TL;DR: Americans now need to make $120K a year to afford a typical middle-class life and qualify to purchase a home. Minimum.

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    A friend was looking at getting a home lately and I offered to look into co-signing with them, so we gave our information to see what they would qualify for. With both of our details, they offered them a home loan of something like $100k, really not even enough to get anything that’s on the market now except for the worst crack houses possible. I then looked at what would be possible if I just applied by myself and if I applied for a home loan for a place that I would rent out. Not sure if it was considered a business loan, but I wouldn’t be the occupant, it would be an investment property for me. Suddenly, by myself, I qualified for a $300k loan, same loan agency, just different terms. I do have great credit, so maybe that helped, it’s just weird how they come up with the numbers sometimes. Like you would think two people together would qualify for more than what a single person would qualify for.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      What happened is that the other person apparently has absolutely terrible credit, so holy hell don’t cosign with him!

    • admiralteal@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I mean, operated as an investment property they have near certainty you will have a stable income source (the tenant) so it makes sense that the loan value is higher. You’re guaranteed to have the income of the rent checks and just as likely all your other potential income on top of that. You actually can afford higher mortgage payments in that situation – and substantially so.

      Which is a strong, strong, strong argument why all cities which have housing shortages (basically all cities) should be exercising policies that discourage non-owner-occupied properties.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s a risk assessment. A low score as a primary borrower is more risky, even with a secondary borrower, the hassle to get paid if the first defaults isn’t worth it. Investment vs primary residence is also a different risk profile, you can assume some level of income from an investment property.

    • aesthelete@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      What’s to prevent someone from buying a house this way and then just “renting it” from themselves? lol

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        If you buy a house declared as investment, but you really intended to live there, it’s mortgage fraud.

      • ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        You’re not renting it from yourself. You happen to be renting from a corporation that you happen to be sole director of. Gotta emulate what the rich do.

      • homura1650@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        Generally, mortgages for your primary residence offer more favorable terms then ones for investment properties. The issue in the above story is likely related to the friend. If they had tried the same thing, their offer would likely have been even worse than what they got for a primary residence with a cosigner. Assuming they got an offer at all.