[WTB] Mortgage Cosigner

[bitpop]

I am willing to pay top dollar for someone to help me cosign a mortgage. I have no family I can ask. I have good credit and equity. I need someone in California with good credit and high income.

[MPOE-PR]

I am willing to pay top dollar for someone to help me cosign a mortgage. I have no family I can ask. I have good credit and equity. I need someone in California with good credit and high income.

Lmao.

If anything is to embody the essence of Bitcointalk muppetry, it's this. Even above Deprived's collection of noobs giving each other Ripple credit randomly.

[BitCoinUser123]

Why would anybody agree to this?  You know that in the even of your default the cosigner is on the hook for the mortgage, right?

Credit: Used by the bank, credit union or other lender to assess creditworthiness.
Equity: Used by the same to assess the worst-case scenario as to what they can seize if you default.

If these criteria are not adequate for you to secure a mortgage from a traditional lender, what are you offering up that would make someone else want to shoulder the legal responsibility for your eventual possible default? (Edit: that sounded like an accusation.  I don't mean to suggest you will default, I'm just asking about the scenario in which you did and somebody else is left holding the bag.)

[ranlo]

Why would anybody agree to this?  You know that in the even of your default the cosigner is on the hook for the mortgage, right?

Credit: Used by the bank, credit union or other lender to assess creditworthiness.
Equity: Used by the same to assess the worst-case scenario as to what they can seize if you default.

If these criteria are not adequate for you to secure a mortgage from a traditional lender, what are you offering up that would make someone else want to shoulder the legal responsibility for your eventual possible default? (Edit: that sounded like an accusation.  I don't mean to suggest you will default, I'm just asking about the scenario in which you did and somebody else is left holding the bag.)

This is what I'm wondering. Someone could get screwed over bad by doing this, so there really needs to be a deal made that highly favors the person that's signing it. It's a big risk.

[BitCoinUser123]

Yeah - as I wrote that, I tried to imagine a scenario that could justify it, such as ponying up an amount of BTC equal to the value of the house / mortgage, to be held in escrow.  But even in that scenario, the volatility of BTC makes it a huge risk as the value could go either way.

But imagining that you have that amount of coins, you could just cash them out and buy the house outright if that's what you wanted to do.  Or alternatively increase the down payment to the point where the lender would agree to the mortgage.

So I'm just really confused as to what you're asking for and whether you understand the extent of the risk you're asking a stranger to sign onto.

[johnniewalker]

Don't you realize that anybody with half a brain would require compensation to the tune of the price of the house if they are going to cosign your mortgage? If you find someone desperate enough to do it, I'd say its safe to say their credit isn't sufficient anyway. Literally the only person you could find willing to do this is a [first-time-they still have to have good credit] drug addict. Good luck.

[bitpop]

I don't think you have a clue how real estate works. Please don't spread misinformation in my thread. Spend your time becoming informed instead of sounding stupid.

[lowlevel]

Can't your mail order bride co-sign? 

[bitpop]

She doesn't have citizenship yet

[shibaji]

Hilarious 

[BitCoinUser123]

I don't think you have a clue how real estate works. Please don't spread misinformation in my thread. Spend your time becoming informed instead of sounding stupid.

Actually, I'm unsure that you know how real estate works.  As far as that goes, I do know quite well how credit works - but in either case, it is your thread, and you're free to make any requests you want, however unlikely they may be.  But bear in mind that you are making a request - and a honking great big one at that.  If you can't or at least won't answer a legitimate question as to how you're gonna make it work, then skepticism as to the wisdom of your plan seems ever more justified.

If you want to be petulant and call people names, you're allowed to do that.  It won't help your cause though. 

I wish you the best of luck in figuring out your mortgage.

[ranlo]

I don't think you have a clue how real estate works. Please don't spread misinformation in my thread. Spend your time becoming informed instead of sounding stupid.

Actually, I'm unsure that you know how real estate works.  As far as that goes, I do know quite well how credit works - but in either case, it is your thread, and you're free to make any requests you want, however unlikely they may be.  But bear in mind that you are making a request - and a honking great big one at that.  If you can't or at least won't answer a legitimate question as to how you're gonna make it work, then skepticism as to the wisdom of your plan seems ever more justified.

If you want to be petulant and call people names, you're allowed to do that.  It won't help your cause though. 

I wish you the best of luck in figuring out your mortgage.

This, times 1000.

When some people ask questions, it's usually for your own benefit. The more information you are willing to share, the more of a chance you have of someone actually working with you. Without even giving enough information, the majority of us write it off as being a bad idea automatically.

[threeip]

Don't you realize that anybody with half a brain would require compensation to the tune of the price of the house if they are going to cosign your mortgage? If you find someone desperate enough to do it, I'd say its safe to say their credit isn't sufficient anyway. Literally the only person you could find willing to do this is a [first-time-they still have to have good credit] drug addict. Good luck.

..and if he could compensate them he could just buy the house, right?

However reading the second part of your post, I could be interested.

[ranlo]

Don't you realize that anybody with half a brain would require compensation to the tune of the price of the house if they are going to cosign your mortgage? If you find someone desperate enough to do it, I'd say its safe to say their credit isn't sufficient anyway. Literally the only person you could find willing to do this is a [first-time-they still have to have good credit] drug addict. Good luck.

..and if he could compensate them he could just buy the house, right?

However reading the second part of your post, I could be interested.

I think his wording was a bit off. It's not compensation, but rather collateral. The collateral would have to be worth at least as much as the house, otherwise he could default at any time and it's the co-signer that is fully responsible for it.

This is seen a lot with second houses and such (you put up one house as collateral to get a second one).

[BitCoinUser123]

<SNIP>

I think his wording was a bit off. It's not compensation, but rather collateral. The collateral would have to be worth at least as much as the house, otherwise he could default at any time and it's the co-signer that is fully responsible for it.

Exactly.  This is what I was getting at before.  I think johnniewalker was talking about security rather than outright compensation as well. 

Technically in the scenario where OP gets a cosigner and defaults, they're both liable - but the expectation is that OP won't have or doesn't have enough TO collect to bother chasing after him, whereas the cosigner would.  When I said before that:

I tried to imagine a scenario that could justify it, such as ponying up an amount of BTC equal to the value of the house / mortgage, to be held in escrow.  But even in that scenario, the volatility of BTC makes it a huge risk as the value could go either way.

I was pointing out the only scenario I could possibly think of where this would make sense, and identifying the major problem with that - because a) past history is not indicative of future performance.  I expect BTC to go up, but the price could go down and b) if the OP has that much BTC and critically needs to buy the house, he could cash it out, buy with cash and have no need for the co-signer.

He could have some kind of brilliant exotic plan that I haven't thought of, and although it might sound like it that genuinely isn't sarcasm.  I just can't imagine too many plans that are brilliant AND aboveboard AND would use real estate as the investment AND require a co-signer who would shoulder legal responsibility.  That could be a complete failure of imagination on my part, but it definitely made me curious.  OP isn't justified in being condescending, but he is justified to a degree in ignoring me, because it's morbid curiosity on my part.  I personally wouldn't likely shoulder a responsibility like this for a friend or relative, let alone a pseudonymous stranger.

[ranlo]

<SNIP>

I think his wording was a bit off. It's not compensation, but rather collateral. The collateral would have to be worth at least as much as the house, otherwise he could default at any time and it's the co-signer that is fully responsible for it.

Exactly.  This is what I was getting at before.  I think johnniewalker was talking about security rather than outright compensation as well. 

Technically in the scenario where OP gets a cosigner and defaults, they're both liable - but the expectation is that OP won't have or doesn't have enough TO collect to bother chasing after him, whereas the cosigner would.  When I said before that:

I tried to imagine a scenario that could justify it, such as ponying up an amount of BTC equal to the value of the house / mortgage, to be held in escrow.  But even in that scenario, the volatility of BTC makes it a huge risk as the value could go either way.

I was pointing out the only scenario I could possibly think of where this would make sense, and identifying the major problem with that - because a) past history is not indicative of future performance.  I expect BTC to go up, but the price could go down and b) if the OP has that much BTC and critically needs to buy the house, he could cash it out, buy with cash and have no need for the co-signer.

He could have some kind of brilliant exotic plan that I haven't thought of, and although it might sound like it that genuinely isn't sarcasm.  I just can't imagine too many plans that are brilliant AND aboveboard AND would use real estate as the investment AND require a co-signer who would shoulder legal responsibility.  That could be a complete failure of imagination on my part, but it definitely made me curious.  OP isn't justified in being condescending, but he is justified to a degree in ignoring me, because it's morbid curiosity on my part.  I personally wouldn't likely shoulder a responsibility like this for a friend or relative, let alone a pseudonymous stranger.

True. I think going with the BTC would be a bad idea. He said he has "equity," but hasn't said what that is yet. How much it is in relation to how much he's asking is a big concern, as is how liquid it is. I'd love if he could come here and explain a bit more about this so we, as well as others, can get a better idea of what he's actually asking for. It's entirely possible that he has property that is worth enough to be going for what he is (and maybe that's what he's offering up). At this point we can just guess.

[threeip]

I think his wording was a bit off. It's not compensation, but rather collateral. The collateral would have to be worth at least as much as the house, otherwise he could default at any time and it's the co-signer that is fully responsible for it.

This is seen a lot with second houses and such (you put up one house as collateral to get a second one).

Correct. Does OP have a bunch of coins or something that someone could help him buy a house with? Only way i see out 

[ranlo]

I think his wording was a bit off. It's not compensation, but rather collateral. The collateral would have to be worth at least as much as the house, otherwise he could default at any time and it's the co-signer that is fully responsible for it.

This is seen a lot with second houses and such (you put up one house as collateral to get a second one).

Correct. Does OP have a bunch of coins or something that someone could help him buy a house with? Only way i see out 

Coins leads up to the same problem as brought up a bit earlier though. These would, for all intents and purposes, be considered as liquid assets. In that case he could just as easily sell them off, get the house and be able to skip the middleman altogether. I'm thinking it has to be something different he has in mind.

[bitpop]

A mortgage is a secured loan. Since I'm putting a large percentage down, it would take both me defaulting and a large market drop to take a loss. Otherwise, IF I default, the loan can simply be paid back probably at a profit.

I am the one taking a huge risk. The cosigner will be on the title. When I pay off the loan, the cosigner can simply take half the house.

[ranlo]

A mortgage is a secured loan. Since I'm putting a large percentage down, it would take both me defaulting and a large market drop to take a loss. Otherwise, IF I default, the loan can simply be paid back probably at a profit.

I am the one taking a huge risk. The cosigner will be on the title. When I pay off the loan, the cosigner can simply take half the house.

This is why you would write up a contract that disables them from doing so. Make sure to write out all of the specifics though. This should allow you to protect yourself from someone being able to do that.