Use of free and clear houses as Collateral
"Any sensible lender will require a lean lien against your formerly-free-and-clear property, and will likely require an appraisal of the property. The lender is free to reject the deal if the house is in any way not fitting their underwriting requirements; examples of such situations would be if the house is in a flood/emergency zone, in a declining area, an unusual property (and therefore hard to compare to other properties), not in salable condition (so even if they foreclose on it they'd have a questionable ability to get their money back), and so forth. Some lenders won't accept mobile homes (manufactured housing) as collateral, for instance, and also if the lender agrees they may also require insurance on the property to be maintained so they can ensure that a terrible fate doesn't befall both properties at one time (as happens occasionally). On the downside, in my experience (in the US) lenders will often require a lower loan percentage than a comparable cash down deal. An example I encountered was that the lender would happily provide 90% loan-to-value if a cash down payment was provided, but would not go above 75% LTV if real estate was provided instead. These sort of deals are especially common in cases of new construction, where people often own the land outright and want to use it as collateral for the building of a home on that same land, but it's not uncommon in any case (just less common than cash down deals). Depending on where you live and where you want to buy vs where the property you already own is located, I'd suggest just directly talking to where you want to first consider getting a quote for financing. This is not an especially exotic transaction, so the loan officer should be able to direct you if they accept such deals and what their conditions are for such arrangements. On the upside, many lenders still treat the LTV% to calculate their rate quote the same no matter where the ""down payment"" is coming from, with the lower the LTV the lower the interest rate they'll be willing to quote. Some lenders might not, and some might require extra closing fees - you may need to shop around. You might also want to get a comparative quote on getting a direct mortgage on the old property and putting the cash as down payment on the new property, thus keeping the two properties legally separate and giving you some ""walk away"" options that aren't possible otherwise.  I'd advise you to talk with your lenders directly and shop around a few places and see how the two alternatives compare. They might be similar, or one might be a hugely better deal! Underwriting requirements can change quickly and can vary even within individual regions, so it's not really possible to say once-and-for-all which is the better way to go."
"The problem here can be boiled down to that fact you are attempting to obtain a loan without collateral.  There are times it can be done, but you have to have a really good relationship with a banker.  Your question suggests that avenue has been exhausted. You are looking for an investor, but you are offering something very speculative.  Suppose an investor gives you 20K, what recourse does he have if you do not pay the terms of the loan?  From what income will this be paid from?  What event will trigger the capability to make a balloon payment?    Now if you can find a really handy guy that really needs a place to live could you swap rent for repairs?  Maybe.  Perhaps you buy the materials, and he does the roof in exchange for 6 months worth of rent or whatever. If you approached me with this ""investment"", the thing that would raise a red flag is why don't you have 20K to do this yourself?  If you don't how will you be able to make payments?  For example of the items you mentioned: That is a weekend worth of work and some pretty inexpensive materials.  Why does money need to be borrowed for this? A weekend worth of demo, and $500 worth of material and another weekend to build something serviceable for a rental.  Why does money need to be borrowed for this? 2K?  Why does money need to be borrowed for this? This can be expensive, but most roofing companies offer financing.  Also doing some of the work yourself can save a ton of money.  Demoing an old roof is typically about 1/3 of the roofing cost and is technically simple, but physically difficult. So besides the new roof, you could have a lot of your list solved for less than 3K and three weekends worth of work.  You are attempting to change this into a rental, not the Taj Mahal." I wish this was the case in Canada.  I lost about 60k on my home in one year and have to sell now to move for work.    In the US I could simply default and the bank takes the loss.  In Canada if I default, CMHC pays the bank, then I'm sued by CMHC and stuck with the bad debt.    Simply put - here the onus of repayment is on the lender, not the lending institution.  It sounds good until you are the one looking at losing your shirt. Wrong way round. Transitional arrangements are non-binding guidelines that the lenders can observe if they choose to. The borrower - like your friend - doesn't  get to choose whether to use them or not. Your friend obviously can't afford the property, so if you do this, all I can say is congratulations on buying your new house, and I hope you got a deal on the mortgage. whenever these securities are bought by the govt, they are retired.  Treasury sells bonds to the private sector market, if the central bank buys them back from the private sector market, then they are retired.  Treasury no longer are beholden to them.    When central bank buys toxic mortgages bonds, they bought only  enough to ensure stability and trust again in the banking system.     The homeowners mortgages should be forgiven since the US govt bought them, but, since we don't know who owns what due to mixing of the MBS and grading them triple A etc.., and the MERS program is such a mess, then it's up to the individual homeowners to fight in the courts that they should be absolved of the mortgage.  For the homeowners that don't have money to pay lawyers, then they gets foreclosed upon. "Collateralized & Secured are interchangeable terms. Note the following two quotes from wikipedia (links below): ""A secured loan is a loan in which the borrower pledges some asset (e.g. a car or property) as collateral for the loan, which then becomes a secured debt owed to the creditor who gives the loan."" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secured_loan ""In lending agreements, collateral is a borrower's pledge of specific property to a lender, to secure repayment of a loan."" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_%28finance%29 This website also uses the terms interchangeably: http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-a-collateral-loan.htm Loan & Line of Credit are not interchangeable terms.  In a loan, you receive a one time disbursement & repay it over a fixed amortization schedule. (Think home mortgage) In a line of credit, you can pay back & re-borrow from your credit line as often as you need. (Think credit card or Home Equity Line of Credit)" "Generally, when you own something - you can give it as a collateral for a secured loan. That's how car loans work and that's how mortgages work. Your ""equity"" in the asset is the current fair value of the asset minus all your obligations secured by it. So if you own a property free and clear, you have 100% of its fair market value as your equity. When you mortgage your property, banks will usually use some percentage loan-to-value to ensure they're not giving you more than your equity now or in a foreseeable future. Depending on the type and length of the loan, the LTV percentage varies between 65% and 95%. Before the market crash in 2008 you could even get more than 100% LTV, but not anymore. For investment the LTV will typically be lower than for primary residence, and the rates higher. I don't want to confuse you with down-payments and deposits as it doesn't matter (unless you're in Australia, apparently). So, as an example, assume you have an apartment you rent out, which you own free and clear. Lets assume its current FMV is $100K. You go to a bank and mortgage the apartment for a loan (get a loan secured by that apartment) at 65% LTV (typical for condos for investment). You got yourself $65K to buy another unit free and clear. You now have 2 apartments with FMV $165K, your equity $100K and your liability $65K. Mortgaging the new unit at the same 65% LTV will yield you another $42K loan - you may buy a third unit with this money. Your equity remains constant when you take the loan and invest it in the new purchase, but the FMV of your assets grows, as does the liability secured by them. But while the mortgage has fixed interest rate (usually, not always), the assets appreciate at different rates. Now, lets be optimistic and assume, for the sake of simplicity of the example, that in 2 years, your $100K condo is worth $200K. Voila, you can take another $65K loan on it. The cycle goes on. That's how your grandfather did it." You need to talk to a local attorney specializing in real estate matters. The contract needs to ensure that your interests are protected. How you do that is too complex for an answer here and varies from state to state, or even jurisdictions within a state. There are all sorts of options. Sometimes deals like this are structured so that you can actually sell your remaining equity in the property to a third party later on. If the property has value, but the banks aren't interested in lending right now, you could potentially make money on it down the road. What you are describing is called a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). While the strategy you are describing is not impossible it would raise the amount of debt in your name and reduce your borrowing potential. A recent HELOC used to finance the down payment on a second property risks sending a signal of bad financial position to credit analysts and may further reduce your chances to obtain the credit approval. I'm an Aussie and I purchased 5 of these properties from 2008 to 2010. I was looking for positive cash flow on properties for not too much upfront investment. The USA property market made sense because of the high Aussie $$ at the time, the depressed property market in the US and the expensive market here.  I used an investment web-site that allowed me to screen properties by yield and after eliminating outliers, went for the city with the highest consistent yield performance. I settled on Toledo, Ohio as it had the highest yields and was severely impacted by the housing crisis. I bought my first property for $18K US which was a little over $17K AUD.  The property was a duplex in great condition in a reasonable location.  Monthly rentals $US900 and rents guaranteed and direct deposited into my bank account every month by section 8.  Taxes $900 a year and $450 a year for water. Total return around $US8,000.   My second property was a short sale in a reasonable area. The asking was $US8K and was a single family in good condition already tenanted.  I went through the steps with the bank and after a few months, was the proud owner of another tenanted, positive cash flow property returning $600 a month gross. Taxes of $600 a year and water about the same.  $US6K NET a year on a property that cost $AUD8K Third and fourth were two single family dwellings in good areas.  These both cost $US14K each and returned $US700 a month each.  $US28K for two properties that gross around $US15K a year.   My fifth property was a tax foreclosure of a guy with 2 kids whose wife had left him and whose friend had stolen the money to repay the property taxes.  He was basically on the bones of his butt and was staring down the barrel of being homeless with two kids.  The property was in great condition in a reasonable part of town.  The property cost me $4K.  I signed up the previous owner in a land contract to buy his house back for $US30K. Payments over 10 years at 7% came out to around $US333 per month.  I made him an offer whereby if he acted as my property manager, i would forgo the land contract payments and pay him a percentage of the rents in exchange for his services. I would also pay for any work he did on the properties.  He jumped at it.  Seven years later, we're still working together and he keeps the properties humming.  Right now the AUD is around 80c US and looks like falling to around 65c by June 2015.  Rental income in Aussie $$ is around $2750 every month. This month (Jan 2015) I have transferred my property manager's house back to him with a quit claim deed and sold the remaining houses for $US100K  After taxes and commission I expect to receive in the vicinity of AUD$120K  Which is pretty good for a $AUD53K investment.  I've also received around $30K in rent a year. I'm of the belief I should be buying when everybody else is selling and selling when everybody else is buying.   I'm on the look-out for my next positive cash flow investment and I'm thinking maybe an emerging market smashed by the oil shock.   I wish you all happiness and success in your investment. Take care. VR "In a domestic setting, Letters of Credit are often used to build public works needed to support a development.  So if you're bulldozing a few 3 story buildings to build a 50 story tower, the municipality will build appropriate water/sewer/gas/road infrastructure, and draw from the developer's letter of credit to fund it. The 'catch' to the developer is that these things usually aren't revokable -- once the city/town/etc starts work, the developer cannot cut-off the funding, even if the  project is cancelled. A letter of credit definitely isn't a consumer financing vehicle. The closest equivalent is a ""line of credit"" tied to an asset like a home." The house becomes an asset belonging to the estate of Alice.  The debt also goes with the estate.  The executor of the will should arrange for the debt to be paid off as part of sorting out the estate - they can't just hand out all the assets and leave nothing to pay off the debts. This could be done by selling the house.  But in practice, the executor and the mortgage lender may both be happy if Bob takes out a mortgage, uses that to pay the debt, then inherits the house. So if it's a bridge loan they need a lot of money now to keep the trains running but expect to get the actual loan they need in the future at which point they pay off the bridge loan ideally after not having to make too many coupon payments. That's what it sounds like to me.  Scenario: I am building a large development, my main funding source is kaput for whatever reason, I need money now to make payroll, buy fuel, pay for that shipment of supplies etc, I don't have time to secure the huge loan I need in the future for the rest of the project so I get a loan to cover me until I secure that deal and put my building site as collateral against it, I get the full funding, pay off the bond in full and move on with the project. Borrowing money from the Federal Reserve (or other central banks) requires full collateral, generally in terms of treasury bonds. In that sense it is only a source of liquidity - getting short term money by pledging guaranteed future cash flows, not random commercial loans. To get a dollar from FR today requires freezing a dollar that you already had. Private deposits, on the other hand, require only a keeping a fraction of them as reserves, so you can use the rest of the money for new loans. Some lenders will make loans for vacant land, others will not. You have to discuss with local bank what are your plan for the land: live in the old mobile home; install a new mobile home; build a new house; Sell it to a developer; use it for camping... Is the property part of a development with other mobile homes? If so there may be complications regarding the use and rights of the property. Some local jurisdictions also want to eliminate mobile homes, so they may put limitations on the housing options. "Why thank you for this unbiassed information, trust deed salesperson.  Basically, trust deeds are a pawn shop for your house, except they aren't well regulated like a pawn shop.  ""Banks are too trustworthy.  I'm going to give my house to Joe, because he'll give me one third of one more percent, and it seems smart to me to gamble my home on a couple hundred bucks and some social network advice."""