Underwrite the borrower, or trust the down payment?
I'm getting ready to put money to work on this side rather than owning buildings, and there's a fork in the road I can't reason my way past.
One school says the borrower is the loan. Pull credit, verify income, look at what they pay now versus what they'd pay you, ask why the bank said no. If the answer is a thin file or self employment income a lender couldn't document, that's one thing. If the answer is three collections and a repossession last year, that's another. The point of this work is that a performing note is worth far more than a defaulted one, and the cheapest default to avoid is the one you never write.
The other school says the collateral is the loan. Take 20 or 25 percent down, so the loan to value at creation gives you a cushion, and let the borrower's own money be their reason to pay. Under this view heavy borrower underwriting is a bank's job, you don't have a bank's tools, and if you get the house back with a quarter of the value below your basis you have not been hurt.
What makes me hesitate on the second one is that getting the house back has a cost and a calendar, and both vary by state.
I don't know which side is right and I'd rather hear the disagreement than a consensus.
Creating a note, where does your protection mainly come from?
12 votes