Buying a House

[TENINCH]

10 hours ago, N4L said:

Tell him no. He can do that stuff himself later on

Yeah we did along with all of his other demands. Only thing we're doing is cleaning the gutters since it was time to have them done.

[CWood21]

On 7/15/2019 at 2:01 PM, Counselor said:

I make 73k a year in Southern California with a 820 credit score and still can’t afford crap. Someone come manage my life for me. 

Your first mistake is to live in California...

[Scoundrel]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

Your first mistake is to live in California...

Been here my whole life except a year in Alaska 

[theJ]

4 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

4 hours ago, skywlker32 said:

Someone could keep their credit debt below 30% of their credit line and still carry debt month to month (which would leave more money on hand). Likely was a strong word, but it shows credit score doesn't show a level of income.

Carrying a balance and having unpaid debt would not only impact your utilization negatively, but also the amount of debt, so even in this hypothetical the person is going to be dinged.

This sentence:

Quote

If anything, a high credit score likely means you have less spending cash at any point because you are paying off your debts.

is not just unlikely, it's wrong. A credit score is indicative of how able someone is to pay off debt they incur, and the more spending money someone has at the end of the month, the better position they would be in to pay off those debts.

It would make no sense for the score to increase as someone's spending cash decreased. People with disposable cash are exactly the type of people creditors want to collect interest from.

I think it's more accurate to say there's little to no correlation between credit score and cash on hand.  The credit bureau's have no idea how much $$$ is in someone's bank account.  It's a formula designed to tell lenders how well people have paid off debt in the past.

So like i said previously, it won't tell you how much disposable income someone has.  That's why underwriters are still a thing, and why when you apply for a big loan the lender doesn't check your credit score and off you go.  

A loose comparison would be saying you know many wins QB A has just from looking at his QB rating.  There's some loose correlation, but the two statistics are different.

[N4L]

1 hour ago, Counselor said:

Been here my whole life except a year in Alaska 

its funny how non Californians talk about California, like its some heathen stronghold and that only idiots would ever consider living there. 

There is a reason its so expensive, and that's because its freaking awesome. 

NEWS FLASH: It costs more to live here but in all likelihood you make more for living here

[Scoundrel]

48 minutes ago, N4L said:

its funny how non Californians talk about California, like its some heathen stronghold and that only idiots would ever consider living there. 

There is a reason its so expensive, and that's because its freaking awesome. 

NEWS FLASH: It costs more to live here but in all likelihood you make more for living here

They better be careful once the stronghold breaks all those heathens will infiltrate their towns!

[ramssuperbowl99]

15 hours ago, theJ said:

I think it's more accurate to say there's little to no correlation between credit score and cash on hand.  The credit bureau's have no idea how much $$$ is in someone's bank account.  It's a formula designed to tell lenders how well people have paid off debt in the past.

So like i said previously, it won't tell you how much disposable income someone has.  That's why underwriters are still a thing, and why when you apply for a big loan the lender doesn't check your credit score and off you go.  

A loose comparison would be saying you know many wins QB A has just from looking at his QB rating.  There's some loose correlation, but the two statistics are different.

I'd say a looser positive correlation between spending money and credit score on the high end, and a sharper correlation on the low end. There could be 2 instances where someone is paying off their debt every month and keeping pretty low utilization with great history and whatnot, but one has a large windfall or whatnot that is completely missed. On the low end, I think it's much more likely that someone who isn't paying off all their debt every month has very little spending money tucked away.

But implying there is a negative correlation doesn't pass the smell test, and reminds me of one of those silly myths people believe about credit scores like "you're better off leaving a small balance". That's why I responded.

[theJ]

4 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

I'd say a looser positive correlation between spending money and credit score on the high end, and a sharper correlation on the low end.

I would agree this is probably accurate a large majority of the time.

On the low end you could also have someone who had some trouble a few years ago but has since cleaned it up.  The score still sticks for a while.  But for the most part year, low score likely means troubled finances.

Of course, low score =/= zero score.  Which some institutions treat as the same, but they are most definitely not.

[theJ]

18 hours ago, TENINCH said:

Yeah we did along with all of his other demands. Only thing we're doing is cleaning the gutters since it was time to have them done.

Good for you.  And he accepted i assume?

Seems like a ballsy move on his part to ask for all that in this housing market.

You could have said yes...for an additional 15k on the purchase price.  Let him finance his list of demands haha.