Is sub-to a reasonable first deal, or something you earn your way into?
A newer investor asked me to look at a sub-to he was offered, and I couldn't decide what to tell him, so I'll put it to the room.
The case for doing it early: the deal doesn't need your credit, doesn't need a loan approval, and needs very little cash beyond the seller's equity. If you're starting with 25k and a decent job, this is one of the few ways you get a house with a 3-something percent loan on it instead of a 7-something. Waiting three years doesn't make the lock-in gap wider, it may make it narrower.
The case for waiting: the due-on-sale clause means somebody could demand full repayment, and knowing what you'd do about that requires knowing how to refinance or sell under pressure, which is exactly what a first-timer doesn't know. There's also a seller whose name stays on the loan, so the cost of you making a mistake lands on a person who trusted you. A late payment on a rental you own is your problem. A late payment here is somebody else's credit report.
I hold a small portfolio and I still find the servicer side of these annoying. But I also can't argue with the math on a 3.25% loan.
Where do people land? Fine as deal one, or wait?
Should a first-time investor do a subject-to deal?
22 votes