Stupid refinance rule: Must live within 100 miles from property!

[Crooked_Banker]

[quote=Oxford]
“Fortunately, this not a FNMA requirement. Therefore, other Banks can approve your loan.”

How stupid? Anyone ever heard of this?

OX

[/quote]

The stupid part of this is that my tax dollars are subsidizing the mortgage on your rental through FNMA. What a waste of tax money in a time of unprecedented deficits.

[briansd1]

So?

I don’t see what’s wrong.

Lender have their good guidelines for their own reasons.

It makes senses to me. If you live too far from you rental you can’t manage it or properly supervise the property manager. Therefore you are a higher risk.

[briansd1]

So?

I don’t see what’s wrong.

Lender have their good guidelines for their own reasons.

It makes senses to me. If you live too far from you rental you can’t manage it or properly supervise the property manager. Therefore you are a higher risk.

[briansd1]

So?

I don’t see what’s wrong.

Lender have their good guidelines for their own reasons.

It makes senses to me. If you live too far from you rental you can’t manage it or properly supervise the property manager. Therefore you are a higher risk.

[briansd1]

So?

I don’t see what’s wrong.

Lender have their good guidelines for their own reasons.

It makes senses to me. If you live too far from you rental you can’t manage it or properly supervise the property manager. Therefore you are a higher risk.

[briansd1]

So?

I don’t see what’s wrong.

Lender have their good guidelines for their own reasons.

It makes senses to me. If you live too far from you rental you can’t manage it or properly supervise the property manager. Therefore you are a higher risk.

[EconProf]

It is hellishly difficult to manage a rental property from a distant state, so their rule makes sense.
You don’t say whether the current loan is at an owner-occupied rate or an investor (non-occupied) rate. I am finding a HUGE difference in the two, so she may be better off staying with the current loan anyway.

[EconProf]

It is hellishly difficult to manage a rental property from a distant state, so their rule makes sense.
You don’t say whether the current loan is at an owner-occupied rate or an investor (non-occupied) rate. I am finding a HUGE difference in the two, so she may be better off staying with the current loan anyway.

[EconProf]

It is hellishly difficult to manage a rental property from a distant state, so their rule makes sense.
You don’t say whether the current loan is at an owner-occupied rate or an investor (non-occupied) rate. I am finding a HUGE difference in the two, so she may be better off staying with the current loan anyway.

[EconProf]

It is hellishly difficult to manage a rental property from a distant state, so their rule makes sense.
You don’t say whether the current loan is at an owner-occupied rate or an investor (non-occupied) rate. I am finding a HUGE difference in the two, so she may be better off staying with the current loan anyway.

[EconProf]

It is hellishly difficult to manage a rental property from a distant state, so their rule makes sense.
You don’t say whether the current loan is at an owner-occupied rate or an investor (non-occupied) rate. I am finding a HUGE difference in the two, so she may be better off staying with the current loan anyway.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=briansd1]So?

I don’t see what’s wrong.

Lender have their good guidelines for their own reasons.

It makes senses to me. If you live too far from you rental you can’t manage it or properly supervise the property manager. Therefore you are a higher risk.

[/quote]

Although the OP was cirting a case from Wisconsin, the lender guideline was stated to be 100 miles.

100 miles is not really that far. Seems like a strict guideline. We’ve owned rental property for nearly a decade and currently live about 130 miles from it.

I guess the underwriters can cite any rule they want in order to reduce apparent risk. The funny thing is that there is likely significantly less risk in financing a 75% LTV for an out of state owner than almost any owner-occupied loan funded from 2004-2007.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=briansd1]So?

I don’t see what’s wrong.

Lender have their good guidelines for their own reasons.

It makes senses to me. If you live too far from you rental you can’t manage it or properly supervise the property manager. Therefore you are a higher risk.

[/quote]

Although the OP was cirting a case from Wisconsin, the lender guideline was stated to be 100 miles.

100 miles is not really that far. Seems like a strict guideline. We’ve owned rental property for nearly a decade and currently live about 130 miles from it.

I guess the underwriters can cite any rule they want in order to reduce apparent risk. The funny thing is that there is likely significantly less risk in financing a 75% LTV for an out of state owner than almost any owner-occupied loan funded from 2004-2007.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=briansd1]So?

I don’t see what’s wrong.

Lender have their good guidelines for their own reasons.

It makes senses to me. If you live too far from you rental you can’t manage it or properly supervise the property manager. Therefore you are a higher risk.

[/quote]

Although the OP was cirting a case from Wisconsin, the lender guideline was stated to be 100 miles.

100 miles is not really that far. Seems like a strict guideline. We’ve owned rental property for nearly a decade and currently live about 130 miles from it.

I guess the underwriters can cite any rule they want in order to reduce apparent risk. The funny thing is that there is likely significantly less risk in financing a 75% LTV for an out of state owner than almost any owner-occupied loan funded from 2004-2007.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=briansd1]So?

I don’t see what’s wrong.

Lender have their good guidelines for their own reasons.

It makes senses to me. If you live too far from you rental you can’t manage it or properly supervise the property manager. Therefore you are a higher risk.

[/quote]

Although the OP was cirting a case from Wisconsin, the lender guideline was stated to be 100 miles.

100 miles is not really that far. Seems like a strict guideline. We’ve owned rental property for nearly a decade and currently live about 130 miles from it.

I guess the underwriters can cite any rule they want in order to reduce apparent risk. The funny thing is that there is likely significantly less risk in financing a 75% LTV for an out of state owner than almost any owner-occupied loan funded from 2004-2007.

[Author]

Posts