澳洲Australia property Financing Strategy -one lender or multipl
在澳大利亚 Appologies for all the threads, I dont have much time to get organised before the auction on Saturday. I had a question about the solicitor/conveyancing fees. I remember last time I had this done it cost over $1000. But that was soliciting t I have been looking at units in Sydneys upper North Shore. Only in Ku-Ring-gai so up to Wahroonga. The area seems to offer good fundamentals, is very popular and in general seems to be a lovely place. My favoured location to buy I think is G
Feel it is appropriate to debate the pros and cons of utilising one lender as opposed to having two or three when you have multiple loans and IP's.
Brenda and Les have all of their loans with one bank and work on the relationship to reduce fees and the two way relationship.
My viewpoint has always been that having at least two lenders gives you the benefit of playing one off against the other and having more flexibility when it comes down to the crunch especially when they have different lending criteria.
Easy for me........ MULTIPLE
VERY EASY FOR FINANCE.
All just keep offering the portfolio around now & then. You would be shocked to see some offers.
I used to use one. But the credit policy changed with that Lender & then the same with the next one.
But Brenda obviously has a good wicket to bat on! Maybe the Manager is currently not afraid to sign all chqs?
But my first choice is Multiple.. now
My philosophy is always one lender at a time
I work on the theory use the lender you find the best to deal with first off, then keep building your relationship with that lender for each subsequent loan.
This way as your portfolio grows with that lender the carrot for them to "do the right thing by you" dangles & grows more in your favour with each deal. They know you can easily go elsewhere to finance your subsequent deals or worse still completely pack up your entire portfolio altogether.
If/when a move eventuates just continue the same thought process.
What does affect the banks is proof that we actively shop for better value for money. Being very blunt helps.
We have an excellent record, but this doesn't seem to improve the advice, service or rates we get. It is always up to us to negotiate for better.
I don't think loyalty or the prospect of continuing business matters much to banks - can't point to any behaviour that proves otherwise. Of course their spin is otherwise.
Have found that there are some reliable individuals in banks but it can be hard to maintain contact with them - they seem to be rotated, restructured or whatever.
So we may have several lenders at one time.
Horses for courses.
Much depends on how mature your portfolio is AND if the buggers have you cross collateralised.
Some lenders have good service models, others dont mind dog securities, others have high LVRs on certain type of props.
its really about the flexbility of being able to move as you have to. There is little commercial advantage to be gained by playing one off against another. While it works for one off commodity items lke cars, it does nothing for building relationships with brokers or lenders
it is not an uncommon scenario to have loans with multiple lenders when accumulating IP's and thus reaching serviceability brickwalls with various lenders.
A typical lending structure in this case could be:
- 2-3 loans with lender A
- 1-2 loans with lender B
- 1-2 loans with Lender C
- LowDoc loans with or without mortgage insurance
A good mortgage broker will be well aware of this scenario and advise accordingly.
Could someone explain to me the relationship between cross-collaterisation and having lenders disclose their valuations?
I'm picking up on something that John Fitzgerald says in his book "7 Steps to Wealth" where he talks about getting the banks valuation as an essential part of your portfolio strategy.
Is John F advocating cross-collateralisation?
I can see the merit of the arguments on both sides. It certainly is wise to keep your financiers (the banks) on their toes and negotiate with them using your portfolio as a bargaining chip.
What I have yet to get my brain around is how, if you are not cross collateralised, can you build your portfolio as fast as if you are cross-collateralised?
Any informed views for this IP newbie would be much appreciated.
If you have an IP that is self secured (ie: not x-coll) then when your equity grows, you can access that via a LOC to fund a deposit for a new IP.
If you are x-coll and you IP is security for another property then the banks get very nervous using it again as security for a new purchase.
All in all, being x-coll can limit your flexibility in financing new purchases.
I think x-coll would tend to reduce the LVR for for the loan(s) involved. So if u are close to the LVR limit , it could take u below the LVR limit. I see x-coll giving the lender a choice of which properties(s) they sell if one or more loans go bad
A friend has 4 properties near inner brisbane with conservitive value of $1m, total borrowings is $520k, stable income of 60k with semi gov authority, excellent credit history (15yr ) , experienced investor, and the bank wants every think x-coll.
Does the bank want x-coll to reduce their risk? , or do they just want as much security as they can get - ( as i assume their is a advantage to the bank. )
What advantage does a bank get on low risk loans?
Also if this situation is a lower risk to a financial instution , could it be used as leverage to get a better deal?