The 4 Property Rule in Real Estate Investing
Portfolio lending is becoming increasing popular. One of the reasons for this is portfolio lending is not restricted to the horrific 4 property rule. Through a portfolio lender, it is possible to acquire a multitude of mortgages. However, those looking to procure loans through entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will run into the 4 property rule wall.
It is understandable that new rules need to be put in effect to prevent the fiasco that precipitated the nefarious $750 billion bailout bill. However, the onset of the 4 property rule is among the most egregious. In fact, this particular rule is a complete rejection of the principles that the free market is founded on. That is, the 4 property rule is a massive overreach of government regulation designed to limit the free market. Worst of all, this type of regulation limits a great deal of personal liberty and freedom.
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.
This type of rule does very little to help our economy recover. In my opinion, it is a form of Socialism. And, last time I looked we lived in a country founded on Capitalism. So, this rule overall does nothing to improve our situation and in fact the 4 property rule can significantly weaken our economy.
Prior to the mortgage meltdown, most real estate investors took advantage of astronomical appreciation. They practiced what all good investors practice: buy low/sell high. Most investors were buying everything they could and mortgages were easy to come by. Some bought to flip, some held in their own rental portfolio and some bought properties in bulk. All of those activities pumped a lot of money into the economy.
If there were no 4 property rule, the sale of of real estate would lead to a number of positive effects. For example, the revenues generated would lead to increased liquidity. It would also generate significant tax revenue to the state and local governments. And, of course, affordable housing would be plentiful. With this 4 property rule, none of this is possible. Hopefully, this rule will be overturned so we can return to a free market approach to investment real estate.
The good news is, regardless of whether or not this rule is revoked, portfolio lenders do not have to follow this 4 property rule. If you have more than 4 financed properties (or hope to), a portfolio lender is what you need.
It is understandable that new rules need to be put in effect to prevent the fiasco that precipitated the nefarious $750 billion bailout bill. However, the onset of the 4 property rule is among the most egregious. In fact, this particular rule is a complete rejection of the principles that the free market is founded on. That is, the 4 property rule is a massive overreach of government regulation designed to limit the free market. Worst of all, this type of regulation limits a great deal of personal liberty and freedom.
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.
This type of rule does very little to help our economy recover. In my opinion, it is a form of Socialism. And, last time I looked we lived in a country founded on Capitalism. So, this rule overall does nothing to improve our situation and in fact the 4 property rule can significantly weaken our economy.
Prior to the mortgage meltdown, most real estate investors took advantage of astronomical appreciation. They practiced what all good investors practice: buy low/sell high. Most investors were buying everything they could and mortgages were easy to come by. Some bought to flip, some held in their own rental portfolio and some bought properties in bulk. All of those activities pumped a lot of money into the economy.
If there were no 4 property rule, the sale of of real estate would lead to a number of positive effects. For example, the revenues generated would lead to increased liquidity. It would also generate significant tax revenue to the state and local governments. And, of course, affordable housing would be plentiful. With this 4 property rule, none of this is possible. Hopefully, this rule will be overturned so we can return to a free market approach to investment real estate.
The good news is, regardless of whether or not this rule is revoked, portfolio lenders do not have to follow this 4 property rule. If you have more than 4 financed properties (or hope to), a portfolio lender is what you need.
About the Author:
Susan Lassiter-Lyons has been teaching real estate investors the secrets to investor financing since 2002. Her free report, The Death of Real Estate Investing, reveals how to find portfolio mortgages nationwide.
posted by Credit Counseling at
6:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home