FHA ‘Short-Refi Program’ debt relief for underwater homeowners

[jficquette]

I am serious when I say this. They need to bring back the no doc loans but require 20-25% down.

Rinse repeat.

John

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]. . . Here’s her deal. Her adjustable rate fell, so her payments are less. She has plenty of money to pay for it. She doesn’t want to. Her dad passed away and she wants to move to a better school district for her kid and she doesn’t see values going up in that area any time soon.

She’s not interested in any programs. She’s contemplating walking. Business decision.

All these programs just kick the can. I haven’t heard that any of these programs have been a great success. Sure, there’s a handful it’s helped. But for the most part, IMO, it’s done nothing more than extend and pretend. . . [/quote]

jp, I, too, don’t think there is enough incentive in CA (and a few other states) for this program to be useful, because the degree of “underwater” is typically far more than the 10% that would presumably be “forgiven.”

As an attorney, I’m sure your friend is well aware that she should buy another property while she owns her current property and is current on its payments in order to qualify for a prime loan on the property she is soon to buy. After her next property transaction is closed, THEN and ONLY then could she stop making payments on her underwater property, as she will take a hit of about 300 points on her FICO score by the time it gets foreclosed upon.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]. . . Here’s her deal. Her adjustable rate fell, so her payments are less. She has plenty of money to pay for it. She doesn’t want to. Her dad passed away and she wants to move to a better school district for her kid and she doesn’t see values going up in that area any time soon.

She’s not interested in any programs. She’s contemplating walking. Business decision.

All these programs just kick the can. I haven’t heard that any of these programs have been a great success. Sure, there’s a handful it’s helped. But for the most part, IMO, it’s done nothing more than extend and pretend. . . [/quote]

jp, I, too, don’t think there is enough incentive in CA (and a few other states) for this program to be useful, because the degree of “underwater” is typically far more than the 10% that would presumably be “forgiven.”

As an attorney, I’m sure your friend is well aware that she should buy another property while she owns her current property and is current on its payments in order to qualify for a prime loan on the property she is soon to buy. After her next property transaction is closed, THEN and ONLY then could she stop making payments on her underwater property, as she will take a hit of about 300 points on her FICO score by the time it gets foreclosed upon.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]. . . Here’s her deal. Her adjustable rate fell, so her payments are less. She has plenty of money to pay for it. She doesn’t want to. Her dad passed away and she wants to move to a better school district for her kid and she doesn’t see values going up in that area any time soon.

She’s not interested in any programs. She’s contemplating walking. Business decision.

All these programs just kick the can. I haven’t heard that any of these programs have been a great success. Sure, there’s a handful it’s helped. But for the most part, IMO, it’s done nothing more than extend and pretend. . . [/quote]

jp, I, too, don’t think there is enough incentive in CA (and a few other states) for this program to be useful, because the degree of “underwater” is typically far more than the 10% that would presumably be “forgiven.”

As an attorney, I’m sure your friend is well aware that she should buy another property while she owns her current property and is current on its payments in order to qualify for a prime loan on the property she is soon to buy. After her next property transaction is closed, THEN and ONLY then could she stop making payments on her underwater property, as she will take a hit of about 300 points on her FICO score by the time it gets foreclosed upon.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]. . . Here’s her deal. Her adjustable rate fell, so her payments are less. She has plenty of money to pay for it. She doesn’t want to. Her dad passed away and she wants to move to a better school district for her kid and she doesn’t see values going up in that area any time soon.

She’s not interested in any programs. She’s contemplating walking. Business decision.

All these programs just kick the can. I haven’t heard that any of these programs have been a great success. Sure, there’s a handful it’s helped. But for the most part, IMO, it’s done nothing more than extend and pretend. . . [/quote]

jp, I, too, don’t think there is enough incentive in CA (and a few other states) for this program to be useful, because the degree of “underwater” is typically far more than the 10% that would presumably be “forgiven.”

As an attorney, I’m sure your friend is well aware that she should buy another property while she owns her current property and is current on its payments in order to qualify for a prime loan on the property she is soon to buy. After her next property transaction is closed, THEN and ONLY then could she stop making payments on her underwater property, as she will take a hit of about 300 points on her FICO score by the time it gets foreclosed upon.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]. . . Here’s her deal. Her adjustable rate fell, so her payments are less. She has plenty of money to pay for it. She doesn’t want to. Her dad passed away and she wants to move to a better school district for her kid and she doesn’t see values going up in that area any time soon.

She’s not interested in any programs. She’s contemplating walking. Business decision.

All these programs just kick the can. I haven’t heard that any of these programs have been a great success. Sure, there’s a handful it’s helped. But for the most part, IMO, it’s done nothing more than extend and pretend. . . [/quote]

jp, I, too, don’t think there is enough incentive in CA (and a few other states) for this program to be useful, because the degree of “underwater” is typically far more than the 10% that would presumably be “forgiven.”

As an attorney, I’m sure your friend is well aware that she should buy another property while she owns her current property and is current on its payments in order to qualify for a prime loan on the property she is soon to buy. After her next property transaction is closed, THEN and ONLY then could she stop making payments on her underwater property, as she will take a hit of about 300 points on her FICO score by the time it gets foreclosed upon.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jficquette]I am serious when I say this. They need to bring back the no doc loans but require 20-25% down.

Rinse repeat.

John[/quote]

Totally agree here, John. There was absolutely nothing wrong with those programs (with a requirement of =>20% downpayments) and their very qualified in-house appraiser (also not “allowed” anymore). Even though my spouse and I had W-2 incomes, we purchased several properties on “limited doc” programs, always with 20%-35% down. I don’t like banks or government in my business and like to close fast and easy.

Owners having “skin the game” is the key to a stable housing market.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jficquette]I am serious when I say this. They need to bring back the no doc loans but require 20-25% down.

Rinse repeat.

John[/quote]

Totally agree here, John. There was absolutely nothing wrong with those programs (with a requirement of =>20% downpayments) and their very qualified in-house appraiser (also not “allowed” anymore). Even though my spouse and I had W-2 incomes, we purchased several properties on “limited doc” programs, always with 20%-35% down. I don’t like banks or government in my business and like to close fast and easy.

Owners having “skin the game” is the key to a stable housing market.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jficquette]I am serious when I say this. They need to bring back the no doc loans but require 20-25% down.

Rinse repeat.

John[/quote]

Totally agree here, John. There was absolutely nothing wrong with those programs (with a requirement of =>20% downpayments) and their very qualified in-house appraiser (also not “allowed” anymore). Even though my spouse and I had W-2 incomes, we purchased several properties on “limited doc” programs, always with 20%-35% down. I don’t like banks or government in my business and like to close fast and easy.

Owners having “skin the game” is the key to a stable housing market.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jficquette]I am serious when I say this. They need to bring back the no doc loans but require 20-25% down.

Rinse repeat.

John[/quote]

Totally agree here, John. There was absolutely nothing wrong with those programs (with a requirement of =>20% downpayments) and their very qualified in-house appraiser (also not “allowed” anymore). Even though my spouse and I had W-2 incomes, we purchased several properties on “limited doc” programs, always with 20%-35% down. I don’t like banks or government in my business and like to close fast and easy.

Owners having “skin the game” is the key to a stable housing market.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jficquette]I am serious when I say this. They need to bring back the no doc loans but require 20-25% down.

Rinse repeat.

John[/quote]

Totally agree here, John. There was absolutely nothing wrong with those programs (with a requirement of =>20% downpayments) and their very qualified in-house appraiser (also not “allowed” anymore). Even though my spouse and I had W-2 incomes, we purchased several properties on “limited doc” programs, always with 20%-35% down. I don’t like banks or government in my business and like to close fast and easy.

Owners having “skin the game” is the key to a stable housing market.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=jficquette]I am serious when I say this. They need to bring back the no doc loans but require 20-25% down.

Rinse repeat.

John[/quote]

Totally agree here, John. There was absolutely nothing wrong with those programs (with a requirement of =>20% downpayments) and their very qualified in-house appraiser (also not “allowed” anymore). Even though my spouse and I had W-2 incomes, we purchased several properties on “limited doc” programs, always with 20%-35% down. I don’t like banks or government in my business and like to close fast and easy.

Owners having “skin the game” is the key to a stable housing market.[/quote]

I’ll second that. I’m not sure what our elected officials are thinking, but these programs aren’t going to do anything to stabilize the market, and I suspect that some of them will cause even further erosion.

BG, you may remember that, in a thread a few months back, I mentioned that my stepdaughter and her boyfriend are buying a house. They close next week. The house is part of this Fannie Mae Home Path program. They are taking advantage of several state programs that offer significant cash assistance with down payment and closing costs.

She is in her early 20s, he’s a few years older. No college for him, she has about a year’s worth of credits. Both of them have spotty employment records, and each is in a low-paying retail job that they’ve held for less than a year. Between them, they have about $8K in credit card debt, plus car payments. Yet not only are they buying a $250,000 house, but doing so bringing only $2,000 of their own money to settlement.

I can’t honestly blame them: they’d have to have more money than that up front if they were renting an apartment! And I’d be lying if I said that it makes me feel good to see her so excited and happy. But I’m not holding out much hope for their success in this venture. The house needs work, and will require a lot of regular maintenance, and I just don’t think either of them has that kind of patience. And with only two grand of their own money in it, there’s not much to keep them there when the going gets tough and the value has fallen by another 20%.

I just don’t get it! What is the purpose of providing even more taxpayer-funded assistance to get totally unqualified people into homes that they have little chance of keeping, and who will probably walk away when things get tight? As another Pigg mentioned in an earlier thread, shelter is a necessity, but buying a house is a choice.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=jficquette]I am serious when I say this. They need to bring back the no doc loans but require 20-25% down.

Rinse repeat.

John[/quote]

Totally agree here, John. There was absolutely nothing wrong with those programs (with a requirement of =>20% downpayments) and their very qualified in-house appraiser (also not “allowed” anymore). Even though my spouse and I had W-2 incomes, we purchased several properties on “limited doc” programs, always with 20%-35% down. I don’t like banks or government in my business and like to close fast and easy.

Owners having “skin the game” is the key to a stable housing market.[/quote]

I’ll second that. I’m not sure what our elected officials are thinking, but these programs aren’t going to do anything to stabilize the market, and I suspect that some of them will cause even further erosion.

BG, you may remember that, in a thread a few months back, I mentioned that my stepdaughter and her boyfriend are buying a house. They close next week. The house is part of this Fannie Mae Home Path program. They are taking advantage of several state programs that offer significant cash assistance with down payment and closing costs.

She is in her early 20s, he’s a few years older. No college for him, she has about a year’s worth of credits. Both of them have spotty employment records, and each is in a low-paying retail job that they’ve held for less than a year. Between them, they have about $8K in credit card debt, plus car payments. Yet not only are they buying a $250,000 house, but doing so bringing only $2,000 of their own money to settlement.

I can’t honestly blame them: they’d have to have more money than that up front if they were renting an apartment! And I’d be lying if I said that it makes me feel good to see her so excited and happy. But I’m not holding out much hope for their success in this venture. The house needs work, and will require a lot of regular maintenance, and I just don’t think either of them has that kind of patience. And with only two grand of their own money in it, there’s not much to keep them there when the going gets tough and the value has fallen by another 20%.

I just don’t get it! What is the purpose of providing even more taxpayer-funded assistance to get totally unqualified people into homes that they have little chance of keeping, and who will probably walk away when things get tight? As another Pigg mentioned in an earlier thread, shelter is a necessity, but buying a house is a choice.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=jficquette]I am serious when I say this. They need to bring back the no doc loans but require 20-25% down.

Rinse repeat.

John[/quote]

Totally agree here, John. There was absolutely nothing wrong with those programs (with a requirement of =>20% downpayments) and their very qualified in-house appraiser (also not “allowed” anymore). Even though my spouse and I had W-2 incomes, we purchased several properties on “limited doc” programs, always with 20%-35% down. I don’t like banks or government in my business and like to close fast and easy.

Owners having “skin the game” is the key to a stable housing market.[/quote]

I’ll second that. I’m not sure what our elected officials are thinking, but these programs aren’t going to do anything to stabilize the market, and I suspect that some of them will cause even further erosion.

BG, you may remember that, in a thread a few months back, I mentioned that my stepdaughter and her boyfriend are buying a house. They close next week. The house is part of this Fannie Mae Home Path program. They are taking advantage of several state programs that offer significant cash assistance with down payment and closing costs.

She is in her early 20s, he’s a few years older. No college for him, she has about a year’s worth of credits. Both of them have spotty employment records, and each is in a low-paying retail job that they’ve held for less than a year. Between them, they have about $8K in credit card debt, plus car payments. Yet not only are they buying a $250,000 house, but doing so bringing only $2,000 of their own money to settlement.

I can’t honestly blame them: they’d have to have more money than that up front if they were renting an apartment! And I’d be lying if I said that it makes me feel good to see her so excited and happy. But I’m not holding out much hope for their success in this venture. The house needs work, and will require a lot of regular maintenance, and I just don’t think either of them has that kind of patience. And with only two grand of their own money in it, there’s not much to keep them there when the going gets tough and the value has fallen by another 20%.

I just don’t get it! What is the purpose of providing even more taxpayer-funded assistance to get totally unqualified people into homes that they have little chance of keeping, and who will probably walk away when things get tight? As another Pigg mentioned in an earlier thread, shelter is a necessity, but buying a house is a choice.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=jficquette]I am serious when I say this. They need to bring back the no doc loans but require 20-25% down.

Rinse repeat.

John[/quote]

Totally agree here, John. There was absolutely nothing wrong with those programs (with a requirement of =>20% downpayments) and their very qualified in-house appraiser (also not “allowed” anymore). Even though my spouse and I had W-2 incomes, we purchased several properties on “limited doc” programs, always with 20%-35% down. I don’t like banks or government in my business and like to close fast and easy.

Owners having “skin the game” is the key to a stable housing market.[/quote]

I’ll second that. I’m not sure what our elected officials are thinking, but these programs aren’t going to do anything to stabilize the market, and I suspect that some of them will cause even further erosion.

BG, you may remember that, in a thread a few months back, I mentioned that my stepdaughter and her boyfriend are buying a house. They close next week. The house is part of this Fannie Mae Home Path program. They are taking advantage of several state programs that offer significant cash assistance with down payment and closing costs.

She is in her early 20s, he’s a few years older. No college for him, she has about a year’s worth of credits. Both of them have spotty employment records, and each is in a low-paying retail job that they’ve held for less than a year. Between them, they have about $8K in credit card debt, plus car payments. Yet not only are they buying a $250,000 house, but doing so bringing only $2,000 of their own money to settlement.

I can’t honestly blame them: they’d have to have more money than that up front if they were renting an apartment! And I’d be lying if I said that it makes me feel good to see her so excited and happy. But I’m not holding out much hope for their success in this venture. The house needs work, and will require a lot of regular maintenance, and I just don’t think either of them has that kind of patience. And with only two grand of their own money in it, there’s not much to keep them there when the going gets tough and the value has fallen by another 20%.

I just don’t get it! What is the purpose of providing even more taxpayer-funded assistance to get totally unqualified people into homes that they have little chance of keeping, and who will probably walk away when things get tight? As another Pigg mentioned in an earlier thread, shelter is a necessity, but buying a house is a choice.

[Author]

Posts