Well I wish you would have posted here BEFORE closing them out.Length of credit history in good standing DOES affect your credit scores.If you have other credit that has a long history it shouldn't affect you that much.If however closing the 3 credit cards with 7 years of history you know only have a few credit lines with only 1 year or 2 of being open that is not great.In the end it shouldn't hurt you too much.When they made the new credit card rules last year or was it the year before credit card companies raised interest rates and annual fees from no fees.So what happened is the great credit people lost benefits because Obama wanted people with bad credit to not be taken advantage of.The credit companies simply restructured to make the same money.So A law passed that had good intentions but was misguided.The government believes when they pass a law people or companies will just take the loss but it never happens.So in the end these laws are just spinning wheels and not doing anything.I know many people who have closed their accounts once interest rates go up or annual fees are imposed.The downside is people want to maintain credit but some credit companies have been closing accounts if you don't use enough and they make a certain amount of interest off of you.It is getting rediculuos.

I know everything depends on personal circumstances but let's say the property is worth 104k...90% financed....insofar as liability and hazard insurance what is a good rule of thumb?

Okay hard money pros...Scenario:-A fully licensed real estate (deeds...not money) broker in California wishes to make hard money loans at very high interest rates in trade for aggregating money sources for fix-and-flippers and providing the fund apparatus where they can pool investors' money-The broker/lender inserts a choice of law provision in the contract stating that the laws of California apply-The broker/lender loans on projects in other statesI read in other posts that people have received advice from attorneys stating that the choice of law provision somehow "imports" the rules of Cali and allows one to lend at usurious rates.

I bet you can buy two (or more) smaller houses (1200 sq.ft more or less) in a bread-and-butter neighborhood.Will your 2700 sf beast cashflow given the 50% rule?

. / $4,166.67Annual debt service “DS”Revenues:Monthly AnnuallyRental Income$935$11,220.00 (RI)Vacancy @ 8% ($74.80)($897.60)Net Rental Income $860.20$10,322.40 NRI)Operating Expenses:Property Tax- 1800 (this is being challenged currently, but no ruling at this time)Insurance- 1000 (estimate, I will get a quote on this for sure.)Maintenance- 1200 (Estimate)Utilities- 800 (Estimate)Advertising- 100 (Estimate)Total Operating Expenses (*Very Estimated*) = $4900 (TOE)Net Operating IncomeNRI-TOE= NOI$10,322.40-$4900= $5422.50 (NOI)Total Cash FlowNOI- DS= TCF$5.422.40-$4,166.67= $1,255.73Return on InvestmentTCF/ TCO= ROI$1,255.73/ $5,000= .2511 (25.11%)Cash on Cash (Considering- Down Payment, Upfront Repairs, Closing Costs)TCF/ TCO (W/repairs and closing costs)$1,255.73/ $6,500 ($5,000 DP + $0 Initial Repairs + $1,500 Closing Cost) = .1923 (19.23%)My thoughts regarding this deal: I think the asking price is a little high for the property considering it’s age, condition (off of visual inspection from the street level only), location, what limited comps I could find.

I found some properties, but I had to rule them out because they were either too old or the asking price is more than the tax value.

With all of the new regulations and rulings coming down on banks lending rules change daily these days.

I also think we should be able to cash flow on the note (based on the 1% rent rule - valued at $135,000).

Are they taking that into account or can this be an exception to that rule?

I want to sell the place and buy rentals aiming for properties that are in line with the 2% rule.