A client did not have a 30-day rate lock and there are 2 days left before this loan needed to fund. This client had a gambler mentality and didn't ask to lock the rate. They thought rates would go down but they went up instead. More bad luck - the lender had increased their FICO credit score requirement to 700 and your client only has a 680 FICO score. The lender also wants a lower LTV of 75% and the client is only able to put down a 20 percent downpayment on the purchase of the new home. This is a real mess. The client got mad at the loan officer for a bad experience and cancelled the relationship. What went wrong in this situation?

 A. The loan officer, who is supposed to be watching the markets, should have been directing the rate lock decision not the client. 

B. The loan officer should know their lenders. They should know which ones panic during market corrections and if they have a habit of suddenly tighten the loan requirements when the market goes bad. 

C. The loan officer should always have a back-up loan to offer. In cases like this a lower cost / easier qualifying 10/1 ARM could have been offered and hopefully over the next 10 years rates will go down enough to be able to refinance. 

D. All of the statements are true and correct.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The detailed answer for the above question is provided below Answer D All of the statements are true ... View the full answer