Started By
Message

re: Is there any excuse for not having 20% dp on 2nd home purchase?

Posted on 6/25/18 at 10:50 pm to
Posted by bayoubengals88
LA
Member since Sep 2007
18915 posts
Posted on 6/25/18 at 10:50 pm to
Having two kids and two dogs and only taking home around 70k per year, how can you blame them?
Posted by meansonny
ATL
Member since Sep 2012
25594 posts
Posted on 6/26/18 at 12:04 am to
We put 20% down on our 2nd home purchase.

If you are going to live there a while, why not shoot for the best mortgage?

I opened a HELOC right after closing just in case I needed the liquidity peace of mind. But getting the best mortgage available is a blessing.
Posted by GatorReb
Dallas GA
Member since Feb 2009
9280 posts
Posted on 6/26/18 at 1:15 am to
We bought our first house for $190. Put 5K down.

FAst forward 4.5 years and we are currently under contract to sell for $260 and buying. New house but only putting 5% down. My wife is a teacher and was able to get a loan that essentially had hardly PMI.

We are using our equity from our old house to pay off some student loans/ car payment/ our lone credit card.

I don’t know anyone my age that has our 10 or 20 percent down on a house.
Everyone I know does 3.5 (FHA) or 5 max.
Posted by KG6
Member since Aug 2009
10920 posts
Posted on 6/26/18 at 5:36 am to
I will admit I was financially "lucky" and have always been able to put 20% down. We'd like to move to a different school district soon as my son is getting to the age. I look at the PMI for random scenarios since we'll lose some money to realtors and closing costs. 75-100 a month for up to 100 months. Seems like not much per month, but that's 7500 to 10000 dollars!

I don't think you absolutely have to save 20%. But I do think people in general blow off the possibility to do so way to easily.
Posted by MrJimBeam
Member since Apr 2009
12302 posts
Posted on 6/26/18 at 7:19 am to
quote:


Maybe. I get that not everyone can fork out 20% but 3% is awfully low. You ain't even tryin.


How is this not trying? I plan on putting 5-7% down on a home this week purely for the reason of having an extra 20-25k or so to continue building a side business along with a few smaller upgrades to the new house. Just because people aren't putting 20 percent down, doesn't mean they can't. Sometimes it's more fiscally responsible to not throw a ton of money at a house. And as someone else said, having the extra cash is peace of mind in case things happen to the house or unknown expenses come up.
Posted by Oenophile Brah
The Edge of Sanity
Member since Jan 2013
7540 posts
Posted on 6/26/18 at 9:49 am to
quote:

How is this not trying? I plan on putting 5-7% down on a home this week purely for the reason of having an extra 20-25k or so to continue building a side business along with a few smaller upgrades to the new house. Just because people aren't putting 20 percent down, doesn't mean they can't. Sometimes it's more fiscally responsible to not throw a ton of money at a house. And as someone else said, having the extra cash is peace of mind in case things happen to the house or unknown expenses come up.

Agreed. Why would anyone want to tie-up more of their money then required? If I have an option to put less down on a house, assuming I can afford the note, I am likely to take it. Especially with rates this low. Strategically, it likely makes sense to deploy those funds for longer term growth and flexibility in mind. OP was a rigid analysis of a down payment scenario with countless explanations for not having 20% down.
Posted by MrJimBeam
Member since Apr 2009
12302 posts
Posted on 6/26/18 at 10:11 am to
quote:

Especially with rates this low.


This is the key. We are under 5%. That's a great rate. If we were in the 6-8 range then I can understand people would be overextending themselves more than they should with lower down payments.
Posted by ELVIS U
Member since Feb 2007
9924 posts
Posted on 6/26/18 at 10:51 am to
Most people need 20% down to avoid PMI, but you can pay the extra and put down less. Just have the house reappraised when the market is up to have the PMI removed. The exception is apparently for Doctors, who get special loans that require virtually 0% down and don't require PMI. They should never put anything down.
Posted by brian_wilson
Member since Oct 2016
3581 posts
Posted on 6/26/18 at 11:33 am to
quote:

Just have the house reappraised when the market is up to have the PMI removed.

you should make sure to talk to your loan officer about this, cause this doesn't always work - see FHA loans for instance.

Posted by Powerman
Member since Jan 2004
162217 posts
Posted on 6/26/18 at 12:07 pm to
I have no PMI on my loan through a credit union with 10% down

Rate isn't the greatest but not bad either @ 4.25%

I have probably a little over 20% equity in now with the current value but with current rates no point in a refi. I might be selling in a couple years anyway. I'll be watching to see what the market does in my area.
Posted by jimbeam
University of LSU
Member since Oct 2011
75703 posts
Posted on 6/26/18 at 12:11 pm to
Damn that’s pretty good.
Posted by baldona
Florida
Member since Feb 2016
20443 posts
Posted on 6/26/18 at 1:41 pm to
quote:

Agreed. Why would anyone want to tie-up more of their money then required? If I have an option to put less down on a house, assuming I can afford the note, I am likely to take it. Especially with rates this low. Strategically, it likely makes sense to deploy those funds for longer term growth and flexibility in mind. OP was a rigid analysis of a down payment scenario with countless explanations for not having 20% down.


You could do all of that and more if you bought a less expensive property in which your 3% was actually 20%. So you are essentially admitting to overextending yourself to buy a better house.

As a real estate investor I don't really care either way as failed mortgages are opportunities for me.

But the fact is most people are not responsible with money, putting 3.5-5% down requires a good real estate market to sell. The market everywhere is pretty good, it could easily take a 5-10% dip. Now that guy that bought with 3.5% down 2 years ago has a house worth less than he owes plus he has to pay 6-8% to sell the property. Now all of a sudden he gets relocated for his job and has to come up with $10k to pay to sell his house or rent it out long distance.

My point is simply that with less than 10% down there is substantial risk. If your house doesn't increase in value it takes 5+ years to get any decent equity. So while some use th low down payment to maximize their investments, the reality is that most people use that ability to buy more house than they can afford.
Posted by KG6
Member since Aug 2009
10920 posts
Posted on 6/26/18 at 2:47 pm to
quote:

So while some use th low down payment to maximize their investments, the reality is that most people use that ability to buy more house than they can afford.


And in the process assist in inflating the prices of homes in general which snowballs the whole situation. Now homes you can afford are not up to the standards of a middle class family, because the demand side of the market pushed pricing up now that they have easy financing cash to throw into the ring. And everyone walks a fine, risky line and goes on with their life until SHTF. That's probably a bit over the top viewpoint, but it's not far off from reality.
Posted by ItNeverRains
37069
Member since Oct 2007
25444 posts
Posted on 6/26/18 at 3:01 pm to
quote:

Was talking with my brother this weekend and he mentioned looking for a new house to accommodate a his growing family (2 kids with one more on the way, 2 dogs). He has been in his current house about 4 years and purchased that with an FHA loan and 3.5% down. He and his wife are both public school teachers. He said he will have about 10% to put down on this house purchase (includes cash on hand and equity in current house based on recent appraisal). It's crazy to me that someone would want to get into a new home and not have adequate funding to get away from PMI or to have your current house well with no real proceeds from the sale after realtor commissions. Is this a normal practice?


sounds like he's buying a bigger, nicer, more expensive home and putting down 6.5% more $ from his initial purchase with only 3.5 % down 48 months ago and also growing his family.

TL/DR Worry about yourself



Posted by Oenophile Brah
The Edge of Sanity
Member since Jan 2013
7540 posts
Posted on 6/26/18 at 3:38 pm to
quote:

You could do all of that and more if you bought a less expensive property in which your 3% was actually 20%.


You've changed the discussion once you are talking about a different property. Hell, just live on the street and you can really fully invest, you just have to live on the street.
quote:

So you are essentially admitting to overextending yourself to buy a better house.

This is an assumption that one can't do better with their money than using it as a down payment. I disagree.

quote:

But the fact is most people are not responsible with money, putting 3.5-5% down requires a good real estate market to sell. The market everywhere is pretty good, it could easily take a 5-10% dip. Now that guy that bought with 3.5% down 2 years ago has a house worth less than he owes plus he has to pay 6-8% to sell the property. Now all of a sudden he gets relocated for his job and has to come up with $10k to pay to sell his house or rent it out long distance.

My point is simply that with less than 10% down there is substantial risk. If your house doesn't increase in value it takes 5+ years to get any decent equity. So while some use th low down payment to maximize their investments, the reality is that most people use that ability to buy more house than they can afford.

The OP intended to claim all second homes should be purchased with 20% down. He didn't state most cases. I simply provided instances where avoiding extra down payment would go against his mandatory 20% down theory. I didn't advocate that his friend or anyone should limit down payment. I merely refuted his theory.
Posted by Aubs10
Atlanta, GA
Member since Jan 2013
389 posts
Posted on 6/27/18 at 7:44 am to
I just bought my first place a few months ago. I only put 10% down but after closing costs that ended up being like 30k.

My PMI is $40/m. So consider it this way, if I had another 20-25k to make it 20% I could theoretically invest that and most likely make more than the $40/m PMI. Maybe it's just me, or maybe there's a stigma attached with putting less than 20% down... but it seems smarter to put 10% if you can guarantee a low PMI
Posted by meansonny
ATL
Member since Sep 2012
25594 posts
Posted on 6/27/18 at 8:06 am to
Mortgage pricing is no different from bond pricing.

You are more likely to get a better rate from a lender with 20% down than you would for 15% than you would for 10% than you would for 5 or 3%.

If you don't plan on being in the property long, the cost of money isn't a big deal.
But if this is a long term stay, then the benefits of better mortgage terms are a big deal.

This isn't just about the benefits of no PMI, benefits of a smaller loan amount, and benefits of more equity in the house. It is better terms on the cost of money.
Posted by baldona
Florida
Member since Feb 2016
20443 posts
Posted on 6/27/18 at 1:39 pm to
quote:

You've changed the discussion once you are talking about a different property. Hell, just live on the street and you can really fully invest, you just have to live on the street.


I have no issues with sub 10% downpayments, but what I do think is that if you put 5% or less down you shouldn't be able to get out of the mortgage. The entire Great Recession was because of 3% or lower downpayments allowed all kinds of inflation and purchases that should have never happened. Then, tons of people got out of the debts by foreclosures and short sales and the banks writing them off. A huge pile of Bs for people that didn't GAF while people that could still afford their mortgage and were honest were stuck under water and footing the bills.

Yes you are correct it involves a different house. The vast majority of people that only put 3% down do it because they don't have 20% or even 10%. Therefore if they needed more they would be forced to look into different properties.

Again, almost any argument for putting down less money can be used to argue you should buy less house. Not only will your mortgage be less, but your utilities, taxes, etc. would be with a less expensive house which gives you more ability to invest elsewhere like you wanted additionally. The real argument isn't the percentage down, it's that you simply didn't want to invest more than $X in your house.

Where the Bs comes in is government backed loans. Try getting a private mortgage with under 10% down. It's extremely difficult to get one with under 20% down. Yet our govnerment decides under 5% makes sense.
This post was edited on 6/27/18 at 1:43 pm
Posted by Golfer
Member since Nov 2005
75052 posts
Posted on 6/27/18 at 6:52 pm to
quote:

The entire Great Recession was because of 3% or lower downpayments


On sub-prime loans...

That we’re packaged and sold as prime...

That we’re insured incorrectly with bogus credit default swaps.

Posted by GenesChin
The Promise Land
Member since Feb 2012
37706 posts
Posted on 6/28/18 at 8:25 am to
quote:

growing family (2 kids with one more on the way

quote:

He and his wife are both public school teachers.

quote:

been in his current house about 4 years and purchased that with an FHA loan and 3.5% down



Where are likely very young public school teachers with 2, about to be 3 kids going to get 20% downpayment money from in 4 years?






first pageprev pagePage 2 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram