I will follow up with your recommendation.  

this is a toughie. hard money specifically is equity-driven, meaning they'll likely want 40%+ down to even entertain the deal. additionally, land without improvements is often very inexpensive (relative to land with improvements), usually pushing below a threshold which makes sense for a hard money lender. if you're not intending to build right away, then i think you'll have the best luck with private money instead of hard money. usually higher leverages than hard money, and more negotiable terms.if you are intending to build on it pretty right away, a ground-up construction loan could work, but those will typically require some ground-up construction experience (on title on other ground-up deals), or an extensive portfolio of heavy rehabs/ rentals/ strong liquidity. those will give you acquisition monies (to buy the land) and build monies (to build the improvements).

Or at a local real estate meet-up is another great option.3) IMO (duplex, triplex, quadplex) are best, butttt in some areas supply is limited.

Looking to buy a brand new house 2023 price is reasonable and charging 0.8-1% of purchase price is do able..my question is financing real estate but my first property is almost paid off and has been an uninterrupted rental for 7 years thankfully 90% paid off, cash is tight...could take out loan against CC at 4% flat to pay off house then maybe leverage paid off rental (private mortgage)?

@Jose AlmonteAdd up all your annual expenses and then determine your total monthly expenses.

Within iTunes, click the "subscribe" button on the left side to subscribe to our show and then click "Ratings and Reviews"4.)

Median prices were up a whopping 19.9% in September YOY vs 5.5% in Johnson County.

Has anyone had luck putting up “we buy houses” lawn signs of their own?

500 SF is pretty small, so that may the reason for other lenders, but I'd try a few different ones or try a credit union if that doesn't work.

Any company insuring your properties without an inspection most likely has a clause buried deep in their policy allowing them to deny claims for conditions found on the property that do not meet their UW standards and they will deny you claim based on "the house should have not been insured with them anyway".Although the inspections can be annoying look at it from the other side.You pay them 1000 to 3000 a year to insure a rental property where they agree to pay out possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars if it burns down or up to 1 million if a tenant slips on a bananna peel and falls down the steps or the tenants dog bites someone and since you didn't enforce the tenant having their own renters policy to cover the dog bite the landlord's policy is paying out.The insurance company is very much like your rich uncle backing your business venture - you run the business, he takes on the financial risk from disasters, and doesn't even get a say in who lives in the property.Your rich uncle asking you to fix the steps, put up a handrail, etc which is in your and his best interest long term.Do you really want to rent out a property with a busted front step and a bad roof that is going to leak sooner than later?