How are RSU's factored into Income during loan qualification?
"RSUs are not ""essentially cash"". ""R"" in the RSU stands for restricted. These awards have strings attached, and as long as the strings are attached - you don't really own the money. As such, most banks do not include RSUs in the income considerations. Some do, especially if they have a specific agreement with your employer (check your HR/benefits coordinator). Specifically for mortgage loan,  where the underwriting is very strict, I'm not aware of banks that include RSUs as income without a specific agreement with the employer as a perk. For credit cards/car loans, where you just need to write a number, they would probably care less. Some banks (but not all) consider past performance, and would include bonuses (and maybe RSUs) if you can show several consecutive years of comparable bonuses." Long ago when I was applying for my first mortgage I had to list all my income and assets. At the time I had some US Savings Bonds from payroll deduction. I asked about them. The loan officer told me that unless I was willing/planning on selling them to make the down payment, they were immaterial to the loan application. So unless you have a habit of turning RSUs into cash, or are willing to do so for the down payment, it is no different from having money in a 401K or IRA: the restrictions on selling them make them illiquid.
I understand, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing; I'm just asking how we know this.  It's one thing if it's a logical deduction you've made, but it's another if there's direct objective evidence.  Do these statistics pertain to all car sales or just factory car sales?  The car I own today is the car I've owned the longest, but it's not because I can't afford to buy another one, it's because I have absolutely no reason to.  My car was made in 2000; it has 115k miles on it.  I could write a long list of things that are still performing just as adequately as they did when it was new, and how aside from being somewhat less powerful it doesn't actually do anything worse than comparable new cars; I'll spare you. :)  Cars in 1970 were never expected to be driven past 100k miles without major service work, including an engine and transmission overhaul.  Many cars well into the late 70s didn't even come with that many digits on the odometer.  The economic conditions you mention, including the astonishing transfer of wealth between classes, are not good signs and it obviously needs to be reversed or this country is going to be a really shitty place to live soon.  And hell yes I believe it's affecting car sales.  But I'm really not convinced it's the main reason car sales peaked 40 years ago.  Housing sales only peaked a few years ago, and both markets have screwed themselves over-issuing credit, albeit in different ways.  Point is, you don't need to be able to afford a car when you can get a loan practically at the push of a button; Americans don't think in terms of what something costs, they think in terms of what it costs *per month*.  Income shrinkage has been allowed to happen because people have been allowed to spend money they don't have.  I know people living paycheck-to-paycheck who spend $150 - $250 per month on just data.  They also have $10k's of revolving credit card debt and, even worse, $10k's in student loans.  $250 per month won't save up for a new Cadillac anytime soon, but it *will* put you into a Cadillac if you don't mind having spent $63k on a $38k car by the time your loan matures.  (Edit: those numbers are pretty exaggerated, $250/mo. wouldn't get you a Cadillac until it was several years old.  You'd still end up paying several thousand more than if you'd paid cash, though... the point is that our economy is floating on credit, and this has allowed rampant overspending and living above means in the average household).  You see what I'm saying?  All other factors being equal car sales should have peaked a few years ago, or at least in the late 90s during the (first?) dot com bubble.  There was *far* more spending power out there - not income, but spending power. Considering I'm putting 30% down and having my father cosign is there   any chance I would be turned down for a loan on a $100k car? According to BankRate, the average credit score needed to buy a new car is 714, but they also show average interest rates at 6.39% for new-car loans to people with credit scores in the 601-660 range. High income certainly helps offset credit score to some extent.  Not every bank/dealership does things the same way. Being self-employed you'd most likely be required to show 2 years of tax returns, and they'd use those as a basis for your income rather than whatever you have made recently. If using a co-signer, their income matters. Another key factor is debt to income ratio, if too much of someone's income is already spoken for by other debts a lender will shy away. So, yes, there's a chance, given all the information we don't know and the variability with lender policies, that you could be turned down for a car loan. How should I go about this? If you're set on pursuing the car loan, just go talk to some lenders. You'll want to shop around for a good rate anyway, so no need to speculate just go find out. Include the dealership as a potential financing option, they can have great rates. Personally, I'd get a much cheaper car. Your insurance premium on a 100k car will be quite high due to your age. You might be rightly confident in your earning potential, but nothing is guaranteed, situations can change wildly in short order. A new car is not a good investment or a value-retaining asset, so why bother going into debt for one if you don't have to? If you buy something in cash now, you could upgrade in a few years without financing if your earning prediction holds and would save quite a bit in car insurance and interest over the years between. "Mathematically, the wisest choice is to invest your extra money somewhere else and not pay off your 0% loan early. An extreme example highlights this. Suppose some colossal company offered to loan you a billion dollars at 0 % interest. Would you take it? Or would you say ""No thanks, I don't want that much debt."" You would be crazy not to accept. You could put that money in the safest investments available and still pocket millions while making the minimum payments back to them. Your choice here is essentially the same, but unfortunately, on much smaller scale. That said, math doesn't always trump other factors. You need to factor in your peace of mind, future purchases, the need for future borrowing, your short term income and job security, and whether you think you can reliably make payments on this loan without messing up and triggering fees that wipe out the mathematical advantage of slow paying the loan. You are fortunate because you really can't make a wrong choice here. Paying off debt is never a bad choice IMO. However, it may not always be the best choice." "—they will pull your credit report and perform a ""hard inquiry"" on your file. This means the inquiry will be noted in your credit report and count against you, slightly. This is perfectly normal. Just don't apply too many times too soon or it can begin to add up. They will want proof of your income by asking for recent pay stubs. With this information, your income and your credit profile, they will determine the maximum amount of credit they will lend you and at what interest rate. The better your credit profile, the more money they can lend and the lower the rate.  —that you want financed (the price of the car minus your down payment) that is the amount you can apply for and in that case the only factors they will determine are 1) whether or not you will be approved and 2) at what interest rate you will be approved. While interest rates generally follow the direction of the prime rate as dictated by the federal reserve, there are market fluctuations and variances from one lending institution to the next. Further, different institutions will have different criteria in terms of the amount of credit they deem you worthy of.  —you know the price of the car. Now determine how much you want to put down and take the difference to a bank or credit union. Or, work directly with the dealer. Dealers often give special deals if you finance through them. A common scenario is: 1) A person goes to the car dealer 2) test drives 3) negotiates the purchase price 4) the salesman works the numbers to determine your monthly payment through their own bank. Pay attention during that last process. This is also where they can gain leverage in the deal and make money through the interest rate by offering longer loan terms to maximize their returns on your loan. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just how they have to make their money in the deal. It's good to know so you can form your own analysis of the deal and make sure they don't completely bankrupt you.  —is that you can comfortable afford your monthly payment. The car dealers don't really know how much you can afford. They will try to determine to the best they can but only you really know. Don't take more than you can afford. be conservative about it. For example: Think you can only afford $300 a month? Budget it even lower and make yourself only afford $225 a month." It's difficult to provide an exact answer as this will very much depend on the bank & the local regulatory scheme.  However as a business owner you should be able to provide incorporation docs, some proof of ownership of the company and last years' financial statements or tax returns, many banks would accept this as a proof of income for the purposes of granting credit. In general in most jurisdictions I can think of, a high downpayment will not remove the need to verify income as the bank needs to feel comfortable that you have the ability to pay the remaining 25% (e.g. how do they know you're not a serially unemployed lottery winner) and if the downpayment is quite large they may want some assurance that you got the money legally (e.g. how do they make sure you're not a drug dealer). So probably regardless of how large a downpayment most banks would probably want some additional proofs of income however what proofs are needed may be more flexible than just a salary stub. I suggest taking a look at what sort of documents you may have on hand that can serve to validate your revenue in some way and contacting a few banks directly to see what options they can provide and whether some custom-tailored arrangement can be made. Does this make sense? I'm concerned that by buying shares with post tax income, I'll have ended up being taxed twice or have increased my taxable income. ... The company will then re-reimburse me for the difference in stock price between the vesting and the purchase share price. Sure.  Assuming you received a 100-share RSU for shares worth $10, and your marginal tax rate is 30% (all made up numbers), either: or So you're in the same spot either way.  You paid $300 to get $1,000 worth of stock. Taxes are the same as well.  The full value of the RSU will count as income either way, and you'll either pay tax on the gains of the 100 shares in your RSU our you'll pay tax on gains on the 70 shares in your RSU and the 30 shares you bought.  Since they're reimbursing you for any difference the cost basis will be the same (although you might get taxed on the reimbursement, but that should be a relatively small amount). This first year I wanted to keep all of the shares, due to tax reasons and because believe the share price will go up. I don't see how this would make a difference from a tax standpoint. You're going to pay tax on the RSU either way - either in shares or in cash.  how does the value of the shares going up make a difference in tax? Additionally I'm concerned that by doing this I'm going to be hit by my bank for GBP->USD exchange fees, foreign money transfer charges, broker purchase fees etc.  That might be true - if that's the case then you need to decide whether to keep fighting or decide if it's worth the transaction costs. This is possible.  In fact in the cases of debt settlement the collection companies typically issue a 1099 for the difference on what is owed and what is settled, making that taxable income.  So the IRS sees it as income (in the US). However, this kind of dishonesty is not conducive to building long term wealth or wealth of significant means.    As others have said this is fraud, but provided that one is truthful on the loan application, it would be impossible to prove.  How can one prove that a person has no intention of paying a loan back? Doing this once or twice may ruin your ability to receive a loan for legitimate purposes for life. "This is not a full answer and I have no personal finance experience. But I have a personal story as I did this. As Vicky stated Another point: there are various schemes available to help first time   buyers. By signing up for this, you would exclude yourself from any of   those schemes in the future. I did this for my dad when I was 16 or so. I am in Canada and lost $5,000 first time buyers tax rebate. As long as many other bonuses like using your rsps for your first home. I also am having a fair amount of trouble getting a credit card, because even though I am only a part member of the mortgage they expect you to be able to cover the whole thing. So when the banks look at my income of say $3000 a month they say ""3000 - rent(500) - mortgage(3000)"" You make $-500 a month. I then explain that I do not actually pay the mortage so it is not coming out of my paycheck. They do not care. I am responsible for full payments and they consider it used."