Portfolio lending is on the rise. The main reason for this is portfolio lending is not subject to the crazy 4 property rule. Through a portfolio lender, it is possible to have more than 20 mortgages. But those investors looking for conventional loans through lenders such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will run into the 4 property rule wall.
It is obvious that the $750 billion bailout did not do a thing to free up capital. And now the 4 property rule is a slap in the face to all real estate investors. In fact, this particular rule is a complete rejection of the principles that our capitalist society is founded on. In my opinion, the 4 property rule is designed to put real estate investors out of business. Just when the government should be inviting us to participate in the economic recovery.
Wondering what the 4 property rule actually is? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac announced in 2008 that the maximum number of financed properties a person can have is four. This crazy rule even includes a person's primary residence so really the maximum number of rentals is limited to three.
Specifically, if you are still financing your primary residence, you can only flip three properties if they are currently being financed! Again, this type of rule does very little for aiding investment circles. Really, it is a form of protectionism. And, as history shows, protectionism has the inverse consequence of what it was originally intended. That is to say, it does nothing to help the market and overall economy. Instead, the 4 property rule can significantly weaken the economy.
For example, prior to the current economic meltdown, many legitimate investors took advantage of skyrocketing real estate values. They would purchase properties at low prices and then sell high. In some cases, real estate investors would purchase significant volumes of property for resale. Some investors would purchase literally dozens of properties for resale. The profits derived from this wholesaling had an enormous benefit on the overall economy.
If the 4 property rule went away, there would be many positive effects. First, real estate investors would have to put their profits somewhere and my bet is they would go to the stock market. That in itself would provide a huge amount of liquidity. It would also fill up the tax coffers. And, of course, the wealth created would lead to more real estate being purchased thus improving values overall. The 4 property rule accomplishes none of this. I hope this rule will be overturned so we investors can fully participate in and contribute to the economic recovery.
Portfolio lenders, thank goodness, are not bound by this crazy rule. If you need to finance multiple properties, a portfolio lender should be your new best friend. - 14915
It is obvious that the $750 billion bailout did not do a thing to free up capital. And now the 4 property rule is a slap in the face to all real estate investors. In fact, this particular rule is a complete rejection of the principles that our capitalist society is founded on. In my opinion, the 4 property rule is designed to put real estate investors out of business. Just when the government should be inviting us to participate in the economic recovery.
Wondering what the 4 property rule actually is? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac announced in 2008 that the maximum number of financed properties a person can have is four. This crazy rule even includes a person's primary residence so really the maximum number of rentals is limited to three.
Specifically, if you are still financing your primary residence, you can only flip three properties if they are currently being financed! Again, this type of rule does very little for aiding investment circles. Really, it is a form of protectionism. And, as history shows, protectionism has the inverse consequence of what it was originally intended. That is to say, it does nothing to help the market and overall economy. Instead, the 4 property rule can significantly weaken the economy.
For example, prior to the current economic meltdown, many legitimate investors took advantage of skyrocketing real estate values. They would purchase properties at low prices and then sell high. In some cases, real estate investors would purchase significant volumes of property for resale. Some investors would purchase literally dozens of properties for resale. The profits derived from this wholesaling had an enormous benefit on the overall economy.
If the 4 property rule went away, there would be many positive effects. First, real estate investors would have to put their profits somewhere and my bet is they would go to the stock market. That in itself would provide a huge amount of liquidity. It would also fill up the tax coffers. And, of course, the wealth created would lead to more real estate being purchased thus improving values overall. The 4 property rule accomplishes none of this. I hope this rule will be overturned so we investors can fully participate in and contribute to the economic recovery.
Portfolio lenders, thank goodness, are not bound by this crazy rule. If you need to finance multiple properties, a portfolio lender should be your new best friend. - 14915
About the Author:
Susan Lassiter-Lyons has been teaching real estate investors all about investor financing since 2002. Her free report, The Death of Real Estate Investing, reveals how to find portfolio lenders nationwide.
No comments:
Post a Comment