Down Payments May Not Prevent Foreclosures. Credit Scores Might.

Written by:

Date:

25 Aug 2026

The assumption that larger down payments protect against foreclosure has shaped U.S. lending rules for decades. But recent research suggests the relationship between equity and default is far weaker than policymakers assumed – and that a different variable predicts mortgage failure more reliably.

Alexei Alexandrov, Senior Advisor at the Housing Finance Policy Center at the Urban Institute, has spent several years examining what actually causes homeowners to default. His findings, published in a May 2026 paper, challenge one of mortgage lending’s foundational beliefs: that low or zero equity makes homeowners walk away.

The old model was straightforward. If a borrower owes more than the home is worth – if they’re “underwater” – they’ll strategically abandon the property. That logic drove the emphasis on large down payments. More equity meant less incentive to walk away.

What Defaults Actually Look Like

Alexandrov says newer data sets from both private institutions and federal agencies have upended that framework. Homeowners don’t abandon properties because they slip a few percentage points underwater. Defaults are overwhelmingly triggered by life disruptions: job loss, divorce, death of a spouse, or a medical crisis that eliminates income.

“People give up on their homes because they don’t have a choice because they lost their job and now they cannot make enough money to actually make the mortgage payment,” Alexandrov says.

These disruptions strike regardless of how much someone put down at closing. A buyer who put 20 percent down and a buyer who put zero down face the same foreclosure risk if they lose their income for an extended period. The down payment didn’t protect either of them from the actual cause of default.

Strategic default – where a homeowner calculates that walking away makes financial sense – requires far steeper losses than most people assume. According to Alexandrov, homes would need to lose 20, 30, or even 50 percent of their value before that behavior kicks in. “We need to be very deep underwater, like great financial crisis style or even deeper,” he says. A routine 5 percent market dip doesn’t trigger a wave of walkaways.

Credit Scores Outperform Equity as a Predictor

One finding that surprised Alexandrov was how powerfully credit scores predicted default – more so than loan-to-value ratio. Even basic consumer credit scores, which aren’t tailored to mortgage performance, proved effective at identifying which borrowers would struggle.

Alexandrov notes that lenders like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac don’t rely on off-the-shelf FICO scores anyway – they reconstruct their own risk models from full credit bureau data, which perform even better. The emphasis on down payments as a primary safety mechanism looks increasingly outdated given what modern credit analytics can accomplish.

The Down Payment Barrier in Context

Alexandrov identifies three main barriers preventing renters from becoming homeowners: saving for a down payment, meeting credit score thresholds, and earning enough to cover monthly payments. No single data set ranks all three definitively, but according to Alexandrov, saving for a down payment appears to be the largest obstacle.

If down payments don’t meaningfully reduce default risk, then the biggest barrier to homeownership may be protecting against a danger that barely exists. “If we can relax this one without really causing more defaults, why aren’t we doing this right,” Alexandrov says.

How Zero-down Products Could Reach the Market

The most realistic path, according to Alexandrov, runs through private mortgage insurers rather than Congress. If one insurer concludes the math supports backing zero-down loans, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac could follow without needing legislative approval – they already have that authority as long as a private mortgage insurance company underwrites the risk. That sequence could open homeownership to renters who already earn enough to cover monthly payments but can’t accumulate the savings required under current rules.

Alexandrov acknowledges the housing supply shortage is real. In expensive cities, zoning constraints block denser construction. In less expensive areas, building costs alone push new single-family homes above $300,000. He argues the supply problem shouldn’t freeze progress on the demand side, noting that zero-down mortgages wouldn’t create net new demand for housing units – they would shift existing renters from renting to owning, since those renters already occupy homes.

For buyers currently unable to purchase, Alexandrov’s research points to credit health as the factor most within their control. A strong payment history and manageable debt load may do more to position someone for future zero-down products than years of saving in a market where prices continue rising.

About the Expert: Alexei Alexandrov is a Senior Advisor at the Urban Institute’s Housing Finance Policy Center, researching down payment requirements and mortgage default risk.

This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or investment advice. The views and opinions expressed herein reflect those of the individuals quoted and do not represent an endorsement of any company, product, or service mentioned. Readers should conduct their own due diligence and consult qualified professionals before making any investment decisions.

Residential Real Estate