So the main difference is on the No Ratio NIV where you state:

“Income is not stated and employment is not verified”. Out here in California, the employment is verified and two years job history is required. But, but I’m certainly picking nits at this point.

Thanks again, and great job Jeff!

NINA = No Doc (in my head at least) and should have been described as such…thx for pointing that out…although I didn’t see where my SIVA & SISA doc loan description state:

“Income is not stated and employment is not verified.” ?

I agree, SIVA and SISA loans require the disclosures you describe above…

In my experiences No Ratio loans have not required income be stated or verified, although this could be a variance in lender policy?

Thx again for the comment

The one thing I would take issue with is your statement that on No Ratio and Stated Income/Stated Asset loans, “Income is not stated and employment is not verified.”

For both No Ratio and SISA documentation types, two years employment history must be stated on the 1003 and verified prior to close.

For salaried folks, a verbal verification just prior to funding will be required. For self employed, a business license or CPA letter are the most commonly requested forms of verification.

There is a category we refer to as No Doc loans. In this case, employment is not stated on the application or verified in any way prior to close Of course, LTVs are often more limited, higher Fico scores required, and pricing is a little steeper.

Thanks again for a great job. I look forward to the rest of the series.