5% down conventional with 640 credit and 5.75%! IS IT BAD OR GOOD MORTGAGE RATE? (2013, foreclosure)

[sonofagunk]

Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801

Hope to do that soon. LTV is 86% now. I just finished paying the loans for my dd's college, and so I'm paying additional principal and saving some to get there.

"Should have" isn"t helpful. My circumstances are not yours or the Cleaver family's.

again, you should have refinanced by now. You have 86% of your ORIGINAL PURCHASE PRICE. Since 2010, you house has to have gone up more than 4%.

[jaymoney]

Sure, but are they going to get a whole point these days to make it worth their while? I'm at a 4.5 rate and I don't see it getting low enough to ever refi.

[lancers]

Originally Posted by sonofagunk

again, you should have refinanced by now. You have 86% of your ORIGINAL PURCHASE PRICE. Since 2010, you house has to have gone up more than 4%.

Yeah probably could have gotten mid 3's in early 2013. Kinda late now really.

[sonofagunk]

Originally Posted by lancers

Yeah probably could have gotten mid 3's in early 2013. Kinda late now really.

The guy is at 5.25% with an 800+ credit score. I am sure he can get a low enough rate to make it worth his time

[Mightyqueen801]

Originally Posted by sonofagunk

again, you should have refinanced by now. You have 86% of your ORIGINAL PURCHASE PRICE. Since 2010, you house has to have gone up more than 4%.

No, the opposite. It's a condo, not a house, and I could not sell it yet for what I paid for it. I just resigned from the condo board after 6 years. I know what every sale has been since I bought my unit.

[Mightyqueen801]

Originally Posted by sonofagunk

The guy is at 5.25% with an 800+ credit score. I am sure he can get a low enough rate to make it worth his time

I'm not a guy. Although, some might indeed read "Queen" that way.

[vision33r]

Originally Posted by HudsonCoNJ

You know nothing about the OP’s financial situation other than his credit score. The score alone does not give anything close to the entire picture.

While I don't know the OP's situation, I've done multiple refi and home purchases to know what lenders are looking for. If the lender is ok with a 5% down on a 640 credit, that tells me that the borrowing restrictions imposed by the Democrats in 2010 have been removed by Trump.

A few years ago without a 20% down and a 680 credit minimum, lenders won't even speak to you. So we're back to the pre-recession practice of 5% down and sub 700 credit scores. This is gonna be another big ramp up for RE and it will likely lead to the same outcome in 2008.

[GiantRutgersfan]

Originally Posted by vision33r

While I don't know the OP's situation, I've done multiple refi and home purchases to know what lenders are looking for. If the lender is ok with a 5% down on a 640 credit, that tells me that the borrowing restrictions imposed by the Democrats in 2010 have been removed by Trump.

A few years ago without a 20% down and a 680 credit minimum, lenders won't even speak to you. So we're back to the pre-recession practice of 5% down and sub 700 credit scores. This is gonna be another big ramp up for RE and it will likely lead to the same outcome in 2008.

I can’t speak to what other people’s credit scores are like, but 5% down payment has been back and popular again since at least 2015. The days of the recession where lending standards were actually strict were short lived, unfortunately.

[Marc Paolella]

Originally Posted by GiantRutgersfan

I can’t speak to what other people’s credit scores are like, but 5% down payment has been back and popular again since at least 2015. The days of the recession where lending standards were actually strict were short lived, unfortunately.

The responsibility for prudent lending decisions should lie with the borrower, not the lender. It is an individual responsibility to borrow correctly, and the blame for borrowing too much should lie with he who borrows, not he who lends.


We don't need the State involved with this in any way. If people borrow irresponsibly and irrationally, the consequences, however severe, including foreclosure and being thrown out of their homes, is THEIR fault, not the bank, not their neighbor, not their parents, not society, not the Universe, not God.


We've got to keep the blame where it rationally belongs: ON THE BORROWER. Nobody forces you to borrow more money than you can repay. It is an individual responsibility to calculate the repayment terms and make a rational decision as to whether repayment is a realistic and attainable goal.


I'm tired of this "blame the state", "blame the institution" mentality. I don't care if they are willing to give you $1,000,000 in a paper bag and ask for repayment in 30 years as a balloon. I don't care how easy it seems. Nobody puts a gun to your head and demands that you borrow money. It's a CHOICE. Repayment responsibility is ON THE BORROWER, not the lender.

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by vision33r

While I don't know the OP's situation, I've done multiple refi and home purchases to know what lenders are looking for. If the lender is ok with a 5% down on a 640 credit, that tells me that the borrowing restrictions imposed by the Democrats in 2010 have been removed by Trump.

A few years ago without a 20% down and a 680 credit minimum, lenders won't even speak to you. So we're back to the pre-recession practice of 5% down and sub 700 credit scores. This is gonna be another big ramp up for RE and it will likely lead to the same outcome in 2008.

The subprime borrowers actually barely made a blip in defaulting on their loans - it was the higher credit score folks who took on way too much debt that ended up blowing the whole thing up.

The resulting slowdown in the economy is what caused the actual recession.