As of April 2017,  Fannie Mae now allows the payment on the credit report to be used, even if it is not the fully amortizing payment amount.    Fannie Mae explicitly allows it - finding a lender/underwriter to agree to those less-strict rules is another. Good luck!   Student Loans If a monthly student loan payment is provided on the credit report, the lender may use that amount for qualifying purposes. If the credit report does not reflect the correct monthly payment, the lender may use the monthly payment that is on the student loan documentation (the most recent student loan statement) to qualify the borrower. If the credit report does not provide a monthly payment for the student loan, or if the credit report shows $0 as the monthly payment, the lender must determine the qualifying monthly payment using one of the options below. If the borrower is on an income-driven payment plan, the lender may obtain student loan documentation to verify the actual monthly payment is $0. The lender may then qualify the borrower with a $0 payment. For deferred loans or loans in forbearance, the lender may calculate a payment equal to 1% of the outstanding student loan balance (even if this amount is lower than the actual fully amortizing payment), or a fully amortizing payment using the documented loan repayment terms. ... View more

They might be looking at other factors. Perhaps one's relationship with Amex is taken into consideration.    A few years ago I was looking at private student loans. I applied through Discover, and although my FICOs were all well over 760, they still came back offering me one of the their worst APRs. My memory is a bit fuzzy, but if I recall correctly, I believe I called and asked why my APR was so high, and the CSR told me that ading a co-signer might help. I declined as I told them I didn't see how that would help. I was still working full-time, my income/employment were more than enough to justify the small loan I had applied for,  and I had stellar credit.    So,  Amex might be doing something similar where they're looking at something other than just your FICO scores.  ... View more

It may have something to do with the fact that it was just recently unsecured. You may have better luck asking for a CLI after 6 months of on-time payments as they may want to see how you handle specifically an "unsecured" product. FWIW, I only somewhat regularly run just a few hundred dollars on my Discover card, and they kept giving me auto-CLI's from $15k to $22.5k, why is why I can't imagine having too low utilization to be hurting you. ... View more

Just called the automated line, and I have been approved for $12,000!   Thanks for nudging me in the right direction. I was concerned that Chase would not give me any more credit, as 6 months ago, they had to take away some of the credit line from one of my 3 other Chase cards to open up a 4th.  Figured I was at their maximum exposure, so, interesting to see that  now 6 months later they're willing to give me an extra $12,000.    Also as an additional few data points: I only listed $500 of annual revenue from the business, sole prop business structure, and having only been in business for 1 year.    ... View more

@Revelate: Sorry, I should have been more clear =)   I was referring to how DCU calculates the debt ratio in their underwriting process. Some lenders use 1% of the line amount, others use the fully amortized, others use a combination of X% above the start rate plus a fully amortized payment amount, etc. etc.     I've been eyeing a DCU HELOC for quite some time now, but I've been getting conflicting answers from their up-front team members on what they use to qualify, and I don't want to burn a hard inquiry only to find out I don't qualify for the line amount I want. I have a HELOC right now for $25k with another credit union, and I'm looking to get a minimum of $100k.  ... View more

I've heard great things about DCU and have been considering them for quite some time.    Just to confirm - youo applied for a closed-end HELOAN, and not a HELOC?    If it was a HELOC you applied for, do you know what they used as a qualifying payment for the HELOC? Curious, since I know some lenders use 1% of the line, some use a fully amortized amount, etc.   ... View more

Curious to see so many people getting declined for student credit cards. About a decade ago when I was first starting out and had no credit, Citibank gave me two student credit cards with starting CL's of $1200 and $1000.    If these are student credit cards, I wonder if they have some sort of algorithm that takes into account repayment rates based on the specific university one is attending? That's the best theory I've ever come up with though I've never really seen it talked about on here, so perhaps it's not the case.    Still very curious though to figure out how, given two people with no credit, credit card companies decide to take a chance on one person and not the other.  ... View more

Congrats OP, you are well on your way to an 800+ FICO, and definitely great that you're starting here on these forums. It reminds me of how I started some 10+ years ago when I was in your shoes...18 and looking to building credit and wanting to make sure I did everything the right way.    One thing I haven't seen mentioned is College Student credit cards. You might want to take a look at some through Citibank if you're eligible.    When I was 18 and had no credit at all, Citibank approved me for not one, but two College Student credit cards about a month apart from each other. If I recall correctly, at the time it was the Platinum Select for College Students, and Citi Driver's Edge for College Students. Starting credit lines were $1200 and $1000. I continued to play the FICO game by asking for CLIs every 6-12 months, throwing in a new credit card app every 12 months or so with one of the major issuers (Amex, Discover, Chase, etc.)   That strategy worked incredibly well for me, and as a result I was fortunate enough to never have to deal with going the route of secured credit cards to build my credit profile.   Good luck! ... View more

Update! Got a letter in the mail stating they reallocated the limits based on the spending patterns. So it sounds like exactly what others have mentioned - they knew I wouldn't mind the lower $10k limit, and gave me $25k on the new BCE to encourage higher spending.    A few snippets of the language from the letter:   "We're please to inform you that your application for the BCE has been approved...you'll receive the card in 7-10 days...along with information about your credit limit" "In determining your credit limit, we factored all accounts you currently have with us, including your past spending on these accounts" "We noticed you also have the Clear with us and have transferred some of the credit limit to your new BCE to ensure your new card meets your needs"   Pretty smart if you ask me ... View more

@Anonymous wrote: I think that our OP is trying to find out whether he can leverage his very high credit scores to make himself some money in the next two years.  I believe that's what he is getting at when he says he wants to know if he can use his scores to improve his financial situation.  He gives a re-fi of a loan as an example, which would make him $600,  But he's just giving that as one example.    Andy, is that what you are asking?     This exactly! Thanks - I should have been more clear in my original post.    I hadn't given much thought to the CC signup and/or the checking/savings bonuses. I'll have to do a search for those on google and other forums to see what turns up. Thank you! ... View more

It's 100% a "want"  I just feel like it would be a missed opportunity to save some hard-earned cash if I just sit back and did nothing, and wasn't sure if I was overlooking any other avenues to save or take advantage of ... View more

@Threeof5 wrote: I'd rather not be specific about it, but I can say it involved a nonemployment type of income they would have to been receiving for at least six months prior to show stability. Unfortunately, this fact wasn't known to me at the time of being a qualifying factor. It's an uncommon issue that came up at a very unfortunate time in the process. Assuming this is a Fannie/Freddie lender, I think I know exactly what type of income you're talking about. Regardless, sounds like the underwriter messed up. If they credited that income, they should have asked for the 6 months evidence prior to issuing a clear to close.   If everything was done correctly, then at the very worst, the loan simply would have been conditionally approved, with one of the requirements being 6 months proof of receipt of the income, at which point if the borrower could not produce it, the loan would be declined.  ... View more

Not an LO but I'll chime in to give you an underwriter's point of view:   So your current loan is with NFCU? I would call them and ask specifically for what their underwriters would want. Some lenders will do it, others won't. I'll tell you that at my company, we absolutely would consider the deal as long as the ID theft is documented and we have your actual tax returns that show your actual income status. Depending on the degree of ID theft, we'd probably ask for quite a bit of other supporting documentation, but again, it would not necessarily be a deal breaker.    Being a credit union and the fact that you have your existing loan with them, NFCU might be more accommodating. Take advantage of the fact that credit unions are member-centric. They should work with you and let you know what they would need to see to move forward with your loan.      ... View more

If you're applying for a Conventional Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac loan, the minimum requirements allow lenders to use 1% of the loan amount as a qualifying payment amount in your DTI. So for instance, a $50,000 student loan would have a $500 payment if using what Fannie/Freddie allow.    Notice I say "minimum" because some underwriters may ask for documentation over and above what Fannie/Freddie dictate depending on company overlays and/or the individual underwriter who reviews your file.    I've made the following assumptions:   No company overlays requiring >1% to be used as a qualifying payment (I can see some underwriters would ask for a copy of the student loan Note to determine actual repayment amounts and timeframes to determine standard repayment schedules, income-based repayment (IBR), graduated repayment plans, etc..) Credit report does not currently show a payment amount (the underwriter may still want to see a copy of the Note depending on the details, e.g. if your credit report shows a $25 payment on a $100,000 student loan, a good underwriter will ask for the Note. Some other underwriters, regardless of the payment appearing, will ask for a copy of the Note to cover themselves just to verify it is a standard repayment plan and not an IBR or graduated repayment plan where future payments could increase) The stuednt loan payments are currently being deferred (e.g. still a student in school, and therefore no payments are required)   ... View more

@tjmolly wrote: Valid points made, which makes me hate the process even more.  How many damn hands has to touch a file to get it funded? Funny you mention that - I've heard some of our borrowers complain about that, and I feel for the borrowers. There's the argument to be made that perhaps someone with the knowledge/skills/ability level of an underwriter should be the only person handling the file, but there's reasons companies can't do that.   Many companies incentivize their processors based on production (which, coincidentally, is why many processors make more than some underwriters). It would be a conflict of interest to have that "processor" also being able to approve files as the "underwriter". There's also the issue of potential lawsuits. An underwriter is supposed to be completely unbiased, looking only at what's in front of them on paper. If they're also the ones meeting borrowers, speaking to them on the phone, etc. only to end up declining a borrower, it opens the door for someone to say they think they got declined due to discrimination. No, underwriters are supposed to decision a loan app based only on the file itself.    There's also going to be the logistical challenge that because of the complexity of mortgage underwriting, it's not really feasible to have an underwriter as the main point of contact, constantly getting bombarded with phone calls and emails and face-to-face meetings on a regular basis. Underwriting requires concentration. Files are a spiderweb of items. You're reviewing a prelim and it's the underwriter's job to make sure that the title vesting matches the 1003, make sure that there's nothing to point to a divorce that would require a divorce decree, that if it's in a trust we'll need a trust abstract and a trust cert, make sure that the borrower has the right to encumber the property in a trust, that the trust has been properly executed, notarized, etc. that our borrower is actually in the trust and has legal ownership of the property, that there are no clouds or erroneous liens or judgments or old DOT's, that the legal description is consistent with the property type indicated on the appraisal, that the APN matches every other document in the file, that the chain of title is fine, that the property tax amount matches the amount shown on the appraisal report, that the lender's title insurance amount matches the loan amount requested, that the property ownership rights are fee simple vs leasehold and that there's no discrepancies with what the appraiser stated, etc. etc. and that's just a prelim.   There's a reason many companies don't have their underwriters speaking with borrowers or even processors. The UW is the last line of defense. You don't want them messing up. Their job requires a high level of focus and concentration, and you can imagine that interrupting an underwriter every several minutes breaks their train of thought, focus, concentration, and significantly increases the chance that a step will be missed.   Most people don't understand this spiderweb of items that goes into underwriting mortgage loans. Take a loan amount change for instance. Sounds simple, right? For an underwriter, it's more involved. here's a rough list of items that the UW would need to check for a simple loan amount change:   Has the processor or LO inadvertently changed anything else in the file? Need to compare the entire "old" 1003 to the "new" 1003 Need to remember to request new lender title policy with new insurance coverage based on new loan amount Is the file still deemed a R/T refi, or is it now a cash-out refi? If we are lowering the loan amount, do we still have sufficient cash to close? What about our LTV? Does the loan need to be re-priced? Does the loan still qualify based on the new LTV?  If it's re-priced, what about the interest rate? Does the borrower qualify if the rate is higher? If it's re-priced, what about closing costs? If the borrower's losing their credit, do they have sufficient cash to close now? If it's a purchase, how does the loan amount change affect our seller credits? What about our DTI? Higher loan amount means higher payment. Do we still qualify? Do we now need MI? If we increased the loan amount, is our DTI now limited to 40% instead of 43%? Do we need a purchase contract addendum? Did the seller agree to the new loan terms? Are we doing any subordinate financing? If so, has the subordinating lender agreed to these new terms? Is there MI? if so, do we need a new MI Cert? Will the monthly premium change? How will the premium affect our DTI?  Is this a condo? Based on our new LTV does it still qualify for a limited review, or do we now need a full review, with condo cert, questionnaire, budget info, etc. from the HOA? And so on and so forth. Automated AUS would need to be re-run and the UW to review the AUS Cert again.    Now, imagine a processor who toys with their underwriter, doesn't validate what the borrower wants as final loan terms, and constantly goes back to the underwriter saying "oh actually the borrower doesn't want to come in with cash to close, let's increase it by $500...oh never mind just kidding, the borrower no wants $1500 cash back...oh just kidding, I forgot a fee, now we need to increase the loan amount again..." An underwriter can end up picking up and putting down the same file all day long because of a bad processor.  @Anonymous wrote: In our case the whole file is presented to the underwriter once all pieces are gathered and not piece meal so yes the bank statement was there. Now on the flip side, I will 100% agree that there are many underwriters that are lame. Some are old school, don't keep up with lending criteria, and condition for things they don't need to regardless of company overlays. Some are overly picky on things. I've trained underwriters who questioned why YTD earnings through 6 months was lower by several hundred dollars compared to the regular hourly pay rate, and were requesting a LOX and full written VOE. I was shocked that they would do such a thing. I put a stop to that and approved the file, considering it was a perfectly reasonable discrepancy (an annual COLA adjustment raise is perfectly reasonable) on a strong file with no other red flags. I still can't believe this underwriter wanted to hold up the file, request additional redundant documentation from the borrower, in addition to holding up signing and loan docs until we received the full written VOE from the employer, jeopardizing a rate lock in the process. Mind you, this was a new underwriter at our company who allegedly had years of experience as a senior underwriter training other UW's as well. Masters of resume fluffing if you ask me.    Sometimes lenders make things up even though there is no set policy in place by the lender. Case in point: effective last year, Fannie Mae no longer required 2106 unreimbursed employee expense to be deducted from qualifying income (notable exception being on borrowers who derive >25% of their income from commission). Yet, I still see underwriters and other lenders doing the same thing, claiming "company policy" when I'm pretty sure there is none, and that the UW is just not "comfortable" with change, stuck in their old ways.    That all being said, I've never worked for a lender that sent in stuff piece meal. A borrower can send everything to a processor in a single email, but ultimately, it's that processor's responsibility to actually get it to the underwriter. If the company uses a paperless system, it's the processor's responsibility to upload those documents to the system, and submit it "in the system" to the underwriters. The underwriters don't have access to the processor's email. Point is, you can do everything correctly as a borrower...emailing directly to the processor, handing it directly to a branch rep at your local bank...but that doesn't necessarily mean it makes its way to the underwriter.    I can certainly relate to bad LOs, processors, and UW's...I've had a few bad experiences myself....from underwriter's who went back 4 years to average my bonus and OT income, to UW's who gave me $17 monthly retirement income, to LO's that told me I needed more than $400,000 in assets when I was only making a $100k down payment on a new home all because the "system says you need these assets". Garbage in, garbage out...    In any case, I hope this post has helped shed some light on what can occur behind-the-scenes in mortgages. ... View more

Some more food for thought: my experience has taught me that a least 7 times out of 10, it's not a lame underwriter, but rather, an LO or processor who didn't do their job. If the processor is submitting an incomplete and inaccurate loan app to the underwriter, then of course it's going to be conditioned like crazy. So, while you as the borrower may have thought that your loan app is clean and you've submitted certain documents to underwriting, if your LO or processor didn't submit it correctly to the underwriter, then all bets are off.    So as an example, the underwriter's asking for a LOX for a refund clearly notated on the bank statement. OK, how do you know that the processor included that bank statement to the underwriter? (assuming the stmnt just shows a generic "deposit" of <insert $$ of large deposit>? If your processor or LO didn't give it to the underwriter, then of course the UW's going to ask for it. Or perhaps your processor thought it would be funny to send the file to UW with multiple duplicates, redundant items, pages out of order, some pages upside down, illegible, etc. and the UW just had it and said "heck no I'm not looking at this" and turned the file back to the processor to do their job and actually sort documents appropriately. It's like taking tax returns from 2 years, 100 pages, shuffling the pages like a deck of cards, and throwing it at an UW to just figure it out. Now imagine doing that for an entire file...bank statements, pay stubs, W2s, purchase contracts, appraisal reports, title commitments, etc. It's incredibly disrespectful.    I've seen files come to underwriting with multiple duplicated appraisal reports. Some processors just think it's the underwriter's job to "look at everything". So...you think it's funny to send 5 appraisal reports to underwriting, 4 of which are exactly identical, expect the UW to review all of them, and compare all of them to figure out which is the correct copy? The processor is having the UW do 5 times the amount of work and take 5 times longer. Of course, it will be UW's fault because they're "taking too long". Gee I wonder why.    It's easy to use the UW's as scapegoats since they don't typically speak to borrowers. Processors and LO's will often blame the UW's just to cover their own behind for something they messed up on.    In fact, a lot of times, if you have a bad processor, an UW may be picking up the slack behind the scenes. I've saved countless deals and gotten them funded on short timeframes despite a processor who didn't know what they were doing. Of course, when the loan funds, the praise all goes to the processor.    If also creates a lot of resentment. Processors can make a heck of a lot more money than underwriters. Many do. So why would an UW do a processor's job if they're not getting paid for it?    Keep that in mind the next time you think an UW is lame, or if an LO or processor is blaming UW. 7 times out of 10, they're the ones who messed up and don't want to admit it.  ... View more

Given how low interest rates are for auto loans, I would finance the vehicle and use that cash in the stock market (or some other type of investment). That's the logic I used when purchasing my vehicle.    Simple but crude example: You have $100,000. You buy the car free and clear. You pay $0 interest, but you also have nothing left in the bank to purchase stocks/mutual funds.   Same scenario where you have $100,000, except now you finance the car. $100,000 loan at 2% interest. You retain your $100,000 and invest it in stocks, mutual funds, etc. that gain 5%. Yes, you'll be paying 2% interest, but you're also gaining 5%. Your net gain is 3%, whereas if you had purchased the car free and clear, you'd arguably be losing 3% since you no longer have the cash to invest in the stock market.  ... View more

APPROVING BANK: Schools First Federal Credit Union (SFCU) BUREAU PULLED: Experian CREDIT SCORE: 760 CUSTOMER STATE OF RESIDENCE: CA NEW/USED: New YEAR OF VEHICLE: 2015 MAKE: Tesla MODEL: Model S MILEAGE: Don't remember, ~50? RETAIL/LEASE: Retail purchase AMOUNT OF LOAN: $70,000  TERM CONTRACTED: 72 months APR/LEASE RATE: 1.99%  MONTHLY PAYMENT: $1035 ANNUAL INCOME: DEBT TO INCOME RATIO: 29% MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTARY: Schools First (SFCU) originally wanted to decline me for the sole reason that I never had experience with such a large auto loan before. Only auto loan I had was $18k with Chase which was paid off early several years ago. Had no auto loan payment for the preceding ~20 months before I applied for this loan.    I told SFCU that as an underwriter myself also at a credit union, I could understand their concerns over "payment shock", however, given the number of compensating factors on my file, politely requested an exception. Also went through all of their concerns and countered every single one of them. The conversation went something like this:   Lender: Sir, we can't approve your loan since you've never had such a large auto loan before Me: OK, I understand, however, you can see that I can afford the payments given my low debt ratio and I have tier-1 credit Lender: Yes, we see that, but we're concerned about your ability to handle such a large loan Me: Well, I have a $285,000 mortgage, so I think I can handle a $70,000 auto loan Lender: Yes, well, the payments are amortized differently so the payment amount for the auto loan will be higher Me: Well, my mortgage payments are over $1000. So, I'm used to making large payments Lender: yes, well, it isn't an auto loan Me: What's the difference? If I can handle a $1000 mortgage payment, I think I can handle a $1000 auto loan Lender: :stammering: yes well, uh, um, your mortgage is a new account less than 2 years old Me: I only opened the mortgage account 20 months ago and have made all 20 months payments on time. I think that's a long enough track record to show I can handle it Lender: Unfortunately, we can't really consider that sufficient credit Me: What do you mean insufficient credit? Lender: It's not sufficient to show your creditworthiness for this loan Me: So my 760 FICO isn't good enough? Lender: Well, sir, we look at more than just the credit score, like the mortgage you have and the length of the account Me: OK, so I have tier-1 760 FICO, multiple revolving accounts, with multiple major lenders all with high credit lines. I've got a long credit history with a high AAoA, no recent credit inquiries, low utilization, few credit accounts with balances, a good mix of credit accounts, etc. etc. How is not that creditworthy enough? Lender: :more stammering: Oh, well uh, um, sir, we also look at more than just credit me: Like what? Lender: We also look at your income and employment history Me: OK, well my income has been trending upwards, I've received several promotions and raises in the last several years, I have no gaps of employment, over 5 years of continuous employment. What's the problem? Lender: yes, well sir, we also need to make sure you can afford the car payments Me: You already told me my debt ratio is low, and need I remind you, this is an electric vehicle. I'll be saving over $400 a month in gas. So it's not like I'm asking for $70,000 on a car that still needs gas, so really, my debt ratio is even lower. Plus the $10,000 federal and state tax credits, and the sale of my current vehicle, I'll be able to pay the loan down by an additional $15,000 within a month of getting the car.  Me: Plus, I dont really need this large of a loan amount, but given how low rates are, I'd rather hang on to my own cash for other investments.  Lender: Well sir, as I stated, we do look at the file as a whole for layered risk Me: I understand, but so far the only layer of risk you've mentioned is my lack of history of paying a large auto loan, which I think is offset by all of the compensating factors we've just discussed Lender: :more stammering: OK, uh, um, well, OK sir, I'll escalate and try to get an exception for you   I received a call later that evening from what I can only assume was a supervisor congratulating me on my approval. Good grief! I say...if someone like me has that much trouble getting approved for an auto loan, it must be darn near impossible for anyone with any less than spotless credit, income, and employment to get a loan. She laughed and just said they were a conservative lender.    (edited to add: part of the conversation about layered risk) ... View more

I'll preface this post by saying, obviously, this isn't legal advice and I am by no means a lawyer, but this might be worth looking into. Source of information below is from a professor of a real estate law class I took a couple years ago. I don't believe it to have been taken out of context, but again, this may be an avenue worth pursuing if you know of any local real estate lawyers who can weigh in:   This may vary depending on the state you're in, but my understanding is that here in California, it's pretty typical that escrow will not release the earnest money deposit without the consent of both buyer and seller. OP, you mentioned that you didn't see a default clause in your purchase contract, so there may be some overriding federal or state regulation protecting the earnest money deposit. If you as the buyer don't agree to release the earnest money deposit to the seller, they might be able to take legal action to get that earnest money deposit. However, proving monetary damages can be difficult and time-consuming.   This is why (according to my real estate law professor) it is very rare for the earnest money deposit to be lost, especially in an environment where home values are rising. If home values are rising and you back out as the buyer, then there have been no monetary damages to the seller. Even if home values are declining, many sellers may be motivated to sell their home quickly. Perhaps they're relocating, or need the money to use as a down payment on another home. If they try and take legal action to get your earnest money deposit, it just delays the process for them as well, which is why many buyers/sellers in this situation end up just settling and allowing the earnest money deposit to be released back to the buyer.    Again, I know nothing of this real estate law stuff, only what I remembered from my professor of the law class I took a couple years ago.  ... View more

This might be a dumb question, but other than BT transfer checks (which typically carry a 3-4% fee), is there a way I can actually tap into my credit cards for actual cash? (aside from, of course, cash advances at ridiculously high interest rates). I didn't think there were any other ways. That's a big reason why, around last year, I decided to open up a PLOC just in case I ever needed quick access to cold hard cash.       ... View more

Thank you all for the responses:   I am currently in a part-time program and working full-time simultaneously, plus the program I am enrolled in is cohort-based so there is no flexibility in changing the class schedule.     I could use a bit of a larger emergency fund, which is why I am leaning towards taking out a small amount of student loans. The gap I would have to cover would come out to around $3300 per year. Thinking about it more, the main dilemma I am having is whether I should:   Go the next 3 years contributing $3.3k less per year to a retirement account and graduate with $0 student loans, or Take out $5k - $10k in student loans thereby allowing me to continue to contribute roughly $3.3k annually to my retirement accounts. Retirement accounts will grow over time, but I will graduate with $5k - $10k in student loans. I see Alliant Credit Union has a private student loan available for 4.25%, Sallie Mae at 5.74%. Assuming I can get a student loan <6%, it seems these are quite favorable terms for taking out a loan.   Thoughts? ... View more