- This topic has 615 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 9 months ago by
saiine.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 5, 2011 at 3:06 PM #674646March 5, 2011 at 3:09 PM #673503
paramount
ParticipantFortunately the mortgage market – 90% or more of which are funded by the gov’t doesn’t work the way hard liners interested in gentrification would like it to.
Low down payment does not equal sub prime.
March 5, 2011 at 3:09 PM #673561ParticipantFortunately the mortgage market – 90% or more of which are funded by the gov’t doesn’t work the way hard liners interested in gentrification would like it to.
Low down payment does not equal sub prime.
March 5, 2011 at 3:09 PM #674172ParticipantFortunately the mortgage market – 90% or more of which are funded by the gov’t doesn’t work the way hard liners interested in gentrification would like it to.
Low down payment does not equal sub prime.
March 5, 2011 at 3:09 PM #674309ParticipantFortunately the mortgage market – 90% or more of which are funded by the gov’t doesn’t work the way hard liners interested in gentrification would like it to.
Low down payment does not equal sub prime.
March 5, 2011 at 3:09 PM #674656ParticipantFortunately the mortgage market – 90% or more of which are funded by the gov’t doesn’t work the way hard liners interested in gentrification would like it to.
Low down payment does not equal sub prime.
March 5, 2011 at 3:21 PM #673498bearishgurl
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]…Under your model these people should not be able to purchase even modest homest homes until their mid 40″s despite having virtually guaranteed income placing them in the Top 2% of households in the country. Sorry while your model works for worker bees it holds no water many folks who are more upwardly mobile.[/quote]
I’m not a “lender,” sdr, and neither are you. I don’t make these rules and decisions. Once again, lending decisions are based upon the 3 C’s of credit, that is, character, capacity and collateral. Lending decisions are NOT based solely upon occupation.
But I do wonder what a newly-minted “physician” would be doing attempting to raise a new family and searching for a home to buy when they have exorbitant levels of non-dischargeable student debt still on their “books.”
Just because a potential RE mortgage borrower may have graduated from college and is now a physician, lawyer, engineer, college professor, accountant, or even lowly “realtor,” doesn’t mean that:
they are tenured (in the case of a professor);
they don’t have a mountain of non-dischargable student loan debt;
they don’t have a mountain of consumer debt;
they have job security;
they have a positive net worth;
they have an acceptable FICO score;
they don’t owe monthly child/spousal support payments;
they aren’t attempting to support sick or unemployed relatives or spouses;
they or their spouses don’t have a gambling problem;
they or their family members aren’t currently addicted to alcohol or drugs;
they haven’t filed a BK in the past 7 years;
they haven’t had a foreclosure/short payoff in the past few years;
they have any equity in the properties they currently own;
they and/or their spouses are not trying to live above their means;
they aren’t a party in a current lawsuit;
they don’t have a judgment lien filed against them;
they don’t owe any back taxes of any kind;
etc.
**************************************************
Conversely, just because a potential RE mortgage borrower is a recent immigrant with no “green card,” no SSN and no FICO score doesn’t mean that:
they don’t have enough assets to purchase the property outright;
they don’t already own substantial real property in the United States;
they aren’t earning a very large income in the US and/or another country;
they weren’t the heir of a family fortune;
etc.
*************************************************
You can’t pigeonhole RE buyers based upon their educational levels or occupations.
Your post kind of sounds like you believe certain categories of buyers (based upon their occupations) “deserve” to purchase certain types of property in certain locations. I’m sure you’re aware that it doesn’t work that way and it never will.
Back to the 3 C’s.
[quote=sdrealtor]…I cant help it if my week beats your year…[/quote]
This is just another (insecure) comment of yours showing the depth and breadth of your ignorance. You don’t know anything about my income for any given week, or year, for that matter.
March 5, 2011 at 3:21 PM #673556Participant[quote=sdrealtor]…Under your model these people should not be able to purchase even modest homest homes until their mid 40″s despite having virtually guaranteed income placing them in the Top 2% of households in the country. Sorry while your model works for worker bees it holds no water many folks who are more upwardly mobile.[/quote]
I’m not a “lender,” sdr, and neither are you. I don’t make these rules and decisions. Once again, lending decisions are based upon the 3 C’s of credit, that is, character, capacity and collateral. Lending decisions are NOT based solely upon occupation.
But I do wonder what a newly-minted “physician” would be doing attempting to raise a new family and searching for a home to buy when they have exorbitant levels of non-dischargeable student debt still on their “books.”
Just because a potential RE mortgage borrower may have graduated from college and is now a physician, lawyer, engineer, college professor, accountant, or even lowly “realtor,” doesn’t mean that:
they are tenured (in the case of a professor);
they don’t have a mountain of non-dischargable student loan debt;
they don’t have a mountain of consumer debt;
they have job security;
they have a positive net worth;
they have an acceptable FICO score;
they don’t owe monthly child/spousal support payments;
they aren’t attempting to support sick or unemployed relatives or spouses;
they or their spouses don’t have a gambling problem;
they or their family members aren’t currently addicted to alcohol or drugs;
they haven’t filed a BK in the past 7 years;
they haven’t had a foreclosure/short payoff in the past few years;
they have any equity in the properties they currently own;
they and/or their spouses are not trying to live above their means;
they aren’t a party in a current lawsuit;
they don’t have a judgment lien filed against them;
they don’t owe any back taxes of any kind;
etc.
**************************************************
Conversely, just because a potential RE mortgage borrower is a recent immigrant with no “green card,” no SSN and no FICO score doesn’t mean that:
they don’t have enough assets to purchase the property outright;
they don’t already own substantial real property in the United States;
they aren’t earning a very large income in the US and/or another country;
they weren’t the heir of a family fortune;
etc.
*************************************************
You can’t pigeonhole RE buyers based upon their educational levels or occupations.
Your post kind of sounds like you believe certain categories of buyers (based upon their occupations) “deserve” to purchase certain types of property in certain locations. I’m sure you’re aware that it doesn’t work that way and it never will.
Back to the 3 C’s.
[quote=sdrealtor]…I cant help it if my week beats your year…[/quote]
This is just another (insecure) comment of yours showing the depth and breadth of your ignorance. You don’t know anything about my income for any given week, or year, for that matter.
March 5, 2011 at 3:21 PM #674167Participant[quote=sdrealtor]…Under your model these people should not be able to purchase even modest homest homes until their mid 40″s despite having virtually guaranteed income placing them in the Top 2% of households in the country. Sorry while your model works for worker bees it holds no water many folks who are more upwardly mobile.[/quote]
I’m not a “lender,” sdr, and neither are you. I don’t make these rules and decisions. Once again, lending decisions are based upon the 3 C’s of credit, that is, character, capacity and collateral. Lending decisions are NOT based solely upon occupation.
But I do wonder what a newly-minted “physician” would be doing attempting to raise a new family and searching for a home to buy when they have exorbitant levels of non-dischargeable student debt still on their “books.”
Just because a potential RE mortgage borrower may have graduated from college and is now a physician, lawyer, engineer, college professor, accountant, or even lowly “realtor,” doesn’t mean that:
they are tenured (in the case of a professor);
they don’t have a mountain of non-dischargable student loan debt;
they don’t have a mountain of consumer debt;
they have job security;
they have a positive net worth;
they have an acceptable FICO score;
they don’t owe monthly child/spousal support payments;
they aren’t attempting to support sick or unemployed relatives or spouses;
they or their spouses don’t have a gambling problem;
they or their family members aren’t currently addicted to alcohol or drugs;
they haven’t filed a BK in the past 7 years;
they haven’t had a foreclosure/short payoff in the past few years;
they have any equity in the properties they currently own;
they and/or their spouses are not trying to live above their means;
they aren’t a party in a current lawsuit;
they don’t have a judgment lien filed against them;
they don’t owe any back taxes of any kind;
etc.
**************************************************
Conversely, just because a potential RE mortgage borrower is a recent immigrant with no “green card,” no SSN and no FICO score doesn’t mean that:
they don’t have enough assets to purchase the property outright;
they don’t already own substantial real property in the United States;
they aren’t earning a very large income in the US and/or another country;
they weren’t the heir of a family fortune;
etc.
*************************************************
You can’t pigeonhole RE buyers based upon their educational levels or occupations.
Your post kind of sounds like you believe certain categories of buyers (based upon their occupations) “deserve” to purchase certain types of property in certain locations. I’m sure you’re aware that it doesn’t work that way and it never will.
Back to the 3 C’s.
[quote=sdrealtor]…I cant help it if my week beats your year…[/quote]
This is just another (insecure) comment of yours showing the depth and breadth of your ignorance. You don’t know anything about my income for any given week, or year, for that matter.
March 5, 2011 at 3:21 PM #674304Participant[quote=sdrealtor]…Under your model these people should not be able to purchase even modest homest homes until their mid 40″s despite having virtually guaranteed income placing them in the Top 2% of households in the country. Sorry while your model works for worker bees it holds no water many folks who are more upwardly mobile.[/quote]
I’m not a “lender,” sdr, and neither are you. I don’t make these rules and decisions. Once again, lending decisions are based upon the 3 C’s of credit, that is, character, capacity and collateral. Lending decisions are NOT based solely upon occupation.
But I do wonder what a newly-minted “physician” would be doing attempting to raise a new family and searching for a home to buy when they have exorbitant levels of non-dischargeable student debt still on their “books.”
Just because a potential RE mortgage borrower may have graduated from college and is now a physician, lawyer, engineer, college professor, accountant, or even lowly “realtor,” doesn’t mean that:
they are tenured (in the case of a professor);
they don’t have a mountain of non-dischargable student loan debt;
they don’t have a mountain of consumer debt;
they have job security;
they have a positive net worth;
they have an acceptable FICO score;
they don’t owe monthly child/spousal support payments;
they aren’t attempting to support sick or unemployed relatives or spouses;
they or their spouses don’t have a gambling problem;
they or their family members aren’t currently addicted to alcohol or drugs;
they haven’t filed a BK in the past 7 years;
they haven’t had a foreclosure/short payoff in the past few years;
they have any equity in the properties they currently own;
they and/or their spouses are not trying to live above their means;
they aren’t a party in a current lawsuit;
they don’t have a judgment lien filed against them;
they don’t owe any back taxes of any kind;
etc.
**************************************************
Conversely, just because a potential RE mortgage borrower is a recent immigrant with no “green card,” no SSN and no FICO score doesn’t mean that:
they don’t have enough assets to purchase the property outright;
they don’t already own substantial real property in the United States;
they aren’t earning a very large income in the US and/or another country;
they weren’t the heir of a family fortune;
etc.
*************************************************
You can’t pigeonhole RE buyers based upon their educational levels or occupations.
Your post kind of sounds like you believe certain categories of buyers (based upon their occupations) “deserve” to purchase certain types of property in certain locations. I’m sure you’re aware that it doesn’t work that way and it never will.
Back to the 3 C’s.
[quote=sdrealtor]…I cant help it if my week beats your year…[/quote]
This is just another (insecure) comment of yours showing the depth and breadth of your ignorance. You don’t know anything about my income for any given week, or year, for that matter.
March 5, 2011 at 3:21 PM #674651Participant[quote=sdrealtor]…Under your model these people should not be able to purchase even modest homest homes until their mid 40″s despite having virtually guaranteed income placing them in the Top 2% of households in the country. Sorry while your model works for worker bees it holds no water many folks who are more upwardly mobile.[/quote]
I’m not a “lender,” sdr, and neither are you. I don’t make these rules and decisions. Once again, lending decisions are based upon the 3 C’s of credit, that is, character, capacity and collateral. Lending decisions are NOT based solely upon occupation.
But I do wonder what a newly-minted “physician” would be doing attempting to raise a new family and searching for a home to buy when they have exorbitant levels of non-dischargeable student debt still on their “books.”
Just because a potential RE mortgage borrower may have graduated from college and is now a physician, lawyer, engineer, college professor, accountant, or even lowly “realtor,” doesn’t mean that:
they are tenured (in the case of a professor);
they don’t have a mountain of non-dischargable student loan debt;
they don’t have a mountain of consumer debt;
they have job security;
they have a positive net worth;
they have an acceptable FICO score;
they don’t owe monthly child/spousal support payments;
they aren’t attempting to support sick or unemployed relatives or spouses;
they or their spouses don’t have a gambling problem;
they or their family members aren’t currently addicted to alcohol or drugs;
they haven’t filed a BK in the past 7 years;
they haven’t had a foreclosure/short payoff in the past few years;
they have any equity in the properties they currently own;
they and/or their spouses are not trying to live above their means;
they aren’t a party in a current lawsuit;
they don’t have a judgment lien filed against them;
they don’t owe any back taxes of any kind;
etc.
**************************************************
Conversely, just because a potential RE mortgage borrower is a recent immigrant with no “green card,” no SSN and no FICO score doesn’t mean that:
they don’t have enough assets to purchase the property outright;
they don’t already own substantial real property in the United States;
they aren’t earning a very large income in the US and/or another country;
they weren’t the heir of a family fortune;
etc.
*************************************************
You can’t pigeonhole RE buyers based upon their educational levels or occupations.
Your post kind of sounds like you believe certain categories of buyers (based upon their occupations) “deserve” to purchase certain types of property in certain locations. I’m sure you’re aware that it doesn’t work that way and it never will.
Back to the 3 C’s.
[quote=sdrealtor]…I cant help it if my week beats your year…[/quote]
This is just another (insecure) comment of yours showing the depth and breadth of your ignorance. You don’t know anything about my income for any given week, or year, for that matter.
March 5, 2011 at 3:24 PM #673513davelj
Participant[quote=ctr70]
FHA and VA have never had super high default rates. So it’s a myth that real estate “used to be” 20% down back in the day or it needs to be 20% down. FHA has never been 20% down and it’s been around since 1934.
[/quote]Actually it’s NOT a myth that SFRs “used to be” 20% down.
Found it: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312904576146532935600542.html
“The median down payment hovered around 20% in the late 1990s and began to creep downward in 2001… It fell as low as 4% in the fourth quarter of 2006, and in some markets came close to zero.”
So, yes, while you’re correct that FHA (and VA) loans were never 20% down… the FHA portfolio is currently a disaster (I can’t speak to the VA portfolio), so… perhaps they should have tightened up during this past cycle. Also, FHA and VA loans have historically been a small part of the market relative to Fannie and Freddie. F&F loans are the “norm.”
So, for the vast majority of the borrowing public, 20% down was the norm during the ’90s… and it sunk down to 4% by 2006. You’re simply wrong here.
March 5, 2011 at 3:24 PM #673571Participant[quote=ctr70]
FHA and VA have never had super high default rates. So it’s a myth that real estate “used to be” 20% down back in the day or it needs to be 20% down. FHA has never been 20% down and it’s been around since 1934.
[/quote]Actually it’s NOT a myth that SFRs “used to be” 20% down.
Found it: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312904576146532935600542.html
“The median down payment hovered around 20% in the late 1990s and began to creep downward in 2001… It fell as low as 4% in the fourth quarter of 2006, and in some markets came close to zero.”
So, yes, while you’re correct that FHA (and VA) loans were never 20% down… the FHA portfolio is currently a disaster (I can’t speak to the VA portfolio), so… perhaps they should have tightened up during this past cycle. Also, FHA and VA loans have historically been a small part of the market relative to Fannie and Freddie. F&F loans are the “norm.”
So, for the vast majority of the borrowing public, 20% down was the norm during the ’90s… and it sunk down to 4% by 2006. You’re simply wrong here.
March 5, 2011 at 3:24 PM #674182Participant[quote=ctr70]
FHA and VA have never had super high default rates. So it’s a myth that real estate “used to be” 20% down back in the day or it needs to be 20% down. FHA has never been 20% down and it’s been around since 1934.
[/quote]Actually it’s NOT a myth that SFRs “used to be” 20% down.
Found it: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312904576146532935600542.html
“The median down payment hovered around 20% in the late 1990s and began to creep downward in 2001… It fell as low as 4% in the fourth quarter of 2006, and in some markets came close to zero.”
So, yes, while you’re correct that FHA (and VA) loans were never 20% down… the FHA portfolio is currently a disaster (I can’t speak to the VA portfolio), so… perhaps they should have tightened up during this past cycle. Also, FHA and VA loans have historically been a small part of the market relative to Fannie and Freddie. F&F loans are the “norm.”
So, for the vast majority of the borrowing public, 20% down was the norm during the ’90s… and it sunk down to 4% by 2006. You’re simply wrong here.
March 5, 2011 at 3:24 PM #674319Participant[quote=ctr70]
FHA and VA have never had super high default rates. So it’s a myth that real estate “used to be” 20% down back in the day or it needs to be 20% down. FHA has never been 20% down and it’s been around since 1934.
[/quote]Actually it’s NOT a myth that SFRs “used to be” 20% down.
Found it: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312904576146532935600542.html
“The median down payment hovered around 20% in the late 1990s and began to creep downward in 2001… It fell as low as 4% in the fourth quarter of 2006, and in some markets came close to zero.”
So, yes, while you’re correct that FHA (and VA) loans were never 20% down… the FHA portfolio is currently a disaster (I can’t speak to the VA portfolio), so… perhaps they should have tightened up during this past cycle. Also, FHA and VA loans have historically been a small part of the market relative to Fannie and Freddie. F&F loans are the “norm.”
So, for the vast majority of the borrowing public, 20% down was the norm during the ’90s… and it sunk down to 4% by 2006. You’re simply wrong here.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
