FHA loans to become more expensive and/or harder to get?

[Arraya]

[quote=scaredycat]so what is the next level of intervention? how much more inteventionized can it get? can interest rates get significantly lower? can the govt raise the tax credit? is there some sneaky new plan that hasn’t been yet unleashed? how could a govt hell-bent on keeping prices high accomplish it?[/quote]

Next they are going to legislate home price declines as illegal or helicopter drop cash into mira mesa

[Scarlett]

[quote=HLS](…) I don’t think you will ever see FHA @ 10% down. The housing market would collapse (…)there will be no shortage of intervention on the way down.

The only fix for the housing mess is accelerated foreclosures not delaying them. Modifications are just a delay.(…)Prices falling IS the recovery, back to reality.(…)Foreclosures are not the problem, foreclosures are the solution. Houses wont sit empty, they will be purchased for what they are worth and what buyers can afford to qualify for at the time.

Don’t forget, mortgage rates are near the lowest ever, yet millions cannot qualify for one reason or another.[/quote]

But in that case, making the FHA harder & more expensive to get would mean fewer people would qualify and that will have an impact on the sales and, eventually, sales prices, right?
I think making the FHA requirements at least 5% down and squeaky clean credit, and perhaps increasing the mortgage insurance, would be (part of) a solution, don’t you? If they make the FHA GRADUALLY more expensive, perhaps in a tiered fashion like they alluded to, the market may not collapse and it may just go down slowly…

I am hoping that the gov’t will start moving this way in the right direction… the bailouts cannot continue ad infinitum…

[Scarlett]

[quote=HLS](…) I don’t think you will ever see FHA @ 10% down. The housing market would collapse (…)there will be no shortage of intervention on the way down.

The only fix for the housing mess is accelerated foreclosures not delaying them. Modifications are just a delay.(…)Prices falling IS the recovery, back to reality.(…)Foreclosures are not the problem, foreclosures are the solution. Houses wont sit empty, they will be purchased for what they are worth and what buyers can afford to qualify for at the time.

Don’t forget, mortgage rates are near the lowest ever, yet millions cannot qualify for one reason or another.[/quote]

But in that case, making the FHA harder & more expensive to get would mean fewer people would qualify and that will have an impact on the sales and, eventually, sales prices, right?
I think making the FHA requirements at least 5% down and squeaky clean credit, and perhaps increasing the mortgage insurance, would be (part of) a solution, don’t you? If they make the FHA GRADUALLY more expensive, perhaps in a tiered fashion like they alluded to, the market may not collapse and it may just go down slowly…

I am hoping that the gov’t will start moving this way in the right direction… the bailouts cannot continue ad infinitum…

[Scarlett]

[quote=HLS](…) I don’t think you will ever see FHA @ 10% down. The housing market would collapse (…)there will be no shortage of intervention on the way down.

The only fix for the housing mess is accelerated foreclosures not delaying them. Modifications are just a delay.(…)Prices falling IS the recovery, back to reality.(…)Foreclosures are not the problem, foreclosures are the solution. Houses wont sit empty, they will be purchased for what they are worth and what buyers can afford to qualify for at the time.

Don’t forget, mortgage rates are near the lowest ever, yet millions cannot qualify for one reason or another.[/quote]

But in that case, making the FHA harder & more expensive to get would mean fewer people would qualify and that will have an impact on the sales and, eventually, sales prices, right?
I think making the FHA requirements at least 5% down and squeaky clean credit, and perhaps increasing the mortgage insurance, would be (part of) a solution, don’t you? If they make the FHA GRADUALLY more expensive, perhaps in a tiered fashion like they alluded to, the market may not collapse and it may just go down slowly…

I am hoping that the gov’t will start moving this way in the right direction… the bailouts cannot continue ad infinitum…

[Scarlett]

[quote=HLS](…) I don’t think you will ever see FHA @ 10% down. The housing market would collapse (…)there will be no shortage of intervention on the way down.

The only fix for the housing mess is accelerated foreclosures not delaying them. Modifications are just a delay.(…)Prices falling IS the recovery, back to reality.(…)Foreclosures are not the problem, foreclosures are the solution. Houses wont sit empty, they will be purchased for what they are worth and what buyers can afford to qualify for at the time.

Don’t forget, mortgage rates are near the lowest ever, yet millions cannot qualify for one reason or another.[/quote]

But in that case, making the FHA harder & more expensive to get would mean fewer people would qualify and that will have an impact on the sales and, eventually, sales prices, right?
I think making the FHA requirements at least 5% down and squeaky clean credit, and perhaps increasing the mortgage insurance, would be (part of) a solution, don’t you? If they make the FHA GRADUALLY more expensive, perhaps in a tiered fashion like they alluded to, the market may not collapse and it may just go down slowly…

I am hoping that the gov’t will start moving this way in the right direction… the bailouts cannot continue ad infinitum…

[Scarlett]

[quote=HLS](…) I don’t think you will ever see FHA @ 10% down. The housing market would collapse (…)there will be no shortage of intervention on the way down.

The only fix for the housing mess is accelerated foreclosures not delaying them. Modifications are just a delay.(…)Prices falling IS the recovery, back to reality.(…)Foreclosures are not the problem, foreclosures are the solution. Houses wont sit empty, they will be purchased for what they are worth and what buyers can afford to qualify for at the time.

Don’t forget, mortgage rates are near the lowest ever, yet millions cannot qualify for one reason or another.[/quote]

But in that case, making the FHA harder & more expensive to get would mean fewer people would qualify and that will have an impact on the sales and, eventually, sales prices, right?
I think making the FHA requirements at least 5% down and squeaky clean credit, and perhaps increasing the mortgage insurance, would be (part of) a solution, don’t you? If they make the FHA GRADUALLY more expensive, perhaps in a tiered fashion like they alluded to, the market may not collapse and it may just go down slowly…

I am hoping that the gov’t will start moving this way in the right direction… the bailouts cannot continue ad infinitum…

[HLS]

Allowing people to stay in homes is a HUGE mistake, even if these people have to deed the property back. It will just prolong the pain, agony and reality.

There are 3 groups of people.
1. Those that lied about their income and assets and/or bought with 100% financing and never should have been allowed to qualify for a loan in the first place.
2.Those who truly qualified for a loan but chose to gamble with an interest only ARM and now cannot afford a real payment.
3. Those with a down payment who qualified for an A paper prime loan at the time, but now have hardship and cannot afford to pay.

Should any of these groups be allowed to stay in the house when they cannot afford to pay today ??
IF they can afford to pay something, they will not be homeless. Perhaps there needs to be a huge reshuffling of residences. There is something called “RENTING what you can afford”

I know families of 6, 3 generations that grew up in 3 bedroom <1500 sq ft home. Today, if people were told to do that there would be lawsuits that their civil rights were being violated.

Foreclosing on a home and having it sell for what it is worth today would mean dragging down the value of ALL other homes in the area AND create a loss that must be realized on the books. More chaos, more paper wealth disappearing like a hooker on El Cajon Blvd when the vice squad shows up. Vanish into thin air.

If ppl are allowed to stay in the home, everybody can pretend what the value is AND the loan amount remains artificial on someone's books, since it doesn't get paid off at 50c on the dollar.
Mark to market accounting is avoided.
This is absolute artificial accounting about what the value of assets actually are. Solvency of many is truly at risk.

Perhaps many people can afford a house, but they cannot afford the one that they are currently living in. Facing this reality would be painful for millions, to have to be told (and face) that they are living beyond their means, which would probably lead to even more lawsuits of people's rights being violated.

More government intervention is definitely coming.
Perhaps boarding houses will make a comeback and families of 3 or 4 will be TOLD to live in 1 or 2 bedrooms, instead of being given food stamps and extended unemployment benefits to be able to continue to buy things that they really cannot afford, while staying in their 5 bedroom house with a temporary loan modification because it is "good" for the economy and will "stabilize" housing prices. This is delusional.

The govt is putting band aids on a drug addicted patient who just had a lung transplant and is in a coma. Perhaps to some people it looks like they are doing something, but to those who understand, that band aid is going to very little to cure that patient...

[HLS]

Allowing people to stay in homes is a HUGE mistake, even if these people have to deed the property back. It will just prolong the pain, agony and reality.

There are 3 groups of people.
1. Those that lied about their income and assets and/or bought with 100% financing and never should have been allowed to qualify for a loan in the first place.
2.Those who truly qualified for a loan but chose to gamble with an interest only ARM and now cannot afford a real payment.
3. Those with a down payment who qualified for an A paper prime loan at the time, but now have hardship and cannot afford to pay.

Should any of these groups be allowed to stay in the house when they cannot afford to pay today ??
IF they can afford to pay something, they will not be homeless. Perhaps there needs to be a huge reshuffling of residences. There is something called “RENTING what you can afford”

I know families of 6, 3 generations that grew up in 3 bedroom <1500 sq ft home. Today, if people were told to do that there would be lawsuits that their civil rights were being violated.

Foreclosing on a home and having it sell for what it is worth today would mean dragging down the value of ALL other homes in the area AND create a loss that must be realized on the books. More chaos, more paper wealth disappearing like a hooker on El Cajon Blvd when the vice squad shows up. Vanish into thin air.

If ppl are allowed to stay in the home, everybody can pretend what the value is AND the loan amount remains artificial on someone's books, since it doesn't get paid off at 50c on the dollar.
Mark to market accounting is avoided.
This is absolute artificial accounting about what the value of assets actually are. Solvency of many is truly at risk.

Perhaps many people can afford a house, but they cannot afford the one that they are currently living in. Facing this reality would be painful for millions, to have to be told (and face) that they are living beyond their means, which would probably lead to even more lawsuits of people's rights being violated.

More government intervention is definitely coming.
Perhaps boarding houses will make a comeback and families of 3 or 4 will be TOLD to live in 1 or 2 bedrooms, instead of being given food stamps and extended unemployment benefits to be able to continue to buy things that they really cannot afford, while staying in their 5 bedroom house with a temporary loan modification because it is "good" for the economy and will "stabilize" housing prices. This is delusional.

The govt is putting band aids on a drug addicted patient who just had a lung transplant and is in a coma. Perhaps to some people it looks like they are doing something, but to those who understand, that band aid is going to very little to cure that patient...

[HLS]

Allowing people to stay in homes is a HUGE mistake, even if these people have to deed the property back. It will just prolong the pain, agony and reality.

There are 3 groups of people.
1. Those that lied about their income and assets and/or bought with 100% financing and never should have been allowed to qualify for a loan in the first place.
2.Those who truly qualified for a loan but chose to gamble with an interest only ARM and now cannot afford a real payment.
3. Those with a down payment who qualified for an A paper prime loan at the time, but now have hardship and cannot afford to pay.

Should any of these groups be allowed to stay in the house when they cannot afford to pay today ??
IF they can afford to pay something, they will not be homeless. Perhaps there needs to be a huge reshuffling of residences. There is something called “RENTING what you can afford”

I know families of 6, 3 generations that grew up in 3 bedroom <1500 sq ft home. Today, if people were told to do that there would be lawsuits that their civil rights were being violated.

Foreclosing on a home and having it sell for what it is worth today would mean dragging down the value of ALL other homes in the area AND create a loss that must be realized on the books. More chaos, more paper wealth disappearing like a hooker on El Cajon Blvd when the vice squad shows up. Vanish into thin air.

If ppl are allowed to stay in the home, everybody can pretend what the value is AND the loan amount remains artificial on someone's books, since it doesn't get paid off at 50c on the dollar.
Mark to market accounting is avoided.
This is absolute artificial accounting about what the value of assets actually are. Solvency of many is truly at risk.

Perhaps many people can afford a house, but they cannot afford the one that they are currently living in. Facing this reality would be painful for millions, to have to be told (and face) that they are living beyond their means, which would probably lead to even more lawsuits of people's rights being violated.

More government intervention is definitely coming.
Perhaps boarding houses will make a comeback and families of 3 or 4 will be TOLD to live in 1 or 2 bedrooms, instead of being given food stamps and extended unemployment benefits to be able to continue to buy things that they really cannot afford, while staying in their 5 bedroom house with a temporary loan modification because it is "good" for the economy and will "stabilize" housing prices. This is delusional.

The govt is putting band aids on a drug addicted patient who just had a lung transplant and is in a coma. Perhaps to some people it looks like they are doing something, but to those who understand, that band aid is going to very little to cure that patient...

[HLS]

Allowing people to stay in homes is a HUGE mistake, even if these people have to deed the property back. It will just prolong the pain, agony and reality.

There are 3 groups of people.
1. Those that lied about their income and assets and/or bought with 100% financing and never should have been allowed to qualify for a loan in the first place.
2.Those who truly qualified for a loan but chose to gamble with an interest only ARM and now cannot afford a real payment.
3. Those with a down payment who qualified for an A paper prime loan at the time, but now have hardship and cannot afford to pay.

Should any of these groups be allowed to stay in the house when they cannot afford to pay today ??
IF they can afford to pay something, they will not be homeless. Perhaps there needs to be a huge reshuffling of residences. There is something called “RENTING what you can afford”

I know families of 6, 3 generations that grew up in 3 bedroom <1500 sq ft home. Today, if people were told to do that there would be lawsuits that their civil rights were being violated.

Foreclosing on a home and having it sell for what it is worth today would mean dragging down the value of ALL other homes in the area AND create a loss that must be realized on the books. More chaos, more paper wealth disappearing like a hooker on El Cajon Blvd when the vice squad shows up. Vanish into thin air.

If ppl are allowed to stay in the home, everybody can pretend what the value is AND the loan amount remains artificial on someone's books, since it doesn't get paid off at 50c on the dollar.
Mark to market accounting is avoided.
This is absolute artificial accounting about what the value of assets actually are. Solvency of many is truly at risk.

Perhaps many people can afford a house, but they cannot afford the one that they are currently living in. Facing this reality would be painful for millions, to have to be told (and face) that they are living beyond their means, which would probably lead to even more lawsuits of people's rights being violated.

More government intervention is definitely coming.
Perhaps boarding houses will make a comeback and families of 3 or 4 will be TOLD to live in 1 or 2 bedrooms, instead of being given food stamps and extended unemployment benefits to be able to continue to buy things that they really cannot afford, while staying in their 5 bedroom house with a temporary loan modification because it is "good" for the economy and will "stabilize" housing prices. This is delusional.

The govt is putting band aids on a drug addicted patient who just had a lung transplant and is in a coma. Perhaps to some people it looks like they are doing something, but to those who understand, that band aid is going to very little to cure that patient...

[HLS]

Allowing people to stay in homes is a HUGE mistake, even if these people have to deed the property back. It will just prolong the pain, agony and reality.

There are 3 groups of people.
1. Those that lied about their income and assets and/or bought with 100% financing and never should have been allowed to qualify for a loan in the first place.
2.Those who truly qualified for a loan but chose to gamble with an interest only ARM and now cannot afford a real payment.
3. Those with a down payment who qualified for an A paper prime loan at the time, but now have hardship and cannot afford to pay.

Should any of these groups be allowed to stay in the house when they cannot afford to pay today ??
IF they can afford to pay something, they will not be homeless. Perhaps there needs to be a huge reshuffling of residences. There is something called “RENTING what you can afford”

I know families of 6, 3 generations that grew up in 3 bedroom <1500 sq ft home. Today, if people were told to do that there would be lawsuits that their civil rights were being violated.

Foreclosing on a home and having it sell for what it is worth today would mean dragging down the value of ALL other homes in the area AND create a loss that must be realized on the books. More chaos, more paper wealth disappearing like a hooker on El Cajon Blvd when the vice squad shows up. Vanish into thin air.

If ppl are allowed to stay in the home, everybody can pretend what the value is AND the loan amount remains artificial on someone's books, since it doesn't get paid off at 50c on the dollar.
Mark to market accounting is avoided.
This is absolute artificial accounting about what the value of assets actually are. Solvency of many is truly at risk.

Perhaps many people can afford a house, but they cannot afford the one that they are currently living in. Facing this reality would be painful for millions, to have to be told (and face) that they are living beyond their means, which would probably lead to even more lawsuits of people's rights being violated.

More government intervention is definitely coming.
Perhaps boarding houses will make a comeback and families of 3 or 4 will be TOLD to live in 1 or 2 bedrooms, instead of being given food stamps and extended unemployment benefits to be able to continue to buy things that they really cannot afford, while staying in their 5 bedroom house with a temporary loan modification because it is "good" for the economy and will "stabilize" housing prices. This is delusional.

The govt is putting band aids on a drug addicted patient who just had a lung transplant and is in a coma. Perhaps to some people it looks like they are doing something, but to those who understand, that band aid is going to very little to cure that patient...

[urbanrealtor]

Hmmm….

They are currently the lowest down product available.
Except for VA loans.
I am not sure they can be rightly called the new sub prime.

A $300k buyer with 10k in savings and minimum 620 FICO is not perfect but not a terrible credit risk.

FHA appraisals tend to be pretty rigorous too.

[urbanrealtor]

Hmmm….

They are currently the lowest down product available.
Except for VA loans.
I am not sure they can be rightly called the new sub prime.

A $300k buyer with 10k in savings and minimum 620 FICO is not perfect but not a terrible credit risk.

FHA appraisals tend to be pretty rigorous too.

[urbanrealtor]

Hmmm….

They are currently the lowest down product available.
Except for VA loans.
I am not sure they can be rightly called the new sub prime.

A $300k buyer with 10k in savings and minimum 620 FICO is not perfect but not a terrible credit risk.

FHA appraisals tend to be pretty rigorous too.

[urbanrealtor]

Hmmm….

They are currently the lowest down product available.
Except for VA loans.
I am not sure they can be rightly called the new sub prime.

A $300k buyer with 10k in savings and minimum 620 FICO is not perfect but not a terrible credit risk.

FHA appraisals tend to be pretty rigorous too.

[Author]

Posts