# What if 40% of the remaining 60% Loan To Value (ratio) is not paid, or the borrower wants to take only 60% of the loan?

I wanted to know that what if the remaining 40% of 60% in a LTV (Loan to Value ratio ) for buying a home is not paid but the borrower only wants to get 60% of the total amount of home loan that is being provided by lending company.

For eg. If I want to buy a home which costs \$1.8 Million which has to be paid nearly \$700000 ( 40% ) in a 60% LTV (Loan to Value ratio ) that the lending company is offering for a home loan. Now, If the lending company is providing a \$1.1 Million (60%) of the total home cost, is it possible to get only \$1.1 Million asking the lending company and I don't pay \$700000 from my side for closing the deal.

For the property located in California, The deal could be done with only paying 20% in the beginning to the buyer (home agent in California) and then I have to pay EMI's (Equated monthly installments) of \$7451. The lending company is offering me \$1.1 Million. I do not want to pay \$700000 and want to use \$1.1 Million (other than paying 20% as down payment for the home) somewhere else which will help me in generating another \$1 Million in another 2 months. So I don't want to pay \$700K and I only want \$1.1 Million.

Summary - What I am trying to say is - I want to buy a home with a down payment of 20% that is nearly \$350000 for a home in California. lending company that I have talked is based in California who will offer 60% of the total amount that is \$1.1 Million of \$1.8 Million (Their Loan to Value ratio is 60%) and I have make a down payment of \$700000 which I don't have. I just want to get \$1.1 Million loan without paying \$700000. So I wanted to ask whether is it possible to get \$1.1 Million without paying \$700000. If I have \$1.1 Million I can buy the property with 20% down payment.

• I will say I don't understand your use of `40% of 60% in a Loan To Value ratio`. Generally Loan to Value for a given institution is expressed in a SINGLE percentage number. That represents a requirement for protected asset (or how much down payment they are expecting the borrower to make on the property.) What is that single number for your lending institution? LTV = Loan amount / appraised property value. – zipzit Jun 5 '16 at 16:37
• Where would the other \$700k come from to pay for the house? – stannius Jun 5 '16 at 16:38
• @harvardfail When you brought your proposal to your prospective lender what did they tell you? It sounds like you have enough deposit available to purchase a \$1.1 million dollar home IF you can find a lender willing to go 80% Loan to Value. But I gotta say, you have not mentioned one word about Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI) which I have mentioned a few times now. It almost sounds like you are confusing EMI with PMI? Equated Monthly Installments (EMI) is generally the way all real estate loans have been paid for decades. Recommendation: no abbreviations for you, ever. – zipzit Jun 7 '16 at 16:38
• It sounds like you are trying to buy the property by only paying 80% of the asking price. What am I missing? And how can I get that deal? ;-) – Peter K. Jun 7 '16 at 17:38
• There's a fundamental point here that I think you've missed. That is, when a lender loans you \$1.1 million toward the purchase of a house, that money is not given to you. It is given to the seller of the home. Regardless of how much of a down payment you are required to make or can come up with, the full agreed upon price (minus commissions/fees/etc.) is transferred to the seller at the closing. None of the money is given to you as the buyer. – Wesley Marshall Jun 10 '16 at 1:06

The loan-to-value ratio (LTV Ratio) is a lending risk assessment ratio that financial institutions and others lenders examine before approving a mortgage. It sounds like your lender has a 60% requirement. Remember the home is the collateral for the loan. If you stop making payments, they can take the house back from you. That number is less than 100% to accommodate changing market prices, the cost of foreclosure, repairing and reselling the home. They may be a safety factor built in depending on the home's location.

If you want to buy a \$1.8 million dollar home you will have to come up with 40% down payment. That down payment is what reduces the risk for the lender. So no, there is no way to cheat that. Think about the transaction from the view of the lender.

Note: in some areas, you can still get a loan if you don't have the required down payment. You just have to pay a monthly mortgage insurance. It's expensive but that works for many home buyers. A separate insurance company offers a policy that helps protect the lender when there isn't enough deposit paid.

Update: Er, no. Keep it simple. The bank will only loan you money if it has collateral for the loan. They've built in a hefty safety margin to protect them in case you quit paying them your monthly payments. If you want to spend the money on something else, that would work as long as you provide collateral to protect the lender. You mention borrowing money for some other purpose then buying a home. That would be fine, but you will have to come up with some collateral that protect the lender. If you wanted to buy a new business, the bank would first ask for an appraisal of the value of the assets of the business. That could be applied to the collateral safety net for the lender. If you wanted to buy a business that had little appraisal value, then the bank would require more collateral from you in other forms.

Say you wanted to borrow the money for an expensive operation or cosmetic surgery. In that case there is no collateral value in the operation. You can't sell anything from the surgery to anybody to recover costs. The money is spent and gone. Before the bank would loan you any money for such a surgery, they would require you to provide upfront collateral. (in this case if you were to borrow \$60,000 for surgery, the bank would require \$100,000 worth of collateral to protect their interest in the loan.) You borrow money, then you pay it back at a regular interval at an agreed upon rate and schedule.

Same thing for borrowing money for the stock market or a winning horse at the horse race. A lender will require a hard asset as collateral before making you a loan... Yes I know you have a good tip on a winning horse,and you are bound to double your money, but that's not the way it works from a lender's point of view.

It sounds like you are trying to game the system by playing on words. I will say quit using the "40% to 60%" phrase. That is just confusing. The bank's loan to value is reported as a single number (in this case 60%) For every \$6000 you want to borrow, you have to provide an asset worth \$10,000 as a safety guarantee for the loan.

If you want to borrow money for the purchase of a home, you will need to meet that 60% safety requirement. If you want to borrow \$1,000,000 cash for something besides a home, then you will have to provide something with a retail value of \$1,666,667 as equity.

I think the best way for you to answer your own question is for you to pretend to be the banker, then examine the proposal from the banker's viewpoint. Will the banker alway have enough collateral for whatever it is you are asking to borrow?

If you don't yet have that equity, and you need a loan for something besides a home, you can always save your money until you do have enough equity.

Comment One. I thought that most lenders had a 75% or 80% loan to value ratio. The 60% number seems pretty low. That could indicate you may be a high risk borrower, or possibly that lender is not the best for you. Have you tried other lenders? It's definitely worth shopping around for different lenders.

Comment Two. I will say, it almost sounds like you aren't being entirely honest with us here. No way someone with a monthly income who can afford a \$1.8 Million home would be asking questions like this. I get that English probably isn't your first language, but still. The other thing is: If you are truly buying a \$1.8 Million dollar home your real estate agent would be helping you find a lender that will work with you. They would be HIGHLY motivated to see this sale happen. All of your questions could be answered in ten minutes with a visit to your local bank (or any bank for that matter.) When you add up the costs and taxes and insurance on a 30 fixed loan, you'd have a monthly mortgage payment of nearly \$10,500 a month or more. Can you really afford that on your monthly income?

Sorry, I don't think a bounty is the issue here. You seem to understand LTV means the bank you are talking to will lend you 60% of the value of the home you wish to purchase. You can't take the dollars calculated and simply buy a smaller house.

To keep the numbers simple, you can get a \$600K mortgage on a \$1M house. That's it. You can get a \$540K mortgage on a \$900K house, etc.

Now, 60% LTV is pretty low. It might be what I'd expect for rental property or for someone with bad or very young credit history. The question and path you're on need to change. You should understand that the 'normal' LTV is 80%, and for extra cost, in the form of PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance) you can even go higher. As an agent, I just sold a home to a buyer who paid 3% down.

The way you originally asked the question has a simple answer. You can't do what you're asking.

• The bounty is doing its job - getting people to write in answers what they should have written in a comment, along with a "Closed: Unclear what you're asking" flag. – stannius Jun 7 '16 at 19:27
• @stannius - ok. I was wrong. Not the first time. Not the last. Even so, the question can really use a good edit. – JTP - Apologise to Monica Jun 8 '16 at 18:37
• I actually upvoted you given that your answer is about as good as it can be considering the quality of the question. – stannius Jun 8 '16 at 18:38

Let me summarize your question for you:

"I do not have the down payment that the lender requires for a mortgage. How can I still acquire the mortgage?"

Short answer: Find another lender or find more cash.

Don't overly complicate the scenario. The correct answer is that the lender is free to do what they want. They deem it too risky to lend you \$1.1M against this \$1.8M property, unless they have \$700k up front. You want their money, so you must accept their terms.

If other lenders have the same outlook, consider that you cannot afford this house. Find a cheaper house.

I wanted to know that what if the remaining 40% of 60% in a LTV (Loan to Value ratio ) for buying a home is not paid but the borrower only wants to get 60% of the total amount of home loan that is being provided by lending company.

Generally, A lending company {say Bank] will not part with their funds unless you first pay your portion of the funds. This is essentially to safeguard their interest. Let's say they pay the 60% [either to you or to the seller]; The title is still with Seller as full payment is not made. Now if you default, the Bank has no recourse against the seller [who still owns the title] and you are not paying. Some Banks may allow a schedule where the 60/40 may be applied to every payment made. This would be case to case basis.

The deal could be done with only paying 20% in the beginning to the buyer and then I have to pay EMI's of \$7451.

The lending company is offering you 1.1 million assuming that you are paying 700K and the title will be yours. This would safeguard the Banks interest. Now if you default, the Bank can take possession of the house and recover the funds, a distress sale may be mean the house goes for less than 1.8 M; say for 1.4 million. The Bank would take back the 1.1 million plus interest and other closing costs.

So if you can close the deal by paying only 20%, Bank would ask you to close this first and then lend you any money. This way if you are not able to pay the balance as per the deal agreement, you would be in loss and not the Bank.

This is the meat of your potato question.

``````    "If I have \$1.1 Million I can buy the property with 20% down payment."
``````

The rephrasing of the question to a lending/real estate executive such as myself, I'd ask, what's the scenario?

"I would say you're looking for an Owner Occupied, Super Jumbo Loan with 20% Down or \$360K down on the purchase price, \$1.8 mil purchase price, Loan Amount is ~\$1.45 mil. Fico is strong (assumption). If this is your scenario, please see image. Yellow is important, more debt increases your backend-DTI which is not good for the deal. As long as it's less than 35%, you're okay.

Can someone do this loan, the short answer is yes. It's smart that you want to keep more cash on hand. Which is understandable, if the price of the property declines, you've lost your shirt and your down payment, then it will take close to 10 years to recover your down. Consider that you are buying at a peak in real estate prices. Prices can't go up more than they are now. Consider that properties peaked in 2006, cooled in 2007, and crashed in 2008. Properties declined for more than 25-45% in 2008; regardless of your reasons of not wanting to come to the full 40% down, it's a bit smarter to hold on to cash for other investments purposes. Just incase a recession does hit.

In the end, if you do the deal-You'll pay more in points, a higher rate compared to the 40% down scenario, the origination fee would increase slightly but you'll keep your money on hand to invest elsewhere, perhaps some units that can help with the cashflow of your home. I've highlighted in yellow what the most important factors that will be affected on a lower down payment. If your debt is low or zero, and income is as high as the scenario, with a fico score of at least 680, you can do the deal all day long.

These deals are not uncommon in today's market. Rate will vary. Don't pay attention to the rate, the rate will fluctuate based on many variables, but it's a high figure to give you an idea on total cost and monthly payment for qualification purposes, also to look at the DTI requirement for cash/debt.

See Image below: