495 Beacon

You didn't answer my questions. This is like Sunday morning television:

"Senator, what is your view on the war on drugs?"

"I'm glad you asked, Tim. Global warming is a major problem."

The rate sheet for the BBBB-100 program states that there is a 1.000 point addition to the price if the credit score is under 620 proving that 620 isn't a minimum even though their product description states that there is a minimum ("Exceptions considered on a case by case basis, depending upon extenuating circumstances, combined loan to value ratio, and other factors"). At best, it's double-talk.

Prove me wrong, 1200. Don't evade-- stick to the same program: 30-year fixed. You brought it up.

A 620 is a poor score (over 80% of the population has one higher, http://www.myfico.com/sample.html ), and anybody who thinks they'll be on Easy Street with it is sorely mistaken.

 

LOL! You crack me up, Gregory. My post is directly after yours, and I'm comfortable with letting it speak for itself in the face of your "you didn't answer my question" snivel.

Looks like my using your last name got under your skin a little bit, eh, Gregory? The ratesheet states that it is for both the BBGX and BBBB programs; I stand by my statement that the official "minimum" for the BBBB program is 620, and that there is no minimum for the BBGX program, which is electronically underwritten, and is, BTW, a 30-yr fixed program. You prove me wrong.

Yeah, but anyone who thinks that going from 495 to 620 will give them access to mortgage rates and terms that they don't have access to at 495 is absolutely correct, and your attempt to instill fear in the original poster was both transparent and reprehensible. You shouldn't act so surprised that someone called you on it.

 

Here, Joe Anonymous: I'll prove you wrong (again). I won't even try to retype anything-- just copy/paste. Let me know which of these statements are incorrect. Remember, I'm just quoting.

The rate sheet at http://www.headmort.com/ratesheet/wholesale/1rt.pdf (you know-- the one you conveniently failed to provide?) has a box for rates and adjustments for "30-Yr - BBGX-100 (15-Day Best Effort) & BBBB-100 (21-Day)." In that box, under "ALL PRODUCT ADJUSTMENTS," is this: "Cr Sc < 620 1.000." Using the principle that there are two items (programs; BBBB and BBGX) in the set, then ALL would include BBBB.

Secondly, whoever you are, the product description at http://www.headmort.com/lpm/bbbb100.pdf for BBBB says

The FICO threshold uses credit scores dependent upon number of units as follows:

Minimum
Property Type FICO Score
1 unit 620
2 unit 640
3 unit 660
4 unit 660

Exceptions considered on a case by case basis, depending upon extenuating circumstances, combined loan to value ratio, and other factors.

Assuming by "exceptions" they are referring to a credit score of less than the minimum, if that statement directly follows the credit score matrix (I know that's a stretch for you, but use your imagination), it would appear that there is an exception to a minimum score of 620. And, for proof that such an exception exists, see the rate sheet.

So, Secret Squirrel, where did you get that business about electronic underwriting-- or as you put it, previously, "automatic" underwriting (I presume you mean automated)? Show us where it says that and quote it (if you can)(or is this a secret?).

On your example BBGX product description, it says:

CREDIT SCORING REQUIREMENT

The credit report must provide credit scores from TRW, TransUnion, or Equifax. If more than one credit score is obtained, the lower of two scores or the middle of three scores will be used for FICO threshold determination.

But you say, "there is no minimum for the BBGX program." Come on, who's kidding us, here-- you or them?

And, who is TRW? This lender is living in the last century. You don't acutally do business with them, do you?

You sure make a lot of assumptions, Mystery Squawk1200. Where did you get this "Gregory" business, whatever your name is? You didn't answer the questions because you can't (without having them and the answers contradict your previous statement). That's the point of asking questions like that: To force the answers (or, in your case, the inability to give them).

And imagine, all this from my original question: "Where does it say that 620 makes you qualified?" Remind me to put some sugar on it next time so as not to incite your odd brand of wrath. Call me crazy, but this conversation, despite your original attempt at stopping it, has probably helped someone. You know, you can always ignore a thread.

Right?

Heather, do you have a 5% down saved? Do you want a no-down payment loan? Do you realize now that you can find another lender that isn't using arbitrary credit score cutoffs? Have you talked to any FHA lenders?

Squawk Box, you won't be answering that for her, will you? Or do you just want us to all turn off our computers because the point is moot? Transparent and reprehensible? Get over yourself. Does this person really sound like a borrower who can get a conventional loan in six months?

 

Gregory, Gregory, Gregory. Where oh where shall I begin? Perhaps I'll start with your accusaton regading "automatic" underwriting -- where did I say that exactly?? Or perhaps I should ask you how you were able to quote the "Credit Scoring Requirement" section, yet, mysteriously (and, somewhat ironically), missed the section labled "UNDERWRITING":

"This loan uses modified FHLMC underwriting. All loans are underwritten by Loan Prospector (LP), the FHLMC electronic underwriting system. Conditions for LP loans must meet LP provisions only, as required bythe Loan Prospector Feedback Certificate. An 'Accept' or 'Accept Plus' level of approval by the LP system is required."

(emphasis added).

As for whether the BBBB 620 is a minimum, I stand by my statement that it is. Although the guidelines provide for "case by case" exceptions, brokers and whoelsalers in the industry have indicated to me that such exceptions are very, very rare in the age of automated underwriting. Your observation of the <620 price adjustment is interesting but unpersuasive, as the "ALL" includes at least a variety of "GX" products such that it I think it likely that that Greenpoint sees no need to clarify that the <620 price adjustment does not apply to the "BB" programs.

As for there being no minimums on the BBGX-100 program I cited, I'll rest on the observation that for the 97% LTV conforming LP program, Greenpoint does provide FICO "guidelines" in its program description, see http://www.headmort.com/lpm/bbgx05.pdf, suggesting to me that as LTV goes down, LP relaxes scoring requirements.

Temper, temper, Gregory. Where did I get my information on you? Heck, you're all over the net! Don't you think I know that you've provoked a very simlar confrontation to this one on another board? What's that, you forgot? Try this thread: http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=13580487. Don't you think I've seen your routine time ane time again? Don't you think people notice that your posts often consist of pointed questions designed to elicit information from forum participants so you can flame them? And, after your history is all over the net for all to see, you expect us to believe that your questions to Heather were asked in good faith?

Sell it somewhere else, kiddo. If what you wanted to do was point out to Heather and the other forum participants that there are loan programs available for those with FICO's under 620 or that even at 620 some programs wouldn't be available, you could have merely said so. In other words, you could have added to the community rather than attempt to use someone who has had trouble in the past and is now looking for help as a plaything. "Transparent and reprehensible" decribes what you were doing here quite nicely.

 

G. Fischer:
(I know that's a stretch for you, but use your imagination)
-------------
Greg when you next feel the need to be so agressive, dominant, domineering...take a breath. As I said I can grant slack, but only for those who deserve it. Bob for God.

-Dave

PS Get a better fetish - Try feet

 

Gregory, Gregory, Gregory. Where oh where shall I begin? Perhaps I'll start with your accusaton regading "automatic" underwriting -- where did I say that exactly??

Use your browser's Find function, or read all FIVE (ohmigod) of the posts prior to mine to find it. By now you've probably have, but I'll point it out anyway: 06.10.2001 @ 07:11.

Or perhaps I should ask you how you were able to quote the "Credit Scoring Requirement" section, yet, mysteriously (and, somewhat ironically), missed the section labled "UNDERWRITING":

"This loan uses modified FHLMC underwriting. All loans are underwritten by Loan Prospector (LP), the FHLMC electronic underwriting system. Conditions for LP loans must meet LP provisions only, as required bythe Loan Prospector Feedback Certificate. An 'Accept' or 'Accept Plus' level of approval by the LP system is required."

What's your point? You previously stated that AU is used. Yes, it's there. I don't disagree. You're right. OK. But you missed the part about scoring.

As for whether the BBBB 620 is a minimum, I stand by my statement that it is. Although the guidelines provide for "case by case" exceptions, brokers and whoelsalers in the industry have indicated to me that such exceptions are very, very rare in the age of automated underwriting. Your observation of the <620 price adjustment is interesting but unpersuasive, as the "ALL" includes at least a variety of "GX" products such that it I think it likely that that Greenpoint sees no need to clarify that the <620 price adjustment does not apply to the "BB" programs.

Even when it stares you in the face, in plain English, in black and white, world-wide, 24-hours a day, you still think it means something other than what it says. Well, that's OK with me.

But, one more thing on that, though, Pookie: PRODUCT SPECIFIC ADJUSTMENTS is the title of another section in that box. They could have put it there, right?

Right? (that's a question)

You're just doing this to waste my time, aren't you?

As for there being no minimums on the BBGX-100 program I cited, I'll rest on the observation that for the 97% LTV conforming LP program, Greenpoint does provide FICO "guidelines" in its program description, see http://www.headmort.com/lpm/bbgx05.pdf, suggesting to me that as LTV goes down, LP relaxes scoring requirements.

No kidding. But which is it: Scoring requirements, or no scoring requirements? Are you for real, or do you just like to type?

Temper, temper, Gregory. Where did I get my information on you? Heck, you're all over the net! Don't you think I know that you've provoked a very simlar confrontation to this one on another board? What's that, you forgot? Try this thread: http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=13580487. Don't you think I've seen your routine time ane time again? Don't you think people notice that your posts often consist of pointed questions designed to elicit information from forum participants so you can flame them? And, after your history is all over the net for all to see, you expect us to believe that your questions to Heather were asked in good faith?

Ah, that's always a good word for the anonymous to throw into the mix: Flame. Just cheap, ad hominem rehtoric and squawking, Squawkery. Stick to the facts, Squawkery.

Further, there's nothing wrong with the Motley Fool exchange for which you gave a link. You're trying to use some real, hard evidence to make some point, but you're not making any sense. They sky is blue, therefore: (fill in with something). Greg had a conversation on another board, therefore: (fill in with something). You just don't like my style.

And, so what? I'm supposed to change it for you, an anonymous squawker? You should change your name to something different-- say, you're REAL name-- it'll change your entire life's outlook But, beware it's only for the bravest. Soon, maybe YOU'LL be critiquing the credit reporting industry-- while wearing your pajamas-- in the national media because of your $25/month web site and an idea.

Or not.

But, then again, maybe, just maybe, if you stay here, and make statements using a screen name-- and if you're eloquent and you actually have a point to make-- maybe, just possibly, you'll have an influence when the New York Times prints, "SQUAWK1200 ANNOUNCES 620 IS NATIONWIDE MAGIC NUMBER."

I could pontificate, but I'd rather see what someone else knows, first. I can almost HEAR your next response: "See, see, see! He admits it! He asks questions! That horrible man asks questions so he understands before making a comment! Stop him!" I can't help it credit scoring is misunderstood. Anybody can always say, "I don't know."

And, you don't seem to be concerned with a large part of the audience: The people who read, but don't contribute to a discussion. They like the truth, and don't particularly care about someone's widdy feewings getting hurt.

Sell it somewhere else, kiddo.

No-- Dad.

If what you wanted to do was point out to Heather and the other forum participants that there are loan programs available for those with FICO's under 620 or that even at 620 some programs wouldn't be available, you could have merely said so.

So could you. Why didn't you? In fact, you seem to be saying the opposite.

The world changes, and so do underwriting guidelines. Perhaps, there is a real, live program for her with a real 620 requirement with no caveat with which the lender could use to wiggle out. Is there?

In other words, you could have added to the community rather than attempt to use someone who has had trouble in the past and is now looking for help as a plaything.

I added to the community. And, regardless of your outburst, I'll continue asking questions.

"Transparent and reprehensible" decribes what you were doing here quite nicely.

Oh, brother. Like I give a rip about your corny, pithy, sophomoric evaluation. Provincial attitudes like yours just perpetuate the mystery and misunderstanding of underwriting and credit scoring and its application. Stay on the subject and stop littering the thread with your anonymous vendetta.

The subject is 495 Beacon.

 

Heather:

Nobody can answer your question about the length of time it will take to bring up your score.

What are the four reasons given with the scores that they are not higher?

You'll find FHA is easier on credit qualifications than conventional. Does your lender know FHA? If you use the money you have to decrease the debt and increase your score, you can get an FHA loan using down payment assistance for 100% of the down payment.

What year was the bankruptcy discharged?

 

"What's my point?" Hello? McFly? You asked: "where did you get that business about electronic underwriting-- or as you put it, previously, "automatic" underwriting (I presume you mean automated)? Show us where it says that and quote it (if you can)(or is this a secret?)". You need to make up your mind -- do you want your questions answered or don't you?

Of course they could have. Heck, they could have created indivisual rate sheets for every variation of the GX or BB loans. So? What's your explanation for their use of the word "minimum" in the BBBB-1000 guidelines in the credit scoring section?

I said on another thread that you like to argue. I'm indulging you.

Are you saying that your don't know the difference between the use of a series of factors each with individual qualifying threshholds and the use of such factors in combination with a single qualifying threshhold after weighting? Come, now, "are you for real, or do you just like to type?"

LOL! Do you mean "cheap, ad hominem rhetoric" like this:

"I know that's a stretch for you, but use your imagination"?

or like

"I'm not here to give you an economics lesson, but I'll take the challenge of trying to get through to you."?

or perhaps

"Don't be so presumptuous as to think that the world revolves around you, cares about you and that everybody is paying attention to you."?

You're right, I don't like your style. Correcting misinformation is all well and good, but you occasionally seem to take some misanthropic delight in asking snide questions of folks who have had financial difficulty. But hey, if that floats your boat, fine -- don't change. But don't be surprised when people confront you about it.

So you're suggesting that a post containing useful information written in a way calculated to hurt someone's feelings is of equivilant value to the forum as a post containing the same information written in a more civil manner?

Actually, I did note a progam with as low as a 580 "qualifying" score. And I certainly never suggested that a 620 score qualified someone for any mortgage program at all. You asked me to focus on "620," remember?

"Is there," indeed. Aren't you still a mortgage broker? Or did you give that up to do "consumer advocacy" full time? If you are still a mortgage broker, why don't you tell us what a typical interest rate premium is for subprime mortgages? Or how about posting the names of some lenders that do loans without regard to FICO scores and telling us what they do consider? If you're no longer a broker, why don't you tell us in what respect you are still in the "banking" business, as you've posted elsewhere?

Well, ok -- just so long as we stay away from the cheap, ad hominem rhetoric.

----

On a more positive note, good for you for finally posting something helpful to Heather. I look forward to reading more helpful posts from you in the future.

 

I assume this means you finally found the part where you said "automatic." Keep track of what you say so you don't look stupid. I need credible adversaries to look good.

The original, simple question-- which launched your lengthy remarks about something irrelevant to his person-- remains. Is she going to get a conventional loan? Doubtful.

What's your explanation for their use of the word "minimum" in the BBBB-1000 guidelines in the credit scoring section?"

If that's the one where they stated that there are exceptions to the minimums, I don't have any. They appear to be very conflicted. Perhaps you should contact them to find out what they really mean.

You're right, I don't like your style. Correcting misinformation is all well and good, but you occasionally seem to take some misanthropic delight in asking snide questions of folks who have had financial difficulty. But hey, if that floats your boat, fine -- don't change. But don't be surprised when people confront you about it.

Just wait until it happens, next time. Until then, give me have your bullet, Barney.

So you're suggesting that a post containing useful information written in a way calculated to hurt someone's feelings is of equivilant value to the forum as a post containing the same information written in a more civil manner?

You just don't get it, Emily Post. I'm not here-- or anywhere-- to please your sense of civility. Getting to the truth is hard enough without worrying about etiquette and protocol.

All this from a simple question. Give me a break.

... 580 for full-doc 90% LTV loans at higher rates.

Right. Like this person-- or anybody in her shoes has 10% down, and, further, wouldn't be better off with an FHA loan. You're just grasping for anything you can.

If you are still a mortgage broker, why don't you tell us what a typical interest rate premium is for subprime mortgages?

She doesn't need subprime when government loans at conventional rates exist. Think outside your small box.

Or how about posting the names of some lenders that do loans without regard to FICO scores and telling us what they do consider?

No. Irrelevant. FHA. Bankruptcy. You're still not getting it.

If you're no longer a broker, why don't you tell us in what respect you are still in the "banking" business, as you've posted elsewhere?

Because the truth is the truth no matter who it comes from. But even if I were to talk about any of my vocations, why should I give YOU that? You haven't even given your name. Cat got your tongue?

Make some suggestions for Heather so she can get a house by December, Squawk1200.

 

Yep. I assume this means you found the part where you asked where I got electronic underwriting, too. You appear to need more than "credible adversaries" to look good.

Enough said.

What the frequency, Kenneth?

I'm afraid you just don't get it, my good man. You are, of course, free to be uncivil. I am, of course, free to comment upon your incivility. Whether you modify your boorish behavior in response to my comments is, of course, entirely up to you.

But I cannot help but notice that you utterly sidestepped the question (perhaps you watched too many talk shows on Sunday). So let me put it to you again: Is a post containing useful information written in a way calculated to hurt someone's feelings of equivilant value to the forum as a post containing the same information written in a more civil manner?

And just what are "her shoes?" Do you even know whether there are homes under the FHA maximums where she wants to live? Do you know how much she has available for a down payment, though gifts, savings, or otherwise? Don't you, as a current or former mortgage broker, recognize the importance of these questions? Why didn't you ask them of her, then -- I thought you preferred to obtain information before "pontificating."

Um hmm, and the truth is the truth no matter the name of the speaker, n'est pas? Unlike you, I've stated my profession. So, I'll ask again:

Are you still a mortgage broker?

If you're no longer a broker, in what respect you are still in the "banking" business, as you've posted elsewhere?

Sorry, I don't have enough information to do that meaningfully, and, in any event I would steer her toward a competent mortgage broker. (Know any?). If she needs to sue someone, though, I'd be happy to make suggestions.

 

If you have some point to make-- or question to ask-- do so in another thread with an appropriate name.

 

Why don't we just recognize that you refuse to answer the three questions I posed to you and leave it at that.

 

Speak for yourself.

I'll entertain your questions, but not here-- they are past the point of appropriate for this thread, and it takes too long to download. Someone happening upon it might think it is about FICO scores when it isn't. I'm annoyed by that, myself.

You could name the thread My Tirade Over a Simple Question.

Take it or leave it.

 

DONE! I look forward to your reponse over at http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10250