Not exact matches
This often times stems from either being
under - capitalized or using too
much leverage.
Fueled by web - based tools that speed up the application process, a new paradigm for evaluating credit worthiness, and the ability to
leverage technology to help them determine eligibility (often in
under an hour), these lenders may approve business loans that might be overlooked by traditional banks, and can typically do it in
much less time than their traditional counterparts.
In any case, the Obama Administration lacks
much in the way of
leverage against California's move (and similar steps that could be taken by other states still
under No Child) because it has effectively shredded the law, both through the waiver gambit and by blessing moves by states that are, in substance, little different than what California has done.
James Grimmelmann, a NYU law professor, concludes in his blog post that while GSU clearly won the case, at one level, «the big winner is CCCC» as «it gains
leverage against universities... and publishers who will be
under much more pressure to participate in its full panoply of licenses.»
Maybe I'm missing something to your point, but it seems to me that if you are like most folks and your investment properties are financed
under conventional freddie / fannie conforming loans
under your personal name, then keeping your primary residence «highly
leveraged» vs your investment properties doesn't really buy you
much of anything with additional asset protection.