Skip to content
×
PRO
Pro Members Get Full Access!
Get off the sidelines and take action in real estate investing with BiggerPockets Pro. Our comprehensive suite of tools and resources minimize mistakes, support informed decisions, and propel you to success.
Advanced networking features
Market and Deal Finder tools
Property analysis calculators
Landlord Command Center
$0
TODAY
$69.00/month when billed monthly.
$32.50/month when billed annually.
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime
Already a Pro Member? Sign in here
Pick markets, find deals, analyze and manage properties. Try BiggerPockets PRO.
x
All Forum Categories
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

All Forum Posts by: Michael Worley

Michael Worley has started 3 posts and replied 102 times.

Post: Due on sale clause was called by bank!

Michael WorleyPosted
  • Investor
  • Carrollton, TX
  • Posts 109
  • Votes 76
Originally posted by @Bill Gulley:

The OP has a secondary market loan, the requirement to call it comes from the servicing agreement, not interest rates. A portfolio lender may decide considering interest rates, but a note under servicing that has been sold will get tripped by the servicing requirements, not interest rates, a servicer may have no choice and they aren't getting the interest rates the bond holders are, or the holder of the note.

While the Act was passed in the early 80s during high interest rates, to keep the lender's interest rate risk manageable as folks were assuming payments, that is not the case today, the issues are legal aspects of notice and foreclosure, clogging the security and servicing agreements set by note or bond portfolios. A bank servicing their own portfolio may look at it from an interest rate risk standpoint, but that is not the only or primary concern. :)

As a banker, I'd like to interject my thoughts, which come from a bank's point of view. The above information is correct, but only part of the story. The notion that a bank will not call a performing loan due is absolutely incorrect. Whether it's a real estate loan, a C&I loan for working capital, loans for equipment, or revolving lines of credit it goes through a similar process. We are constantly reviewing our portfolio of loans, grading their risk weightings, and deciding what (if any) actions we need to take. This happens on all loans, regardless of their status of paying as agreed or not.

The motivations for doing this are many, but one that is extremely important, but almost never mentioned here is how Bank Examiners view our portfolio risk. Bank Examiners require us to have a risk weighted portfolio within the parameters. A loans risk weighting changes with updated financials, borrowing bases, change in ownership, collateral changes, etc.

If you change ownership of a property by quit claim deed, it vastly changes the risk weighting of that real estate loan.

I could talk for days about the inner workings of AND how misunderstood banking is by many people but that's another thread.

Post: Buy and Hold, Does It Really Make Sense?

Michael WorleyPosted
  • Investor
  • Carrollton, TX
  • Posts 109
  • Votes 76
Originally posted by @Mike F.:
Originally posted by @Toyin Dawodu:

So let's hear from newbies and veterans, does it really make sense to buy and hold?

Income means nothing, net worth means everything. People can have high incomes for 20 years and still have a  very small net worth.

So if you're making $200,000 a year flipping, what are you doing with the income? Are you keeping your accumulated net worth in cash or investing it? If you're investing it what are you investing it in? How about real estate? Ooops now you're a land lord. LOL

I would actually argue that the opposite is true. Cash flow is what matters, not net worth. Now, before I explain my position, I obviously think that having a higher net worth rather than a lower one is better.

Cash flow is all that matters in anything. As an example, if you have a pension that paid you $8,000 a month for the rest of your life and you spent every penny of it each month you would have a decent lifestyle without having to do any work.

Net Worth only matters to the extent that you can convert that to a cash flow. Having $1,000,000 in equity in real estate properties that don't cash flow causes quite an issue if you have to pay bills.

There are only two types of investing, one that relies on clipping coupons (referring to the coupons on Bonds) a.k.a cash flow, and one that relies on reselling to another buyer for a higher price a.k.a. capital appreciation. The second option is relying on the 'greater fool theory' and that can be dangerous. As the motto goes, cash is king.