That’s a great point about the emergency fund. In my experience, lenders care a lot about what’s on paper, especially for primary residences—they’re usually laser-focused on your credit, debt-to-income, and that you’ve got enough for closing. But honestly, I always tell folks to hang onto more cash than they think they’ll need, even if it means a slightly smaller down payment. The emotional side of homeownership gets overlooked way too often. You can have the best mortgage terms ever, but if a busted water heater or car breakdown leaves you scrambling, was it worth squeezing every penny into the house?
I’m curious—did your lender have any thoughts on how much you should keep in reserves? Or was it just “here’s your minimum down payment, good luck”? Sometimes I wonder if the system kind of pushes people to overextend just to get approved. It feels like there should be more conversations about long-term stability than just getting in the door.
I’ve noticed the same thing—lenders are all about the numbers, but they rarely talk about what happens after you move in. When we bought our place, the only “reserve” requirement was for a couple months of mortgage payments, and even that felt like a box-checking exercise. No one asked if we’d have anything left for emergencies or repairs. Honestly, I think the system almost encourages people to stretch themselves thin just to get the keys.
We ended up putting less down than we could have, just to keep a decent cushion. It wasn’t the most “optimal” move on paper, but it saved us a lot of stress when the furnace died that first winter. I sometimes wonder if lenders should be required to talk more about post-closing costs and not just the upfront stuff.
Has anyone here actually had a lender suggest holding back on the down payment for the sake of reserves? Or is it always just about getting the biggest down payment possible?
Honestly, most lenders I know are laser-focused on the down payment and your debt-to-income ratio, not what’s left in your bank account after closing. The “reserves” requirement is usually just a formality unless you’re dealing with jumbo loans or something non-traditional. I’ve seen a few clients keep more cash on hand instead of maxing out their down payment, but it’s rarely suggested by the lender. Curious—did you run into any pushback for putting less down, or did they just process it without comment?
I actually ran into a bit of pushback when I tried to put less down after my bankruptcy. The lender didn’t outright say no, but they kept circling back to “stronger file with more down.” Here’s what worked for me: I kept my down payment reasonable (not maxed out), but made sure my reserves were solid—like, a few months’ worth of payments just sitting there. They seemed to care more about that than I expected. Maybe it’s just the post-bankruptcy thing, but having that cushion definitely helped smooth things over.
Lenders get pretty fixated on the “strong file” thing after a bankruptcy, and honestly, they’re not wrong to watch your reserves. I’ve seen clients try to go all in on a down payment but then have nothing left in the bank—makes lenders nervous, every time. I’d say you did it right. It’s not just about the upfront cash, it’s about showing you won’t be scrambling if something comes up. Sometimes waiting to build up both is the smarter move, but if you’ve got solid reserves, you’re usually in a better spot than people realize.
