dude don't even bother. he is 100% stuck in his ways and nothing you can say will come close to changing his mind. he thinks everyone has to live by his rules and if you don't, then you are doing it wrong. i know this from his posts in multiple threads.
This is the dumbest thing I have read in a long time, sorry. Ever think that someone only puts 10% down so that they have MORE LIQUIDITY, and that they don't have all of thier money tied up in the house?
With money being so cheap right now (In the 3% range), if you can take the extra 10% that you did not put down on your house and get a larger return on it, then you have come out ahead.
People do things for different reasons. Not everyone can be put in your little box. I touch every one of my loans in a huge pipeline every day, and I always see something different.
I will stop responding to you, as another poster just mentioned that this is just how you are, so I wont waste any more key-strokes.
I'm pretty sure, you (just like the others) are taking my OPINION to an extreme.
On this topic, no you will not change my mind. I don't think that everyone should live by my rules though, whatever he does it his choice and I don't really give a shit.
Whatever floats my boat. But I will give you the best advice I can give you.
How about you prove me wrong vs taking the "he doesn't know what he is talking about" road (which is worthless).
prove you wrong with what? i'm a living example of how your rules aren't for everyone. i purchased my first house last year with 5% down on a $419k house and am doing just fine.
had we saved up 20%, just because "its the rule", and had 6-9 months emergency funds, we'd have to change our life style to live like we are poor and save for years to get to that amount of money banked, all while living in a 800sqft apartment paying $1470/mo in rent.
or we could just put the 5% down, live our current life style, and get a house now.
only debt i have is student loans, car payment, and a mortgage. not paying any PMI either.
and i have PLENTY of disposable income every month after bills.
A year? That's no experiance. it's like saying you've been married for a year and are a marriage expert.
I tell you what, come back and talk to me when you lose your job. Let's see how things go down than and at that point YOU can tell me how you feel about 20% down......
How about this:
Don't waste your money on Home theater BS and put some money to the side for Emergency fund or better yet, pay off your principle on your mortgage.
And yes, MANY people struggle in order to get to their goals. YOu took the easy way (and hope it works out for you) but god fobid you lose your job and are unable to find another.
You are just like very other American this day and age. You are NOT willing to put in the effort/work and be patient to get what you want. YOu expect everything on a plate and NOW.
Let the time go by, we shall see how that works out for you.
If you have plenty of disposable income every month THEN you should have had PLENTY MORE disposable income when you didn't have a house and be able to save for emergency fun AND 20% down payment.
Really? You couldn't wait a year or 2?
Ohh yea, I forgot that "I need to have it NOW" and blowing your money on Home Threater is more important than financial responsibility.
Blah blah something about me being a realtor
lol ... when did i claim to be an expert? i just said it isn't black/white as you claim it to be.
why are you so concerned about me losing my job? i'm not concerned at all, and i'm 100% confident if i did lose it i could find another job very easily. there are way more jobs out there than people to fill them in my market. again, not everything in the world is like it is for you. back in the economic crash in 2009 i found a new job with a 25% pay increase. so yea, not concerned at all about it.
so because i'm spending a lot on home theater stuff, you now know my financial situation? how much money do i have in the bank and saved up for retirement? care to tell me?
so let me get this straight - because i don't meet "your rules" that makes me financially irresponsible? you just sound jealous because i can afford nice things and travel and live comfortably all while not going in debt, while you have to make due with the $200 speakers you can afford then claim you can't tell a difference between $200 speakers and $2000 speakers.
you are one of the most dense people on this forum.
No, no I am not. I am not a loan officer, either.
I am constantly reviewing risk-models based on a number of variables in borrower's profile.
Would loans be less risky if everyone put 50% down with a 800 credit score and an extra $300k in the bank, with unicorns and rainbows flying out of their ass? Of course.
There are risk adjustments behind the scenes for every characteristic of your loan, except anything illegal, obviously. (race, etc). If it is at the high-end of risk, then it will be insured. Your rate also has the risk priced into it.
Underwriting is a very complex and thorough process these days, that is why people complain that they are constantly having to give thier loan officer more and more documentation, when before it was nothing.
You keep being an expert at whatever it is you do for a living, and I will continue to do what I do. I am not the sleazy loan officer that shows up at your door promising you "x" rate.
Oh damn-it I promised I wouldnt respond to you anymore. I got sucked in. OK I am done.
I don't buy it. You have plenty of cash on hand and thousands in disposable income BUT you could not save for Emergency fund or 20% down payment.
Just doesn't add up.
My budget for Home Theater speakers was well over $2000 but I simply couldn't justify spending that much when speakers for almost 1/4 price sounded great to me.
Not everyone has YOUR standards.
And again, I don't care if you or anyone on this board doesn't put down 20% or have an emergency fund. It's YOUR risk, not mine.
20% would be pretty easy to save in some areas of the country.
Los Angeles tho...I've been saving for 2 years and maybe have 10% + closing costs etc of a modest home. If I wait another 2 years to get the 20%, rates could be higher.
Plus from what I'm calculating, my mortgage payments on a decent house would be less than my rent in my condo. With bills etc. probably about equal, but at least I'll be putting money towards something and get the tax deductions instead of paying my landlord's mortgage.
Need to start applying.
20% would be pretty easy to save in some areas of the country.
Los Angeles tho...I've been saving for 2 years and maybe have 10% + closing costs etc of a modest home. If I wait another 2 years to get the 20%, rates could be higher.
Plus from what I'm calculating, my mortgage payments on a decent house would be less than my rent in my condo. With bills etc. probably about equal, but at least I'll be putting money towards something and get the tax deductions instead of paying my landlord's mortgage.
Need to start applying.
Exactly this. It is so expensive to rent out here, why would you want to pay someone else's mortgage payment for them?
On a side note, if the Loan Officer you find tries to give you monthly mortgage insurance on a Conventional loan with 10% down, shoot me a PM.
20% would be pretty easy to save in some areas of the country.
Los Angeles tho...I've been saving for 2 years and maybe have 10% + closing costs etc of a modest home. If I wait another 2 years to get the 20%, rates could be higher.
Plus from what I'm calculating, my mortgage payments on a decent house would be less than my rent in my condo. With bills etc. probably about equal, but at least I'll be putting money towards something and get the tax deductions instead of paying my landlord's mortgage.
Need to start applying.
On a side note, if the Loan Officer you find tries to give you monthly mortgage insurance on a Conventional loan with 10% down, shoot me a PM.
On snap What if this already happened to me? Closed last March, 10% down, 30 year, conventional. Anything to change it after the fact? I was under the assumption that PMI was required.
Because there is lot more to home ownership than just paying mortgage. And in most places rent is less than mortgage etc.
hehe
Thanks for proving my point. :biggrin:
No bank is going to take a hit FOR you.
It's pretty simple. If you have 20% down and something happens you end up with a nice chunk of change that can enable you to live for a year or 2.
If you don't, you not only end up with NOTHING but also are unable to live ANYWHEre (as your credit is not ruined and a decent landlord will not sign a lease with you).
You can add "problems getting a job" to the list as well as most employers check your credit score.
Here is Phoenix my mortgage payment is easily ~$600 less than current rent prices in the area. That is with taxes & homeowners insurance factored in too.
/bought house 7 months ago
Considering that we don't have debtor's prison in the US, the banks don't have a choice.
It's pretty simple. Give two people an equal amount of money and equal jobs. If one guy puts 20% down right off the bat, they have LESS MONEY in liquid assets than the guy who puts 5% down. Guess who loses their house first when the market crashes and they lose their job? The guy who doesn't have an emergency fund because he sank it all into the down payment. Now he's lost all of his equity (HIS money) and is homeless.
The guy who put 5% down and kept a 15% emergency fund can stay in the house while looking for a new job, and if they can't find anything at all before burning through all of the money, they can just walk away.
If the market stays down for years, they both end up broke and homeless with thrashed credit, but the guy who puts more down actually gets there faster.
Also, despite your naive view of the world, there are plenty of housing options and job opportunities for people with poor credit. It isn't a death sentence.
Im pretty sure I said "you are not ready until you have 20% down AND emergency fund"
You are also forgetting that the guy that has 20% equity ends up with that money back in the bank. He is also able to get equity line etc (if needed)
Also if some one is unable to save 20% and only puts down 5%, I have doubts about them being responsible enough not to waste that money they have left over etc.
Putting more down equals less of an emergency fund. End of story.
And if putting more money down is all that, why not 40% or 60% or even 100%? I mean, if you have to take out a loan at all, obviously you can't afford it...
20% down is extremely arbitrary and much less of an indication of someone's ability to afford a house than their TOTAL savings, salary, job type, credit score, house cost, and debt-to-income ratio.
Because real estate never drops in value and banks are always willing to loan. Right. How well did that work out for people over the last few years? Plenty of "20%-down" people saw their equity vanish overnight.
If someone is "unable" to save 20%, ie, they don't make enough money or they spend too much money, they won't get a loan in the first place. Which is why banks look at things like credit score, savings, salary, debt-to-income ratio...are you seeing a trend here?