quote:

---

Originally posted by johnlmoran

Sorry, I should have explained further. He has a 9 month break in employment, he is in the training portion of his new job, so not even a pay stub yet, and none with full time pay for another two months.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnlmoran

Sabina, thanks for the input. Emigrant's program caps on 65% on C/O and they still verify employment (to which my borrower has about three weeks of current, then 9 month break for family health issues, then standard employment).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnlmoran

I understand what you are saying, I just know it's hard enough to get loans done right now even without multiple employment issues. A letter might work if he was beginning a salaried position, but I'm skeptical that an underwriter will take a letter from a company guessing at his future hours (in addition to a letter about why he took 9 months off). He is definitely in a hurry to consolidate because right now is the time he needs lower bills, while his income is lower than it will be in the future.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnlmoran

As far as I know, ING doesn't even do stated anymore.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnlmoran

Just trying to figure out if it is a waste of time to look around. The borrowers FICOS are 720+, house is O/O, SFR, primary, and LTV is 70%. This loan is in AZ, loan amount $250k, cash out refi (debt consolid.).

This is a past client calling me for a refinance who is not able to document two years of employment history. He is beginning an hourly job (old job was salaried), so income is impossible.

I understand everyone will jump on me for trying to find a "liar's loan," but this is a previous client who has impeccable credit and has made all of his payments on the no doc loan I got him three years ago. No intentional fraud or anything like that, there is no income on the application to lie about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnlmoran

I don't believe it is fraud (intentional or otherwise, excuse my choice of words) to put a borrower into a program in which a lender does not ask for employment or income information. IMO, fraud would be if I have the borrower's pay stubs and know exactly what he/she makes and still put something different on the 1003 or allow the borrower to put something different on the 1003.

Unlike stated income or assets, true no doc has nothing on the 1003, therefore, no fraud. It appears that program doesn't exist anymore, but it was just a simple question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sabina15

Try Emigrant Savings Bank HIQ program.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnnyboy38109
There are those among us (I am one) who take the position that its fraud by omission to intentially originate a deal where there is no reasonable basis to believe the borrower an pay the loan back, whether an absence of income docs is permitted by the lender or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EquitySmart

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnnyboy38109
There are those among us (I am one) who take the position that its fraud by omission to intentially originate a deal where there is no reasonable basis to believe the borrower an pay the loan back, whether an absence of income docs is permitted by the lender or not.

---

I am more vocal about (potential or actual) fraud than most people on this forum, but this is a bit draconian. Are all hard money (equity-based) loans tainted with fraud because they do not list the income on the 1003? What about FHA streamline refinances that do not list income or assets on the 1003? There is a huge difference between overstated income on the 1003 (whether it is the loan officer or borrower who comes up with the stated income) and not putting income on the 1003 at all.

The situation referenced by the original poster seems like the intent of the NODOC programs, since the borrower does have reasonable likelihood of repaying the mortgage (assuming the future employment will be stable) but no way to document the history of stable income, which is always a requirement for full documentation loans.

This is a very fine line, but theres a big difference between stated and NODOC

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnnyboy38109
You will note the poster states the borrower is beginning an "hourly" job and that the previous job was "salaried"........whats the difference, of course, except that it would appear the LO knows the new rate of pay, whether it can be proven or not, is not sufficient. The fact that someone is now hourly does not make it impossible to prove, as the poster suggests, what it does mean is that if proffered to the U/W, it would not be suffficient. The poster knows this, so the question is raised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KHufford

No, Doc was banned...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jonas

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnlmoran

As far as I know, ING doesn't even do stated anymore.

---

I suggested them more in the sense that they are very lenient with salaried employee history. It would still have to work Full Doc, but as soon as he gets his 1st paycheck, he is good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mojojojo_1

Yes, 1 day on the job is all you need! even with 9 month gap? honestly asking

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EquitySmart

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnnyboy38109
You will note the poster states the borrower is beginning an "hourly" job and that the previous job was "salaried"........whats the difference, of course, except that it would appear the LO knows the new rate of pay, whether it can be proven or not, is not sufficient. The fact that someone is now hourly does not make it impossible to prove, as the poster suggests, what it does mean is that if proffered to the U/W, it would not be suffficient. The poster knows this, so the question is raised.

---

I did not interpret the original post this way - to me it seemed like the poster was saying the borrower will be getting enough income from the new job to qualify, but could not get the loan done using full documentation due to 2 issues = 9 month gap in employment and no way to document the number of hours that will be worked (we don't know if the borrower knows how many hours they expect to work or not).

If your assumptions are indeed correct, then I can understand your previous statement about this loan being bad news (if the borrower cannot afford the payments). I guess we would need the original poster to clarify what is known about the borrowers future employment and what (if anything) the parties involved are trying to hide...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mojojojo_1

Yes, 1 day on the job is all you need!
even with 9 month gap? honestly asking

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnlmoran

Sorry, I should have explained further. He has a 9 month break in employment, he is in the training portion of his new job, so not even a pay stub yet, and none with full time pay for another two months.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnlmoran

Wow, stirred up the fire on this one I guess. Haha, I actually go do some relaxing and don't post immediately and it must be because I've been "band."

I'll try to answer as many questions as I remember reading. First, there is a difference between hourly and salaried, ask any underwriter. If I make $75,000 annual salary, how much do I make in a year? If I make $100 per hour, how much do I make in a year? The answer is you don't know because I may work 5 hours a week, I may work 60. Every underwriter I have dealt with takes averages for hourly pay employees and my borrower does not have anything to average.

Second, if my borrower works 40 hour weeks, yes, he will qualify full doc. Do you really think an underwriter is going to take one paycheck with 40 hours on it for two weeks and assume that is what he makes from here out? And at the same time ignore the 9 months off (regardless of the reason)?

Third, I don't believe I said training with NO pay, I believe I said training with less pay. I have seen plenty of jobs, including in the mortgage industry, where you train at a certain pay scale and then move to a different one after you are able to do your job properly.

And lastly, I can't say for certain that it is unreasonable for my borrower to pay the loan back. His payment history (15+years of mortgage payments) is perfect, he has some reserves, and will be starting to receive a decent paycheck (assuming 40 hours a week, which I do, an underwriter does not) in the near future.

I have seen breaks of more than 60 days get approved, but usually it has to be something affecting one of the borrowers (medical leave, maternity leave, etc.).

I appreciate you all taking the time to look and post, even if some were just to hammer away at the same old "anything less than full doc is fraud" arguement again. While we are at it, is a salaried job really that stable in this economy?

I have already spoken with my client and we will wait and try with a few paychecks (not so optimistic).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnnyboy38109
The point it is nowhere (until now) have you stated that once he gets full hourly pay that he'll qualify full doc. Such a length of time posting this suggests you still know even with the proveable income he wont qualify, otherwise you'd have stated so long before now.

---