I’ve never said that investors were pretending or claiming to be all-cash buyers. I’m referring to the never-ending stories we hear about “all cash” buyers from the MSM, NAR, etc. Yes, without looking at how these investors are coming by the money on the front end, it looks like there are a lot of 100% all-cash buyers. I’m saying that many of the buyers who *appear* to be using 100% cash (to those who are observing from the outside) are actually using debt…though the ratios that are being bandied about publicly do not look worrisome if taken at face value. Just because they are not using traditional purchase mortgages does NOT mean that they are unleveraged, either before or after the purchases.
Regarding the investors who are using cash up front, and then cash-out refinancing after the sale, I haven’t been able to find any specific information, which leads me to believe that this might not be followed in any specific way. But if this wasn’t on anyone’s agenda, why do you think FNMA made this change (it’s extremely rare for a change like this to be made without some pretty heavy lobbying)? It would be interesting if a realtor or someone with access to the records could cull through some of the all-cash purchases from 3-12 months ago to see if/how many have been mortgaged after the fact. I would be willing to help and/or pay someone a reasonable fee to find this information.
Not sure what you’re looking for WRT redemptions, but most of the funds that I’m hearing and reading about plan to sell in 5-7 years. Additionally, I’m hearing that many investors are looking for ways to make these more liquid (often by securitizing them in some way) so that they can get out earlier than they’ve been able to in the past.
Which of these things (or both?/something else?) do you want me to link to?
