Could the loan officer deny me even if I have the money as a first time home buyer?
A financial institution is not obligated to offer you a loan. They will only offer you a loan if they believe that they will make money off you. They use all the info available in order to determine if offering you a loan is profitable.  In short, whether they offer you a loan, and the interest rate they charge for that loan, is based on a few things: How much does it cost the bank to borrow money? [aka: how much does the bank need to pay people who have savings accounts with them?]; How much does the bank need to spend in order to administer the loan? [ie: the loan officer's time, a little time for the IT guy who helps around the office, office space they are renting in order to allow the transaction to take place]; and How many people will 'default' and never be able to repay their loan? [ex: if 1 out of 100 people default on their loans, then every one of those 100 loans needs to be charged an extra 1% in order to recover the money the bank will lose on the person who defaults]. What we are mostly interested in here is #3: how likely are you to default? The bank determines that by determining your income, your assets, your current debts outstanding, your past history with payments (also called a credit score), and specifically to mortgages, how much the house is worth.  If you don't have a long credit history, and because you don't have a long income history, and because you are putting <10% down on the condo [20% is often a good % to strive for, and paying less than that can often imply you will need mandatory mortgage insurance, depending on jurisdiction] the bank is a little more uncertain about your likelihood to pay.  Banks don't like uncertainty, and they can deal with that uncertainty in two ways: (1) They can charge you a higher interest rate; OR (2) They can refuse you the loan. Now just because one bank refuses you a loan, doesn't mean all will - but being refused by one bank is probably a good indication that many / most institutions would refuse you, because they all use very similar analytical tools to determine your 'risk level'. If you are refused a loan, you can try again at another institution, or you can wait, save a larger down payment, and build your credit history by faithfully paying your credit card every month, paying your utilities, and making your car and rent payments on time. This will give the banks more comfort that you will have the ability to pay your mortgage every month, and a larger down payment will give them comfort that if the housing market dips, you won't owe more than the house is worth. My parting shot is this: If you are new in your career with no income history, be very careful about buying a property immediately, even if you get approved. A good rule of thumb is to only buy a property when you plan on living there for at least 5 years, or else you are likely to lose money overall, after factoring closing costs and maintenance fees. If you are refused a loan, that's probably a good sign that you aren't financially ready yet, but even if a bank approves you for a loan, you might not be ready yet either. My credentials: I used to work on mortgages, about 5 years ago. I wasn't a loan officer (the salesman) or mortgage processor (the grunt who does the real work), but I reviewed their work fairly closely. So I'm not an absolute authority, but I have first-hand knowledge. Contrary to the accepted answer, yes the bank is obligated to offer you a loan - if you meet their qualifications. This may sound odd, and as though it's forcing a bank to give money when it doesn't want to, but there is good reason. Back in the 1950's through 1980's, banks tended to deny loans to African Americans who were able to buy nicer homes because the loan officer didn't quite 'feel' like they were capable of paying off an expensive house, even if they had the exact same history and income as a white person who did get approved. After several rounds of trying to fix this problem, the government finally decreed that the bank must have a set, written criteria by which it will approve or decline loans, and the interest rates provided. It can change that criteria, but those changes must apply to all new customers. Banks are allowed a bit of discretion to approve loans that they may normally decline, but must have a written reason (usually it's due to some relationship with the customer's business (this condition adds a lot of extra rules), or that customer has a massive family and all 11 other siblings have gotten loans from the same loan officer - random rare stuff that can be easily documented if/when the government asks). The bank has no discretion to decline a loan at will - I've seen 98-year-olds sign a 30-year mortgage, and the bank was overjoyed because it showed that they didn't discriminate against the elderly. The customer could be a crackhead, and the bank can't turn them down if their paperwork, credit, and income is good. The most the loan officer could do is process the loan slowly and hope the crackhead gets arrested before the bank spends any more money. The regulations for employees new to the workforce are a bit less wonderful, but the bank will want 30+ days of income history (30 days, NOT 4 weeks) if you have it. BUT, if you are a fresh new employee, they can do the loan using your written and signed job offer as proof of income. However, I discourage you from using this method to buy a house. You are much, much better off renting for a while and learning the local area before you shop for a house. It's too easy to buy a house without knowing the city, then discover that you have a hideously slow drive to work and are in the worst part of town. And, you may not like the company as much, or you may not be a good fit. It's not uncommon to leave a company within a year or two. You don't want a house that anchors you to one place while you need the freedom to explore career options. And consider this: banks love selling mortgages, but they hate holding them. They want to collect that $10,000 closing fee, they couldn't care less about the 4% interest trickling in over 30 years. Once they sign the mortgage, they try to sell it to investors who want to buy high-grade debt within a month. That sale gives them all the money back, so they can use it to sell another mortgage and collect another $10,000. If the bank has its way, it has offloaded your mortgage before you send the first payment to them. As a result, it's a horrible idea to buy a house unless you expect to live there at least 5 or 10 years, because the closing costs are so high. I've been a mortgage broker for almost 20 years.  I get people loans all of the time thru FHA and Conventional (Fannie Mae) with just one year work history; however, as a student, you must submit your school transcripts and your major needs to be in line with your current job.  I'm closing a guy next week that has only been in his job for 8 months but he just graduated with his Masters in Biology.  He's currently a wild life manager and the underwriter signed off on it easily. I’ve been in the mortgage business for nearly 15 years.  Your question is sort of multi-faceted and I’m surprised by some of these answers I’ve read! Anyway, I digress.   Yes, you can be denied even if you have money for a down payment.  One of the BIGGEST factors lenders are now required to take into account when approving mortgages now is a person’s “Ability to Repay.”   Whether your traditional mortgages like Conventional, FHA, USDA, or VA loans, or even an “in-house” mortgage from a local bank —either way, the lender MUST be able to verify someone’s ability to repay.   Your issue is that you won’t have any verifiable income until May.  A couple people have answered correctly in that 1) if you have a firm offer letter that can be verified with the employer, and 2) you can use your education/college to substitute for a two year work history as long as you’re graduating with and working in the same line of work. Some programs require proof of 30 days of pay history once you actually start earning paychecks; some programs will use the offer letter as long as you will start earning paychecks within a certain number of days after the note date (basically when the payments start). Also I’m making the assumption that there is some sort of credit history that can be verified.  Most lenders want at least a couple of accounts reporting a history just to show good use of credit and showing that you can manage your finances over a longer period of time. Just about every lender has some sort of minimum FICO score requirement.  I hope this helps. If you have questions, just reply in a comment. There are loan options for those in your situation.  It is very common.  I am a licensed loan officer nmls 1301324 and have done many loans just like this.  Your schooling is counted as your work history Contrary to popular belief.  We want to write loans and guidelines are easing.  Banks are a different story and their loan officers aren't licensed.  If you talk to a bank you aren't getting an educated loan officer.  They also have what are called overlays that make guidelines stricter.
Could you perhaps expand on your reasoning behind wanting to take a loan in the first place? Why would you even consider taking a loan for as much as £7,500 (or even much less) if you aren't planning on buying / investing in anything in particular, and you're not in a bad financial situation? If your account never drops below a hundred or two pounds, why would you need to loan money? Just get yourself a credit card, for those times when you might find yourself without money for a short while. But really, it sounds to me like you should be able to set aside a small sum of money every month and create your own savings buffer to cover these situations. "I experimented with Lending Club, lending a small amount of money in early 2008. (Nice timing right - the recession was December 2007 to June 2009.) I have a few loans still outstanding, but most have prepaid or defaulted by now. I did not reinvest as payments came in. Based on my experience, one ""catch"" is lack of liquidity. It's like buying individual bonds rather than a mutual fund. Your money is NOT just tied up for the 3-year loan term, because to get good returns you have to keep reinvesting as people pay off their loans. So you always have some just-reinvested money with the full 3 year term left, and that's how long it would take to get all your money back out. You can't just cash out when you feel like it. They have a trading platform (which I did not try out) if you want your money sooner, but I would guess the spreads are wide and you have to take a hit when you sell loans. Again though I did not try the trading platform. On the upside, the yields did seem fine. I got 19 eventual defaults from 81 loans, but many of the borrowers made a number of payments before defaulting so only part of the money was lost. The lower credit ratings default more often obviously, only one of 19 defaults had the top credit score. (I tried investing across a range of credit ratings.) The interest rates appear to cover the risk of default, at least on average. You can of course have varying luck.  I made only a slight profit over the 3 years, but I did not reinvest after the first couple months, and it was during a recession. So the claimed yields look plausible to me if you reinvest. They do get people's credit scores, report nonpayment on people's credit reports, and even send people to collections. Seems like borrowers have a reason to pay the bill. In 2008 I think this was a difference compared to the other peer lending sites, but I don't know if that's still true. Anyway, for what it's worth the site seemed to work fine and ""as advertised"" for me. I probably will not invest more money there for a couple reasons: However as best I could tell from my experiment, it is a perfectly reasonable place to put a portion of your portfolio you might otherwise invest in something like high-yield bonds or some other sub-investment-grade fixed income. Update: here's a useful NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/your-money/05money.html" "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?" "We payed off our Mortgage early...at first in small extra payments to principal, and finally a lump sum.  Each extra payment to principal reduced the balance, and reduced every payment going forward.  I have, somewhere, an excel spreadsheet where I tracked this...  - =CUMIPMT((interestRate/12),term,pymtNumber,balance,balance,0) computed the interest payment due  - =currentPrincipal + CUMIPRINTresultAbove computed the monthly principal payment Occasionally I would update the month-ending Principal balance against what the mortgage company told me.  It was usually off by a little.   My mortgage company required me to specifically contact them for a payoff amount before I wrote the final check.   I've never heard of a mortgage where prepayment of all expected interest following the original schedule is required.  I would guess it is against federal (US) law.  Lets think about that for a moment...  out of ""interest"", I recently computed that for our 30 year loan at 6-5/8% on about 145, we payed a total of 106000 in interest.  That include a refi to 4-7/8 10-years in to a 15-year loan, and paying it off 20 years after the original loan was granted. As far as not paying all the theoretical interest due...  - If they get a fixed dollar amount of service interest back, there's no incentive to me to pay on-time.  I owe the same amount if I pay it today or if I pay it 6 months late, after I gambled the mortgage money and finally won.  (yea, I know they could write the mortgage to penalize me for paying late, but I'm ignoring that)  - if you were requried to pay off all the interest that might accrue, how could you ever sell your home, or refinance, for that matter?  When I refi'd, the new holder payed the old holder 98,000.  If the original holder had required prepayment of all the interest that would be accrued to the original schedule, the new mortgage would've been 200k.  It would just never be a good deal to buy a home if mortgages worked under that term. I have had a car loan that worked differently -- they pre-computed the total interest due and then divided it over the term of the loan equally.  I could pay off early and they stopped collecting interest." On $4K/mo gross about $1000/mo can go to the mortgage, and at today's rates, that's about $200K of mortgage the bank might lend you.  Income is qualified based on gross, not net, so if $48,000/yr is wrong, please scale my guesstimate down a bit. In the end, today's rates allow a mortgage of nearly 4X one's gross income. This is too high, in my opinion. I'm answering what the bank would approve you at, not what I think is wise. Wise, in my opinion is 2.5-3X one's income, tops. Impossible to say without knowing more about your situation. Most likely you won't be able to secure a loan for money that you're just going to spend - getting a loan for property is easier because the bank owns the thing that you buy until you pay it back. A bank can reject a loan if they feel you do not meet the eligibility criteria.  You can talk to few banks and find out. "The  earnest money deposit generally is not delivered with the offer. This generally isn't done because you may find out that your offer is going to be rejected immediately. You may have decided to make an offer under their stated selling price, you may have added a condition they are unwilling to meet. There is also the situation where other parties have already made an offer and their offering price has exceed yours; so your offer is rejected or at least slowed down while the continue negotiations with the other potential buyer. In these cases getting a cashiers check before making the offer delays the offer, complicates the movement of money within your accounts, and delays your ability to make an offer on a another house. If the offer on the first house is rejected on Friday, and the bank is closed on Saturday, and you have to wait until Monday to redeposit the check; then you have to delay an offer on the perfect house you see on Sunday. Of the three options you present the second one, ""I can put a rider on the P&S which warrants that the check will be delivered in a set amount of time like three days."" You may also find similar language in the local version of the standard real estate contract. This delay in writing the check makes sense for another reason, the manner of the deposit and how it is to be made, how it is to be held, and under what terms it can be released  should also be a part of the negotiation. You want to make sure it is being kept by a third party, you both have to trust that 3rd party, you need to know what are the exact conditions regarding that money. The purpose of the deposit is to convince the seller that you are serious, and that the knowledge that you will lose the deposit makes you likely to go through your required parts of the transaction.  Also more and more of these deposits are being done electronically, there is no check involved."