FHA loans; why not?

[Adebisi]

With FHA, you can get a 6% kickback from the seller, so your downpayment and closing costs would likely be covered. Since there would likely be no up-front payment, if the monthly payment is close to equivalent rent, you essentially have a free call option on any appreciation.

Hold the house for a couple of years and if it depreciates, stop paying the mortgage and wait for the government to kick you out. With any luck, there will be some defect in the mortgage and the government will never be able to kick you out and you’ll get a basically free house. Alternatively, you might be able to get the government to reduce your payments/principal. At the very least, you’ll be able to live housing-payment free while you wait to get evicted. If you do end up getting evicted, rent for a couple of years and then try again.

The problem with the system today is that shenanigans like this make economic sense even though it’s morally shitty.

[scaredyclassic]

is it immoral to play by the rules? it feels wrong, but is it wrong? why?

[scaredyclassic]

is it immoral to play by the rules? it feels wrong, but is it wrong? why?

[scaredyclassic]

is it immoral to play by the rules? it feels wrong, but is it wrong? why?

[scaredyclassic]

is it immoral to play by the rules? it feels wrong, but is it wrong? why?

[scaredyclassic]

is it immoral to play by the rules? it feels wrong, but is it wrong? why?

[Adebisi]

[quote=scaredycat]is it immoral to play by the rules? it feels wrong, but is it wrong? why?[/quote]

Maybe ‘morality’ wasn’t the right term. However, with FHA you have a two-party transaction (homebuyer and lender) in which the loss is borne by a third party (taxpayer). In such a transaction, it’s in the buyer’s and lender’s interest to structure the transaction in such a way that the silent third-party (taxpayer) is stuck with as much risk as possible.

So that’s what’s happening, and that’s why gold is going up and the dollar is collapsing.

[Adebisi]

[quote=scaredycat]is it immoral to play by the rules? it feels wrong, but is it wrong? why?[/quote]

Maybe ‘morality’ wasn’t the right term. However, with FHA you have a two-party transaction (homebuyer and lender) in which the loss is borne by a third party (taxpayer). In such a transaction, it’s in the buyer’s and lender’s interest to structure the transaction in such a way that the silent third-party (taxpayer) is stuck with as much risk as possible.

So that’s what’s happening, and that’s why gold is going up and the dollar is collapsing.

[Adebisi]

[quote=scaredycat]is it immoral to play by the rules? it feels wrong, but is it wrong? why?[/quote]

Maybe ‘morality’ wasn’t the right term. However, with FHA you have a two-party transaction (homebuyer and lender) in which the loss is borne by a third party (taxpayer). In such a transaction, it’s in the buyer’s and lender’s interest to structure the transaction in such a way that the silent third-party (taxpayer) is stuck with as much risk as possible.

So that’s what’s happening, and that’s why gold is going up and the dollar is collapsing.

[Adebisi]

[quote=scaredycat]is it immoral to play by the rules? it feels wrong, but is it wrong? why?[/quote]

Maybe ‘morality’ wasn’t the right term. However, with FHA you have a two-party transaction (homebuyer and lender) in which the loss is borne by a third party (taxpayer). In such a transaction, it’s in the buyer’s and lender’s interest to structure the transaction in such a way that the silent third-party (taxpayer) is stuck with as much risk as possible.

So that’s what’s happening, and that’s why gold is going up and the dollar is collapsing.

[Adebisi]

[quote=scaredycat]is it immoral to play by the rules? it feels wrong, but is it wrong? why?[/quote]

Maybe ‘morality’ wasn’t the right term. However, with FHA you have a two-party transaction (homebuyer and lender) in which the loss is borne by a third party (taxpayer). In such a transaction, it’s in the buyer’s and lender’s interest to structure the transaction in such a way that the silent third-party (taxpayer) is stuck with as much risk as possible.

So that’s what’s happening, and that’s why gold is going up and the dollar is collapsing.

[scaredyclassic]

and so, at the end of the day, is it ridiculous to put in 20%? I’m running numbers and it seems like the difference i payments between fha and 20% down is so small it would take a decade of payments before i got my down payment back, assuming the PMI wasn’t cancelled earlier. seems absurd to put 20% down if not necessary.

[scaredyclassic]

and so, at the end of the day, is it ridiculous to put in 20%? I’m running numbers and it seems like the difference i payments between fha and 20% down is so small it would take a decade of payments before i got my down payment back, assuming the PMI wasn’t cancelled earlier. seems absurd to put 20% down if not necessary.

[scaredyclassic]

and so, at the end of the day, is it ridiculous to put in 20%? I’m running numbers and it seems like the difference i payments between fha and 20% down is so small it would take a decade of payments before i got my down payment back, assuming the PMI wasn’t cancelled earlier. seems absurd to put 20% down if not necessary.

[scaredyclassic]

and so, at the end of the day, is it ridiculous to put in 20%? I’m running numbers and it seems like the difference i payments between fha and 20% down is so small it would take a decade of payments before i got my down payment back, assuming the PMI wasn’t cancelled earlier. seems absurd to put 20% down if not necessary.

[Author]

Posts