I'm just trying to understand how people make these types of scenarios work using private money lenders who are only interested in lending shorter terms.Again above numbers are strictly examples.Respectfully,-Kyle

Speaking of affordable housing, mobiles are only affordable for a shorter period, in the long run, conventional housing is a better solution.Mobiles are personal property unless attached as RE.

Portfolio loans are also are easier on the underwriting and can close on a shorter schedule.

If you intend to buy and hold for a shorter period of time (say 5 years or less) and you are buying for the appreciation play, the new build could be the better way to go (but not always of course).

But since there is a limit to how much money the bank has access to....their rate will be higher...and usually a shorter term.

I actually think there will be shorter up and down cycles in local areas where job and population increase.

The purchase price is so minimal that interest rates, etc, barely put a dent in the pocket so I'm comfortable financing while using most of any potential rental income to just put back towards the mortgage to have it paid off in a much shorter period.

However; hard money lenders usually only do shorter term loans, not long term.

I imagine maintenance costs would be higher - shorter roof, exterior paint life, etc.

In that book they say if your turn over rate is shorter than this then the turnovers are costing you too much and if they're longer than this then your rents are to low and you are throwing money away.However when I get a good tenant I will gladly keep them a little bit below market just to keep them.