Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Commercial Property Value - How to Determine What It's Worth


Commercial Property Value - How to Determine What It's Worth




In residential real estate, the listing price is determined by the seller. Comparables 'comps' are analyzed for a myriad of variables including price per square foot, bedroom count, bathroom count, number of garages features (pool, central vacuum, etc), location (cul-de-sac, corner, busy street), views & more.

Adjustments are then made to the subject property to render it equal with those comps. For instance if the subject property has one fewer bedrooms and 500 fewer square feet of living space, it's price will be reduced by the value of the extra bedroom and the reduced square footage.

In commercial real estate, pricing is determined by the income the property produces. Although physical features (pool, laundry facility, etc) and location (busy street, etc) are factors, they are considered only to the extent that they enable the property to command higher rent or decrease its operating expenses in order to increase the property's cash flows or Net Operating Income (NOI). Secondarily location is considered to the extent of the potential appreciation of the land. In commercial real estate, it is these cash flows and the amount an investor is willing to pay for these cash flows that will determine the price of the property.

Put simply, if the annual cash flows from a particular property are $100,000 and an investor is willing to pay $2,000,000 for those cash flows, then the property is worth $2,000,000 to that investor. If another investor is only willing to pay $1,000,000 for those cash flows, then the property is worth $1,000,000 to that investor.

Investors will consider numerous properties in a given area to determine the standard of how much is typically paid for particular cash flows in that area. The "going rate" in area can be considered its cap rate. An exact definition and explanation of cap rate will be detailed in a subsequent article. This article will address the concept of cap rate.

In this example, the first investor only required a 5% return on investment or yield and therefore could pay as much as $2,000,000 for $100,000 in annual cash flows to obtain his/her 5% desired return. The second investor required a 10% yield and was therefore only willing to pay $1,000,000 for the same $100,000 of cash flows. Different investors require different yields which affect the price ultimately paid for the property.

This one year yield could also be described as cap rate. In commercial lingo it would be said that the second investor requires a "10 cap" and that the first investor only required a "5 cap." This is an oversimplified explanation to demonstrate the concept. The "one year yield" distinction is made as cap rate only accounts for one year yield, usually the following year from when the investor purchases the property. To determine the combined yields of multiple year returns, different measures are used and will be detailed in a subsequent article.

Commercial investors will determine their risk adjusted requirements for their investments and will base those decisions on opportunity costs. Opportunity costs are the costs associated with not investing into something else. For instance, if an investor could alternatively invest in a stock, bond, T-bill CD, or other instrument and yield 15%, why would he/she buy a property which only yields 5%? In order to attract investors the property owner would have to lower the price (increase the cap rate) to give investors a higher yield.

Notice the inverse relationship here. As prices are lowered, the yield to the investor or cap rate to the investor goes up as related to the cash flows. Conversely, as property prices are increased, the yield to the investor or cap rate on those same cash flows goes down. Cap rate only takes into account the first year of cash flows and does not account for the second year, third year, etc.

Notice I have not even mentioned appreciation. The value of commercial real estate is primarily considered based on its cash flows while investing in residential real estate is for anticipated appreciation.

In residential, there is only one way to make money. The market must go up so the investor can sell for more than the original purchase price. In commercial real estate investors are purchasing cash flows. In our example, if the second investor paid all cash, at a 10,cap which values the property at $1,000,000, that investor would be paid back 100% of the initial investment after 10 years and as of the 11th year, the investor would have $100,000 of annual cash flow from that single property. Because there is no mortgage called debt service in commercial real estate, this would be the cash flow before tax to the investor. In other words, other than income tax, this is the spendable cash to the investor on an annual basis.

Hopefully the property will have appreciated as well and the market will be favorable. But in the very worst case if no appreciation occurred whatsoever, the investor would still enjoy the $100,000 of annual cash flows. The beauty of commercial real estate is in the ability to plan. If you buy a residential property, you must sit and wait for the market to appreciate. The problem is that you never know when this appreciation will occur or how much. You can't plan. And, you're at the mercy of the market. In commercial real estate, as long as rents don't decrease substantially and vacancies don't increase, you know ahead of time how much money you will make regardless of market appreciation.

Now consider this. Let's say that the second investor decided not to pay cash and instead leveraged the property with a 10% down payment or $100,000 to purchase the $1,000,000 property. Let's also consider that the remaining $900,000 was financed at 7% for 25 years which is the typical term length in commercial financing. With a fully amortizing loan the annual payments would be $63,000. In commercial real estate, paying debt owed to the lender is called debt service. In residential, it's called paying the mortgage. From the $100,000 cash flows (NOI) from the property the debt is paid leaving $37,000 of cash flows before tax. For simplicity sake, I will not account for tax effects on income or yields.

In this example, in Year 1, the investor has earned $37,000 for a $100,000 cash outlay or a 37% cash on cash return and will do so for 25 years until the debt is paid off assuming no changes to the income. Subsequently, the investor will enjoy the entire $100,000 of annual cash flows as there will be no debt service. To calculate the combined cash flows from multiple years the investor would look at a measurement called Internal Rate of Return (IRR). For the scope of this article I will not address IRR. But remember, Cap Rate is for a single year's return and cannot account for multiple years with different cash flows each year.

Notice again, I haven't even spoken about appreciation which may or may not occur. But even if no appreciation occurs to our example property, this is still an incredible investment! Now obviously during a 25 year period these cash flows will change as rents will likely be increased and capital improvements will likely be needed (new roof, etc). But again, I'm keeping it simple for example purposes.

To summarize: In residential real estate there is only one way to make money. The strategy is to carry the property and hope that the market goes up and that the property appreciates so that the investor can sell for a higher price than was paid. Positive cash flows are typically non-existent and if present, negligible relative to the anticipated appreciation the residential investment will bring.

In commercial real estate properties are purchased for their positive cash flows AND potential appreciation. It is because of these cash flows that commercial real estate is less risky.

It is for this reason that commercial real estate is more stable and can weather the market storms that residential investments cannot and it is for this reason that the super wealthy own residential to live or vacation but invest in commercial real estate to create their massive wealth.

Take a FREE Online Course! http://www.cieinst.com

Karen Hanover is well known as a Certified Commercial Real Estate Advisor, President of the National Apartment Investors Association, Chairman of the National Commercial Real Estate Advisory Board and Senior Instructor for both the Self Storage Education Institute and the Apartments Education Institute.

As a CCIM Candidate, a highly prestigious designation, often called the "Ph.D. of commercial real estate" Karen works as a busy commercial real estate agent with Marcus & Millichap one of the nation's largest and most highly regarded commercial brokerage firms.

Sought by industry insiders for their toughest deals, Karen has helped thousands to create wealth in commercial real estate with less risk even in today's uncertain economy.

Karen founded the Commercial Investment Education Institute which provides educational instruction for investors on multiple subjects including apartments, self storage, office buildings, retail centers, mobile home parks and more. Her courses are taught in a friendly and easy to understand manner.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Karen_Hanover

Sunday, May 24, 2009

The Income Method Of Property Valuation


Source: Content for Reprint
There are many theories involved with the modern property valuation. One of the major forms of conducting a property valuation utilises a methodology named the 'income method'. Put simply this method estimates the worth of a property along the lines of revenue potential, ergo the income that can be generated either from rental income or re-sale value. The method, although rather complicated is used extensively by investors to place a value on any property investment and to assess whether it will be profitable in the long term.

The income method of valuation relies upon certain assumptions in order to be accurate. These are the re-sale value of a property in the future and the predicted income generated from renting. To make these assumptions, existing data of similar properties is used to gain an idea of the potential worth. For instance; a three bedroom house according to recent data will return a re-sale figure more than fifty percent of the original price over a decade. In this time it will be possible to make at least four thousand pounds per annum during that decade from renting.

In order to put this valuation into perspective the income generated must be set against the original capital to assess how profitable the property will prove to be. As well as estimating the profit from the property, it must also be compared to an investment of similar capital expenditure to assess whether the property warrants investment over similar profitable schemes. An example of this would be instead of buying a letting property, it would be an option to invest in bonds as the returns would arguably be greater with less risk.

The hard part of any property valuation and especially with the use of the income method is to estimate the risk. While historical data is useful, it is in no means a far reaching solution. Predicting the ebbing and flowing of the property market is a notoriously difficult task. This is especially true in the modern climate where prices are in decline, but predicting the speed and magnitude of this decline is next to impossible.

The income valuation method however attempts to ignore the current market situation, instead relying upon the value of the property in a decade or so. By taking this future value and comparing it to the price paid now. While this will not give the buyer the price in real terms; that is what it will sell for on the open market, but instead gives a valuation of what the property is worth as an investment.

As well as the eventual re-sale value, the income from renting must also be included in the equation. As putting a property up for rent will create a constant stream of income, the value of this income must be estimated and factored in. Once again however both the estimates of the eventual sale value and rental income depend upon predicting the market; previously stated to be a task that is extremely difficult.

While this method is predominantly used by serious investors rather than home buyers it has various advantages over the 'comparable sales method'. One of these advantages is that this valuation method focuses upon the individual directly, estimating the value of a property to them, and not the market. In addition, the income method is also extremely detailed giving exact figures on what an investor can expect in terms of financial returns unlike the more widely used comparable sales method. So if you are serious about property investment, the income method of valuation could lead you to the immense profits you so hotly desire.

About the Author: "Real estate expert Thomas Pretty looks into different ways of conducting a property valuation."
The Income Method Of Property Valuation | Content for Reprint

Monday, May 11, 2009

Using Owner Financing to Buy Real Estate - No Mortgage Necessary


Using Owner Financing to Buy Real Estate - No Mortgage Necessary

Are you trying to sell your house without the desired results? Are you trying to buy a house but having difficulty with financing? If so this is probably the article for you. Why you might ask? Whether you are a buyer or a seller, owner financing could be the answer to your problem.

The increasingly-popular trend known as owner financing is when the owner, or seller, of the home finances all or part of the purchase of their house. Instead of paying a bank or mortgage, the buyer makes regular monthly payments to the seller. To some this process may sound a little weird when it's put in those terms. How about land contract or lease purchase agreements? Those are probably familiar to most people. Land contract and lease purchase agreements are more well-known types of owner financing.

What are the benefits to the buyer? Some, such as limited to non-existent qualification requirements are obvious. The approval decision is left to the seller and not to a bank or mortgage company with strict requirements. Others such as negotiable down payment and low closing costs are added benefits. Also, financing can be adjusted to the buyer's specific needs. Interest rates may also be lower or in some cases even non-existent. In the short and the long run owner financing can save the buyer hundreds of dollars and a lot of time and hassle.

What about the seller? Owner financing typically increases the number of interested buyers. The seller's monthly income is increased from the regularly scheduled payments. In addition to those benefits, the seller will probably pay fewer taxes for the additional monthly income than what would be required for a large sale.

So why not use owner financing? There are many benefits and no foreseeable problems. The buyer and the seller both benefit greatly from owner financing.

Many real estate investors know how to buy houses with Owner Financing. If you are interested in learning about buying, selling or renting properties using these creative strategies then check out these free resources for Real Estate Investing.



Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Wolfgang_O
http://EzineArticles.com/?Using-Owner-Financing-to-Buy-Real-Estate---No-Mortgage-Necessary&id=2322025

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Borrowers struggle with 'jumbo' mortgage loan rates



Kerry and Rebecca Scarlott, shown in their Hingham home with their daughter, Meghan, and dog, Dory, refinanced their jumbo loan with two smaller loans. (John Tlumacki/Globe STaff)
Source: The Boston Globe
While plunging mortgage rates have spawned a frenzy of refinancing, borrowers with larger, so-called jumbo loans are still seeing interest rates in the 7 percent range, prompting many to abandon refinancing plans altogether or resort to creative transactions.

The high rates are particularly an issue in Greater Boston, where expensive housing forces many people into jumbo-loan territory, which is currently $465,750 and above. In 2006, more than 10 percent of borrowers in Massachusetts took out jumbo mortgages.

Borrowers with conventional mortgages - those at or below $417,000 - are getting rates as low as 5 percent, while the national average for a jumbo loan hovers around 7 percent.

There is a new, third category of mortgages between jumbo and conventional loans, created last year by Congress, called conforming jumbos, which now average about 5.6 percent, according to a provider of industry data, HSH Associates.

"I think it is crazy you can't get as good a rate," said Julia Blake, 36, who with her husband is looking to refinance the Cape they bought in Wellesley for $695,000 in 2007. "To me, a jumbo loan should be a luxury house, and in Wellesley it is not. You can't get anything less than $600,000."

Another Wellesley resident, Paul Barnhill, wants to refinance his adjustable-rate jumbo loan into a fixed-rate loan, but not at current rates.

"I would refinance in a heartbeat if I could get 5 percent," said Barnhill, 44.

Jumbo mortgage rates are higher because lenders who initiate the loans are having trouble selling them on the secondary market, where the resale of mortgages provides funds for new loans. The banks and investment groups that buy mortgages are reeling from the credit crisis and the subprime mortgage debacle, and are steering clear of any loans that smack of higher risk. The major players on the secondary market, government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, do not purchase jumbo loans.

Industry groups are calling on the federal government to intervene. For example, the Federal Reserve Bank is purchasing huge amounts of mortgages and related securities, which industry officials said would result in even lower rates for conventional loans. The National Association of Realtors wants the Fed to do the same with jumbo loans.

"It's unfortunate that the jumbo interest rates are very high and the government is not being responsive to that," said Lawrence Yun, the trade group's chief economist. "It is not only hurting the Main Street, but it's a fairness issue. Why are people who are slightly over the loan limit being punished?"

Last year, Congress raised jumbo limits when it allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy or guarantee higher-balance loans. In Massachusetts, the limit increased to $523,750, from $417,000, with jumbo loans being above the higher amount, and conforming jumbos between the two figures. Continued...


Borrowers struggle with 'jumbo' mortgage loan rates - The Boston Globe