concurring in part and dissenting in part:
Harold Owen did not waive his right to counsel either explicitly or implicitly at his arraignment or at any other point in the proceedings. He repeatedly told the mag*230istrate judge and the district court judge that he wanted an attorney, that he was financially unable to afford an attorney, and he repeatedly declined to sign a waiver of counsel form.1 I dissent from the majority’s conclusion otherwise. However, I agree that the error was harmless and thus concur in that portion of the majority’s opinion.
I.
The magistrate judge, based on Owen’s first financial affidavit, found that Owen could afford his own counsel but appointed Owen counsel for the purpose of his detention hearing because Owen had not yet had time to obtain counsel. At Owen’s arraignment, the district court judge inquired about Owen’s efforts to obtain counsel. After Owen explained that he could not afford the fees of the attorneys that he had contacted, the district court judge expressed doubt as to whether Owen needed such expensive counsel. However, the district court then recognized that Owen had a problem in obtaining counsel because Owen’s assets consisted of property that would have to be sold before he would have the funds to pay an attorney’s fee up-front. Yet, rather than postpone the arraignment to allow Owen more time to sell his property or appoint counsel for Owen to protect his rights during the arraignment, the district court judge proceeded with the arraignment with Owen unrepresented by counsel.
After the arraignment, Owen submitted a second financial affidavit that showed a difference in his net worth from that set out in his first affidavit. Based on this second affidavit, the magistrate judge concluded that Owen was still financially able to employ counsel. Nevertheless, because of Owen’s inability to obtain counsel and because of his persistence in seeking court-appointed counsel, the magistrate judge stated that the court would appoint counsel but require Owen to pay the Government the cost of the appointed counsel in installment payments.
Based on these facts, the majority opinion concludes that Owen waived his right to counsel at his arraignment. I disagree.
The Supreme Court has held that under the Sixth Amendment a criminal defendant must be afforded the right to counsel, including court-appointed counsel if the defendant is financially unable to retain an attorney to defend himself. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 341, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963). This right to the assistance of counsel “is a fundamental right of criminal defendants; it assures the fairness, and thus the legitimacy, of our adversary process.” Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 374, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986). Although a defendant may waive his right to counsel, courts must entertain every reasonable presumption against the waiver of this fundamental constitutional right. United States v. Johnson, 659 F.2d 415, 417 (4th Cir.1981). Thus, a waiver is only valid if it is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938).
“The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver- of the right to *231counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.” Id. “[Wjhether there is a proper waiver should be clearly determined by the trial court, and it would be fitting and appropriate for that determination to appear upon the record.” Id. at 465, 58 S.Ct. 1019. While we have rejected the proposition that the failure of the trial court to conduct a searching or formal inquiry into the defendant’s understanding of his situation and his awareness of the dangers of self-representation is error, we have held that an “open court exploration of the defendant’s background capabilities and understanding of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation,” is necessary. United States v. Singleton, 107 F.3d 1091, 1097-98 (4th Cir.1997).
At Owen’s arraignment, the district court judge failed to conduct any inquiry into Owen’s background capabilities and understanding of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. The district court judge simply inquired about Owen’s status in obtaining counsel, told him that his assets would prevent court-appointed counsel, and then proceeded with the arraignment. Certainly, no formal or searching inquiry was needed, but some sort of inquiry was necessary before proceeding with the arraignment with Owen unrepresented.2 Without this inquiry, the district court judge had no reasonable basis on which to conclude that Owen was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waiving his right to counsel.
The majority finds that because Owen had a “fair opportunity” to obtain counsel, his failure to do so constitutes an implicit waiver of his right to counsel at arraignment. To begin with, I must reject the majority’s suggestion that although Owen never expressed his desire to proceed pro se that he “impliedly” waived his right to counsel. Ante at 225-26. While I recognize that the right to counsel is not without limitation, I think it is beyond dispute that any waiver of that right must be based on a knowing and intelligent decision and not “implied.”
The majority relies on cases in which we have held that the dilatory conduct of a defendant negates a defendant’s claim that he lacked a “fair opportunity” to secure counsel of his choice. See, e.g., United States v. Davis, 958 F.2d 47 (4th Cir.1992); United States v. Katifman, 452 F.2d 1202 (4th Cir.1971). I find these cases inapposite. The limitation that the majority seeks to place on Owen’s right to counsel is one that courts impose when a defendant abuses the process and then complains that he has not had a fair opportunity to secure counsel of his choice. Specifically, we have applied it in cases in which defendants sought court-appointed counsel but then refused to give the court the information needed to evaluate a claim of indigency, such as an affidavit as to financial status. See Davis, 958 F.2d at 48-49 (defendant refused to answer any meaningful questions concerning his claim of indigence); Kaufman, 452 F.2d at 1202 (defendant refused to execute an affidavit of financial status to establish his indigen-cy).
Owen did not abuse the process by refusing to give the court information about his financial status or otherwise engage in any dilatory conduct such as refusing to pay for counsel when he had the assets to do so. He disclosed his assets to the court and after being found financially able to *232pay for his own counsel, he began to seek counsel. When he was arraigned, he had not yet had the opportunity to sell his property holdings and had not been able to obtain counsel based on his other limited assets. Nothing in the record demonstrates that Owen (who was incarcerated) had deliberately delayed selling his assets so as to receive court-appointed counsel.
In addition, the Criminal Justice Act mandates that representation be provided to any “financially eligible person.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (2000). The term “financially eligible person” does not equate to “indigency,” and a defendant’s ability to pay must be evaluated in light of the liquidity of the defendant’s assets, his personal and familial needs, and any changes in his financial circumstances. See Museitef v. United States, 131 F.3d 714, 716 (8th Cir.1997); United States v. Kelly, 467 F.2d 262, 266 (7th Cir.1972). We have held that “if there is any question about the defendant’s financial status, he should be clearly advised that he has the right to counsel at the government’s immediate expense and that any obligation to repay is conditional on his becoming able to do so.” Johnson, 659 F.2d at 418 (citing Townes v. United States, 371 F.2d 930, 933 (4th Cir.1966)). Indeed, as the Eighth Circuit has recognized:
A criminal defendant who can afford to contribute some amount to the expense of his defense but who cannot afford to hire counsel because his own resources are inadequate either to pay a retainer or to assure private counsel of full payment is functionally akin to an indigent defendant and equally entitled to court-appointed counsel.
Hanson v. Passer, 13 F.3d 275, 278 (8th Cir.1994).
It is clear that the proper course of action under these circumstances was for the district court to appoint counsel for Owen at the time of his arraignment and then require him to repay the court the expenses of his court-appointed counsel once he became financially able to do so. While this is what the magistrate judge ultimately did, it came too late to prevent Owen appearing unrepresented at a critical stage of the criminal proceedings against him. Accordingly, I would find that no knowing, intelligent, or voluntary waiver occurred and that Owen was thus denied his right to counsel.
II.
Though I conclude that Owen was denied his right to counsel at a critical stage in his criminal proceedings, I agree with the majority’s finding that the error was harmless and thus concur in that portion of its opinion.3
. The Election/Waiver of Counsel form reveals that Owen circled the options on the form which stated:
I (Want) ... a lawyer to represent me at my proceedings before the Magistrate; I (Want) ... a lawyer to represent me in any proceedings that may follow in District Court; I (Want) ... the court to select and appoint a lawyer to represent me before the Magistrate and/or District Court; I am financially ... (Unable) to hire a lawyer to represent me before the Magistrate and/or District Court.
Record on Appeal, Doc. Entry # 2.
. Given Owen's continued reiteration of his need for an attorney, it appears that he was fully aware of the dangers of self-representation. So aware, in fact, that he repeatedly refused to sign a waiver of his right to counsel.
. Indeed, Judge Luttig's opinion on this issue offers an insightful analysis on seemingly conflicting case law and in the process does much to clarify when courts should apply the harmless error standard of review in cases in which a Sixth Amendment violation has occurred.