The second part of my question , am i better off doing the 100% or would it best to borrow it and pay 12% plus 4 points?

I would say it's generally far less likely to get a discount on an REO versus a borrower.

More random ramblings on why I really disagree with this.Let's say I cast a magic spell and handcuff some set of borrowers and force them to always and only use me in the future. 

If you're getting a standard multi family loan requiring 25% down, and you're borrowing that 25%, then you're financing 100% and there is no equity. 

I also prefer the HELOC for flips as that would be a short term borrow, then you pay off the HELOC and have whatever profit you made left.

It's like refusing to borrow $100 from me, but still having to return it to me later, whether or not you took it. 

Let me give you the lay of the land as I've intended to set it up and the issue that I'm having.We've formed a stand-alone LLC that will act as the intermediary between the hard money borrower and the hard money lender.

My thought is that I wouldn't pay taxes on LOC's, since they are borrowed money. 

If a person has borrowed from the same bank a home loan secured by the house, a car loan secured by the car, and so on, these assets can be used as cross-collaterals for all the loans.) 

You could however, purchase a property in AU, allow time for equity growth and borrow against that equity to invest.