Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Lancey Howard

No it was 10% down prior to 1990.My family has been in real estate sine the late 1960’s and 10% was the standard with more % down you could get better rates but it was not required.


79 posted on 06/10/2011 12:57:20 PM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: chris_bdba

Well, I’ve only been a real estate broker, appraiser, mortgage company owner, banker, etc., since the mid ‘70s, and I certainly remember that less-than-20%-down conventional loans were available, but those loans always required private mortgage insurance (PMI) and were actually underwritten (separately) by the PMI companies. FHA loans requiring a minimum 5% down were always available (with serious underwriting and MI built into the rate) as well, of course, 100% VA loans were always available, though never all that popular since back then sellers had to pay the buyer’s closing costs.

The point is that, according to this article, underwriting standards are returning to exactly where they were 20+ years ago (20% down with no PMI, 28/36 ratios, etc.). It is the right thing to do, and it’s disappointing to read somebody like Chavez griping about it.

FRegards,
LH


80 posted on 06/10/2011 1:21:06 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

To: chris_bdba
In Massachusetts in 1983, when I bought my first house, 20% down and 28/33/36 were absolute, fixed standards. Without them, no mortgage.

And I got it - at 18.25%.

97 posted on 06/11/2011 8:21:26 AM PDT by Jim Noble (The Constitution is overthrown. The Revolution is betrayed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson