Direct to the Bank vs Broker lending

[Carl Snyder]

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Bigger Pockets Community, thank you for taking the time to entertain my elementary question.  I'm still in the "information gathering" stage of my RE investing and in all I've read and listened to, I've yet to see or hear any evidence that would explain what the differences between what broker lenders can offer vs. going right to the banks.  My understanding is that most lenders have a 4 property minimum they'll assess to investors making it difficult grow.  Why would I not just opt to work with a mortgage broker that represents say 12 different lenders and never have to make 50 phone calls to secure financing?

[Michael Woodward]

@Carl Snyder,  That's not a bad idea.  You'll need to meet/call a few to see how they respond.  It's possible to find local or regional "portfolio" banks (lending their own money instead of Uncle Sam's) that are willing to lend on many deals at once.  There really isn't any external limit or law for the number of properties that banks can lend on for an individual but regulators keep pressure on them to minimize their risks so the banks end up setting internal limits.  Keep in mind that your ability to borrow from these banks will depend on your experience level.  They're going to expect you to be able to convince them that you know what you're doing and their money is safe.  

Ironically, the big banks (Bank of America, Chase, etc) limit you based on your available income, cash, and credit but they don't really care if you know what you're doing.  They'll base their decision on your history rather than your future plans. If you crash and burn with a new idea, they'll pick up what's left of the wreckage and move on but the smaller banks won't take that risk. You might have to start with the institutional banks to get a few properties (experience) under your belt, then approach your local banks and credit unions.  

My two cents.....