Rolf,
In the same example, even if you spend $10,000 on the home, you’ve got a four year payback. Of course, in a “better community” the customer should have more to put down. If they only have a $1,000, then they are maybe not “better”. Aesthetically, since it’s your home, you can make it look good through paint and skirting and other cosmetic measures, such as shutters, and don’t care too much on the interior – leave that to the tenant if they are really that inclined. I know you’re going to say “but a lousy interior leads to a lousy customer”, but aren’t they really all lousy, in a general sense? If they were good quality tenants, they wouldn’t be living in a trailer park, but in a single-family home. I’m yet to meet the eccentric millionaire who lives in a trailer park wearing his smoking jacket and slippers, because he enjoys the bohemian lilfestyle it affords. I did meet someone who claimed they were an eccentric millionaire living in the park, but they later ran off when they couldn’t pay their rent, so I’m a little suspicious of that one.
I’m not suggesting that every one run out and lose money on every home they sell. But maybe carrying paper on homes affected by the SAFE Act should be looked at from other angles – like maybe carrying paper on homes is not such a great idea to begin with (remember that I’m the guy who had 200 homes that I was carrying mortgages on that I dumped for small cash amounts to get out of the “mortgage” business). The real goal is lot rent. The real doomsday scenario (and I’ll be the first to admit that I’m no expert on the SAFE Act) is the effect on Lonnie dealers. They have no potential profit other than the home itself.