Mortgage rates and advice

Hey,
I was hoping someone could clear this up for me.
What does a 1:1.15 mortgage ratio actually imply?

David Scott57 said:Hey,
I was hoping someone could clear this up for me.
What does a 1:1.15 mortgage ratio actually imply?

Basically, it means if you’re looking to borrow, say, $100,000, then the appraised value of the home needs to be at least $115,000 to cover it...

Does anyone know if there’s any way to snag a top-tier mortgage—something legit—given my history? I had five collections on my record, though they were all cleared back in November 2007. I was trying to work with Wells Fargo, but they turned me away because those black marks don't technically fall off the report until this November—you know, once that three-year window finally closes. Any ideas?

Does anyone know if there's any kind of top-tier mortgage out there—something where they don't even bother checking creditworthiness? I had five black marks on my record, though they were all settled back in November 2007. I tried applying at Wells Fargo, but they turned me away because of those old marks... they don't clear until this November, once that three-year window finally closes.

Around here, most banks are obsessed with checking everything against the Red Cross records and those blacklists,
you're better off selling through some international outfits—like an outfit based in the USA—because they don't give a damn about all that.

goldenmarlin17 said:Does anyone know of any mortgage options—I'm talking top-tier, reliable stuff—where I wouldn't be disqualified by my past? I had five different collections on my record, but they were all fully settled back in November 2007. I'm looking for a lender that won't obsess over credit scores or old history. I tried working with Wells Fargo, but they turned me away because those marks stayed on my report until this past November. Apparently, once that three-year window closes, you're supposedly clear.

Look, let’s be real: you aren't going to find a mortgage anywhere in the broader US or even the surrounding regions if you don't have decent credit.
The closest thing you'll find are certain loans in the States where the ONLY real perk is that they don't strictly scrutinize your credit report or Red Cross records. Plus, finding co-signers is a bit easier there since having a joint liability won't mess up their standing here in America.

P.S. Being resourceful and being educated aren't the same thing.👍

I need to pull $70,000 by the time I hit 20. The catch? My reported income is all white $1567, while my cash under the table is about $1667.

goldenmarlin17 said:I need to pull $70,000 by the time I hit 20. The catch? My reported income is all white $1567, while my cash under the table is about $1667.

Standard mortgage terms usually cap out at 15 years. Even if you snag the absolute best interest rate on the market, you're looking at a monthly payment of roughly $650.

In a best-case scenario, the combined gross income for you and your co-signer needs to hit somewhere around $1,900–$2,000—basically three times the monthly payment.

Thanks

Richard Wright said:Standard mortgage terms usually cap out at 15 years. Even if you snag the absolute best interest rate on the market, you're looking at a monthly payment of roughly $650.

In a best-case scenario, the combined gross income for you and your co-signer needs to hit somewhere around $1,900–$2,000—basically three times the monthly payment.

From what I've heard, one of the big banks here in the States has actually tightened things up lately... they're capping payouts at around $50,000, and for mortgages, it's more like a 1:3 ratio—maybe even less if the property isn't considered a "prime" location. They're looking at terms up to 15 years with a variable rate sitting around 7.5%.

A friend of mine is stuck. He owns four small parcels of land, all heavily mortgaged through three different banks. The liens range from 15% to 30% of the property value. He’s paralyzed because any potential buyers offering an exit strategy are just pushing bad deals—trading one mortgaged lot for several apartments in questionable locations without liens. To me, that’s just trading one headache for three and a half others.

Right now, the banks aren't happy with the situation, but they aren't squeezing him too hard because they want their money back. It feels like they'd do just about anything to untangle this mess and get paid.

I actually think it would benefit the banks (all three of them) to consolidate these four mortgages into a single lien on one primary property. That way, my friend clears the debt on three lots and gains the flexibility to sell or trade them, leaving just one mortgage on one piece of land. It makes the bank's path to recovery much cleaner. Wouldn't you agree?😉

Does anyone have actual insight or a concrete suggestion on how he can thread the needle here?🤷 Is there a specific bank in the US right now that is more open to restructuring or consolidating liens to resolve these kinds of deadlocks?🤷
Feel free to DM me.🙏

As far as I know, you can't really "consolidate" mortgages into one, especially since they're spread across different banks. Even if they were all at the same place, it's unlikely because each mortgage is tied to its own specific loan agreement.
Since you mentioned the mortgage amounts are lower than what the land is actually worth, you could try moving those three mortgages over to the most valuable plot. But that requires getting the banks on board, and honestly, I doubt they'll bite. They’d rather have each mortgage secured by its own specific piece of land rather than having all four tied to one spot—it's just safer for them. Plus, you've got notary fees and all that legal stuff to deal with, so I'm not sure if it's even worth the hassle.

Your best bet might be finding another property or some land with enough equity to take out a brand-new mortgage. You could use that cash to pay off all four existing ones, which would leave those four plots totally clear.

darkmaker94 said:As far as I know, you can't really "consolidate" mortgages into one, especially since they're spread across different banks. Even if they were all at the same place, it's unlikely because each mortgage is tied to its own specific loan agreement.
Since you mentioned the mortgage amounts are lower than what the land is actually worth, you could try moving those three mortgages over to the most valuable plot. But that requires getting the banks on board, and honestly, I doubt they'll bite. They’d rather have each mortgage secured by its own specific piece of land rather than having all four tied to one spot—it's just safer for them. Plus, you've got notary fees and all that legal stuff to deal with, so I'm not sure if it's even worth the hassle.

Your best bet might be finding another property or some land with enough equity to take out a brand-new mortgage. You could use that cash to pay off all four existing ones, which would leave those four plots totally clear.

Thanks for the input...

It's true that each mortgage is linked to a specific loan, but isn't it wrong to assume banks would prefer the current setup? If the mortgages stay tied to different plots, my friend is stuck; he can't do much with encumbered land. If he consolidates everything onto one mortgage against the most valuable property, he gains freedom to use the other properties and can more easily settle the remaining debt on that single primary asset. Isn't that the logic?

So, to summarize:
1) As things stand, he's restricted and the banks gain nothing.
2) If he consolidates, he gets more flexibility with his free assets, and the banks likely come out ahead too.
The cost for the transfer (applications, processing, notarization) would be a few hundred bucks.
3) He doesn't have a fifth property to leverage for a new loan to wipe out the first four, so that option is off the table.

A major bank wouldn't even consider sharing a mortgage with another lender—not in their wildest dreams! Forget about it. It’s even more absurd to think three different banks would pile onto a single property—because if they ever have to foreclose, there's a strict priority line, and no bank wants to be second—let alone third—in that queue.

Nicholas Turner said:A major bank wouldn't even consider sharing a mortgage with another lender—not in their wildest dreams! Forget about it. It’s even more absurd to think three different banks would pile onto a single property—because if they ever have to foreclose, there's a strict priority line, and no bank wants to be second—let alone third—in that queue.

Fine, if that's the case—what's your solution?
Are you suggesting we just have one single bank hold one massive mortgage that covers three separate properties previously tied to three different lenders?

We don't necessarily need to bring a fourth bank into this narrative—it could easily be one of those three instead. That’s definitely an option, but we’d be looking at a non-purpose mortgage loan, which carries a much higher X.

Nicholas Turner said:We don't necessarily need to bring a fourth bank into this narrative—it could easily be one of those three instead. That’s definitely an option, but we’d be looking at a non-purpose mortgage loan, which carries a much higher X.

It's obvious the lender is one of those three banks. I fail to see why you'd call it a non-purpose mortgage when the loan is secured by the most valuable property in the entire mortgage pool.

And what would you even call a loan if its sole purpose was to pay off other mortgages? It definitely wouldn't be classified as a home loan—that just doesn't fit!

Nicholas Turner said:And what would you even call a loan if its sole purpose was to pay off other mortgages? It definitely wouldn't be classified as a home loan—that just doesn't fit!

Fair point. But the goal remains the same: a consolidated mortgage on the property. Look at this scenario: a friend has a primary residence worth $200k with a $25k mortgage, plus three other properties totaling $360k ($120k each) with $30k mortgages on each.
Using that primary residence—worth $200k with only $25k owed—he takes out a $90k loan. The bank increases the mortgage from $25k to $115k. He uses that cash to wipe out the other loans, which were sitting at a variable 12% interest rate. You're right about the math. 😍

It would be smarter to set up some kind of bridge financing with a 5% fixed rate and a 30% down payment—say, $30k—to secure an apartment loan. Use that payout to close all existing mortgages. That way, he gets the best possible rate and clears his debt entirely. The only problem is finding a lender willing to offer that specific structure. 😛

Quincy:

wiredotter12 As stated by: Thanks for the response... Sure, every mortgage is tied to a specific loan—that’s the rule—but isn't there a massive flaw in how banks prioritize collections when mortgages are spread across multiple pieces of land? If a guy can't do much with property that's already encumbered by various liens, wouldn't it make more sense to consolidate everything into one single mortgage against the most valuable asset? That way, you could actually move freely with the cleared properties and focus all your resources on settling the debt on that one primary piece of real estate—right? So, to wrap this all up: The current setup is practically useless—it leaves everyone stuck, and frankly, the big banks aren't seeing a dime from it either. If you consolidate those mortgages—it’s like cleaning up a cluttered garage to actually find what you need—you gain much better control over your liquid real estate assets; plus, the banks will likely walk away with a little something for their trouble. The cost for the transfer—everything from the request to processing and final notarization—would run about a few thousand bucks. A friend of mine doesn't have a fifth piece of real estate to leverage for a new mortgage—the kind he'd need to clear those four existing debts—which would effectively free up all that land. So, yeah—that entire plan is dead in the water.

Hmm. 🤔
A few things here escape me:
How exactly do you think banks walk away empty-handed? Every single loan is backed by real estate as collateral—if a borrower defaults, the bank simply moves in and collects. It’s not rocket science. 🤷
Why on earth would anyone need to combine mortgages just to deal with their properties? — Who is stopping him from selling right now? Of course, there’s the tiny little catch—that any proceeds from the sale have to go directly toward paying off the loan secured by that land. Simple enough, isn't it? 🤷It looks to me like someone is trying to dump every single loan onto one piece of property—effectively using the cash from other sales to cover their tracks while leaving the debts unpaid. There isn't a theoretical chance that any halfway competent bank in the US would ever agree to such a ridiculous scheme.
One could always approach a single lender to request a refinancing of loans held elsewhere—using the property itself as sufficient collateral, of course. The idea is simple: Bank A pays off Banks B and C, leaving you with just one mortgage to juggle. However, speaking from my own experience—and let's be honest here—banks aren't exactly throwing a parade over the prospect of taking over someone else's loans right now.