Cannot get a mortgage because I work through a recruiter
To a mortgage lender, it appears that you have a temporary contract (perhaps extending for nine more months) with a agency that supplies workers to companies that need temporary help. You have been placed currently with a company and are making good money, but that job might disappear soon and then you will have no income while your recruiter tries to find you another assignment. How will you make your mortgage payments then? The recruiter agency's contract with your current company probably has clauses to the effect that the company agrees to not offer you a permanent job unless it pays a head-hunter's fee to the recruiter agency.  Your contract with the recruiter agency also likely has clauses to the effect that if the company where you have been placed offers you a permanent job,  you  must pay the recruiter company a fee (typically one or two months  of salary) to the recruiter agency as compensation for releasing you  from your current contract (unless the company hiring you pays the head-hunter's fee).  This is why the company where you are working right now wants to wait until after your contract with the recruiter company ends before making you an offer of permanent employment. Be aware that sometimes such clauses extend out to three months after the ending date of your contract with the recruiter company. As far as the condo is concerned, unless there is a specific one that you absolutely must have because it has an ocean view or other desirable properties, you may well find that another condo in the same complex is available some months from now.  If you are lucky, it may well have an acceptable ocean view. If you are even luckier, it may be the condo that you absolutely must have which has remained unsold all that time -- as you said, the economy is crappy -- and you will be able to buy it for a lower price from an owner getting desperate to make a sale. To answer your question: is there any way around this? My recommendation is to simply wait out the end of your recruiter agency contract and get a permanent job with the company where you have been placed.  Then there are no issues. If not, get your company to make a written offer of a  permanent job starting nine months from now and hope that this (together with your current employment) impresses your bank into lending you money. This might not work, though.  In the early 1970s, one of my friends was offered a job at a large aerospace company which lost a major contract in the interim period between offer and joining. My friend showed up for work on the day he was supposed to start, and instead of being processed through HR etc, his job was terminated on the spot, he was paid one day's salary, and shown the door.  Times were crappy then too. If this does not work, get your company to offer you a permanent job right away, pay off the recruiter  company yourself, and then go to the bank. As a follow-up, I was able to find a bank that gave me a loan. I just called several banks listed on Yelp, and one ended up working with me. It is also possible that the previous banks misunderstood me and assumed I was 1099 and not W2. I made it very clear to this guy that I was W2, and there was absolutely no problem. Also, it turned out the recruiter I work for has special paperwork their employees can give to lenders to verify W2 employment. So, I have been in my condo since January. And, the condo was a little under $250K. Anyway, I still think it's ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS that banks would not give a loan to a web developer who is in super high demand and making well over 100K/year -- even if I am 1099. I have never, ever in my life been late on a single payment for anything, and I have an 800 credit score. To even question that I could not make payments is ludicrous. Whenever I put my resume on monster.com (just one web site), I receive about 20 phone calls daily -- and I am not exaggerating even slightly. They are looking at your work history to see that you have maintained a similar level of income for a period of time, and that you have a reasonable expectation to continue that for the foreseeable future. They are looking to make a commitment for 15-30 years. They see the short term contract, and have no confidence in making a guess to your ability to pay. Before the real estate bubble burst, you would have had a chance with a no documentation loan. These were setup for people who earned fluctuating incomes, mostly due to being commissioned based. They were easily abused, and lenders have gotten away from them becasue they were burned too often. Just like building your credit rating over time, and your down payment over time, you might have to wait to build a work history. I think you are running into multiple problems here: All these together look like a high risk to a bank, especially right now with companies being reluctant to hire full-time employees. Looking at it from their perspective, the last thing they need right now is another potential foreclosure on their books. BTW, if it is a consolation, I had to prove 2 years of continuous employment (used to be a freelancer) before the local credit union would consider giving me a mortgage. We missed out on a couple of good deals because of that, too. Some options: See if the seller will sell to you on Contract.  With a significant down payment the seller may be willing to sell you the condo on contract.  This fill in the year or so you will probably need to go from contractor to full time employee with enough time on the job to get a mortgage.   Keep Shopping.  Be up front with the lenders with the problems you are running into and see if any of them can find you a solution.  You may need to take a higher rate in the short term but hopefully you can refinance in a few years to a more reasonable rate. Check with a local bank or credit union.  Many times local banks or CU's will finance high demand properties that may be out of favor with the super banks that have no ties to your community.  These banks sometimes realize that just because the standard spreadsheet says this is a bad risk the reality is the specific property you are interested in is not the risk that it appears on paper.  You will have to find a bank that actually retains its mortgages as many local banks have become agents that just sell mortgages to the mortgage market. Talk to a Realtor.  If you are not using one now it may be time to engage one.  They can help you navigate these bumps and steer you towards lenders that are more amenable to the loan you need.
"One factor to consider is timing. If you set up the automatic payments through the bank that holds the mortgage (I'll call them the ""receiving"" bank), they will typically record the transactions as occurring on the actual dates you've set up the automatic payments to occur on, which generally eliminates e.g. the risk of having late payments. By contrast, setting up auto-pay through your personal bank (the ""sending"" bank) usually amounts to, on the date you specify, your bank deducts the amount from your account and sends a check to the receiving bank (and many banks actually send this check by mail), which may result in the transaction not being credited to your mortgage until several business days later. A second consideration (and this may not be as likely to occur on a loan payment as with a utility or service) is the amount of the payment. When you set up your auto-pay through the sending bank, you explicitly instruct your bank as to the amount to send (also, if you don't have enough in your account, your bank may wait to send the bill payment until you do). This can be good if finances are tight, or if you just like having absolute control of the payment. The risk, though, is that if some circumstance increases the amount that you need to pay one month, you'll have to proactively adjust your auto-pay setting before it fires off. Whereas, if you've set the auto-pay up through the receiving bank, they would most likely submit the transaction to your bank for the higher amount automatically. I'll give an example based on something I saw fairly often when I worked for Dish Network on recovery (customers in early disconnect, the goal being to take a payment and restore service). If you had set up auto-pay through your bank based on your package price, and then the price increased by $2/month, you might not notice at first (your service stays on, and your bill doesn't have any red stamps on it), but the difference will slowly add up until it exceeds a full month's payment, at which point a late fee starts being assessed. From there, it quickly snowballs until the service is turned off. Whereas if you had set that auto-pay up through the provider, when the rate increased, they would simply submit an EFT for the new, higher amount to your bank. On the opposite side of the spectrum: if you've set up the auto-pay through the sending bank, and you're not paying close enough attention when you finally pay off the mortgage, you might accidentally overpay by either making an extra payment or because the final payment is smaller than the rest. Then you'd have to wait a few days (or weeks?) for the receiving bank to issue a refund, leaving those funds unavailable to you in the interim. For these reasons, I personally prefer to always set up automatic payments through the receiving bank, rather than the sending bank." If they own the old house outright, they can mortgage it to you. In many jurisdictions this relieves you of the obligation to chase for payment, and of any worry that you won't get paid, because a transfer of ownership to the new owner cannot be registered until any charge against a property (ie. a mortgage) has been discharged. The cost of to your friends of setting up the mortgage will be less than the opulent interest they are offering you, and you will both have peace of mind. Even if the sale of the old house falls through, you will still be its mortgagee and still assured of repayment on any future sale (or even inheritance). Complications arise if the first property is mortgaged. Although second mortgages are possible (and rank behind first mortgages in priority of repayment) the first mortgagee generally has a veto on the creation of second mortgages. I'm also a UK, Ltd company contractor that has pondered the same topic. I afraid, however, that I don't understand the maths in the original question. Mortgage interest is flat for the term of the mortgage rather than compounded, so, ignoring the tapering at the end of the lifespan of the mortgage, I get the amount of interest to something like £9,300 (7500 x 0.05 x 25). Does this make the decision any easier for you? As you point out, the total cost of this overpayment from your company account is £12,500. Using the above figure, it would take over 13 years to recoup the £5,000 difference (at £375 interest a year).  I used to be of the same opinion that the mortgage should be paid off at all costs first. But now I'm coming round to the American way of thinking; £12,500 invested in a pension with a 5% yield will easily outstrip the interest saved by making the over payment - 12500 x 1.05 ^ 25 = £43,300 - over 250% better off (£43,300 / (£9,300 + £7,500)). I now make no mortgage overpayments at all and instead pay all the money into my pension. This (amongst other things) keeps me below the upper earnings tax threshold, so I'm only paying corporation tax for the money I'm drawing as dividends. There's a massive caveat to this though; I'm 49. I should be able to draw the tax free element of my pension pot in six years time and pay my mortgage off and it's quite unlikely that the government will be changing pensions policy in that time (but drawing 25% tax free has been a feature of pensions for quite some time). I can then chose to keep working or retire. If my pension is still doing well (9% ish pa at the moment), I could chose to not pay my mortgage off at all. In the next twenty or so years, however, all this could change. In your position I would do a bit of both. Make a regular overpayment to pay down your mortgage (even a small amount that you'll barely notice will make quite a difference to the end date of your mortgage - £100 a month will take years off). I didn't start paying properly into my pension until fairly recently and so If you're not already, I'd also make quite substantial, regular payments into one now, directly from your company, 15-17.5% of your gross drawings. Leaving it until later will only make it more painful. Then when you get to retirement age, no matter what, you'll have a decent pension pot. An actuary I worked with pointed out that if you pay something into a pension, when you retire you should have some sort of pot; if you pay nothing, you are absolutely guaranteed to have nothing. And finally, if you haven't already, fix your mortgage. We're three years into a five year fix. The variable rate we were going to be transferred to was 3.99%. We fixed, not because of wanting any sense of security, but because the fixed rate was 2.59% with no fee. There are much better rates than that about now. Rates are starting to rise, so it's a good time. 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. "Typically in on campus recruiting, at, as you said, a limited number of schools. It seemed safe to assume this wasn't OP's situation. ""Breaking in to banking"" is effectively impossible for a random profile post-graduation from a non-target.   As it turns out, the job OP is talking about isn't in this area so it's irrelevant." "The mortgage broker makes money from the mortgage originator, and from closing fees.  All the broker does is the grunt work, mostly paperwork and credit record evaluation.  But there's a lot of it.  They make their money by navigating the morass of regulations (federal, state, local) and finding you the best mortgage from the mortgage lender(s) they represent.  They don't have any capital involved in the deal.  Just sweat equity. Mortgage originator is the one who put up the capital for you to borrow.  They're the ones who get most of the payments you send in.  They sell the mortgage if they receive what they consider an equitable offer.  Keep in mind that the mortgage, from the lender's point of view, is made up of three parts.  The capital expenditure, the collateral, and the cashflow.  The present value of the cashflow at the rate of the loan is greater than the capital expenditure.  Any offer between those two numbers is 'in the money' for them, and the next owner, assuming no default.  But the collateral makes up for the chance of default, to an extent. There's also a mortgage servicing company in many cases.  This doesn't have to be the current holder of the loan. Study ""the time value of money"", and pay close attention to the parts about present value, future value, and cash flow and how to compare these." I notice that a lot happened four months ago. You were denied credit twice. Your income went up from $20k to $60k. I'm wondering if you were denied credit based on your $20k income. Since you couldn't provide proof of your income I wonder if they used $0 for your income.  Debt to income ratio is one significant factor included in the credit score calculation. You may not have a lot of debt, but if you don't have any income even a few hundred dollars on a credit card would throw your debt to income ratio into a panic. I'm assuming that your change from $20k to $60k income involved a change of jobs. Perhaps now you can provide proof of income. You would certainly need to do that before being approved for a mortgage.  Well that's my two cents about what may (or may not) have gone wrong last time. As for what to do next I would agree that the most helpful thing you could do is check your credit score and fix any errors that might negatively impact your credit score. (There might also be non-errors that need addressed such as open credit accounts that you thought you had closed.) When building credit history, time is on your side. If you just go on living your life and paying your bills promptly, your credit will slowly climb to an acceptable level. Unfortunately in the time frame you mentioned (~1 year) there isn't really enough time to build it significantly.  You bring up a valid point about credit applications reducing your credit score. Of course, that effect is somewhat minimal and temporary (2 yrs according to the thread linked to above). But again 1 year is not enough to recover. If you're considering applying for additional credit as a means to improve your credit score it may be too late to reap the benefits before your mortgage application. Of course if you could pay off any debts, that would help your debt to income ratio. But it would also reduce any house down payment you could save up and thereby increase the amount of your mortgage.  Better just save those pennies (or preferably Washingtons and Benjamins) to put toward a down payment. Um  really, you expect US to know the answer?  Why not ask Wells Fargo? Unless someone here happens to work for WF and has access to the right people, this is more likely a question to send to their support people than to get an answer here that is anything other than a SWAG   (and in that line of reasoning, and as a software tester by trade, my money is on the already offered reasoning that it's doing some kind of primative 'bad word' search (probably a regular expression match) and getting a hit on tit.  ) In the meantime I suggest an alternative term, how about 'offering'