[HLS]

Hi all..
I don’t check this site as often as I used to, but can always be reached directly (see above)

Recent govt regulations enacted in 2009 and Jan 1st 2010 have made it more difficult/frustrating/complicated to get a mortgage than ever before.

A borrower making $200K with 40% down and an 800 credit score can have a problem with a loan approval because something wasn’t disclosed properly. The old Good Faith Estimate(GFE) that was 1 page, has been “simplified” through govt intervention and is now 3 pages.

Lenders and underwriters have different views on how to handle changes and some amounts CANNOT change once they are disclosed, while others cannot go up more than 10%.
It might sound good on the surface, but if a borrower loses a lock because of this, it can cost thousands of dollars for this govt intervention if rates have moved up. I’ll address the down payment issue in next post. ..HLS..

[HLS]

Hi all..
I don’t check this site as often as I used to, but can always be reached directly (see above)

Recent govt regulations enacted in 2009 and Jan 1st 2010 have made it more difficult/frustrating/complicated to get a mortgage than ever before.

A borrower making $200K with 40% down and an 800 credit score can have a problem with a loan approval because something wasn’t disclosed properly. The old Good Faith Estimate(GFE) that was 1 page, has been “simplified” through govt intervention and is now 3 pages.

Lenders and underwriters have different views on how to handle changes and some amounts CANNOT change once they are disclosed, while others cannot go up more than 10%.
It might sound good on the surface, but if a borrower loses a lock because of this, it can cost thousands of dollars for this govt intervention if rates have moved up. I’ll address the down payment issue in next post. ..HLS..

[HLS]

Loan pricing & qualifying is more complicated than ever before. It depends on credit score and equity to start with.

If you are looking for a 30 YR fixed loan, in most cases a BANK is a mortgage broker. They do not make their own rules. Loans are underwritten to Fannie/Freddie guidelines and sold off to them immediately, even if the bank retains the servicing rights. You may or may not get a better deal from a mortgage broker, if that is what you are looking for.

The best pricing for rental property requires a mid credit score of 740 or above and at least 25% equity. (It makes no difference if you have 75% equity) the pricing hit is 1.75% of the loan amount. You can either pay the 1.75% up front and get a lower rate OR get a rate that is .25-.375% higher, fixed for 30 yrs. With 20% equity it’s a 3.00% hit. Fannie/Freddie will not finance rental purchases with less than 20% down.

All depends on your expected time frame of owning the property as to what makes sense. The cost to get the rate moves around a bit every single business day, based on the bond markets.

2-4 units cost more than single family homes. Condos and townhomes can be MUCH more difficult to finance(or impossible)

Today, 5.00% is available for rentals with less than a point or 5.125% without points. By paying the 1.75% hit and points you can get down to 4.625% IF you qualify. It’s not as simple as most people think.
Income and assets are another piece of the puzzle.
Owner occupied properties get better pricing.
..HLS

[HLS]

Loan pricing & qualifying is more complicated than ever before. It depends on credit score and equity to start with.

If you are looking for a 30 YR fixed loan, in most cases a BANK is a mortgage broker. They do not make their own rules. Loans are underwritten to Fannie/Freddie guidelines and sold off to them immediately, even if the bank retains the servicing rights. You may or may not get a better deal from a mortgage broker, if that is what you are looking for.

The best pricing for rental property requires a mid credit score of 740 or above and at least 25% equity. (It makes no difference if you have 75% equity) the pricing hit is 1.75% of the loan amount. You can either pay the 1.75% up front and get a lower rate OR get a rate that is .25-.375% higher, fixed for 30 yrs. With 20% equity it’s a 3.00% hit. Fannie/Freddie will not finance rental purchases with less than 20% down.

All depends on your expected time frame of owning the property as to what makes sense. The cost to get the rate moves around a bit every single business day, based on the bond markets.

2-4 units cost more than single family homes. Condos and townhomes can be MUCH more difficult to finance(or impossible)

Today, 5.00% is available for rentals with less than a point or 5.125% without points. By paying the 1.75% hit and points you can get down to 4.625% IF you qualify. It’s not as simple as most people think.
Income and assets are another piece of the puzzle.
Owner occupied properties get better pricing.
..HLS

[HLS]

Loan pricing & qualifying is more complicated than ever before. It depends on credit score and equity to start with.

If you are looking for a 30 YR fixed loan, in most cases a BANK is a mortgage broker. They do not make their own rules. Loans are underwritten to Fannie/Freddie guidelines and sold off to them immediately, even if the bank retains the servicing rights. You may or may not get a better deal from a mortgage broker, if that is what you are looking for.

The best pricing for rental property requires a mid credit score of 740 or above and at least 25% equity. (It makes no difference if you have 75% equity) the pricing hit is 1.75% of the loan amount. You can either pay the 1.75% up front and get a lower rate OR get a rate that is .25-.375% higher, fixed for 30 yrs. With 20% equity it’s a 3.00% hit. Fannie/Freddie will not finance rental purchases with less than 20% down.

All depends on your expected time frame of owning the property as to what makes sense. The cost to get the rate moves around a bit every single business day, based on the bond markets.

2-4 units cost more than single family homes. Condos and townhomes can be MUCH more difficult to finance(or impossible)

Today, 5.00% is available for rentals with less than a point or 5.125% without points. By paying the 1.75% hit and points you can get down to 4.625% IF you qualify. It’s not as simple as most people think.
Income and assets are another piece of the puzzle.
Owner occupied properties get better pricing.
..HLS

[HLS]

Loan pricing & qualifying is more complicated than ever before. It depends on credit score and equity to start with.

If you are looking for a 30 YR fixed loan, in most cases a BANK is a mortgage broker. They do not make their own rules. Loans are underwritten to Fannie/Freddie guidelines and sold off to them immediately, even if the bank retains the servicing rights. You may or may not get a better deal from a mortgage broker, if that is what you are looking for.

The best pricing for rental property requires a mid credit score of 740 or above and at least 25% equity. (It makes no difference if you have 75% equity) the pricing hit is 1.75% of the loan amount. You can either pay the 1.75% up front and get a lower rate OR get a rate that is .25-.375% higher, fixed for 30 yrs. With 20% equity it’s a 3.00% hit. Fannie/Freddie will not finance rental purchases with less than 20% down.

All depends on your expected time frame of owning the property as to what makes sense. The cost to get the rate moves around a bit every single business day, based on the bond markets.

2-4 units cost more than single family homes. Condos and townhomes can be MUCH more difficult to finance(or impossible)

Today, 5.00% is available for rentals with less than a point or 5.125% without points. By paying the 1.75% hit and points you can get down to 4.625% IF you qualify. It’s not as simple as most people think.
Income and assets are another piece of the puzzle.
Owner occupied properties get better pricing.
..HLS

[HLS]

Loan pricing & qualifying is more complicated than ever before. It depends on credit score and equity to start with.

If you are looking for a 30 YR fixed loan, in most cases a BANK is a mortgage broker. They do not make their own rules. Loans are underwritten to Fannie/Freddie guidelines and sold off to them immediately, even if the bank retains the servicing rights. You may or may not get a better deal from a mortgage broker, if that is what you are looking for.

The best pricing for rental property requires a mid credit score of 740 or above and at least 25% equity. (It makes no difference if you have 75% equity) the pricing hit is 1.75% of the loan amount. You can either pay the 1.75% up front and get a lower rate OR get a rate that is .25-.375% higher, fixed for 30 yrs. With 20% equity it’s a 3.00% hit. Fannie/Freddie will not finance rental purchases with less than 20% down.

All depends on your expected time frame of owning the property as to what makes sense. The cost to get the rate moves around a bit every single business day, based on the bond markets.

2-4 units cost more than single family homes. Condos and townhomes can be MUCH more difficult to finance(or impossible)

Today, 5.00% is available for rentals with less than a point or 5.125% without points. By paying the 1.75% hit and points you can get down to 4.625% IF you qualify. It’s not as simple as most people think.
Income and assets are another piece of the puzzle.
Owner occupied properties get better pricing.
..HLS

[HLS]

Perhaps it is because the entire 401K premise is a scam? A phony sense of security encouraged by the bandits in govt helped along by lobbyists for Wall Street.

Any idea how much is being raked off the top in management fees regardless of whether the investor ever makes a single penny ?

It’s a serious consideration to put after tax money where you want it rather than being told where to put your pre-tax dollars.

If your 401K money was invested in rental real estate after tax instead in the right areas, the depreciation might rival the lost money.

I’d say that most people really don’t realize how big of a ponzi scheme the stock market is, and have just been brainwashed to believe “diversify & you’re in it for the long run” Wonderful advice from investment “professionals”

[HLS]

Perhaps it is because the entire 401K premise is a scam? A phony sense of security encouraged by the bandits in govt helped along by lobbyists for Wall Street.

Any idea how much is being raked off the top in management fees regardless of whether the investor ever makes a single penny ?

It’s a serious consideration to put after tax money where you want it rather than being told where to put your pre-tax dollars.

If your 401K money was invested in rental real estate after tax instead in the right areas, the depreciation might rival the lost money.

I’d say that most people really don’t realize how big of a ponzi scheme the stock market is, and have just been brainwashed to believe “diversify & you’re in it for the long run” Wonderful advice from investment “professionals”

[HLS]

Perhaps it is because the entire 401K premise is a scam? A phony sense of security encouraged by the bandits in govt helped along by lobbyists for Wall Street.

Any idea how much is being raked off the top in management fees regardless of whether the investor ever makes a single penny ?

It’s a serious consideration to put after tax money where you want it rather than being told where to put your pre-tax dollars.

If your 401K money was invested in rental real estate after tax instead in the right areas, the depreciation might rival the lost money.

I’d say that most people really don’t realize how big of a ponzi scheme the stock market is, and have just been brainwashed to believe “diversify & you’re in it for the long run” Wonderful advice from investment “professionals”

[HLS]

Perhaps it is because the entire 401K premise is a scam? A phony sense of security encouraged by the bandits in govt helped along by lobbyists for Wall Street.

Any idea how much is being raked off the top in management fees regardless of whether the investor ever makes a single penny ?

It’s a serious consideration to put after tax money where you want it rather than being told where to put your pre-tax dollars.

If your 401K money was invested in rental real estate after tax instead in the right areas, the depreciation might rival the lost money.

I’d say that most people really don’t realize how big of a ponzi scheme the stock market is, and have just been brainwashed to believe “diversify & you’re in it for the long run” Wonderful advice from investment “professionals”

[HLS]

Perhaps it is because the entire 401K premise is a scam? A phony sense of security encouraged by the bandits in govt helped along by lobbyists for Wall Street.

Any idea how much is being raked off the top in management fees regardless of whether the investor ever makes a single penny ?

It’s a serious consideration to put after tax money where you want it rather than being told where to put your pre-tax dollars.

If your 401K money was invested in rental real estate after tax instead in the right areas, the depreciation might rival the lost money.

I’d say that most people really don’t realize how big of a ponzi scheme the stock market is, and have just been brainwashed to believe “diversify & you’re in it for the long run” Wonderful advice from investment “professionals”

[HLS]

Allowing people to stay in homes is a HUGE mistake, even if these people have to deed the property back. It will just prolong the pain, agony and reality.

There are 3 groups of people.
1. Those that lied about their income and assets and/or bought with 100% financing and never should have been allowed to qualify for a loan in the first place.
2.Those who truly qualified for a loan but chose to gamble with an interest only ARM and now cannot afford a real payment.
3. Those with a down payment who qualified for an A paper prime loan at the time, but now have hardship and cannot afford to pay.

Should any of these groups be allowed to stay in the house when they cannot afford to pay today ??
IF they can afford to pay something, they will not be homeless. Perhaps there needs to be a huge reshuffling of residences. There is something called “RENTING what you can afford”

I know families of 6, 3 generations that grew up in 3 bedroom <1500 sq ft home. Today, if people were told to do that there would be lawsuits that their civil rights were being violated.

Foreclosing on a home and having it sell for what it is worth today would mean dragging down the value of ALL other homes in the area AND create a loss that must be realized on the books. More chaos, more paper wealth disappearing like a hooker on El Cajon Blvd when the vice squad shows up. Vanish into thin air.

If ppl are allowed to stay in the home, everybody can pretend what the value is AND the loan amount remains artificial on someone's books, since it doesn't get paid off at 50c on the dollar.
Mark to market accounting is avoided.
This is absolute artificial accounting about what the value of assets actually are. Solvency of many is truly at risk.

Perhaps many people can afford a house, but they cannot afford the one that they are currently living in. Facing this reality would be painful for millions, to have to be told (and face) that they are living beyond their means, which would probably lead to even more lawsuits of people's rights being violated.

More government intervention is definitely coming.
Perhaps boarding houses will make a comeback and families of 3 or 4 will be TOLD to live in 1 or 2 bedrooms, instead of being given food stamps and extended unemployment benefits to be able to continue to buy things that they really cannot afford, while staying in their 5 bedroom house with a temporary loan modification because it is "good" for the economy and will "stabilize" housing prices. This is delusional.

The govt is putting band aids on a drug addicted patient who just had a lung transplant and is in a coma. Perhaps to some people it looks like they are doing something, but to those who understand, that band aid is going to very little to cure that patient...

[HLS]

Allowing people to stay in homes is a HUGE mistake, even if these people have to deed the property back. It will just prolong the pain, agony and reality.

There are 3 groups of people.
1. Those that lied about their income and assets and/or bought with 100% financing and never should have been allowed to qualify for a loan in the first place.
2.Those who truly qualified for a loan but chose to gamble with an interest only ARM and now cannot afford a real payment.
3. Those with a down payment who qualified for an A paper prime loan at the time, but now have hardship and cannot afford to pay.

Should any of these groups be allowed to stay in the house when they cannot afford to pay today ??
IF they can afford to pay something, they will not be homeless. Perhaps there needs to be a huge reshuffling of residences. There is something called “RENTING what you can afford”

I know families of 6, 3 generations that grew up in 3 bedroom <1500 sq ft home. Today, if people were told to do that there would be lawsuits that their civil rights were being violated.

Foreclosing on a home and having it sell for what it is worth today would mean dragging down the value of ALL other homes in the area AND create a loss that must be realized on the books. More chaos, more paper wealth disappearing like a hooker on El Cajon Blvd when the vice squad shows up. Vanish into thin air.

If ppl are allowed to stay in the home, everybody can pretend what the value is AND the loan amount remains artificial on someone's books, since it doesn't get paid off at 50c on the dollar.
Mark to market accounting is avoided.
This is absolute artificial accounting about what the value of assets actually are. Solvency of many is truly at risk.

Perhaps many people can afford a house, but they cannot afford the one that they are currently living in. Facing this reality would be painful for millions, to have to be told (and face) that they are living beyond their means, which would probably lead to even more lawsuits of people's rights being violated.

More government intervention is definitely coming.
Perhaps boarding houses will make a comeback and families of 3 or 4 will be TOLD to live in 1 or 2 bedrooms, instead of being given food stamps and extended unemployment benefits to be able to continue to buy things that they really cannot afford, while staying in their 5 bedroom house with a temporary loan modification because it is "good" for the economy and will "stabilize" housing prices. This is delusional.

The govt is putting band aids on a drug addicted patient who just had a lung transplant and is in a coma. Perhaps to some people it looks like they are doing something, but to those who understand, that band aid is going to very little to cure that patient...

[HLS]

Allowing people to stay in homes is a HUGE mistake, even if these people have to deed the property back. It will just prolong the pain, agony and reality.

There are 3 groups of people.
1. Those that lied about their income and assets and/or bought with 100% financing and never should have been allowed to qualify for a loan in the first place.
2.Those who truly qualified for a loan but chose to gamble with an interest only ARM and now cannot afford a real payment.
3. Those with a down payment who qualified for an A paper prime loan at the time, but now have hardship and cannot afford to pay.

Should any of these groups be allowed to stay in the house when they cannot afford to pay today ??
IF they can afford to pay something, they will not be homeless. Perhaps there needs to be a huge reshuffling of residences. There is something called “RENTING what you can afford”

I know families of 6, 3 generations that grew up in 3 bedroom <1500 sq ft home. Today, if people were told to do that there would be lawsuits that their civil rights were being violated.

Foreclosing on a home and having it sell for what it is worth today would mean dragging down the value of ALL other homes in the area AND create a loss that must be realized on the books. More chaos, more paper wealth disappearing like a hooker on El Cajon Blvd when the vice squad shows up. Vanish into thin air.

If ppl are allowed to stay in the home, everybody can pretend what the value is AND the loan amount remains artificial on someone's books, since it doesn't get paid off at 50c on the dollar.
Mark to market accounting is avoided.
This is absolute artificial accounting about what the value of assets actually are. Solvency of many is truly at risk.

Perhaps many people can afford a house, but they cannot afford the one that they are currently living in. Facing this reality would be painful for millions, to have to be told (and face) that they are living beyond their means, which would probably lead to even more lawsuits of people's rights being violated.

More government intervention is definitely coming.
Perhaps boarding houses will make a comeback and families of 3 or 4 will be TOLD to live in 1 or 2 bedrooms, instead of being given food stamps and extended unemployment benefits to be able to continue to buy things that they really cannot afford, while staying in their 5 bedroom house with a temporary loan modification because it is "good" for the economy and will "stabilize" housing prices. This is delusional.

The govt is putting band aids on a drug addicted patient who just had a lung transplant and is in a coma. Perhaps to some people it looks like they are doing something, but to those who understand, that band aid is going to very little to cure that patient...

[Author]

Posts