- This topic has 70 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 2 months ago by
HLS.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 19, 2008 at 11:35 AM #318350December 19, 2008 at 12:20 PM #318381
AK
ParticipantI’d read in other threads that 95% LTV was available in theory, but that PMI was hard to come by in declining markets.
FHA/VA might still have advantages for >95% LTV. I’ve seen annual PMI premiums running in the 1% range for high LTV loans, while FHA premiums seem to max out at 0.55%.
The upfront FHA mortgage insurance fee still seems a bit punitive … 1.75% for purchase loans … for a while I think it was as low as 1.25% for high FICO scores but I guess risk-based pricing was politically unpalatable. Or maybe FICO scores had nothing to do with actual risk 🙂
December 19, 2008 at 12:20 PM #318423AK
ParticipantI’d read in other threads that 95% LTV was available in theory, but that PMI was hard to come by in declining markets.
FHA/VA might still have advantages for >95% LTV. I’ve seen annual PMI premiums running in the 1% range for high LTV loans, while FHA premiums seem to max out at 0.55%.
The upfront FHA mortgage insurance fee still seems a bit punitive … 1.75% for purchase loans … for a while I think it was as low as 1.25% for high FICO scores but I guess risk-based pricing was politically unpalatable. Or maybe FICO scores had nothing to do with actual risk 🙂
December 19, 2008 at 12:20 PM #318443AK
ParticipantI’d read in other threads that 95% LTV was available in theory, but that PMI was hard to come by in declining markets.
FHA/VA might still have advantages for >95% LTV. I’ve seen annual PMI premiums running in the 1% range for high LTV loans, while FHA premiums seem to max out at 0.55%.
The upfront FHA mortgage insurance fee still seems a bit punitive … 1.75% for purchase loans … for a while I think it was as low as 1.25% for high FICO scores but I guess risk-based pricing was politically unpalatable. Or maybe FICO scores had nothing to do with actual risk 🙂
December 19, 2008 at 12:20 PM #318032AK
ParticipantI’d read in other threads that 95% LTV was available in theory, but that PMI was hard to come by in declining markets.
FHA/VA might still have advantages for >95% LTV. I’ve seen annual PMI premiums running in the 1% range for high LTV loans, while FHA premiums seem to max out at 0.55%.
The upfront FHA mortgage insurance fee still seems a bit punitive … 1.75% for purchase loans … for a while I think it was as low as 1.25% for high FICO scores but I guess risk-based pricing was politically unpalatable. Or maybe FICO scores had nothing to do with actual risk 🙂
December 19, 2008 at 12:20 PM #318522AK
ParticipantI’d read in other threads that 95% LTV was available in theory, but that PMI was hard to come by in declining markets.
FHA/VA might still have advantages for >95% LTV. I’ve seen annual PMI premiums running in the 1% range for high LTV loans, while FHA premiums seem to max out at 0.55%.
The upfront FHA mortgage insurance fee still seems a bit punitive … 1.75% for purchase loans … for a while I think it was as low as 1.25% for high FICO scores but I guess risk-based pricing was politically unpalatable. Or maybe FICO scores had nothing to do with actual risk 🙂
December 19, 2008 at 11:52 PM #318217HLS
ParticipantI currently have 5% down FNMA available to borrowers with 700+ credit scores.
It’s the MI coverage that is the problem, and could be withdrawn at any time.If someone qualifies for a 5% down conventional loan why would they choose to go FHA with 3.5% down and pay 1.75% funding fee ??
December 19, 2008 at 11:52 PM #318565HLS
ParticipantI currently have 5% down FNMA available to borrowers with 700+ credit scores.
It’s the MI coverage that is the problem, and could be withdrawn at any time.If someone qualifies for a 5% down conventional loan why would they choose to go FHA with 3.5% down and pay 1.75% funding fee ??
December 19, 2008 at 11:52 PM #318609HLS
ParticipantI currently have 5% down FNMA available to borrowers with 700+ credit scores.
It’s the MI coverage that is the problem, and could be withdrawn at any time.If someone qualifies for a 5% down conventional loan why would they choose to go FHA with 3.5% down and pay 1.75% funding fee ??
December 19, 2008 at 11:52 PM #318628HLS
ParticipantI currently have 5% down FNMA available to borrowers with 700+ credit scores.
It’s the MI coverage that is the problem, and could be withdrawn at any time.If someone qualifies for a 5% down conventional loan why would they choose to go FHA with 3.5% down and pay 1.75% funding fee ??
December 19, 2008 at 11:52 PM #318707HLS
ParticipantI currently have 5% down FNMA available to borrowers with 700+ credit scores.
It’s the MI coverage that is the problem, and could be withdrawn at any time.If someone qualifies for a 5% down conventional loan why would they choose to go FHA with 3.5% down and pay 1.75% funding fee ??
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.