If I’m not shooting for 20% for a down payment, what percentage should be the minimum?

The key percentages to look at should be 3%, then 5%, 10%, then 20% if you can get to it. Those are where your LLPA's typically lie as well as each level will get you better PMI rates if you have to pay PMI.

Certain lenders will allow you to pre-pay PMI at closing and it is usually a fraction of the total amount you would pay on your way to 78% LTV.

With that said 10%-15% is ideal. Obviously the more you put down the less you pre-pay in PMI.

If the area is more than 50% minority there is a 100% LTV out there for primary. Just FYI

If you are paying PMI regardless just put the minimum down.

I just purchased a home. Pmi was drastically reduced at 15%.

20% really is ideal. It will save you a LOT of money in interest, PMI and monthly budgeting.

If you go below 20% do whatever you want. Just make sure you avoid the loan programs that do not allow early PMI removal.

quote:

---

I’m not going to save up for 20% on a down payment

---

Then you really should not buy a house. The more you borrow, the more you will pay (with interest) for the property. It's better to save up at leasr 20-30% before you make a huge purchase. But don't listen to me, I haven't had a house note since 2006. In be fore subtle brag BS.

quote:

---

Wrong and Ignorant take by far too many on this board. Is it better to put 100% down and pay all cash of course? Sure, but a majority of Americans are not in a position to do so especially in high cost of living markets.

The opportunity to accrue home equity and wealth for your family is available and certainly happens by putting less than 20% down for a house.

---

Agree.

If you can put 3% down on a house and your mortgage (pitimi) is cheaper than what you'd pay in rent, in a nicer neighborhood, in a nicer dwelling, how on God's Green Earth is that a bad financial decision?

For the 20%'ers I say if you can't put 100% down then you aren't ready.

quote:

---

If you can put 3% down on a house and your mortgage (pitimi) is cheaper than what you'd pay in rent, in a nicer neighborhood, in a nicer dwelling, how on God's Green Earth is that a bad financial decision?

---

Many people lose money on houses but think just because they walked away with some equity when they sold that they came out ahead. The true "cost" of owning a house is rather high and many times results in not growing any wealth by owning a house.

$150k home with $1k/yr HOI and $2.4k/yr in property taxes with 3% down payment and 5% interest (lets be realistic here) on 30 year mortgage and $2k/yr in repairs and maintenance:

Total cost to own said house until you own it:

$150k for house
$135k in interest
$30k in HOI (this cost doesn't stop at 30 years)
$72k in property insurance assuming no increase (this cost doesn't stop at 30 years)
$60k in repairs and maintenance (this cost doesn't stop at 30 years)

$447k total cost to own that $150k house for 30 years

So in order to actually have built wealth from that house, you will have to sell it for over $475,000 (6% realtor fees).

$475k over 30 years allows you to pay $1,320/month in rent to come out the same.

In reality, rent doesn't matter in this conversation. Even if a house is a wealth loser, it can be the better choice over renting in many areas.

The point was it is a huge misconception that you easily build wealth by owning a house and that just is not true. Typically, the only people who actually build wealth from owning a house are those that buy in a hot area and are able to sell at a massive profit within 2-5 years. Those situations are rare when looking at the national level.