I’ve been using a one-page suitability memo in files to tie product choice to the borrower’s goals, cash-flow plan, DTI, reserves, and payment shock (modeled at a 2% rate move), and it seemed to reduce back-and-forth on conditions with one investor this spring. If you’ve got a template that documents ATR rationale and total cost over 3–5 years (including break-even on points), I’d love to compare approaches — share general frameworks only, and do your own research and run anything by compliance.
Same here — my one-pager cut stips when I added a tiny “2% shock” row and a 36-month total-cost box with the points breakeven month called out. I also drop a one-line ATR rationale tied to residual income plus months of reserves, and an explicit refi trigger (e.g., rate <= X%) so UW sees the exit plan. Minor caveat: a couple investors cared more about documented reserves than DTI in that ATR note.
@OP I stopped getting ATR pushback after I added a single line showing post‑close liquidity as months of PITIA and put the points breakeven month right next to a simple refi trigger. > documented reserves — agreed; months‑of‑PITIA carried more weight than DTI with two investors, though one still wanted asset screenshots.