Think Mutual Bank in Arizona vs the state
20.0%Denial rate+3.77 pts vs state
20.0%Decision denial rate-0.41 pts vs state
80.0%Origination rate+20.52 pts vs state
6.63%Median rate+0.13 pts vs state
-0.12Rate spread (pts)-0.34 pts vs state
$195kMedian applicant income
4Loans originated
1Denied
Trend in Arizona
| Year | Applications | Originated | Denial rate | Median rate | Rank in state |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 7 | 7 | 0.0% | 5.63% | #565 |
| 2025 | 5 | 4 | 20.0% | 6.63% | #601 |
What Think Mutual Bank lends in Arizona
By loan purpose
By loan type
Why it denied Arizona applicants
Where in Arizona
Counties with the most Think Mutual Bank applications in 2025.
| County | Applications | Originated | Denied | Denial rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pima County | 2 | 1 | 1 | 50.0% |
| Maricopa County | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Pinal County | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
Other large lenders in Arizona
| Lender | Grade | Applications | Denial rate | Median rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United Shore Financial Services | B | 25,383 | 10.2% | 6.25% |
| Rocket Mortgage | C | 17,947 | 15.6% | 6.75% |
| Desert Financial Credit Union | B | 16,970 | 24.3% | 6.49% |
| Crosscountry Mortgage | B | 7,570 | 3.8% | 6.58% |
| Fairway Independent Mortgage | B | 6,729 | 5.6% | 6.63% |
| Bank of America | F | 6,229 | 32.2% | 6.24% |
| Loandepot.Com | D | 6,180 | 16.1% | 5.99% |
| Pennymac Loan Services | C | 5,838 | 11.7% | 6.62% |
| Nova Financial & Investment | C | 5,380 | 16.2% | 6.49% |
| Freedom Mortgage | B | 4,991 | 7.0% | 6.00% |
Frequently asked questions
Arizona: 5 applications in 2025, of which 4 were originated and 1 denied.
20.0% of all applications, or 20.0% of the applications it actually decided on. The Arizona statewide average across all lenders was 16.2%.
The median rate on loans Think Mutual Bank originated in Arizona in 2025 was 6.63%, against a statewide median of 6.50%.
About this data. Figures are Think Mutual Bank's own HMDA filing for properties located in Arizona, 2025. The grade is national; state-level figures are shown for context and are not separately graded. Methodology