All went to the university, And they all were put in boxes, And they came out all the same. And there’s doctors and there’s lawyers And business executives, And they’re all made out of ticky-tacky And they all look just the same.

3. And they all play on the golf-course, And drink their Martinis dry, And they all have pretty children, And the children go to school. And the children go to summer camp And then to the university, Whey they are put in boxes And they all come out the same.4. And the boys go into business, And marry, and raise a family, Put in boxes made of ticky-tacky, And they all look just the same. There’s a green one and a pink one And a blue one and a yellow one And they’re all made out of ticky-tacky And they all look just the same.

Just Offering a Lower Price Doesn’t Mean You’re Negotiating

I’ve run into a number of situations lately in which potential (or prospective, or would-be, or maybe just wannabe) buyers have confused the act of offering a lower price with negotiating. In fact, there’s very little connection between the two.

For example, in my role as a Realtor I was showing some clients  some properties. They had pretty strict limits as to maximum price, condition of house, location, and so on. We’d looked at half a dozen the weekend before, and none fit the bill. Some were too old (mid-1970s). Some were too small. Some weren’t in good-enough condition. Still, we’d started with a list of perhaps 20 foreclosures and a few short sales. And most had been snapped up within 3-5 days of listing.

A couple weeks later, we went out again. This time we saw 3 properties–an REO in a bad neighborhood that’d been on the market for 4 months ($160,000), an REO that’d been totally gutted before the rehab money ran out ($150,000), and a great home, nearly perfect condition, granite countertops/stainless steel appliances, for $180,000. The comps (for other REOs) in the same neighborhood, probably for homes in not-so-good condition, were about $230,000. It was a great buy. And the buyers had been prequalified up to $250,000.

They liked the house . . . enough to want to offer $160,000. Huh? I cautioned them that it’d sell fast, and was clearly underpriced. They said they really wanted the house. So, back at the office, they agreed to raise their offer to $165,000. I said that while I’d be glad to submit any offer, that the comps were well above $200,000 and the market for those properties had gotten hot lately. Still, they figured $165,000 was a good negotiating strategy.

Offers were cut off at 3 pm on Monday, after just 4 days on the market. Our offer was 1 of 8 submitted. Of the 8–I found out–ours was by far the lowest. The accepted offer was for $185,000, all cash, no contingencies. A much cleaner offer for $20,000 more. And the would-be buyers were “shocked” that they hadn’t gotten the hosue.

Second example: This past weekend, I was showing a property–a manufactured home. The comps are around $40,000. This one was priced at $25,000, and was in good condition. The owner was at home, and the potential buyers started talking to her. The owner was willing to come down to about $21,000–her real bottom line, since she needed the cash to buy another property. Remember: Comps are about $40,000. So the most they’re interested in offering is about $14,000. As they say in the South, “That dog won’t hunt.”

Look, negotiating’s great. And there’s nothing wrong in offering a low (or lower) price. But the two (offering a lower price and negotiating) are two entirely different things. Sometimes, as with the REO, there isn’t much room to negotiate. You just figure out what the best deal is . . . what your bottom line is . . . and make an offer. Those buyers could have offered $225,000 . . . been well within their affordability range . . . and had a good shot at getting the property. They chose not to.

In the case of the manufactured home, there were other areas that the seller indicated flexibility on. Plus, the home was priced (after the initial negotiations) at about half the comps. Offering 33% less, after getting a reasonable idea of the seller’s bottom line, isn’t negotiating. It’s just playing a losing game.

We Read This Crap So You Don’t Have To: Greg Clement “This Is New To Me….”

This blog begins a new series of “We Read This Crap So You Don’t Have To.” The purpose: To read the e-mails with the “amazing” subject lines from real estate gurus . . . and then to look at what these folks are peddling. Every once in a while, the subject line and e-mail text are actually worthwhile, and we’ll cover those, too. I promise. But 90% of the time, it’s pure hokum. And 8% is just plain dishonest.

Ready for the first one?

Greg Clement E-Mail "This Is New To Me . . . "

So what precisely is so new to this savvy real estate investor? What is one of the “coolest investing strategies” he’s ever seen? What is “a TOTAL new concept to me”?

Here’s the top and the bottom of the sales page:

Beginning of REO Rockstar Promotion

Bottom (with price) of Greg Clement's REO Rockstar Sales Page

I read the copy and watched most of the tedious videos (watch this blog for a rant against time-wasting videos!). From the sales page itself:

Effectively we have solved the real estate investing community’s biggest problem … how to flip bank-owned properties without taking a dime out of your pocket.

And now we’re ready to reveal the exact same system that the REO Rockstar uses to flip 10+ houses a month in this f’d up market … to YOU. Like I always say … “I go? You go.”

That’s it? For $997 plus $97 a month? (And maybe more–it’s difficult to tell whether there’s any continuation pricing on some of the items. There likely is for the REO leads and access to the REO Rockstar himself. Woo hoo!) And most of the course is online.

Look: The course may or may not be worth $997 plus $97 a month (or $1,164 a year forever plus other add-ons). As is said elsewhere: We report. You decide.

But c’mon. A savvy real estate investor talking about wholesaling REOs: “I had no clue you could even do this. I’m not kidding. This is a TOTAL new concept to me. You’ve not seen this before. It’s simple and soooo smart. . . P.S. It’s one of the coolest investing strategies I’ve EVER seen.”

And frankly I don’t know what technique’s being promoted here. (That’s part of the reason I call this “crap.” Greg’s not revealing the concept; he’s not showing us what it is, as his e-mail suggests. Instead, it’s just a link to a sales page.)

But there are plenty of ways to do what’s described here: Flip REOs with none of your money. You borrow money–from a variety of lenders–to buy REOs. The only catch, in many cases, is that the property be priced far enough below the market. (And even that doesn’t always apply if you’re borrowing privately.) And as far as flipping, a lot of investors will put the property into a newly-created LLC, then sell the LLC itself. Or, heck, just buy and sell. There are a bunch of other ways to flip REOs.

On our Crap-O-Meter, let’s give this a 9 out of 10.

Affordable Home in Chantilly, Virginia . . . . And a Test of Animoto

Here’s a video of a property I’m currently selling. It’s a very affordable 2 bedroom/1 bath home in Chantilly, Virginia. Price: $15,999. It’s available with owner financing for only $1,199 a month for 5 years. That includes the purchase of the home and the monthly land lease charge. Plus, for “new home buyers” (someone who hasn’t owned a home in 3 years), it’s eligible for the “new home buyer” 10% tax credit.

I’ve included full information on the home below.

In addition, this was a test of an online service called Animoto. The idea is that you upload some photos, select some music from their online catalog (or choose your own), and the Animoto automatically makes it into a video. The service–with their branding and videos limited to 30 seconds–is free. If you want longer videos and no branding, that costs…though not too much. It’s simple to use, and if you don’t like the result the first time, you can edit the pictures and text . . . or just click “remix” and it remixes what you’ve already uploaded. Neat idea. Available at http://animoto.com

And for those of you familiar with real estate investing (which is what this blog is about), this is my first attempt at a “Lonnie Deal.” The strategy is: Buy low for cash. Sell for more on terms.

As for the Chantilly home, here’s the full information:

This home (2 bed, 1 bath) in great condition (built 2001) can be yours for just $15,999 (yes, that’s the right price). Plus, with just $2,000 down you can get owner financing with payments as low as $1,199 per month for 5 years. PLUS: If you’re a “new home buyer” (haven’t owned a home in the past 3 years), you may qualify for a 10% tax credit (a $1,600 credit) from the government! (Check with an accountant for details.)

Home Features

• Large kitchen with modern appliances
• Microwave
• Vaulted ceilings
• Central A/C
• Washer/dryer
• 2 bedrooms (approx. 14′ x 13′ and 11′ x 10′)
• Modern bath
• Neutral colors throughout
• Wood trim
• Parking for two cars
• Exterior shed for additional storage

Community Features (all included in your monthly payment):

• Swimming pool
• All age community
• Night time security
• Snow clean-up
• Tot lot
• Basketball court
• Fitness center
• Clubhouse
• Trash pick-up

Great location: Close to shopping, restaurants, Dulles, I-66, Fair Lakes, Fair Oaks, etc. Quick commute to Fairfax, Centreville, Reston, Dulles. Reasonable commute to Arlington, Alexandria, and D.C.

The cost: $1,199 per month. At the end of the 5 years, it’s yours. Everything is included in your $1,199 payment ($842 land lease plus $357 to purchase) except utilities. Move-in costs: Just 2 months’ security deposit or downpayment. [Buyer approval required, which includes credit and background check.]

To recap:

• Owner Financing/No Bank Qualifying
• Buy for as little as $1,199 per month
• Price includes all amenities (pool, exercise facilities, trash pickup, etc.)
• 10% government tax credit ($1,600) for qualifying buyers

This is a great opportunity for someone just getting started, someone looking to simplify their life, or someone trying to rebuild their credit.