Why can I not get a loan?

[CA renter]

Crap like you with the entitlement mentality is why America is having such problems.
—————–

Ok, guys…

While I agree with the regular Piggs that renting is by far the best option in the $800K range (as this range is most likely to take the biggest losses in the next few years), most of these homes are not really “high-end” homes. They were selling for ~$250K-$350K before the bubble.

It’s not that people were buying “too much house” that caused all the problems, but that people were taking on **too much debt** to buy those houses. There is a distinction.

The main problems, and the excessive “demand” during the boom came from the bottom — literally, people who were earning minimum wage getting mortgages for $400K to buy $100K houses. That money (the $300K difference between the new mortgage and the real value of these starter homes) is what pushed the prices up in the move-up and higher-end homes.

I agree with the poster, that a couple earning $250K DO “deserve” to live in a nice home (not a mansion) in a nice, middle-class neighborhood.

We needn’t be so extreme, guys. The message — don’t overpay and get into too much debt — is sometimes overwhelmed by the vitriol.
—————-

Northcounty,

Forget about the sharp comments, but do pay attention to what these posters are saying. They know what they are talking about.

I also think the problem isn’t the 10% down, but the fact that you will be carrying two mortgages. From what I understand, if a borrower does not have 30% equity in an existing home, they will not qualify for a new loan; and that is a perfectly reasonable response to the actions of borrowers over the past few years.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

I believe that the original poster is correct in their assertion that 10% down true Jumbo loans (more than 629K) are not currently available. My mortgage broker could not find one.

However, If you have 25% down, and are willing to pay a point or 2, US Bank has Jumbo rates around 6% for 30-year fixed.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

I believe that the original poster is correct in their assertion that 10% down true Jumbo loans (more than 629K) are not currently available. My mortgage broker could not find one.

However, If you have 25% down, and are willing to pay a point or 2, US Bank has Jumbo rates around 6% for 30-year fixed.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

I believe that the original poster is correct in their assertion that 10% down true Jumbo loans (more than 629K) are not currently available. My mortgage broker could not find one.

However, If you have 25% down, and are willing to pay a point or 2, US Bank has Jumbo rates around 6% for 30-year fixed.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

I believe that the original poster is correct in their assertion that 10% down true Jumbo loans (more than 629K) are not currently available. My mortgage broker could not find one.

However, If you have 25% down, and are willing to pay a point or 2, US Bank has Jumbo rates around 6% for 30-year fixed.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

I believe that the original poster is correct in their assertion that 10% down true Jumbo loans (more than 629K) are not currently available. My mortgage broker could not find one.

However, If you have 25% down, and are willing to pay a point or 2, US Bank has Jumbo rates around 6% for 30-year fixed.

[Eugene]

[quote=sdduuuude]
PMI is going to cost $4K per year on a 800K house at 10% down. Putting another 80K down saves you 4K per year in after-tax expenditures.

That’s 5% AFTER TAX on the 80K. Who’s making that these days ?[/quote]

These days, protection of principal is more important than making profit.

There’s a real chance that the OP will have to walk away a few years down the road. Increasing the downpayment from 80K to 160K would expose him to higher potential loss. You save 4K/year (less interest actually earned on the down payment), but you risk losing the 80K principal if things don’t work out.

I was in a similar situation a month ago, I ended up having to put 15% down with PMI, even though I had resources to do 20% or more. In a declining market, every extra dollar down is a dollar potentially lost.

[Eugene]

[quote=sdduuuude]
PMI is going to cost $4K per year on a 800K house at 10% down. Putting another 80K down saves you 4K per year in after-tax expenditures.

That’s 5% AFTER TAX on the 80K. Who’s making that these days ?[/quote]

These days, protection of principal is more important than making profit.

There’s a real chance that the OP will have to walk away a few years down the road. Increasing the downpayment from 80K to 160K would expose him to higher potential loss. You save 4K/year (less interest actually earned on the down payment), but you risk losing the 80K principal if things don’t work out.

I was in a similar situation a month ago, I ended up having to put 15% down with PMI, even though I had resources to do 20% or more. In a declining market, every extra dollar down is a dollar potentially lost.

[Eugene]

[quote=sdduuuude]
PMI is going to cost $4K per year on a 800K house at 10% down. Putting another 80K down saves you 4K per year in after-tax expenditures.

That’s 5% AFTER TAX on the 80K. Who’s making that these days ?[/quote]

These days, protection of principal is more important than making profit.

There’s a real chance that the OP will have to walk away a few years down the road. Increasing the downpayment from 80K to 160K would expose him to higher potential loss. You save 4K/year (less interest actually earned on the down payment), but you risk losing the 80K principal if things don’t work out.

I was in a similar situation a month ago, I ended up having to put 15% down with PMI, even though I had resources to do 20% or more. In a declining market, every extra dollar down is a dollar potentially lost.

[Eugene]

[quote=sdduuuude]
PMI is going to cost $4K per year on a 800K house at 10% down. Putting another 80K down saves you 4K per year in after-tax expenditures.

That’s 5% AFTER TAX on the 80K. Who’s making that these days ?[/quote]

These days, protection of principal is more important than making profit.

There’s a real chance that the OP will have to walk away a few years down the road. Increasing the downpayment from 80K to 160K would expose him to higher potential loss. You save 4K/year (less interest actually earned on the down payment), but you risk losing the 80K principal if things don’t work out.

I was in a similar situation a month ago, I ended up having to put 15% down with PMI, even though I had resources to do 20% or more. In a declining market, every extra dollar down is a dollar potentially lost.

[Eugene]

[quote=sdduuuude]
PMI is going to cost $4K per year on a 800K house at 10% down. Putting another 80K down saves you 4K per year in after-tax expenditures.

That’s 5% AFTER TAX on the 80K. Who’s making that these days ?[/quote]

These days, protection of principal is more important than making profit.

There’s a real chance that the OP will have to walk away a few years down the road. Increasing the downpayment from 80K to 160K would expose him to higher potential loss. You save 4K/year (less interest actually earned on the down payment), but you risk losing the 80K principal if things don’t work out.

I was in a similar situation a month ago, I ended up having to put 15% down with PMI, even though I had resources to do 20% or more. In a declining market, every extra dollar down is a dollar potentially lost.

[sdduuuude]

esmith – exactly. That’s why 0 down is best. i.e. don’t buy it. Doesn’t make sense to want to preserve capital in case of bad times, yet buy a house that could be rented so inexpensively.

[sdduuuude]

esmith – exactly. That’s why 0 down is best. i.e. don’t buy it. Doesn’t make sense to want to preserve capital in case of bad times, yet buy a house that could be rented so inexpensively.

[sdduuuude]

esmith – exactly. That’s why 0 down is best. i.e. don’t buy it. Doesn’t make sense to want to preserve capital in case of bad times, yet buy a house that could be rented so inexpensively.

[sdduuuude]

esmith – exactly. That’s why 0 down is best. i.e. don’t buy it. Doesn’t make sense to want to preserve capital in case of bad times, yet buy a house that could be rented so inexpensively.

[Author]

Posts