Fannie Mae, the mortgage-finance company under U.S. government control, will no longer bar real-estate investors from qualifying for its loans if they already own four properties as it seeks to spur housing demand.
The company will expand its limit for investor and second- home loans to as many as 10 properties per borrower, according to a Feb. 6 notice to lenders on Washington-based Fannie’s Web site.
In 2008 the number of mortgages was reduced to 4. This new change will help investors take advantage of some great deals in our market place. It will help the neighborhoods as these homes are bought and resold or rented.
Submitted by: David Brenton
My understanding is the rules have changed. It is probably worth discussing with a lender.
The current limit for number of mortgages to the same borrower is still ten with Fannie Mae.
Certain LENDERS may have implemented overlays for number of properties financed but FANNIE MAE is still allowing up to ten loans to the same borrower with liquid cash reserves requirements.
As a real estate investor I have been sidelined by lending changes over the last two years even though I have been very responsible with my purchases and the types of loans. I have noticed that the government changes to programs to try to help the real estate market are accompanied by other changes which typically hinder it.
Refering to your article of February 11th “Fannie to Expand Mortgage Rules for Realty Investors (Update3)”, did you know that the limit being raised to 10 only applies to purchases and not refinances? So if you have an adjustable rate mortgage that is about to reset and wish to refinance to take advantage of today’s low rates (I only have 30 year fixed loans), Fannie still has the limit of four mortgages to keep you right where you are for good or for bad.
I am no financial genius, but it seems counterintuitive to the logic that refinancing would lower your payments, increase your cash-flow and keep you solvent, make your books look better to a lender who is approving you for purchase.
The change from 2 to 10 that your article touts also came with a change that increased the minimum requirement in cash reserves from 2 to 6 months of payments. So the real estate investor who managed to last a year without going under not having a lot of extra cash (like everyone else) suddenly is supposed to have 300% more than before? Isn’t there a lack of buyers right now? Who are they trying to help? I am not seeing any.