Borrow against one deal to fund another - private or hard money?
I am looking at a 4-unit Sacramento, CA that a partner and I want to buy - it needs rehab and will only sell for cash. Our plan is to purchase for cash, rehab and refinance out into a 30 year mortgage and hold it as a rental.
I would normally use my own funds for the purchase but they are sitting in a recently rehabbed property that is listed for sale. So I'm looking for short term cash.
The rehabbed property I have listed for sale is worth more than the property we're looking to purchase. Time is of the essence as we potentially need to show proof of funds next week and close within a short period of time. The seller is a bank.
Here are my questions:
1) Would you use (a) the property being purchased as the collateral or (b) the property that is already rehabbed and waiting to be sold? Using the rehabbed property will likely speed up the borrowing process but is it worth tying it up to make the purchase of another property? Once the property sells the lender can be paid back right away.
2) Would you go with a private lender or hard money, assuming private lenders will likely be less expensive but may not be as quick as a hard money lender? Or maybe I am wrong on that assumption? I am still looking for both available options.
3) Is using a hard money lender even a viable option when purchasing from a bank?
4) What other options are out there?
I'm interested to hear what others would do. My gut feeling is telling me it would be better to use a private lender as opposed to hard money.
P.S. - I understand that a lot more goes into the equation but I'm trying to keep it short and to the point. Let me know if I should clarify anything to make more sense :)