Okay here is something that I just can't fully understand and I really want to so help me out (particularly lenders who can clearly address my concern and real estate agents who may have experienced this or had the same concern). There have been occasions where SOME lenders (and regulators) seem more concerned about investors making too much money on a rehab property, rather than
•· focusing on the appraised value of a house as expressed by an appraiser
•· the benefit of avoiding a blighted community
•· maintaining or increasing property values
I have heard mortgage brokers and real estate agents alike express this concern (even as recently as yesterday). Don't get me wrong, I respect our mortgage partners. I firmly believe in consumer protection. After all I am a consumer. And as a real estate agent, by no means do I want my buyer or any other buyer to purchase a home that will crumble if they close the door too hard.
I am not so naive that I don't understand that there are some unscrupulous investors in the world that will slap a coat of paint on the walls and call it a rehab. This would be well worth the additional scrutiny. I guess I could accept the scrutiny much better if lenders inquired as to what the seller had done to make the property worth the asking or contract price. Then perhaps a judgment call could be made about the difference in ROI. But I've only heard it expressed as the lender being concerned about the difference between the price the seller paid for it and current contract price.
Since lenders are the ones that require an appraisal, if they are not going to respect or accept the opinion of the appraiser, then why have the buyer waste money to have an appraisal performed. Lenders do not have to wait until an appraisal is done in order to find out what an investor paid for a property. We can certainly provide that information beforehand. Would that help? It might, but lenders would need an appraisal and upon receipt, some would still dispute its validity if the difference between the sellers purchase price and current contract price appeared to be too vast (in the eyes of the lender).
By all means, we never want buyers to get a bad deal nor do we want them to purchase a house that will fall apart. But,
•· if the buyer has paid for a home inspection and
•· if the buyer has requested repairs, if any, based on the home inspection and
•· if the sellers have complied with repair request based on the home inspection and
•· if the home inspector has re-inspected and given approval of repairs
•· and if that is followed by the opinion of an appraiser?
Then why should or would the amount of money the investor will make take precedence over the value of the house as established by the appraiser? I'm just saying.....