Comments 1 - 6 of 6 Search these comments
In all reality there shouldn't be a need to put any money down. The house should be worth what the house is worth regardless if it's paid back or not.
If you can't pay the house, the bank should be able to get their money back by reselling it out from under you. Is it fair? Well is foreclosing on someone, selling the house for less than the buyer paid, and placing a judgement on the buyer for the rest, is that fair? No it's not fair at all. It's done on purpose and the investor that gets the cherry deal on the property, were shell companies from the bank during the 2008 collapse.
The banks should NOT be lending money on housing stock that has a volatile wild swing in the first place. If housing values doubled in a few years, then Lenders should made by the FEDs to suspend normal Home Mortgages.
Every one bitches about the poor sap buying house, and are worrying about how much or how little they put down. While these creepy investors are getting houses practically fo...
You mean that they haven't already waived this rule?
https://www.bankrate.com/mortgages/cfpb-debt-to-income-rule/
Heeding the call of some of the largest mortgage lenders in the industry, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is moving to back the elimination of debt-to-income (DTI) requirements in mortgage underwriting.
In a letter CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger sent to Congress today, the CFPB asked to amend the Ability to Repay/Qualified Mortgage rule (ATR/QM rule) in order to remove DTI as a qualifying factor in mortgage underwriting.