FHA Loans and PUD Rules

[chrisp]

Ok. I understand your perspective. Again, I can also see how the facts I laid out would have seemed like bait to some of you.

However, I didn’t ask your advice about whether I should pay that much . . . Or whether I could afford that much. See the topic of the post. (Please anybody, jump in with something related to the actual question.)

Also, you assume I am going to default. Not really the coolest thing to me. Buying a house and deciding how much you want to pay are personal issues. Yes, I put my price range out there, but just because I say I am Christian or Jewish doesn’t mean I want your opinion on my choice of religion, no matter how that choice will affect your life. And when you jump on someone for a personal decision, however much you might think there isn’t merit to it, not so cool.

As it turns out we were looking below our “pre-approved range” (based on the fact that we have very little/no debt and decent incomes) to plan for contingencies. The place we had to pull the offer was not in $600-700 range. I gave those numbers for perspective. Also, the place we pulled the offer from was only 10-15% higher than its 2001 sale price.

You may have not intended to offend, and I don’t necessarily have ill-will toward any of you. But what a harsh response to a new poster.

[patientrenter]

chrisp, you did get a harsh response, and you didn’t ask anyone how much you should spend.

But, as we point out, you are putting taxpayers on the line to pay an INCREDIBLY large price for a place for you to live in. No one who bought in 2005, or 2006, or 2007, or 2008, planned to default. They all planned to see their home price stay level or go up. That’s not a guaranteed outcome, and many of those people who didn’t plan to default have defaulted, and will default.

I will guess that your family earns $100-250K a year. If you are typical at all, that means you can probably afford a place that costs $200K-625K. I could be wrong. You may spend very little, and be able to afford more. But then how come you have only a tiny amount (10%) saved up for the home purchase? Taxpayers could be pretty sure you wouldn’t overpay, and wouldn’t default, if you were putting 30% down. But you’re not.

To the extent that you are stretching the price, you are getting taxpayers and savers like us Piggs to use mostly our money to help you keep home prices inflated. So we’re kinda tetchy, like I said before.

[patientrenter]

chrisp, you did get a harsh response, and you didn’t ask anyone how much you should spend.

But, as we point out, you are putting taxpayers on the line to pay an INCREDIBLY large price for a place for you to live in. No one who bought in 2005, or 2006, or 2007, or 2008, planned to default. They all planned to see their home price stay level or go up. That’s not a guaranteed outcome, and many of those people who didn’t plan to default have defaulted, and will default.

I will guess that your family earns $100-250K a year. If you are typical at all, that means you can probably afford a place that costs $200K-625K. I could be wrong. You may spend very little, and be able to afford more. But then how come you have only a tiny amount (10%) saved up for the home purchase? Taxpayers could be pretty sure you wouldn’t overpay, and wouldn’t default, if you were putting 30% down. But you’re not.

To the extent that you are stretching the price, you are getting taxpayers and savers like us Piggs to use mostly our money to help you keep home prices inflated. So we’re kinda tetchy, like I said before.

[patientrenter]

chrisp, you did get a harsh response, and you didn’t ask anyone how much you should spend.

But, as we point out, you are putting taxpayers on the line to pay an INCREDIBLY large price for a place for you to live in. No one who bought in 2005, or 2006, or 2007, or 2008, planned to default. They all planned to see their home price stay level or go up. That’s not a guaranteed outcome, and many of those people who didn’t plan to default have defaulted, and will default.

I will guess that your family earns $100-250K a year. If you are typical at all, that means you can probably afford a place that costs $200K-625K. I could be wrong. You may spend very little, and be able to afford more. But then how come you have only a tiny amount (10%) saved up for the home purchase? Taxpayers could be pretty sure you wouldn’t overpay, and wouldn’t default, if you were putting 30% down. But you’re not.

To the extent that you are stretching the price, you are getting taxpayers and savers like us Piggs to use mostly our money to help you keep home prices inflated. So we’re kinda tetchy, like I said before.

[patientrenter]

chrisp, you did get a harsh response, and you didn’t ask anyone how much you should spend.

But, as we point out, you are putting taxpayers on the line to pay an INCREDIBLY large price for a place for you to live in. No one who bought in 2005, or 2006, or 2007, or 2008, planned to default. They all planned to see their home price stay level or go up. That’s not a guaranteed outcome, and many of those people who didn’t plan to default have defaulted, and will default.

I will guess that your family earns $100-250K a year. If you are typical at all, that means you can probably afford a place that costs $200K-625K. I could be wrong. You may spend very little, and be able to afford more. But then how come you have only a tiny amount (10%) saved up for the home purchase? Taxpayers could be pretty sure you wouldn’t overpay, and wouldn’t default, if you were putting 30% down. But you’re not.

To the extent that you are stretching the price, you are getting taxpayers and savers like us Piggs to use mostly our money to help you keep home prices inflated. So we’re kinda tetchy, like I said before.

[patientrenter]

chrisp, you did get a harsh response, and you didn’t ask anyone how much you should spend.

But, as we point out, you are putting taxpayers on the line to pay an INCREDIBLY large price for a place for you to live in. No one who bought in 2005, or 2006, or 2007, or 2008, planned to default. They all planned to see their home price stay level or go up. That’s not a guaranteed outcome, and many of those people who didn’t plan to default have defaulted, and will default.

I will guess that your family earns $100-250K a year. If you are typical at all, that means you can probably afford a place that costs $200K-625K. I could be wrong. You may spend very little, and be able to afford more. But then how come you have only a tiny amount (10%) saved up for the home purchase? Taxpayers could be pretty sure you wouldn’t overpay, and wouldn’t default, if you were putting 30% down. But you’re not.

To the extent that you are stretching the price, you are getting taxpayers and savers like us Piggs to use mostly our money to help you keep home prices inflated. So we’re kinda tetchy, like I said before.

[chrisp]

[quote=patientrenter]
To the extent that you are stretching the price, you are getting taxpayers and savers like us Piggs to use mostly our money to help you keep home prices inflated. So we’re kinda tetchy, like I said before.[/quote]

Your argument is a stretch to me. To the extent I am stretching (am I?), I am not using your money. If I were to default, I might be using SOME of your money. Making your correlation is too much for me. I understand you can be upset if people are keeping prices high, but people are going to buy when they want and need to. If I wanted to wait a few years for things to go down, maybe I would. You do, good for you.

Also, you don’t think default rates from loans that have originated more recently will decrease? I wouldn’t necessarily say things are peachy keen now, but I have to think lending practices have gotten better. No ARMs, no stated incomes.

Just because the price of your house goes down, doesn’t mean you default. Just because I have less money to put down doesn’t mean I can’t afford to make my monthly payments. If I have $180K to put down, I still might meet terrible circumstances in the future. The bank will still foreclose. I guess you could ASSUME I’d have more savings, but why would you assume I personally am not planning on building up savings for a contingency event?

Because I am a NEW attorney, I don’t have a ton of built-up savings. $60K is a tiny amount?

[chrisp]

[quote=patientrenter]
To the extent that you are stretching the price, you are getting taxpayers and savers like us Piggs to use mostly our money to help you keep home prices inflated. So we’re kinda tetchy, like I said before.[/quote]

Your argument is a stretch to me. To the extent I am stretching (am I?), I am not using your money. If I were to default, I might be using SOME of your money. Making your correlation is too much for me. I understand you can be upset if people are keeping prices high, but people are going to buy when they want and need to. If I wanted to wait a few years for things to go down, maybe I would. You do, good for you.

Also, you don’t think default rates from loans that have originated more recently will decrease? I wouldn’t necessarily say things are peachy keen now, but I have to think lending practices have gotten better. No ARMs, no stated incomes.

Just because the price of your house goes down, doesn’t mean you default. Just because I have less money to put down doesn’t mean I can’t afford to make my monthly payments. If I have $180K to put down, I still might meet terrible circumstances in the future. The bank will still foreclose. I guess you could ASSUME I’d have more savings, but why would you assume I personally am not planning on building up savings for a contingency event?

Because I am a NEW attorney, I don’t have a ton of built-up savings. $60K is a tiny amount?

[chrisp]

[quote=patientrenter]
To the extent that you are stretching the price, you are getting taxpayers and savers like us Piggs to use mostly our money to help you keep home prices inflated. So we’re kinda tetchy, like I said before.[/quote]

Your argument is a stretch to me. To the extent I am stretching (am I?), I am not using your money. If I were to default, I might be using SOME of your money. Making your correlation is too much for me. I understand you can be upset if people are keeping prices high, but people are going to buy when they want and need to. If I wanted to wait a few years for things to go down, maybe I would. You do, good for you.

Also, you don’t think default rates from loans that have originated more recently will decrease? I wouldn’t necessarily say things are peachy keen now, but I have to think lending practices have gotten better. No ARMs, no stated incomes.

Just because the price of your house goes down, doesn’t mean you default. Just because I have less money to put down doesn’t mean I can’t afford to make my monthly payments. If I have $180K to put down, I still might meet terrible circumstances in the future. The bank will still foreclose. I guess you could ASSUME I’d have more savings, but why would you assume I personally am not planning on building up savings for a contingency event?

Because I am a NEW attorney, I don’t have a ton of built-up savings. $60K is a tiny amount?

[chrisp]

[quote=patientrenter]
To the extent that you are stretching the price, you are getting taxpayers and savers like us Piggs to use mostly our money to help you keep home prices inflated. So we’re kinda tetchy, like I said before.[/quote]

Your argument is a stretch to me. To the extent I am stretching (am I?), I am not using your money. If I were to default, I might be using SOME of your money. Making your correlation is too much for me. I understand you can be upset if people are keeping prices high, but people are going to buy when they want and need to. If I wanted to wait a few years for things to go down, maybe I would. You do, good for you.

Also, you don’t think default rates from loans that have originated more recently will decrease? I wouldn’t necessarily say things are peachy keen now, but I have to think lending practices have gotten better. No ARMs, no stated incomes.

Just because the price of your house goes down, doesn’t mean you default. Just because I have less money to put down doesn’t mean I can’t afford to make my monthly payments. If I have $180K to put down, I still might meet terrible circumstances in the future. The bank will still foreclose. I guess you could ASSUME I’d have more savings, but why would you assume I personally am not planning on building up savings for a contingency event?

Because I am a NEW attorney, I don’t have a ton of built-up savings. $60K is a tiny amount?

[chrisp]

[quote=patientrenter]
To the extent that you are stretching the price, you are getting taxpayers and savers like us Piggs to use mostly our money to help you keep home prices inflated. So we’re kinda tetchy, like I said before.[/quote]

Your argument is a stretch to me. To the extent I am stretching (am I?), I am not using your money. If I were to default, I might be using SOME of your money. Making your correlation is too much for me. I understand you can be upset if people are keeping prices high, but people are going to buy when they want and need to. If I wanted to wait a few years for things to go down, maybe I would. You do, good for you.

Also, you don’t think default rates from loans that have originated more recently will decrease? I wouldn’t necessarily say things are peachy keen now, but I have to think lending practices have gotten better. No ARMs, no stated incomes.

Just because the price of your house goes down, doesn’t mean you default. Just because I have less money to put down doesn’t mean I can’t afford to make my monthly payments. If I have $180K to put down, I still might meet terrible circumstances in the future. The bank will still foreclose. I guess you could ASSUME I’d have more savings, but why would you assume I personally am not planning on building up savings for a contingency event?

Because I am a NEW attorney, I don’t have a ton of built-up savings. $60K is a tiny amount?

[chrisp]

Anyway kinda sick of fighting.

But, actually would be somewhat interested in your “affordability” numbers. Can someone send me a link to some references? I wouldn’t mind running the numbers in a more conservative route? Someone said affordability has been out of whack for a decade. Are you able to send me some old lending criteria?

Thanks.

[chrisp]

Anyway kinda sick of fighting.

But, actually would be somewhat interested in your “affordability” numbers. Can someone send me a link to some references? I wouldn’t mind running the numbers in a more conservative route? Someone said affordability has been out of whack for a decade. Are you able to send me some old lending criteria?

Thanks.

[chrisp]

Anyway kinda sick of fighting.

But, actually would be somewhat interested in your “affordability” numbers. Can someone send me a link to some references? I wouldn’t mind running the numbers in a more conservative route? Someone said affordability has been out of whack for a decade. Are you able to send me some old lending criteria?

Thanks.

[chrisp]

Anyway kinda sick of fighting.

But, actually would be somewhat interested in your “affordability” numbers. Can someone send me a link to some references? I wouldn’t mind running the numbers in a more conservative route? Someone said affordability has been out of whack for a decade. Are you able to send me some old lending criteria?

Thanks.

[Author]

Posts