Number of qualified house buyers is shrinking…

[UCGal]

[quote=HLS]With home ownership recently approaching 70%, there is another group that has no interest in buying a house and yet another group that cannot qualify for a loan for various reasons.

What is left seems to be a very small slice of interested buyers who can qualify for a loan by today’s guidelines.

I am seeing a number of people with some but not all of the following: high credit scores, lots of cash, low debt and a job, but for one reason or another they do not qualify for a loan.
Those with a recent foreclosure will not be able to buy for 2 to 5 years based on current guidelines.

I believe that the % of the population that can qualify for a loan is possibly the lowest that it has ever been.
Many people that want to buy a house have absolutely no chance of buying now.[/quote]

I doubt it’s the lowest… Prior to the change in lending requirements you needed good credit and a good down payment (plus the income to meet the payments.) 20% down was minimum. We still have programs that let you put very little down – so there are more people that qualify now than did 30 or so years ago.

Factor in the fact that banks used to redline black neighborhoods – so that also reduced the number of people who qualified for loans. (It’s where the term redlining comes from – the maps banks had that showed where not to make mortgages because of the demographic makeup. The areas that were unloanable were colored in red.)

I don’t want to see redlining return. But I am very much in favor of bringing back the underwriting standards of old – you needed to save (a LOT) for a downpayment. You had to have a good, long term, career/income and you had to have very good credit.

[SD Realtor]

“I believe that the % of the population that can qualify for a loan is possibly the lowest that it has ever been.”

Not if Barney Frank and the rest of the clown squad in Washington can help it.

Do you honestly think they will sit idle?

[SD Realtor]

“I believe that the % of the population that can qualify for a loan is possibly the lowest that it has ever been.”

Not if Barney Frank and the rest of the clown squad in Washington can help it.

Do you honestly think they will sit idle?

[SD Realtor]

“I believe that the % of the population that can qualify for a loan is possibly the lowest that it has ever been.”

Not if Barney Frank and the rest of the clown squad in Washington can help it.

Do you honestly think they will sit idle?

[SD Realtor]

“I believe that the % of the population that can qualify for a loan is possibly the lowest that it has ever been.”

Not if Barney Frank and the rest of the clown squad in Washington can help it.

Do you honestly think they will sit idle?

[SD Realtor]

“I believe that the % of the population that can qualify for a loan is possibly the lowest that it has ever been.”

Not if Barney Frank and the rest of the clown squad in Washington can help it.

Do you honestly think they will sit idle?

[UCGal]

I just noticed that it was Sheldon that posted the OP.

I realize you probably are comparing todays data to the previous 10 years or so. But, since you’re in the business… do you think it’s a good thing or bad thing that lending standards are tightening up? You’re on the frontline. Obviously you can make more commissions if more people qualify – but the previous standards were so lax that people were put into homes they couldn’t afford.

Personally I’d rather have more underwriting (even if it means more hoops and stress like in my case) and stricter standards for lending.

(disclaimer to the Piggs – I refinanced with HLS recently. He’s a good mortgage broker, knows his stuff. And my loan did face some extra underwriting scrutiny due to the nature of my property.)

[UCGal]

I just noticed that it was Sheldon that posted the OP.

I realize you probably are comparing todays data to the previous 10 years or so. But, since you’re in the business… do you think it’s a good thing or bad thing that lending standards are tightening up? You’re on the frontline. Obviously you can make more commissions if more people qualify – but the previous standards were so lax that people were put into homes they couldn’t afford.

Personally I’d rather have more underwriting (even if it means more hoops and stress like in my case) and stricter standards for lending.

(disclaimer to the Piggs – I refinanced with HLS recently. He’s a good mortgage broker, knows his stuff. And my loan did face some extra underwriting scrutiny due to the nature of my property.)

[UCGal]

I just noticed that it was Sheldon that posted the OP.

I realize you probably are comparing todays data to the previous 10 years or so. But, since you’re in the business… do you think it’s a good thing or bad thing that lending standards are tightening up? You’re on the frontline. Obviously you can make more commissions if more people qualify – but the previous standards were so lax that people were put into homes they couldn’t afford.

Personally I’d rather have more underwriting (even if it means more hoops and stress like in my case) and stricter standards for lending.

(disclaimer to the Piggs – I refinanced with HLS recently. He’s a good mortgage broker, knows his stuff. And my loan did face some extra underwriting scrutiny due to the nature of my property.)

[UCGal]

I just noticed that it was Sheldon that posted the OP.

I realize you probably are comparing todays data to the previous 10 years or so. But, since you’re in the business… do you think it’s a good thing or bad thing that lending standards are tightening up? You’re on the frontline. Obviously you can make more commissions if more people qualify – but the previous standards were so lax that people were put into homes they couldn’t afford.

Personally I’d rather have more underwriting (even if it means more hoops and stress like in my case) and stricter standards for lending.

(disclaimer to the Piggs – I refinanced with HLS recently. He’s a good mortgage broker, knows his stuff. And my loan did face some extra underwriting scrutiny due to the nature of my property.)

[UCGal]

I just noticed that it was Sheldon that posted the OP.

I realize you probably are comparing todays data to the previous 10 years or so. But, since you’re in the business… do you think it’s a good thing or bad thing that lending standards are tightening up? You’re on the frontline. Obviously you can make more commissions if more people qualify – but the previous standards were so lax that people were put into homes they couldn’t afford.

Personally I’d rather have more underwriting (even if it means more hoops and stress like in my case) and stricter standards for lending.

(disclaimer to the Piggs – I refinanced with HLS recently. He’s a good mortgage broker, knows his stuff. And my loan did face some extra underwriting scrutiny due to the nature of my property.)

[HLS]

Perhaps you misunderstood my statement..

Many people who already have a mortgage cannot qualify for a second one. Millions of people have 6%+ mortgages and cannot qualify for a refi for various reasons.
Many others have no chance of qualifying.
Anyone with a recent foreclosure or late mortgage payments in the past year cannot qualify either.

20% down has not been the only option. I bought my first property in 1980 with 10% down.

FHA has become the new subprime lender by allowing 3.50% down but charging a funding fee to do it.
They are losing billions…

The % of the population that can get a loan today is probably the lowest % in a long time if not in history.

I believe that 10% should be the minimum requirement. 20% would result in lower home prices.

I would rather have a market with 20%+ down and deal with qualified buyers.
I’m not interested in making money off of ignorant people.
I have told plenty of people that they couldn’t afford to buy a house. If they ended up with a FHA loan it wasn’t from me.

[HLS]

Perhaps you misunderstood my statement..

Many people who already have a mortgage cannot qualify for a second one. Millions of people have 6%+ mortgages and cannot qualify for a refi for various reasons.
Many others have no chance of qualifying.
Anyone with a recent foreclosure or late mortgage payments in the past year cannot qualify either.

20% down has not been the only option. I bought my first property in 1980 with 10% down.

FHA has become the new subprime lender by allowing 3.50% down but charging a funding fee to do it.
They are losing billions…

The % of the population that can get a loan today is probably the lowest % in a long time if not in history.

I believe that 10% should be the minimum requirement. 20% would result in lower home prices.

I would rather have a market with 20%+ down and deal with qualified buyers.
I’m not interested in making money off of ignorant people.
I have told plenty of people that they couldn’t afford to buy a house. If they ended up with a FHA loan it wasn’t from me.

[HLS]

Perhaps you misunderstood my statement..

Many people who already have a mortgage cannot qualify for a second one. Millions of people have 6%+ mortgages and cannot qualify for a refi for various reasons.
Many others have no chance of qualifying.
Anyone with a recent foreclosure or late mortgage payments in the past year cannot qualify either.

20% down has not been the only option. I bought my first property in 1980 with 10% down.

FHA has become the new subprime lender by allowing 3.50% down but charging a funding fee to do it.
They are losing billions…

The % of the population that can get a loan today is probably the lowest % in a long time if not in history.

I believe that 10% should be the minimum requirement. 20% would result in lower home prices.

I would rather have a market with 20%+ down and deal with qualified buyers.
I’m not interested in making money off of ignorant people.
I have told plenty of people that they couldn’t afford to buy a house. If they ended up with a FHA loan it wasn’t from me.

[HLS]

Perhaps you misunderstood my statement..

Many people who already have a mortgage cannot qualify for a second one. Millions of people have 6%+ mortgages and cannot qualify for a refi for various reasons.
Many others have no chance of qualifying.
Anyone with a recent foreclosure or late mortgage payments in the past year cannot qualify either.

20% down has not been the only option. I bought my first property in 1980 with 10% down.

FHA has become the new subprime lender by allowing 3.50% down but charging a funding fee to do it.
They are losing billions…

The % of the population that can get a loan today is probably the lowest % in a long time if not in history.

I believe that 10% should be the minimum requirement. 20% would result in lower home prices.

I would rather have a market with 20%+ down and deal with qualified buyers.
I’m not interested in making money off of ignorant people.
I have told plenty of people that they couldn’t afford to buy a house. If they ended up with a FHA loan it wasn’t from me.

[Author]

Posts