Nearly all Churches necessitate the need of a commercial real estate financing. The financial sources for real and substantial estate includes: Regional banks, Private investors, Insurance companies, Saving and Loan institutions and Mortgage banking firms. First let’s touch on the obstacles that occur during the process of acquiring the church mortgage loans & church financing.

The Major Church Financing Difficulties:

(1) Church properties are unique and so, for this reason Lenders have a great apprehension regarding this matter because if the loans are not paid within a stipulated time, Lenders will be accounted for it. They have to assume ownership of the property. Owing to unique property features, it is not going to be easy to come across a new owner.

(2) For getting the hold of church loans, Lenders often entail the need of “personal guarantors” especially on account of prior observation with reference to the complexities that are involved in selling the church property again.

(3) When the church financing needs are attained, there are many objectionable terms that get exist. Such as: Minute amount of loans, low loan-to-value (LTV) of 50% to 60%, short-period time of loans and rates of high interest. By this, churches get many possibilities to face the countless financial difficulties.

(4) More than Purchasing and/or Refinancing, Church Financing, Church Construction Loans, Church Renovation and Land acquisition loans are considered as more intricate to deal with. Therefore, needed repairs are delayed for an indefinite period and new churches take lots of years to become a reality.

Hence, by analyzing all these points, one can conclude that Church Financing is one of the most complicated processes of arranging commercial mortgages as there is a stark difference between a religious organization and the typical business organization.

The Practical Solutions for the Problems which have been Issued above are:

(1) High LTV: High LTV of 75% to 85% would generate a realistic amount of about 15% to 25% that can be utilized for the purpose of down payment or non-financed portion in refinancing.

(2) Long-term loans: To make the church financing more successful, rather than short-term, church financing should be of a long term, i.e. up to at least time period of 30 years.

(3) Non-Recourse Loans: Being reluctant towards individual guarantors fetches a non-traditional church lender. And than through this approach, church lending will no more rely on individual guarantors for the church financing.

(4) Large sum of Loan: Ability to accommodate large church loan needs, at least of $500,000. This move would than persuade churches to finish their most business financing in one stage rather than by going through many stages.

(5) Low interest rates: Churches are being charged with the sky-scraping interest rates than it is actually required. Church financing payments can be phenomenally reduced if the payments are restricted to prime plus 1% or less than that. As a result, long-term church loan as well as decrease in overall payment will improve the church cash flow considerably.

Many startup companies believe that they do not need a lawyer to help them with their business dealings. In the early stages, this may be true. However, as time goes on and your company grows, you will find yourself in situations where it is necessary to hire a business lawyer and begin to understand all the many benefits that come with hiring a lawyer for your legal needs.

The most straightforward approach to avoid any future legal issues is to employ a startup lawyer who is well-versed in your state’s company regulations and best practices. In addition, working with an attorney can help you better understand small company law. So, how can a startup lawyer help you in ensuring that your company’s launch runs smoothly?

They Know What’s Best for You

Lawyers that have experience with startups usually have worked in prestigious law firms, and as general counsel for significant corporations.

Their strategy creates more efficient, responsive, and, ultimately, more successful solutions – relies heavily on this high degree of broad legal and commercial knowledge.

They prioritize learning about a clients’ businesses and interests and obtaining the necessary outcomes as quickly as feasible.

Also, they provide an insider’s viewpoint and an intelligent methodology to produce agile, creative solutions for their clients, based on their many years of expertise as attorneys and experience dealing with corporations.

They Contribute to the Increase in the Value of Your Business

Startup attorneys help represent a wide range of entrepreneurs, operating companies, venture capital firms, and financiers in the education, fashion, finance, health care, internet, social media, technology, real estate, and television sectors.

They specialize in mergers and acquisitions as well as working with companies that have newly entered a market. They also can manage real estate, securities offerings, and SEC compliance, technology transactions, financing, employment, entertainment and media, and commercial contracts, among other things.

Focusing on success must include delivering the highest levels of representation in resolving the legal and business difficulties confronting clients now, tomorrow, and in the future, based on an unwavering dedication to the firm’s fundamental principles of quality, responsiveness, and business-centric service.

Wrapping Up

All in all, introducing a startup business can be overwhelming. You’re already charged with a host of responsibilities in which you’re untrained as a business owner. Legal problems are notoriously difficult to solve, and interpreting “legalese” is sometimes required. Experienced business lawyers know these complexities and can help you navigate them to avoid stumbling blocks.

Although many company owners wait until the last minute to deal with legal issues, they would benefit or profit greatly from hiring an experienced startup lawyer even before they begin. Reputable startup lawyers can give essential legal guidance, assist entrepreneurs in avoiding legal hazards, and improve their prospects of becoming a successful company.

This startling figure comes from a recent review of the financial advice offered from the big four banks by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC).

Even more startling: 10% of advice was found to leave investors in an even worse financial position.

Through a “vertically integrated business model”, Commonwealth Bank, National Australia Bank, Westpac, ANZ and AMP offer ‘in house’ financial advice, and collectively, control more than half of Australia’s financial planners.

It’s no surprise ASIC’s review found advisers at these banks favoured financial products that connected to their parent company, with 68% of client’s funds invested in ‘in house’ products as oppose to external products that may have been on the firms list.

Why the banks integrated financial advice model is flawed

It’s hard to believe the banks can keep a straight face and say they can abide by the duty for advisers to act absolutely in the best interests of a client.

Under the integrated financial advice model, there are layers of different fees including adviser fees, platform fees and investment management fees adding up to 2.5-3.5%

The typical breakdown of fees is usually as follows: an adviser charge of 0.8% to 1.1%, a platform fee of between 0.4% and 0.8%, and a managed fund fee of between 0.7% and 2.1%. These fees are not only opaque, but are sufficiently high to limit the ability of the client to quickly earn real rates of return.

Layers of fees placed into the business model used by the banks means there is not necessarily an incentive for the financial advice arm to make a profit, because the profits can be made in the upstream parts of the supply chain through the banks promoting their own products.

This business model, however, is flawed, and cannot survive in a world where people are demanding greater accountability for their investments, increased transparency in relation to fees and increased control over their investments.

It is noteworthy that the truly independent financial advisory firms in Australia that offer separately managed accounts have done everything in their power to avoid using managed funds and keep fee’s competitive.

The banks have refused to admit their integrated approach to advice is fatally flawed. When the Australian Financial Review approached the Financial Services Council (FSC), a peak body that represents the ‘for-profit’ wealth managers, for a defence if the layered fee arrangements, a spokesman said no generalisations could be made.

There are fundamental flaws in the advice model, and it will be interesting to see what the upcoming royal commission into banking will do to change some of the contentious issues surround integrated financial advice.

Many financial commentators are calling for a separation of financial advice attached to banks, with obvious bias and failure to meet the best interests of clients becoming more apparent.

Chris Brycki, CEO of Stockspot, says “investors should receive fair and unbiased financial advice from experts who will act in the best interests of their client. What Australians currently get is product pushing from salespeople who are paid by the banks.”

Brycki is calling for structural reform to fix the problems caused by the dominant market power of the banks to ensure that consumers are protected, advisers are better educated and incentives are aligned.

Stockspot’s annual research into high-fee-charging funds shows thousands of customers of banks are being recommended bank aligned investment products despite the potential of more appropriate alternatives being available.