Comments on: USDA Loans

By: Angie Williams

Angie Williams — Thu, 27 May 2010 01:30:01 +0000

The majority of originated loans for me this past 2 years is USDA and FHA . The underwriting criteria is similar. It is a fantastic first time home buyer program especially with the push of the first time homebuyer tax credit. Yes you are financing 102% of the appraised value, however part of the purpose of the program is improving communities by moving buyers into some of these low to moderate income areas (aka creating growth within the community). There are two areas of underwriting with this loan. Staffed underwriting and then USDA

My jury is out on whether is should be offered to new construction. If the home is built affordable then yes. Where the program does come in useful is when you have new construction that has been sitting for some time. Similar to the incentive the WSHFC offers.. 4.875% on the new home to you program. It’s moving property which has been stagnet. Many of the listing prices have been slashed to meet market demand. Wait.. how did I get over to HVCC?

By: Bryce Zimmerman

Bryce Zimmerman — Sat, 22 May 2010 01:09:57 +0000

Myself and our company do a lot of USDA home loans, and the underwriting criteria is almost exactly the same, besides income restrictions and down payment requirements.
Absolutely it should be available to new homes, because we are talking about 1st time homebuyers, and newer home have higher thermal standards. Not to mention in many regions, their are a lot of new homes available for sale currently that are a drain on the local banks who provided the construction loans.

By: Elisa Wu

Elisa Wu — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 00:36:07 +0000

It sounds great program. I learned something and have more chances working for my friends who seeking a loan to buy a house with their limited incomes. Especially in WA.

By: Daniel Mulvehill

Daniel Mulvehill — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 23:12:10 +0000

Todays economic guidelines have chaged under USDA loans they aree for owner occupied occupants and have loan to value limitations the investors that offer this only offer 90% Loan to value, at this time.With 100% financing they were great loan types, but Fha offers a much beteer project, I haven’t written that many USDA loans in my past but recently a web presentation and was quite surprised to see the overall advantages and will look into this at a later date.

By: Kimberly Peterson

Kimberly Peterson — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:18:10 +0000

I think this program is beneficial to those that need it. I do not see why it should be limited to current homes and not new construction. I do have a little concern about not requiring a down payment.

By: Karen Tuff

Karen Tuff — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:59:34 +0000

I think this is a great program for new construction homes. It will create jobs, create affordable housing and keep the lending business viable. Very necessary for new and/or growing families.

By: Harold Burton

Harold Burton — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:29:31 +0000

Certainly considering how energy efficent new homes are. I think there is a win situation with this program.

Ultimately it raises the guality of life in rural areas.

At the same time with the down turn in the economy and peoples’ portfolio’s in the toilet it seems to be a good option. Much like the gentleman in the article who purchased a home in rural N.C.

It also creates oppotunites for private investment involved. And these loans are secured by USDA.

By: Kelly Fiscus

Kelly Fiscus — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:31:17 +0000

Again, I have re-read this section and I still say, yes if the house and buyer qualify. House must be modest, rural (not an overdevelope community) and buyer must meet income level.

By: Chris Yanke

Chris Yanke — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:59:32 +0000

My only concern on buying newly built homes is that this could create an unhealthy situation where builders start developing rural areas and put those areas at risk of being overbuilt. Most USDA loans are looking at a minimum of 30-45 days in underwriting because there has been a tremendous increase in those applications where I work in Washington State. My short answer is “yes” if the criteria fits the program. Since these loans are funded by the government and meant to give lower income buyers an opprortunity, the nature of the home bought shouldn’t necessarily dictate the approval.

By: Kelly Fiscus

Kelly Fiscus — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:27:08 +0000

If the house and the person qualifies great. We need affordable housing and we need to create jobs. If we can build a modest house in a rural area which would create a job or two, lets get going. People need affordable housing.

By: Arash Fiuzi

Arash Fiuzi — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:31:25 +0000

The convergence of this loan and national subdivision builders is due to the irresponsible, borrowing, lending and building that charaterized the soon to be finished first and forgetable decade of the century. This will help keep some of these neighborhoods and builders afloat but one has to wonder what will happen when a USDA borrower loses a job…FORECLOSURE!

By: James Haechler

James Haechler — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 05:31:48 +0000

I see nothing wrong with this. If builders can build homes at a reasonable cost in a rural area and the USDA finance at 100%, where’s the issue. People get into homes and it creates jobs.

By: Jason Brock

Jason Brock — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:26:31 +0000

USDA Loans:
Wow… 100% ltv… I used to be able to do 125% loans for rehab. USDA loans should be available to 100% LTV because most people who are qualifying for them fall into a very specific category and must pass stringent underwriting guidelines. Even with FHA loans now some clients are actually walking away with money right now… 97.5%LTV with a 8k kickback “tax rebate from the government”

By: Jerrod Goode

Jerrod Goode — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:17:22 +0000

Providing home ownership to people with low income is a good idea. If new construction is available and builders are willing to make these loans I am all for it. 100% financing is not the problem, selling people what they can not afford is.

By: Launce Macomber

Launce Macomber — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:22:26 +0000

I think the original intent of the program is tending toward abuse by developers/builders who are pushing new construction sales in upscale, or what could become, upscale subdivisions. I would hate to see the program funding tapped out to the detriment of borrowers in traditionally rural regions who need assistance. Don’t get me wrong, this is a great program and should be continued and supported, especially in difficult times of restricted availability from banks.

By: Jan Mundt (Henriksen)

Jan Mundt (Henriksen) — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 06:11:34 +0000

With an experience builder that meets the program guidelines as well as the proposed borrower and USDA will guarantee the loan, I see no reason to limit the program to existing construction. My experience with our local agency is they are very willing to assist in any way possible and encourage the use of their program. I disagree with the Senator; should we not promote the VA program either, that’s > than 102% financing?

By: Ken Ritter

Ken Ritter — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:27:27 +0000

I think this is a great program and I do not see any reason that a builder who built or builds home in these areas cannot market this loan to buyers in hopes to sell their homes as well.

By: richard martin

richard martin — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:54:42 +0000

Its an incredible program and no doubt it is going to be the next big thing, but I agree with the Senator that if you are borrowing 102% buying a home might not be the right thing for you right now, and what is a rural area today could become a super subburb tomorrow and your value could skyrocket. I just have the feeling that thiis might be too easy and that it will eventualy be abused and lose sight of the original intent of asssisting people in rural areas.

By: Teresa Gallaher

Teresa Gallaher — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:56:11 +0000

If builders have built these affordable, reasonable homes in rural areas, I don’t see any reason that a borrower using the usda program should not be able to choose a new construction home. The fact that no down payment is required and the borrower is not subject of mortgage insurance, makes this a preferred option to FHA.