Lender · Charlotte, NC · Member since 2020 · 224 posts · 221 votes
VERY important factors to consider for home buyers coming soon are the LLPA adjustments coming on Fannie/Freddie Conventional loans. Here are some things to watch out for -
1. Credit scores less than 679 with 5% down will be getting a nice decrease in upfront costs for par rates.
2. 720-760 credit scores with 15-20% down will be getting a big upfront cost increase for par rates.
3. Other factors to include is that Second Homes and Investment properties, using Conventional loans, are typically 1%-1.5% higher than Primary Residence rates, regardless of credit score. You can put as little as 15% down on an investment property and 10% down on a second home, HOWEVER rates/costs become much more advantageous at 70%-75% LTV.
4. PMI on Conventional loans is MUCH less for higher credit scores, so even with 5% down, your PMI might not be as much as you think if you are 740+ credit.
I guess the point is to encourage people to become homeowners regardless of credit score and down payment, and basically level out the playing field from those who have 700+ credit scores with higher down payments.
I guess the point is to encourage people to become homeowners regardless of credit score and down payment, and basically level out the playing field from those who have 700+ credit scores with higher down payments.
I am curious about your thoughts?
2008 here we come again. Whenever the government tries to "help" people the exact opposite always happens.
except it was NOT government subsidized loans that got us into trouble in 2008, it was free market wall street firms buying subprime loans from non-banks.
I guess the point is to encourage people to become homeowners regardless of credit score and down payment, and basically level out the playing field from those who have 700+ credit scores with higher down payments.
I am curious about your thoughts?
2008 here we come again. Whenever the government tries to "help" people the exact opposite always happens.
I guess the point is to encourage people to become homeowners regardless of credit score and down payment, and basically level out the playing field from those who have 700+ credit scores with higher down payments.
I am curious about your thoughts?
2008 here we come again. Whenever the government tries to "help" people the exact opposite always happens.
except it was NOT government subsidized loans that got us into trouble in 2008, it was free market wall street firms buying subprime loans from non-banks.
I guess the point is to encourage people to become homeowners regardless of credit score and down payment, and basically level out the playing field from those who have 700+ credit scores with higher down payments.
I am curious about your thoughts?
2008 here we come again. Whenever the government tries to "help" people the exact opposite always happens.
except it was NOT government subsidized loans that got us into trouble in 2008, it was free market wall street firms buying subprime loans from non-banks.
Of course government was involved. Pushing banks to allow everyone to be able to "afford a home". If they weren't involved 30 year fixed rate mortgages wouldn't even exist.
I guess the point is to encourage people to become homeowners regardless of credit score and down payment, and basically level out the playing field from those who have 700+ credit scores with higher down payments.
I am curious about your thoughts?
2008 here we come again. Whenever the government tries to "help" people the exact opposite always happens.
except it was NOT government subsidized loans that got us into trouble in 2008, it was free market wall street firms buying subprime loans from non-banks.
Of course government was involved. Pushing banks to allow everyone to be able to "afford a home".
Ok, sure, both parties policy at the time was for more home ownership. But, the subprime loans that wrecked the economy were loans given by non-banks (who had no CRA requirements to lend to anyone) that were sold to wall street banks who sold MBS and CDO's of MBS. The fallacy that government required these loans to be made is just not true. and these LLPA changes that will result in slightly lower costs for some buyers are not even close to what was going on leading up to the great recession. These LLPA changes do not at all water down the ability to pay requirements at all. I have seen some claim that 640 credit score will now get better rates then 780 which is just not true and a misreading of the chart above that originated with Mathew Graham on mortgage news daily. The graph shows the shift, not the cost.
I personally do not like these added costs to a good portion of borrowers at this time in the market cycle as I just do not think adding to costs for a most during a down cycle makes much sense but comparing to 2008 (when really it is tightening the credit box overall) makes no sense and is just hyperbolic.
great post - I think the big changes I'm noting is the cash-out refinance seasoning change from 6 to 12 months - going to make it very hard to use conventional financing for the BRRRR method
I guess the point is to encourage people to become homeowners regardless of credit score and down payment, and basically level out the playing field from those who have 700+ credit scores with higher down payments.
I am curious about your thoughts?
I haven't looked into this in great detail, but these changes don't tell us if they are levelling the playing field or making a change to pricing based on results they are seeing. For example, assume GEICO is lowering rates for 18 year-old boys driving Porsches by $500 but raising rates for Soccer Moms driving minivans by $100. Well, if original pricing was $5,000 per year for the boys and $500 for the Moms than perhaps this is change is not based on subsidizing boys driving crazy but rather the costs are actually changing. Even with these changes, the boys are paying $4,500 and the Mom's are paying $600. I have no idea what Freddie and Fannie are doing, but looking at changes in pricing doesn't give the full story.
Would this lower PMI or change anything if I have a current loan with them? I bought a SFH about 4 years ago for 333,000 with 6% down (750 credit). The loan currently is at 299k, I had a BPO come out through PennyMac that I had to pay for, they appraised my house much lower than I expected. They said it was at 355k and I need to be at about 390k to drop the PMI. I disputed and sent comps at 380k to 410k with no luck.
Would this lower PMI or change anything if I have a current loan with them? I bought a SFH about 4 years ago for 333,000 with 6% down (750 credit). The loan currently is at 299k, I had a BPO come out through PennyMac that I had to pay for, they appraised my house much lower than I expected. They said it was at 355k and I need to be at about 390k to drop the PMI. I disputed and sent comps at 380k to 410k with no luck.
@Justin Sobus No, all the above would only apply to new loans.