As example three in Module 07 showed, revolving debt is usually the highest-leverage target because paying down a balance immediately reduces the minimum-payment or percentage-of-balance figure inside TDS. This works best when the borrower has funds available beyond the minimum down payment requirement — redirecting some of that cash to retire a credit card or line of credit, rather than putting every available dollar toward the down payment, can be the difference between a pass and a fail.
This requires a genuine conversation with the client about trade-offs: a smaller down payment with a cleared line of credit may qualify where a larger down payment with the debt intact does not, even though the larger down payment feels like the more responsible choice on its face.
A longer amortization lowers the monthly principal and interest payment, which lowers both GDS and TDS. Since the December 2024 reforms, 30-year amortizations are available on insured mortgages specifically for first-time buyers and for purchasers of newly built homes — this is not a universal option for every insured file, and it is not available at all on conventional 25-year-standard products outside that carve-out.
Because this lever is conditional on borrower type and property type, it is worth checking eligibility before promising a client the payment relief a 30-year amortization would provide. A repeat buyer purchasing a resale home, for instance, does not have this option even on an insured mortgage.
Increasing the down payment reduces the mortgage principal directly, which lowers the P&I component of GDS in a way that compounds with any interest saved. This is the most intuitive lever and often the first one clients think of themselves, but it competes directly with Lever One — cash used for a bigger down payment is cash that is not available to retire revolving debt, and in a genuinely tight TDS file, debt paydown frequently produces more ratio room per dollar than the equivalent amount applied to the down payment.
Running both scenarios side by side for the client — same available cash, split differently — is often the clearest way to show which allocation actually gets the file approved.
Adding a co-borrower or a guarantor with independent, verifiable income brings additional income into the denominator without necessarily bringing their own debt into the numerator in the same proportion, depending on the lender's treatment of guarantor debt. This is a common fix for a young or newly self-employed borrower whose income alone does not yet support the ratios, with a parent or family member stepping in as guarantor.
It is worth being candid with clients about what this actually means: a guarantor is legally on the hook for the mortgage, not simply lending their name, and that conversation deserves the same seriousness as the co-signed-debt discussion in Module 03.
Sometimes the fastest lever is not a change to the borrower's finances at all, but a correction to an overly conservative heat or tax estimate that was never verified against real records. A file that used a generic, high flat-rate heat estimate on a well-insulated modern home, or an old tax bill that predates a completed reassessment appeal, may be tighter on paper than the true numbers justify.
This is not about gaming the numbers — it is about not accepting a placeholder estimate as final when better documentation exists. Requesting actual utility records or a current tax notice before assuming a file is unworkable is a habit worth building before reaching for a more disruptive lever.
When none of the above closes the gap, moving the file to a lender tier with wider tolerance — a B lender's higher TDS allowance, as discussed in Module 06 — is the remaining option, at the cost of a higher rate and typically a lender fee. This should generally be the last lever considered, not the first, both because it is the most expensive for the client and because a well-worked A-lender file with the earlier levers applied is often still achievable.
The exception is a file where the gap is simply too large for any combination of the earlier levers to close — at that point, moving tiers early saves the client the frustration of multiple A-lender declines before arriving at the solution that was always going to work.
A client has enough cash on hand to either make a larger down payment or pay off a $9,000 credit card balance, but not both. Their file is currently failing TDS by a small margin while GDS has plenty of room. Which allocation is more likely to fix the file?
The file is described as failing TDS with GDS room to spare, which points directly at Lever One: retiring the revolving debt removes its minimum payment from the TDS numerator entirely, targeting the actual constraint. A larger down payment mainly helps GDS by lowering the mortgage payment, which is not where this file's problem lives. Amortization extension helps both ratios somewhat but is not the only lever, and 'no difference' ignores that the two allocations act on different parts of the calculation.
The intro and first module are free to read. Add your name and email once and the rest of this course opens — along with every other course on the site. No card, no trial.
Already unlocked on another device?
