SISA or SIVA Lenders

Yes I do. 75% Max LTV for NOO & 2nd Homes.

Several lenders doing up to 80% O/O SIVA or SISA.

what lenders do you know that are doing 75%-80%?

out of curiosity whate rate are you looking for?

Also what is the loan amount and FICO score?

Here is the issue with SIVA and SISA:  previously 4506's were pulled occasionally and now they are being pulled way more frequently.  Personally, having originated for the amt of time that I have,  I usually have a pretty good feeling in my gut as to whether someone is being honest regarding income or assets.  On these types of loans I have walked many times from huge commissions -- all I need to is stare at a picture of my kids and my wife and it is easy to play by the rules.

It simply is not worth one paycheck to jeopardize your career, so if you do a SIVA or SISA loan and you have any doubt as to the validity of the info being provided by the borrower, then run for the hills.  I will need even address the issue of the LO making in the income fit the scenario, as that is a different discussion for a different day.

And that is the end of my speech.....

DP

I agree with Dave.

If a borrower is self-employed then his gross income will be the stated income, period.

Expect lenders today to pull the 4506T.  If the income is bumped up to fit the scenerio, you are asking for trouble, the underwriters go to salary.com and other websites to find out what a person is generally making in his or her line of work, and then pull the 4506T.

I know three lenders that do SIVA at 75% and 1 that will do SISA the one that does SISA will do 75% on o/o, 2nd homes, and investment properties. There is a fourth but there rates are way too high

This is what I dont understand about siva and sisa.

If they are going to pull the 4506 , why not just do it yourself and go full doc? Or at least provide the income .

I have no idea what is the legitimate reason for stated, except the LTV is so low that the lender could care less, as a form of 'no doc' .

They should just have no ratio , no doc, and full doc.

In my honest opinion, this is what it really is anyways.

Full doc - so the lender knows you can afford your mortgage.

No ratio - where the lender knows you are paying a huge chuck of your income to the mortgage but the LTV and assets are so good they dont care.

No doc - where the borrower tells the lender its none of their business, and their fico and ltv are so good where the lender could also care less. The lender can look at the payment history and decide the borrower will probably never allow it to default.

Deals below 50% ltv in the conforming range should qualify for no ratio and no doc. Everything else should go full doc.

Tom,

The Stated products were designed for Self-Employed people.  If you go full doc on them you have to use AGI and not go off of their gross income: can be a huge difference between the two because of allowable business expensed, deductions, depreciation of equipment etc.

Such programs were allowed for W2 employees too and never should have been.

Another thing I don't get, though, is that the stated lenders are lowering the LTV's drastically, and with a high credit borrower at 75 ltv on something like a purchase, etc, you have a good chance of getting an income waiver in du/lp anyways... I would hope people are smart enough to try that first.

Kat,

My understanding, and this is what Wells did to me, eventhough DO/DU may only ask for VOE: income waiver, the lender will still ask for income documentation.  Might be because of Maryland but it happened prior to the law changing to all mortgages have to be full incom doc in Maryland.

Greg. Instead of stated, why not no ratio for self employed and provide tax docs.

Tom,

No ratio is great but hardly any lender does it anymore.  Besides, with no ratio loans you don't have to provide tax docs as it would defeat the purpose.  You have to provide assets unless it was a NINA loan.

Instead of 'stated' , the borrower proivdes his tax docs and goes no ratio. This way he can claim he made 100k , but after expenses made 40k .

Instead of 'stating' he made 100k and the lender pulling a 4506 anyways......

I know nobody does no ratio anymore , but I think its a better loan. Just my .02

Tom,

Why provide tax returns on a no-ratio.  Once you see documented income you have to put it on the application.  I don't understand your point.

Best thing to do is stay away from such loans unless a self-employed person has a high gross income but a much lower AGI.  This way if a 4506t gets utilized, it is not a liar laon.  The underwriter verifies the stated income is his gross income: what you stated.  Anything less is a loan denial, puts you in the hot seat and the borrower will run and have selective memory.

You mean 'documented income ' from the CPA or bank statements? The bank statments are also going to show the true net profit as well.

The whole point to stated is you provide no documents. At least with no ratio you provide the income . Giving the tax returns would be something I would ask for with a no ratio loan for self employed.

This way you can see all the income as gross, and what he tells the IRS as his net profit.

im trying to suggest that stated income while the lender pulls a 4506 is about as usefull as the borrower just supplying his tax returns himself. Seems to me that the loan would run faster if the loan officer just got his tax returns himself.

I never understood 'stated' income except as a matter of convience .

Might as well just do 'no doc' or no ratio. 

With 'no doc' and 'no ratio' the lender has to take responsibility for approving the loan.

Tom,

What are you talking about?  The whole point with stated and no ratio loans is you don't provide income documentation to the underwriter.  However, if the borrower provides it to me, then I have to state what I see, period. 

You need to read some guidelines about the loans you mentioned. 

Tom, you seem to be going off on some crusade this past week or so and I am not quite sure why? Are you running for public office?

As I have thoroughly enjoyed your commentary on the threads, it seems to be tilted toward dogmatism, agitation and comments that are more for a reader and not the subject at hand.

Just my opinion but I am finding it rather obnoxious.

Greg.

Appreciate the feedback.

No ratio and no doc are exactly that. We are talking about the same thing.

IMHO, stated income loans have always been a cute way for banks to bloat their bottom lines (temporarily) and yet blame someone else when it all went down.

Blame the broker, blame the borrower.

I have never heard of a client who couldnt go full doc. Im sure some of the folks on here can come up with some real exceptions, but I never heard it.

Who has income they CANNOT document, yet the underwriter would accept the income as full doc if they could?

black market business? Drug trafficking?

Yes, I have gone way off topic on this one, but I just dont get the need for stated income.

Especially when the lenders now pull a 4506. Why not just get the guys tax returns and go full doc?

I have done loans where the DU gave an except plus so we didnt even bother turn in the docs.

But HUNTING for SISA and SIVA lenders, I gave that up a long time ago.

Perhaps the other guys have concrete evidence there are real situations where a guy COULDNT prove income that was acceptable income under normal underwriting guidelines.

I cant.

Some guy who gets a regular paycheck every 2 weeks, has no bank account so he cashes it at a check cashing mart, and his employer REFUSES to give a W2 or payment year to date summary. Going on for years. And the guy never did tax returns either.

Perhaps something like that.

Andrew,

Tom has no idea what a Stated Income or No Ratio Loan is, why do them etc. 

Why on Earth would anyone submit tax returns with a No Ratio is utter nonsense.  I don't believe he can grasp the idea that many 1099 people have business deductions and that makes their AGI go down, down, down.  I don't think that he understands the difference between gross income and AGI.

He may just need a vacation that is all.

Greg. At this point you are becoming irrelivant. Yes I blended two different thoughts. I apologise for that. But now you are simply making up lies.

You dont seem capable of having an adult conversation. Go back to harassing 'Ballen' or someone on the hall of shame threads. You seem to get off on it. Pointing the finger at everyone else than yourself.

The point with you Greg, (and you are not alone), is you start the whole thing by not directing your post at the original poster. You veer off course to directly attack another broker.

Did you know you can type your statement of your point of view to the THREAD, and feel no need to 'challenge' or 'attack' others who post? Not quote what they say. Simply make your own opinion known. Re read this whole thread, and you will see where it clearly starts.

Must be a bizarre concept for you. Try it sometime.

You prefer to argue all day.

Salem, I agree. 

There was a thread a year ago about   stated loans, and out of all the brokers who replied, you and I were the only ones who made no bones about doing a NIVA NINA and no doc to avoid stated. In spite of the fact the pricing was higher.

But your scenerios are guys who cheat the IRS by not declaring income, but then want to tapdance to the other foot and declare it all to a lender. In my honest opinion, they are getting a break on taxes, so they pay the price on their income to get a mortgage.

And if you reread my posts on this thread, the point is not even about stated. Its about the LENDERS using it as a tool for free scapegoats. NINA NIVA and no doc force the lender to take responsibility for their loans to their investors.

You were the only ones Tom>? 

I don't get Gregs point about business deductions.  If they are deductions, they are real expenses of the business and should not be included in income calculation.  If they are paper deductions such as depreciation, depletion or business use of the home, full income calculations will allow these to be added back in. 

Stated borrowers don't go stated because of deductions.  The go stated because they embellish their deductions for tax purposes.

No Ratio and No Doc were good programs that are casualties of abuse.

Lastly, Income Waiver's are not intended as a work around for borrowers who cannot verify income.

Dave. This was my whole point.

I dont articulate what I am trying to say sometimes in the written word. This is true. Im not ashamed of it or judge myself less than others. However, this isnt reason to challenge someone into an all out flame war out of the blue.

And the bottom line is this.

Nobody is right or wrong. Its simply an OPINION.

So why the need to 'CHALLENGE' some guys post? Why not simply state your point of view to the OP ? When you challenge someones post, you are simply and specifically inviting a reply, and off you both go . Its obviously because they WANT a flame war.

Its difficult to remain postive for the site when these selected guys go around simply finding an opposing point of view to get into an argument . This accomplishes nothing.

I invite you 'selected' lenders to stop going around attacking other peoples posts. You can state your point of view without inviting a flame war that results in nothing.

I wonder if some folks cant handle the site unless there is arguing.

Nic......

I dont recall you chiming in on NINA and no doc vs stated on that thread . It was a long time ago.

If you did, I am sorry.

Dave,

I'm not trying to say everyone embellishes.  I'd like to think that most do not.

I'm only saying that if they are applying for stated (or the originator suggests it) then it is BECAUSE they embellish.  Either that or for convenience, but that is another topic. 

In theory you have two buckets of stated borrowers, those who actually do make the amount they state, and those who don't.  Those who don't should NOT under any circumstance be getting the loan, especially the W2 borrower.

Those who do I think are deserving with proper risk modification from the funding source.