Freddie Mac will limit investors to 4 mortgages

[surveyor]

Just heard this on the Steve Becker show (he is a mortgage broker on KCEO 1000 AM radio in San Diego). Not a lot of details yet, but he said that Freddie Mac, starting on August 9th, will be limiting investors to four mortgages (previous limit was 10). If you go for your fifth, you will not be eligible for a Freddie Mac loan.

What effect this will make on commercial loans is unclear, but Becker indicated that Fannie Mae should not be far behind.

[DWCAP]

10! or now, 4! Really? I mean I always here about how these GSE’s are sponsored to promote home ownership. To help first time buyers and the middle class get into a house, with the justification being the people who own are more involved in the communities, generally more stable, and have a nest egg in their house for when they retire. The cost of this is the increased risk the federal government is taking on to insure these loans.
Now you are telling me that they are gonna “only” insure you up to 4 houses instead of 10! (not aimed at OP,more at those who are sure to cry foul) How is this not government insured investment? Sure sure, I understand that people may not want to live in their first home their entire lives and that moveing up the “ladder” is the American dream part 2. I totally understand that. But 10?
And we wonder why things get out of control every 10 years or so.

[DWCAP]

10! or now, 4! Really? I mean I always here about how these GSE’s are sponsored to promote home ownership. To help first time buyers and the middle class get into a house, with the justification being the people who own are more involved in the communities, generally more stable, and have a nest egg in their house for when they retire. The cost of this is the increased risk the federal government is taking on to insure these loans.
Now you are telling me that they are gonna “only” insure you up to 4 houses instead of 10! (not aimed at OP,more at those who are sure to cry foul) How is this not government insured investment? Sure sure, I understand that people may not want to live in their first home their entire lives and that moveing up the “ladder” is the American dream part 2. I totally understand that. But 10?
And we wonder why things get out of control every 10 years or so.

[DWCAP]

10! or now, 4! Really? I mean I always here about how these GSE’s are sponsored to promote home ownership. To help first time buyers and the middle class get into a house, with the justification being the people who own are more involved in the communities, generally more stable, and have a nest egg in their house for when they retire. The cost of this is the increased risk the federal government is taking on to insure these loans.
Now you are telling me that they are gonna “only” insure you up to 4 houses instead of 10! (not aimed at OP,more at those who are sure to cry foul) How is this not government insured investment? Sure sure, I understand that people may not want to live in their first home their entire lives and that moveing up the “ladder” is the American dream part 2. I totally understand that. But 10?
And we wonder why things get out of control every 10 years or so.

[DWCAP]

10! or now, 4! Really? I mean I always here about how these GSE’s are sponsored to promote home ownership. To help first time buyers and the middle class get into a house, with the justification being the people who own are more involved in the communities, generally more stable, and have a nest egg in their house for when they retire. The cost of this is the increased risk the federal government is taking on to insure these loans.
Now you are telling me that they are gonna “only” insure you up to 4 houses instead of 10! (not aimed at OP,more at those who are sure to cry foul) How is this not government insured investment? Sure sure, I understand that people may not want to live in their first home their entire lives and that moveing up the “ladder” is the American dream part 2. I totally understand that. But 10?
And we wonder why things get out of control every 10 years or so.

[DWCAP]

10! or now, 4! Really? I mean I always here about how these GSE’s are sponsored to promote home ownership. To help first time buyers and the middle class get into a house, with the justification being the people who own are more involved in the communities, generally more stable, and have a nest egg in their house for when they retire. The cost of this is the increased risk the federal government is taking on to insure these loans.
Now you are telling me that they are gonna “only” insure you up to 4 houses instead of 10! (not aimed at OP,more at those who are sure to cry foul) How is this not government insured investment? Sure sure, I understand that people may not want to live in their first home their entire lives and that moveing up the “ladder” is the American dream part 2. I totally understand that. But 10?
And we wonder why things get out of control every 10 years or so.

[surveyor]

37?! (bland movie reference…)

Most flipper/speculators do not have 10 or even close to 10 mortgages. Most of the people with 10 mortgages were/are investors, who have a vested interest in making their properties nice and rentable, providing a good source for habitable and quality housing. There are actually not a lot of people investing in middle-tier housing (most investors are either in SFR/condos or companies with 50+ unit apartments). So in my sphere, the structure is pretty good for supplying housing (and not necessarily encouraging homeownership, but providing housing).

And honestly, if it weren’t for many small landlords, the only affordable housing would be by corporations, who only tend to provide high density apartments because of economies of scale.

In any case, the 10 mortgage limit was probably some kind of arbitrary number and was probably predicated on the idea that people were responsible and would honor their debts. However, with the current environment and the advice being “walk away from your mortgage” being prevalent, it was probably a wise idea to at least limit the number of mortgages. Still, in my experience, the rule has the effect of punishing those who have followed the rules and been honorable (as many of us here can attest to) – namely the small and getting started investor.

My two cents.

[surveyor]

37?! (bland movie reference…)

Most flipper/speculators do not have 10 or even close to 10 mortgages. Most of the people with 10 mortgages were/are investors, who have a vested interest in making their properties nice and rentable, providing a good source for habitable and quality housing. There are actually not a lot of people investing in middle-tier housing (most investors are either in SFR/condos or companies with 50+ unit apartments). So in my sphere, the structure is pretty good for supplying housing (and not necessarily encouraging homeownership, but providing housing).

And honestly, if it weren’t for many small landlords, the only affordable housing would be by corporations, who only tend to provide high density apartments because of economies of scale.

In any case, the 10 mortgage limit was probably some kind of arbitrary number and was probably predicated on the idea that people were responsible and would honor their debts. However, with the current environment and the advice being “walk away from your mortgage” being prevalent, it was probably a wise idea to at least limit the number of mortgages. Still, in my experience, the rule has the effect of punishing those who have followed the rules and been honorable (as many of us here can attest to) – namely the small and getting started investor.

My two cents.

[surveyor]

37?! (bland movie reference…)

Most flipper/speculators do not have 10 or even close to 10 mortgages. Most of the people with 10 mortgages were/are investors, who have a vested interest in making their properties nice and rentable, providing a good source for habitable and quality housing. There are actually not a lot of people investing in middle-tier housing (most investors are either in SFR/condos or companies with 50+ unit apartments). So in my sphere, the structure is pretty good for supplying housing (and not necessarily encouraging homeownership, but providing housing).

And honestly, if it weren’t for many small landlords, the only affordable housing would be by corporations, who only tend to provide high density apartments because of economies of scale.

In any case, the 10 mortgage limit was probably some kind of arbitrary number and was probably predicated on the idea that people were responsible and would honor their debts. However, with the current environment and the advice being “walk away from your mortgage” being prevalent, it was probably a wise idea to at least limit the number of mortgages. Still, in my experience, the rule has the effect of punishing those who have followed the rules and been honorable (as many of us here can attest to) – namely the small and getting started investor.

My two cents.

[surveyor]

37?! (bland movie reference…)

Most flipper/speculators do not have 10 or even close to 10 mortgages. Most of the people with 10 mortgages were/are investors, who have a vested interest in making their properties nice and rentable, providing a good source for habitable and quality housing. There are actually not a lot of people investing in middle-tier housing (most investors are either in SFR/condos or companies with 50+ unit apartments). So in my sphere, the structure is pretty good for supplying housing (and not necessarily encouraging homeownership, but providing housing).

And honestly, if it weren’t for many small landlords, the only affordable housing would be by corporations, who only tend to provide high density apartments because of economies of scale.

In any case, the 10 mortgage limit was probably some kind of arbitrary number and was probably predicated on the idea that people were responsible and would honor their debts. However, with the current environment and the advice being “walk away from your mortgage” being prevalent, it was probably a wise idea to at least limit the number of mortgages. Still, in my experience, the rule has the effect of punishing those who have followed the rules and been honorable (as many of us here can attest to) – namely the small and getting started investor.

My two cents.

[surveyor]

37?! (bland movie reference…)

Most flipper/speculators do not have 10 or even close to 10 mortgages. Most of the people with 10 mortgages were/are investors, who have a vested interest in making their properties nice and rentable, providing a good source for habitable and quality housing. There are actually not a lot of people investing in middle-tier housing (most investors are either in SFR/condos or companies with 50+ unit apartments). So in my sphere, the structure is pretty good for supplying housing (and not necessarily encouraging homeownership, but providing housing).

And honestly, if it weren’t for many small landlords, the only affordable housing would be by corporations, who only tend to provide high density apartments because of economies of scale.

In any case, the 10 mortgage limit was probably some kind of arbitrary number and was probably predicated on the idea that people were responsible and would honor their debts. However, with the current environment and the advice being “walk away from your mortgage” being prevalent, it was probably a wise idea to at least limit the number of mortgages. Still, in my experience, the rule has the effect of punishing those who have followed the rules and been honorable (as many of us here can attest to) – namely the small and getting started investor.

My two cents.

[DWCAP]

“Most of the people with 10 mortgages were/are investors, who have a vested interest in making their properties nice and rentable, providing a good source for habitable and quality housing. There are actually not a lot of people investing in middle-tier housing (most investors are either in SFR/condos or companies with 50+ unit apartments). So in my sphere, the structure is pretty good for supplying housing (and not necessarily encouraging homeownership, but providing housing).”

Exactly. That is government sponsored investment. They take the risk, you reap the reward, society is/may be alittle better off as rentals are more available, especially at a slightly reduced rent. That isnt free market actions, (again, not necessary a bad thing, but call it what it is.) And it isnt effectivly encouraging affordable home ownership which is the generally accepted rational for the GSE’s.

“And honestly, if it weren’t for many small landlords, the only affordable housing would be by corporations, who only tend to provide high density apartments because of economies of scale.”

Or, this tends to drive UP the price of condo/SFR housing, as demand from investors is higher, meaning fewer people can afford to own, but more can afford to rent. That is, investors make owning RE alittle less affordable, but they make rental housing alittle more affordable.

Look please dont take this as an attack against you or anyone else in your situtation. But people have a terrible tendency of talking up their contributions, but ignoring their costs. Investor/LL’s are good cause they provide rental housing to the market, especailly in a market that corperations dont usually take part in. However, they also drive up the cost of owning housing, as demand will not fall to the level inherent because of “owner/occupier”, making housing less affordable for ownership.
I am not against LL’s. My whole family are LL’s, some day I hope to join them. I just think that there is a big difference between someone renting out the condo they upgraded out of, and someone buying 9 houses as investment tools with government backing.

[DWCAP]

“Most of the people with 10 mortgages were/are investors, who have a vested interest in making their properties nice and rentable, providing a good source for habitable and quality housing. There are actually not a lot of people investing in middle-tier housing (most investors are either in SFR/condos or companies with 50+ unit apartments). So in my sphere, the structure is pretty good for supplying housing (and not necessarily encouraging homeownership, but providing housing).”

Exactly. That is government sponsored investment. They take the risk, you reap the reward, society is/may be alittle better off as rentals are more available, especially at a slightly reduced rent. That isnt free market actions, (again, not necessary a bad thing, but call it what it is.) And it isnt effectivly encouraging affordable home ownership which is the generally accepted rational for the GSE’s.

“And honestly, if it weren’t for many small landlords, the only affordable housing would be by corporations, who only tend to provide high density apartments because of economies of scale.”

Or, this tends to drive UP the price of condo/SFR housing, as demand from investors is higher, meaning fewer people can afford to own, but more can afford to rent. That is, investors make owning RE alittle less affordable, but they make rental housing alittle more affordable.

Look please dont take this as an attack against you or anyone else in your situtation. But people have a terrible tendency of talking up their contributions, but ignoring their costs. Investor/LL’s are good cause they provide rental housing to the market, especailly in a market that corperations dont usually take part in. However, they also drive up the cost of owning housing, as demand will not fall to the level inherent because of “owner/occupier”, making housing less affordable for ownership.
I am not against LL’s. My whole family are LL’s, some day I hope to join them. I just think that there is a big difference between someone renting out the condo they upgraded out of, and someone buying 9 houses as investment tools with government backing.

[DWCAP]

“Most of the people with 10 mortgages were/are investors, who have a vested interest in making their properties nice and rentable, providing a good source for habitable and quality housing. There are actually not a lot of people investing in middle-tier housing (most investors are either in SFR/condos or companies with 50+ unit apartments). So in my sphere, the structure is pretty good for supplying housing (and not necessarily encouraging homeownership, but providing housing).”

Exactly. That is government sponsored investment. They take the risk, you reap the reward, society is/may be alittle better off as rentals are more available, especially at a slightly reduced rent. That isnt free market actions, (again, not necessary a bad thing, but call it what it is.) And it isnt effectivly encouraging affordable home ownership which is the generally accepted rational for the GSE’s.

“And honestly, if it weren’t for many small landlords, the only affordable housing would be by corporations, who only tend to provide high density apartments because of economies of scale.”

Or, this tends to drive UP the price of condo/SFR housing, as demand from investors is higher, meaning fewer people can afford to own, but more can afford to rent. That is, investors make owning RE alittle less affordable, but they make rental housing alittle more affordable.

Look please dont take this as an attack against you or anyone else in your situtation. But people have a terrible tendency of talking up their contributions, but ignoring their costs. Investor/LL’s are good cause they provide rental housing to the market, especailly in a market that corperations dont usually take part in. However, they also drive up the cost of owning housing, as demand will not fall to the level inherent because of “owner/occupier”, making housing less affordable for ownership.
I am not against LL’s. My whole family are LL’s, some day I hope to join them. I just think that there is a big difference between someone renting out the condo they upgraded out of, and someone buying 9 houses as investment tools with government backing.

[DWCAP]

“Most of the people with 10 mortgages were/are investors, who have a vested interest in making their properties nice and rentable, providing a good source for habitable and quality housing. There are actually not a lot of people investing in middle-tier housing (most investors are either in SFR/condos or companies with 50+ unit apartments). So in my sphere, the structure is pretty good for supplying housing (and not necessarily encouraging homeownership, but providing housing).”

Exactly. That is government sponsored investment. They take the risk, you reap the reward, society is/may be alittle better off as rentals are more available, especially at a slightly reduced rent. That isnt free market actions, (again, not necessary a bad thing, but call it what it is.) And it isnt effectivly encouraging affordable home ownership which is the generally accepted rational for the GSE’s.

“And honestly, if it weren’t for many small landlords, the only affordable housing would be by corporations, who only tend to provide high density apartments because of economies of scale.”

Or, this tends to drive UP the price of condo/SFR housing, as demand from investors is higher, meaning fewer people can afford to own, but more can afford to rent. That is, investors make owning RE alittle less affordable, but they make rental housing alittle more affordable.

Look please dont take this as an attack against you or anyone else in your situtation. But people have a terrible tendency of talking up their contributions, but ignoring their costs. Investor/LL’s are good cause they provide rental housing to the market, especailly in a market that corperations dont usually take part in. However, they also drive up the cost of owning housing, as demand will not fall to the level inherent because of “owner/occupier”, making housing less affordable for ownership.
I am not against LL’s. My whole family are LL’s, some day I hope to join them. I just think that there is a big difference between someone renting out the condo they upgraded out of, and someone buying 9 houses as investment tools with government backing.

[Author]

Posts