We bought about 4 years ago with a 5% down conventional. We bought a fixer upper and wanted to keep as much cash on hand as we could for renovations. We refied a year later with more than 20% equity to drop our PMI.
I know there are definitely 5% down and 10% down conventional loans with PMI. We knew we would have equity after the renovations so we were not concerned with putting down so little. We got a really good rate, not much more than the lowest interest rates at the time.
We put in $70-80k (I would guess) in the first 2 years (mostly DIY) and have over $100k equity in our house now.
Depending on what kind of loan you want and can qualify for there are still even 0% down options available like VA, and FHA (alone requires 3.5% down) with a down payment assistance second for the rest, conventional 3% down is a special FNMA/FHLMC program and traditional 5% down conventional loans.
However having said that you'll want to weigh a lot of variables before deciding - cost of loan, cost of mtg insurance, cash on hand, refund available after down, the housing market and home values.
We did FHA in 2008 (6.125%), and an FHA refi in 2010 (4.375%). FHA was more attractive back then because we don't have lifetime MIP on ours like current FHA loans do.
Our 5 years of mandatory MIP on the refi loan will be up this fall. I'm debating whether we're better off trying to pay it down to 78% LTV then (we're at about 92% now), or refi into a conventional loan with 10% down. I have a few thoughts:
Pro-refi: - 10% down will be easier to accomplish than paying the current loan down to 78% LTV, and we have a baby on the way. Not wiping out cash reserves is a plus. - As long as the rate is a little lower, I think it would result in a smaller monthly payment than we currently have. Again, a plus with daycare starting w/in the next year. - I actually don't mind stretching out our mortgage over 35+ years total. Mortgage interest is tax deductible whereas our SL interest (which is of equal magnitude) is not, so I am good with prioritizing SLs and dragging out the mortgage.
Pro-pay down: - no closing costs, no hassle (once we convince BOA to remove MIP) - Mortgage payoff will be 5+ years earlier than if we refi into a 30 year conventional loan.
We put 20% down in 2011. Conventional mortgage, rate was high for the time though - 5.15%. Refinanced in 2012 to a new 30-year traditional mortgage at 3.5%. I didn't consider most other products at the time, because we specifically saved to be able to do the 20%. No idea what is available now, though I am starting to research some home equity loan options.
When we bought 10 years ago, we did an 80-10-10 loan. When we purchase our next house (hopefully within the next two years), we'll be putting down 20 to 25%.
Post by LoveTrains on May 29, 2015 20:42:47 GMT -5
I bought my primary residence in 2012 and we only put down 5%. Yes we have to pay PMI but our house is pretty sweet and the interest rate is only 3.5%.
Post by polarbearfans on May 30, 2015 4:32:22 GMT -5
We bought last year. We qualified for a conventional loan with 5% down, but PMI. We ended up doing a little bit more than 20% to get the mortgage payment we wanted. We also had to bring more money to the table since we appraised low (value was there, just no recent comps). At closing we did a 2nd mortgage (HELOC) to cover the low appraisal and paid it off the next week.
We wanted the HELOC in place since it is easier to get when it's not needed. We have never used it since, but it is nice knowing we have it in case of emergency repairs needed. We would be able to pay it off quickly, but a lot of our savings takes time to access so this is quicker in an emergency situation.
10% conventional 30 year in 2013 to have cash on hand for renovations. We're paying extra towards principle and once we have 20% equity we want to re-fi to a 15 year mortgage, which will drop the PMI and drop the interest by about a point and a half if rates are similar to what they are now. In essence, our payment would be about the same.
We bought last year and ended up putting 15% down. For the loan we technically pre-paid the PMI at closing. That amount was covered by a lender credit so we just had to pay the down payment at closing... Sellers covered all closing costs. We could have put 20% down but that would have taken our cash level below where I was comfortable. Definitely find a good mortgage broker who can take you through all of your options.
Post by sillygoosegirl on May 31, 2015 7:47:36 GMT -5
We put 25% down. It allowed us to get a better interest rate.
Most of the houses we looked at, including the one we bought, were short sales or bank owned (this was 2012), and our agent said it would be hard to buy them without a conventional 20% down loan because of the condition they were in and the fact we probably couldn't get the sellers to fix anything. She said it wouldn't be a problem to do 3.5% down if we bought a move-in ready home, but we didn't like the price premium on those (probably 30% more expensive), and had the cash.
We put down 20% and have a conventional mortgage. We bought in 2009 and originally had a 30 year mortgage at 4.9%. We refinanced in 2012 to a 15 year mortgage at 3%. We're up to about 37% equity now.
We put 25% down. It allowed us to get a better interest rate.
Most of the houses we looked at, including the one we bought, were short sales or bank owned (this was 2012), and our agent said it would be hard to buy them without a conventional 20% down loan because of the condition they were in and the fact we probably couldn't get the sellers to fix anything. She said it wouldn't be a problem to do 3.5% down if we bought a move-in ready home, but we didn't like the price premium on those (probably 30% more expensive), and had the cash.
As someone deep in the lending industry and also the short sale side of the industry prior to that this logic makes no sense to me.