Hard Money Loans No Longer Available to Consumers

Hard Money Loans No Longer Available to Consumers

Lender · Salt Lake City, UT · Member since 2012 · 714 posts · 169 votes

The Dodd-Frank and the Consumer Protection Act have made it virtually impossible for a consumer to obtain a hard money or private money loan anymore. In the wake of the financial crisis, many consumers have had hits to their credit scores and can no longer qualify for a bank loan. In the past, when one could not qualify at the bank, one could still turn to a private or hard money lender for a loan. Not anymore!

The new Act has placed new restrictions on non-bank lending that did not exist before the financial crisis. The majority of hard money and private money lenders will no longer lend on owner occupied properties, for fear of regulators coming down on them. Ironically enough, it was the BANKS and not private money lenders who created this financial mess. Yet, it’s the non-bank, private and hard money lenders who are now being regulated.

In an effort to “protect” consumers, this new regulation is in fact “hurting” them even more by regulating the non-bank lenders. For example, a homeowner who needs to refinance and can’t qualify at the bank, is now unable to obtain a loan from a hard money lender. Equally, a homeowner who can’t qualify for a purchase loan at the bank also cannot obtain a private money loan.

What are your thoughts on this topic?

1Reply
115 views

Most Popular Reply

Lender · Tyngsboro, MA · Member since 2009 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
14y

Unintended consequences. In an effort to protect the consumer, they took away all the consumers' choices.

So all the self employed who can't qualify for bank loans anymore can't buy a house because the government is protecting them.

Now that's really helping the real estate recovery, isn't it?

See this reply in the discussion

30 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Mobile Home Investor · Spanaway, WA · Member since 2008 · 1k+ posts · 578 votes
    14y

    It's another prime example of the government trying to run things, but ends up ruining it for the average person. You also have the banks with very deep pockets to be able to bribe politicians into passing legislation on other agencies while protecting the actual criminals.

  • Real Estate Investor · Whittier, CA · Member since 2012 · 92 posts · 19 votes
    14y

    Dale I agree with your first statement about government, however, I wish I could tell you that bankers are smart enough to look into the future and realize they would profit from the Safe Act. If they were that smart this country would not be in this financial mess. I think it's just a bunch of polititions, with zero background in real estate or business who may even be well intentioned, but can't think an idea all the way through. They had no idea the consequences they would cause.

  • Mobile Home Investor · Spanaway, WA · Member since 2008 · 1k+ posts · 578 votes
    14y

    It may create some jobs for some of the people in their area that will vote for them next time around.

  • Lender · Tyngsboro, MA · Member since 2009 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    14y

    Unintended consequences. In an effort to protect the consumer, they took away all the consumers' choices.

    So all the self employed who can't qualify for bank loans anymore can't buy a house because the government is protecting them.

    Now that's really helping the real estate recovery, isn't it?

  • Lender · Salt Lake City, UT · Member since 2012 · 714 posts · 169 votes
    14y

    Luis Castillo I completely agree with your statement about making rules & regulations in real estate without any background or experience. Do you think Barney Frank consulted with real estate industry experts when he came up with that large pile of paper?

    And wasn't it the derivatives and the credit default swaps created by Wall Street that were the true culprits in the whole scheme that brought everything crashing down? I notice that none of THAT activity has really slowed down. In my opinion it should be completely eliminated altogether. Just saying....

  • Real Estate Investor · Whittier, CA · Member since 2012 · 92 posts · 19 votes
    14y

    I agree with you Corey, It was Wall Street that created the vehicle for the real estate meltdown and I have nothing against bankers but they were willing to jump in the car and go for a ride.

    There was a few small banks whose presidents saw what was going on and decided to stay away from the crowds who were lending with 2 or 3% down, bad credit or no credit and multiple loan to "investors" that didn't know what they were doing.

    Back to the subject, I have a 79 year old mother in law whose home is worth $400,000 and has a 1st of $33,000 and can't borrow $20,000 because the government is trying to protect her. And no, she doesn't want a reverse mortgage.

  • Lender · Salt Lake City, UT · Member since 2012 · 714 posts · 169 votes
    14y

    Luis Castillo I get at least one phone call per day from someone who can't qualify at the bank and either wants to refinance or purchase a primary residence. I have to tell all of them NO.

    When I give them the reason, it's like the rug has been pulled out. The last option for most is no longer an option. It's absolutely crazy.

    I have some associates in the private lending industry who are lobbying against this.

  • Carrollton, VA · Member since 2012 · 24 posts · 2 votes
    14y

    What can the consumer do now if he is going into foreclosure on his home,yet can't get cooperaton from the bank and now can't recieve a private loan?They make it so hard for law abiding citizens to remain honest and upstanding!

  • Lender · Salt Lake City, UT · Member since 2012 · 714 posts · 169 votes
    14y

    Calvin Jones this is an example of the "gray area of the law" :) There is always a way to get something done "legally" if a situation calls for it.

    This is not to say our company is making loans on primary residences, but there are some hard money lenders out there who are creatively lending, let's put it that way...!

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    14y

    I thought Dodd-Frank only imposed extra regulation on owner-occupied loans, not investment loans? How does it impact the ability of an investor to get hard money loans or private loans for investment purposes?

  • Lender · Salt Lake City, UT · Member since 2012 · 714 posts · 169 votes
    14y

    J Scott - You are correct. It only affects owner occupied, residential properties. Not residential investment properties.

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    14y
    Originally posted by Corey Dutton:
    J Scott - You are correct. It only affects owner occupied, residential properties. Not residential investment properties.

    Is there a large market for hard money directly to owner occupants? I didn't realize this was anything but a very, very niche market...

  • Lender · Salt Lake City, UT · Member since 2012 · 714 posts · 169 votes
    14y

    J Scott - Not a huge demand but with bank loans still in limited supply there is certainly a demand. A lot of self-employed borrowers won't pay hard money interest rates though.

  • Investor · San Jose, CA · Member since 2012 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    14y

    Government knows best, or shall I say the politicians know what's best for their citizens. :)

    Talking about the law of unintended consequences. Hahaha.

  • Real Estate Investor · Audubon, PA · Member since 2009 · 13k+ posts · 8k+ votes
    14y
    Originally posted by Corey Dutton:
    ... a homeowner who needs to refinance and can’t qualify at the bank, is now unable to obtain a loan from a hard money lender. Equally, a homeowner who can’t qualify for a purchase loan at the bank also cannot obtain a private money loan.

    What are your thoughts on this topic?

    There were a couple of examples in posts above where the borrower who can't qualify with a bank might be well served by HML. But for the most part, if the borrower falls short in bank qualifying, they probably shouldn't be borrowers! Again, there will be exceptions, such as self-employed or retired individuals as mentioned in earlier posts, but in the case of the typical W2 earner this is probably appropriate.

    Not that I agree with the loss of freedom of choice here ...

  • Investor · Central Valley, CA · Member since 2012 · 6k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    14y

    Maybe I'm missing something, but the experienced equity lenders in my farms still lend to consumers, both on purchase money and refinance. But it's called hard money because it's hardly worth paying for. These are 12-18% lenders, with nice fat points. They were all licensed mortgage brokers before the Act, hence they did the required paperwork (and background checks) to became licensed "mortgage originators" and are in compliance with the Dodd Frank and the CA version that followed. I've talked to a couple about buying notes as I wanted to sell properties via seller carryback and then sell the paper after a short seasoning period. They told me that since Dodd Frank, they won't buy paper on a consumer loan because if they didn't do the origination, they can't know if it was in compliance.

    Corey Dutton Do you know for sure that equity lending is not available to consumers in your area?

  • Investor · Southeast, MI · Member since 2012 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    14y

    I purchased my first house with a no doc and 20% down. I paid it all back and got several more similar loans.

    The government needs to step out of the entire mortgage business and get rid of HUD, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. All loans would become portfolio loans with your local bank. Sure rates might be higher. So what? The individual banks would compete with each other for your business and absorb any risk of making bad loans. If you didn't like the terms the bank was offering, you could get a HML. Maybe you could get a loan from a guy at the pork store that hasn't shaved in four days. Either way, everyone would compete for your business instead of following the same boring set of rules.

  • Investor · Buffalo, NY · Member since 2011 · 100 posts · 86 votes
    14y

    Rob K What is the address of this store of pork that you speak of??? A one stop shop, bacon and a loan I am very interested...

  • Karen MargraveBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Realtor, General Contractor, and Developer · Redding, CA · Member since 2009 · 7k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    14y

    Credit scores are something that are going to need to be addressed if the recovery is ever going to happen. I know people that have good incomes, always had very high credit scores, but their houses became so far underwater, and their banks wouldn't work with them that they decided to walk away from their houses. Now their credit is zip. Their family income is still $200k per year, with stead jobs, etc., and live in a very reasonably priced area of California, so now they just lease.

    The question is, how will the building industry ever recover if there are so few qualified buyers?

    Corey Dutton "in theory" couldn't someone form a corporation and get aroud the owner occupied requirement, thus leasing from their corporation?

  • Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
    14y

    If the government wanted to protect borrowers they'd have usury rates for owner occupied equity and cash loans. That would take care of it. Missouri has had 10% for years and it's certainly not a consumer minded state.

    When I had borrowers in trouble, we'd buy the house. Then lease it back with an option, hold their hand for awhile and sell it to them.....no big deal for an individual to do. :)

  • Lender · Salt Lake City, UT · Member since 2012 · 714 posts · 169 votes
    14y

    Karen M. yes you are correct. This is how some lenders are creatively structuring it but most refuse to do so given the risk of losing their licenses or paying heavy fines.

  • Investor · Central Valley, CA · Member since 2012 · 6k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    14y
    Originally posted by Corey Dutton:
    The Dodd-Frank and the Consumer Protection Act have made it virtually impossible for a consumer to obtain a hard money or private money loan anymore.

    Corey Dutton Can you share what info source you are basing your statement on? I'm aware that some private lenders did not want to become licensed in order to lend to consumers, but that's hardly everyone. My reading of the SAFE and DF is that they do not prevent private money loans or hard money loans to consumers. Rather the acts require licensing for consumer loan mortgage originators. Additionally, the acts required the states to pass their own laws on mortgage origination. You say you get calls from owner occupants and say you won't lend to them. Can you tell us what prevents you from doing so or explain your main concern?

  • Lender · Salt Lake City, UT · Member since 2012 · 714 posts · 169 votes
    14y

    K. Marie Poe - You are correct. The Act is interpreted differently at the State level. I didn't say ALL hard money lenders, I just said it's becoming more and more impossible for consumers to obtain a hard money than it was before this Act passed into effect.

    This is something to ask a local attorney versed in your State's interpretation of this Act. We used an attorney who specializes in working with private money, hard money lenders. Each State does have its own take on it. Most hard money lenders don't want to mess with it so they've just stopped offering loans to owner occupants. There are still plenty of them out there that will, but they are getting fewer and more far between. I personally don't know any other Utah hard money lender right now that will lend on owner occupied properties. There may be some, but I'm just not aware of any....

  • Investor · Central Valley, CA · Member since 2012 · 6k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    14y
    Originally posted by Bill Gulley:
    If the government wanted to protect borrowers they'd have usury rates for owner occupied equity and cash loans. That would take care of it. Missouri has had 10% for years and it's certainly not a consumer minded state.

    @Bill Gulley I'm in agreement that if the government REALLY wanted to protect consumers they would set usury rates for owner-occupied home loans. CA also has a 10% usury rate but for the most part only applies to private unlicensed lenders. Many private lenders in my area use a licensed mortgage broker to place and/or pool their funds so they can charge rates way higher than 10%.

    The 10% cap in MO that you mention appears to be about who can charge more than the usury rate, and not based on the property use or the borrower. According to MO Div. of Finance, insured banks and S&Ls and CUs and anyone who lent more than $1M in the past year are exempt and have no usury limit in MO. As far as I can tell, homeowners in MO are not protected from rates higher than 10%. Like you said, hardly consumer minded. :)

  • Investor · Central Valley, CA · Member since 2012 · 6k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    14y

    Corey Dutton Thanks for your reply. Your original post said "virtually impossible". I find the threads here more effective and edifying when people share their experience or facts and figures as opposed to making statements.

    I'm still curious about what is in your way of lending to consumers and what your attorney advised. I think we could all learn more if we talk about how the acts are being interpreted. What's your biggest impediment to consumer lending? Licensing? Disclosures and paperwork and creating an airtight file? Future problems if there is default?

    It does sound like it would be virtually impossible to get a consumer loan from you. But I've heard the sandy state of Utah is vast.

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.