The Senate Committee on Business Professions and Economic Development and the Senate Committee on Banking & Financial Institutions have coauthored a bill that was initially designed to take aim at “hard-money” lenders in California, but experts say SB978 will sweep too many innocent borrowers and real estate investors into its net. Hard-money lending is when investment brokers take money from investors to make high-risk loans to others, and paying off the initial investor with the profits. Analysts say the current form of the bill requires copious filings for borrowers and brokers that hinder legitimate investment and slow good growth. For more on this continue reading the following article from JDSupra.
Last June, reporters Charles Piller and Robert Lewis wrote this story about “hard-money” lending abuses in Nevada County. One might expect that they were writing about high interest rates and harsh loan terms. It turns out that the victims in the story were not borrowers, but people who loaned money to hard-money lenders to fund the hard money loans:
Some of those investors entrusted their entire life savings to brokers who used the money to make high-interest loans to people who either didn’t qualify for a traditional bank loan or who needed money fast.
In reaction, the Senate Committee on Business Professions and Economic Development and the Senate Committee on Banking & Financial Institutions held a joint oversight hearing on hard-money lending in January. Thereafter, the co-chairs of those committees co-authored a bill, SB 978, intended to address these problems. Unfortunately, SB 978 as amended to date imposes significant legal burdens not only on most borrowers but also the entire real estate industry. In effect, the bill requires the building of a haystack of new filings to find some needles of information about hard-money lenders.
Claim up to $26,000 per W2 Employee
- Billions of dollars in funding available
- Funds are available to U.S. Businesses NOW
- This is not a loan. These tax credits do not need to be repaid
First, the bill would amend Section 25102(e) to require a notice-filing for the offer or sale of evidences of indebtedness. This change alone would impact a huge number of borrowers. Section 25019 defines “security” to include any evidence of indebtedness. Currently, borrowers can rely on Section 25102(e) as a self-executing exemption from the qualification provisions of Section 25110 provided the offer and sale does not involve a public offering. Although SB 978 wouldn’t condition the availability of the exemption on filing a notice, issuers would be required to do so. This means that if the bill is enacted in its current form, the Department will be inundated with filings, the vast majority of which will not be made by hard-money lenders.
Second, SB 978 would impose additional informational, recordkeeping and suitability requirements on virtually any real estate related issuer. The bill would add a new Section 25102.2 to require any issuer that relies upon an exemption from Section 25110 with respect to the offer or sale of securities, other than an exemption provided by Section 25102.5, and that is principally engaged in the business of purchasing, selling, financing, or brokering real estate, to provide additional information regarding the nature of the proposed offering on a form prescribed by the Commissioner. These issuers would also be required to make reasonable efforts to ensure all of the following:
- All persons to whom securities are sold can be reasonably assumed to have the capacity to understand the fundamental aspects of the investment, by reason of their educational, business, or financial experience.
- All persons to whom securities are sold can bear the economic risk of the investment.
- The investment in the security is suitable and appropriate for each purchaser, given the purchaser’s investment objectives, portfolio structure, and financial situation.
This article was republished with permission from JDSupra.
