Financing Dilemma

Financing Dilemma

Investor · Fairfax, VA · Member since 2013 · 126 posts · 28 votes

Hey everyone! I have a rental building that I own with two partners, on the south side of Chicago. We own it free and clear, and it generates a profit of about $600 per month, and will about double when we get the basement done and rented. We're feeling great about what we've done so far, and looking to buy a second building around the beginning of the year.

Unfortunately, all the traditional lenders I've spoken to won't lend us money unless one of the three of us is personally on the hook for the loan. That's not great because it means one of us has credit limitations and that we need to spend a lot of our income paying off the debt to get the person free. Seems like our expansion will be really slowed by that.

Hard money lenders might be an option. But everything I've heard is that they are high interest, short term loans, so it appears we will likely be in the same situation of using all of our profits to pay off the loan, also limiting our ability to grow.

Can someone tell me what I'm missing? I really like this website so I'm hoping someone can un-dilemma this for me. Thanks!

0Reply
16 views

9 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Dallas, TX · Member since 2013 · 4k+ posts · 744 votes
    13y

    John,

    Let your free and clear property stand good for the loan.

    Joe Gore

  • Ned CareyPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Baltimore, MD · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 13k+ votes
    13y
    Originally posted by John Hauser:
    lenders I've spoken to won't lend us money unless one of the three of us is personally on the hook for the loan.

    Well of course, why would anyone lend you money if you are not willing to back it up? If you are confident enough in a transaction that everything will work out fine then you should be happy to personally guarantee the loan. If you are not willing to guarantee the loan you should question whether it is a good enough deal to start.

    What in the hell do you mean by that? Aren't you supposed to be spending part of your income to pay the debt?

    Hard money lenders will also usually expect you to personally guarantee the loan. If your deal won't support paying the loan payments AND have additional positive cash flow, you have a bad deal. Lenders

    Lenders typically expect after all expenses are paid the money you have left to cover you loan payments is at least 125% of the loan payment. This is called debt coverage ratio. Even if all other issues are fine they will often turn down a loan if you don't meet this criteria.

    I think you may be mis-understading what the lenders are telling you or you are not being very clear about your issue. - Ned

  • Will BarnardPro Member
    Moderator
    Developer · Santa Clarita, CA · Member since 2008 · 15k+ posts · 10k+ votes
    13y

    John, the lender just needs one of you three to be on the loan so simply don't use the partner with the poor credit. Either you or the other does the credit and vice versa on the second. Hopefully, the third partner can fix the credit issue on their own before you are ready to do deal 3. If not, then perhaps a reduction in profits is in order to that partner since you two are placing more into the deals via loan responsibility.

  • Dallas, TX · Member since 2013 · 4k+ posts · 744 votes
    13y

    Ned,

    When someone don't want to personal guarantee a loan that means they dont trust in themselves.

    Joe Gore

  • Ned CareyPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Baltimore, MD · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 13k+ votes
    13y

    Exactly @Account Closed I guess that is the point I was trying to make.

  • Specialist · Westlake Village, CA · Member since 2010 · 1k+ posts · 781 votes
    13y

    Hard money is very difficult to sustain a buy & hold property because it is typically high interest & short term. That would be a last resort for me.

    Private money is my first choice if you can offer a first TD at a rate & terms that makes sense for both parties.

    Will, makes a great point, that if there is recourse to only 2 of the 3 partners, it could be addressed in percentage of ownership or distributions.

    I know there are strong opinions about personal guarantees & recourse. I have been on both sides as a lender & borrower. I see it as risk management for both the borrower & the lender.

    As I borrower, the future is unpredictable, even if you are very experienced, have the capability & absolute faith in the projects success. If your net worth could be wiped out by an unforeseen event, you would be foolish not to avoid recourse that could devastate you financially. You also shouldn't be upset or surprised if lenders refuse to lend to you without your guarantee, it's their money, their rules. Don't do the project.

    As a lender, I would rather use cross-collateral than insisting on personal guarantees. I prefer equity versus suing, enforcing & collecting on a judgment.

  • Investor · Fairfax, VA · Member since 2013 · 126 posts · 28 votes
    13y

    Thanks for all the feedback and sorry if I wasn't articulating it clearly. I definitely believe in the deal enough to put my own credit on the line for it, the same way I was willing to put cash down for the first deal. I was hoping (to Ellis' point) that we could use the building we have as collateral and borrow against that, but it seems the lenders I've spoken to still want the personal guarantee, and although I haven't done this before, I would imagine has to be disclosed whenever I want to borrow money in my personal life for any other reason. Thanks Ellis for confirming my impression that hard money lenders won't really work for a long-term investment like this. All of this really helps.

    The crux of what I'm getting at is how investors pick up houses quickly if their personal borrowing capacity is encumbered each time they pick up a buy-and-hold property. Seems like even with a decent return it will take a very long time to pay off the loan (as opposed to just making the monthly payments).

  • Rental Property Investor · Mercer Island, WA · Member since 2008 · 22k+ posts · 14k+ votes
    13y

    This I can explain as long as I ignore the partnership aspect. I don't know how that comes into play. IMHO partnerships are nothing but trouble and should be avoided at all costs.

    Good rentals help your DTI. First figure out all your non-rental debt payments and you income. DTI = debt payments / income. Now to add in the effect of the rentals you look at your tax return. A savvy lender (not all are) will add back the depreciation. Is the bottom line from the rentals postitive (hopefully!) Or negative. If its positive it adds to your income, improving your DTI. If its negative it adds to the debt, hurting your DTI.

    Now you need two years experience to get the rentals to count at all. Before that its all on your own income. But after that good rentals will help.

    If you then try to buy a new one, bankers use a rule of thumb to calculate the effect of the new one. They estimate net rental income as rent * 75% - PITI.

  • Investor · Fairfax, VA · Member since 2013 · 126 posts · 28 votes
    13y

    Ah now THAT is what I was looking for. The answer is yes, the rental income is a net positive even after the expenses are paid, even without the benefit of depreciation. So this will eventually help my DTI, not hurt it. Totally makes sense now. And the two-year restriction is very good to know about so thank you.

    Just what I was looking for! Thanks Jon!

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