Selling a cross financed IP

It has always been my belief that one of the negatives of having your IP cross coll'd would be the need to refinance all in the event of selling one. Today a loans officer for a big 4 told me he thought the bank would simply require part pay't to replace the sold IP from the total crossed.

Is ths correct ?
 
Yes but the amount of the Part Payment is the bit that often gets you.

When you paid $400,000 for one of the properties and the Bank tell you it is only worth $370,000 and you will have to make up the differene in cash.

In the case of a sale contract you might only have 30 days to deliver.

Like everything never a problem until it is a problem.
 
We just uncrossed our loans with much pain and expense and the new broker we got referred to is trying to get us to move both loans to a new bank and cross them again.

This peeves me something severe. His argument is the bank doesn't want to lend the full value of a transportable. We have a 40% cash deposit for the house and also own 40% of the land, why does he want another $100k of equity on top of that?!? I've never heard of any bank asking for more than 40% down.

We also had to make up the difference in the bank's valuation in cash, so it *does* happen.
 
When you paid $400,000 for one of the properties and the Bank tell you it is only worth $370,000 and you will have to make up the differene in cash.
Valuations shouldn't matter too much should they, unless you borrowed over 90% of value. Assuming we stay down around 50% LVR then I assume we part pay the sold house portion ... 50% of the sold house. Is this correct ?

Is it true of all major banks asking for part pay't NOT to refinance ?
 
No this is not the case there are 101 other factors

Is it true of all major banks asking for part pay't NOT to refinance ?
 
Today a loans officer for a big 4 told me he thought the bank would simply require part pay't to replace the sold IP from the total crossed.

sometimes.................its easy

more often the crossed sale partial release thing turns from the fairytale decribed by your bankie to the Die Hard 5 of banking.

ta
rolf
 
Valuations shouldn't matter too much should they, unless you borrowed over 90% of value. Assuming we stay down around 50% LVR then I assume we part pay the sold house portion ... 50% of the sold house. Is this correct ?
It doesn't matter what your LVR is, the bank will want you to keep it at that.

I'm disputing my valuation at the moment, we have a big sheet of RPdata here I sent the bank and the lowest sales on there - ie, higher than our valuation - are all tagged 'poor' or 'very poor'. Ours is more in the 'good-very good' category ... I want that $8000 back without having to refinance, dammit!
 
I sold a place that had a loan of $50,000, but was crossed with another place that had a loan of $70,000. (This was a little while ago...)

The bank decided they'd pay off the $70,000 with the proceeds.

Not only did this result in us getting less cash than we expected, but completely "firetrucked" up the allocation of deductions against the remaining loan. :mad:

Don't assume ANYTHING!!
 
When I was a branchie... we had the delegation to accept the LVR to the original amount OR they can increase it to 80% if say it was 70%. If LMI was involved and previously approved at 90% then you should be right to leave remaining debt at 90%.

As its been mentioned, it often depends on the valuations of your remaining security value and debts against them
 
Back
Top