no loan without 20% down

[murf2222]

I’m having a case of brain constipation…….

The *pre-stimulus pkg* conforming limit of $417,000 means that you don’t need mortgage insurance for a loan under that amount right?

I’m forgetting the ramifications of a dwn payment of less than 20%…..wasn’t it related to the conforming limit? Or was it something else entirely?

[nostradamus]

The $417k is the amount the gov. would guarantee the loan for. Anything above that is a jumbo loan.

Less than 20% down means you pay PMI.

[nostradamus]

The $417k is the amount the gov. would guarantee the loan for. Anything above that is a jumbo loan.

Less than 20% down means you pay PMI.

[nostradamus]

The $417k is the amount the gov. would guarantee the loan for. Anything above that is a jumbo loan.

Less than 20% down means you pay PMI.

[nostradamus]

The $417k is the amount the gov. would guarantee the loan for. Anything above that is a jumbo loan.

Less than 20% down means you pay PMI.

[nostradamus]

The $417k is the amount the gov. would guarantee the loan for. Anything above that is a jumbo loan.

Less than 20% down means you pay PMI.

[Ranjan]

why putting 10% down is such a bad thing?
The bank should be looking at documented income, assets and credit standing of the person they are issuing loan to.

They got over-powered by greed, over-looked the basics and paid the price. Why should they vent it out on the disciplined and fiscally responsible citizens?

One could manage to put down 20% but may be willing to put 10% only. He/She can have other 10% in a form that’s easily usable for other purposes.

Does anyone have HLS’s email id?Would appreciate.

Thanks

Thanks

[Ranjan]

why putting 10% down is such a bad thing?
The bank should be looking at documented income, assets and credit standing of the person they are issuing loan to.

They got over-powered by greed, over-looked the basics and paid the price. Why should they vent it out on the disciplined and fiscally responsible citizens?

One could manage to put down 20% but may be willing to put 10% only. He/She can have other 10% in a form that’s easily usable for other purposes.

Does anyone have HLS’s email id?Would appreciate.

Thanks

Thanks

[Ranjan]

why putting 10% down is such a bad thing?
The bank should be looking at documented income, assets and credit standing of the person they are issuing loan to.

They got over-powered by greed, over-looked the basics and paid the price. Why should they vent it out on the disciplined and fiscally responsible citizens?

One could manage to put down 20% but may be willing to put 10% only. He/She can have other 10% in a form that’s easily usable for other purposes.

Does anyone have HLS’s email id?Would appreciate.

Thanks

Thanks

[Ranjan]

why putting 10% down is such a bad thing?
The bank should be looking at documented income, assets and credit standing of the person they are issuing loan to.

They got over-powered by greed, over-looked the basics and paid the price. Why should they vent it out on the disciplined and fiscally responsible citizens?

One could manage to put down 20% but may be willing to put 10% only. He/She can have other 10% in a form that’s easily usable for other purposes.

Does anyone have HLS’s email id?Would appreciate.

Thanks

Thanks

[Ranjan]

why putting 10% down is such a bad thing?
The bank should be looking at documented income, assets and credit standing of the person they are issuing loan to.

They got over-powered by greed, over-looked the basics and paid the price. Why should they vent it out on the disciplined and fiscally responsible citizens?

One could manage to put down 20% but may be willing to put 10% only. He/She can have other 10% in a form that’s easily usable for other purposes.

Does anyone have HLS’s email id?Would appreciate.

Thanks

Thanks

[patientrenter]

Ranjan, requiring 10% down is only a very small protection for the (ultimate) lender in a non-recourse purchase loan state like CA facing major and persistent price declines. Credit scores, and wealth in other assets, mean even less. About all that protects the lenders in a market in major decline is the borrower’s downpayment, and a 10% downpayment is less than the projected one-year decline in home prices in most CA markets. It’s so small it’s a joke.

Consider this situation: Someone buys a $1 million house now with 10% down, so the ultimate lenders put up $900,000. In 3 years time the house is sold for $600,000. How do the lenders get their $900,000 back? They don’t of course, regardless of the credit or other assets of the borrower. No matter who the (non-recourse state) borrower is, the lenders get back just $600,000 less the sale expenses, and take a massive loss.

In my example, which isn’t too outlandish, the lenders would have to have received annual interest of $100,000 in excess of the Treasury rate for 3 years in order to be compensated for their $300,000 loss at the future foreclosure, ignoring their foreclosure and other costs. That’s 11.11% extra interest annually over and above the risk-free rate! Clearly, lenders still are not charging anything even close to the interest rates required to justify 10% downpayments. Before now, the lenders were all pricing in never-ending home price inflation. Now they are all pricing in huge government bailouts.

Patient renter in OC

[patientrenter]

Ranjan, requiring 10% down is only a very small protection for the (ultimate) lender in a non-recourse purchase loan state like CA facing major and persistent price declines. Credit scores, and wealth in other assets, mean even less. About all that protects the lenders in a market in major decline is the borrower’s downpayment, and a 10% downpayment is less than the projected one-year decline in home prices in most CA markets. It’s so small it’s a joke.

Consider this situation: Someone buys a $1 million house now with 10% down, so the ultimate lenders put up $900,000. In 3 years time the house is sold for $600,000. How do the lenders get their $900,000 back? They don’t of course, regardless of the credit or other assets of the borrower. No matter who the (non-recourse state) borrower is, the lenders get back just $600,000 less the sale expenses, and take a massive loss.

In my example, which isn’t too outlandish, the lenders would have to have received annual interest of $100,000 in excess of the Treasury rate for 3 years in order to be compensated for their $300,000 loss at the future foreclosure, ignoring their foreclosure and other costs. That’s 11.11% extra interest annually over and above the risk-free rate! Clearly, lenders still are not charging anything even close to the interest rates required to justify 10% downpayments. Before now, the lenders were all pricing in never-ending home price inflation. Now they are all pricing in huge government bailouts.

Patient renter in OC

[patientrenter]

Ranjan, requiring 10% down is only a very small protection for the (ultimate) lender in a non-recourse purchase loan state like CA facing major and persistent price declines. Credit scores, and wealth in other assets, mean even less. About all that protects the lenders in a market in major decline is the borrower’s downpayment, and a 10% downpayment is less than the projected one-year decline in home prices in most CA markets. It’s so small it’s a joke.

Consider this situation: Someone buys a $1 million house now with 10% down, so the ultimate lenders put up $900,000. In 3 years time the house is sold for $600,000. How do the lenders get their $900,000 back? They don’t of course, regardless of the credit or other assets of the borrower. No matter who the (non-recourse state) borrower is, the lenders get back just $600,000 less the sale expenses, and take a massive loss.

In my example, which isn’t too outlandish, the lenders would have to have received annual interest of $100,000 in excess of the Treasury rate for 3 years in order to be compensated for their $300,000 loss at the future foreclosure, ignoring their foreclosure and other costs. That’s 11.11% extra interest annually over and above the risk-free rate! Clearly, lenders still are not charging anything even close to the interest rates required to justify 10% downpayments. Before now, the lenders were all pricing in never-ending home price inflation. Now they are all pricing in huge government bailouts.

Patient renter in OC

[patientrenter]

Ranjan, requiring 10% down is only a very small protection for the (ultimate) lender in a non-recourse purchase loan state like CA facing major and persistent price declines. Credit scores, and wealth in other assets, mean even less. About all that protects the lenders in a market in major decline is the borrower’s downpayment, and a 10% downpayment is less than the projected one-year decline in home prices in most CA markets. It’s so small it’s a joke.

Consider this situation: Someone buys a $1 million house now with 10% down, so the ultimate lenders put up $900,000. In 3 years time the house is sold for $600,000. How do the lenders get their $900,000 back? They don’t of course, regardless of the credit or other assets of the borrower. No matter who the (non-recourse state) borrower is, the lenders get back just $600,000 less the sale expenses, and take a massive loss.

In my example, which isn’t too outlandish, the lenders would have to have received annual interest of $100,000 in excess of the Treasury rate for 3 years in order to be compensated for their $300,000 loss at the future foreclosure, ignoring their foreclosure and other costs. That’s 11.11% extra interest annually over and above the risk-free rate! Clearly, lenders still are not charging anything even close to the interest rates required to justify 10% downpayments. Before now, the lenders were all pricing in never-ending home price inflation. Now they are all pricing in huge government bailouts.

Patient renter in OC

[Author]

Posts