Thank you for the explaination, but it still leaves me puzzled. Let me try to explain my confusion further.
If I want to purchase an undervalued property for $100,000. The banks will require that I put down no less than $20,000 cash. They want investors to have a larger amount of cash invested in the property because it decreases the banks risk. The more money I have in a property, the less likely I am to ruin the investment.
Now, I go to do a cash out refinance when the property has a net worth $130,000 (from fix ups or whatever). The bank will now give me a mortgage for 80% of the value or $104,000. I pay off the first $80,000 mortgage and get back $24,000. I now have back my initial cash investment of $20,000 plus a little extra. This is great for me.
But how does the bank not see this as a riskly loan since I no longer have any cash invested in the property?
If the banks are willing to let investors refinance properties to pull out all of their money, why are they so strick about putting down no less than 20% for the intital purchase?