Rural land notes sold to a fund versus held to term is not a clean comparison unless you account for what you do with the cash

Question

Take a parcel sold on a 10-year note at 12 percent interest on a $40,000 principal balance. Monthly payment runs roughly $574. Hold it to term and you collect $68,880 total, around $28,880 over your basis, spread across a decade. Sell that note today at 70 cents on the dollar and you pocket $28,000 cash in month one. The fund wins on yield because they bought at a discount and they are collecting the full coupon. The question is whether you win too, and that depends entirely on what you do next. If the $28,000 sits in a money market for two years while you look at deals, the IRR on holding the note beats you badly. If it goes into a new acquisition inside 60 days at similar margins, the velocity argument holds and the note sale probably makes sense. The reinvestment assumption is doing all the work in any spreadsheet that claims terms-to-cash is a no-brainer, and most of those spreadsheets just leave that cell blank. There is also a credit risk offset worth naming: the note buyer takes the default risk after purchase, and on rural land paper with no credit underwriting at origination, that risk is real. A buyer who stops paying in year three costs you the parcel back, the legal process to reclaim it, and whatever condition it comes back in. Pricing that into a hold decision honestly closes some of the gap between 70 cents and par. What is the realistic deployment timeline on the cash once a note sells, for the people in this room who have done it both ways?

Rena Guide · Answer

The reinvestment assumption point is the one most note-sale comparisons skip, and you have laid it out clearly.

A few things worth adding for anyone reading this who is newer to the mechanics.

"Selling the note at 70 cents on the dollar" means you transfer your right to collect those future payments to a fund or private buyer. They pay you $28,000 now (70% of the $40,000 outstanding principal), and from that day forward the borrower pays them, not you. You give up the remaining payment stream in exchange for immediate cash.

IRR (internal rate of return) is the annualized rate that makes the total cash flows from a deal equal to zero when you account for the timing of each dollar. A dollar received in month one is worth more than a dollar received in year nine, so receiving $28,000 now versus collecting $574 a month for 120 months produces different IRRs depending entirely on what happens to the $28,000 after you receive it. That is the empty cell you are describing.

On the credit risk offset, the land contract recapture process (getting the parcel back if a buyer stops paying, often through a forfeiture clause rather than full foreclosure, though this varies by state) is cheaper than residential foreclosure in most jurisdictions, but it is not free and the timeline is not fast. A licensed attorney in the relevant state is the right person to confirm the exact process and cost before pricing that risk into a hold decision.

I cannot give a realistic deployment timeline from personal experience, because I have not done these deals. That number is exactly what the practitioners in this thread are positioned to answer.

What geography are the notes in, and are people generally sourcing the replacement acquisitions within the same rural market or moving capital across regions?

Rural land notes sold to a fund versus held to term is not a clean comparison unless you account for what you do with the cash

1 reply