- This topic has 230 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 3 months ago by
kev374.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 5, 2008 at 9:16 AM #148605February 5, 2008 at 9:58 AM #148281
AK
ParticipantDoesn’t FHA have a 31% limit for PITI expenses on top of the 43% DTI limit? If so I’d imagine that would be a deal-breaker for most Californians.
Jillayne Schlicke at raincityguide.com makes a few pointed observations about FHA “reform”:
FHA Secure: A Political Power Move Disguised as a Helping Hand to Those in Need
Among other things, she notes that FHA loan performance is already less than stellar. And I love this rant:
When I pay my federal income tax next spring, perhaps there will be a box I can check to elect whether or not I’d like to give my taxes over to the corporate welfare plan cleverly disguised as more FHA loan programs and subsidizing pre-foreclosure loan modifications. Government was never intended to bail out corporations. Let the invisible hand of the free market take its toll. Let the corporations that screwed up go down, let those employees re-enter the workforce elsewhere, let the homebuyers who fell for pay option, interest only, negative am ARMs re-enter the home market as renters.
Ooooh 🙂
February 5, 2008 at 9:58 AM #148531ParticipantDoesn’t FHA have a 31% limit for PITI expenses on top of the 43% DTI limit? If so I’d imagine that would be a deal-breaker for most Californians.
Jillayne Schlicke at raincityguide.com makes a few pointed observations about FHA “reform”:
FHA Secure: A Political Power Move Disguised as a Helping Hand to Those in Need
Among other things, she notes that FHA loan performance is already less than stellar. And I love this rant:
When I pay my federal income tax next spring, perhaps there will be a box I can check to elect whether or not I’d like to give my taxes over to the corporate welfare plan cleverly disguised as more FHA loan programs and subsidizing pre-foreclosure loan modifications. Government was never intended to bail out corporations. Let the invisible hand of the free market take its toll. Let the corporations that screwed up go down, let those employees re-enter the workforce elsewhere, let the homebuyers who fell for pay option, interest only, negative am ARMs re-enter the home market as renters.
Ooooh 🙂
February 5, 2008 at 9:58 AM #148549ParticipantDoesn’t FHA have a 31% limit for PITI expenses on top of the 43% DTI limit? If so I’d imagine that would be a deal-breaker for most Californians.
Jillayne Schlicke at raincityguide.com makes a few pointed observations about FHA “reform”:
FHA Secure: A Political Power Move Disguised as a Helping Hand to Those in Need
Among other things, she notes that FHA loan performance is already less than stellar. And I love this rant:
When I pay my federal income tax next spring, perhaps there will be a box I can check to elect whether or not I’d like to give my taxes over to the corporate welfare plan cleverly disguised as more FHA loan programs and subsidizing pre-foreclosure loan modifications. Government was never intended to bail out corporations. Let the invisible hand of the free market take its toll. Let the corporations that screwed up go down, let those employees re-enter the workforce elsewhere, let the homebuyers who fell for pay option, interest only, negative am ARMs re-enter the home market as renters.
Ooooh 🙂
February 5, 2008 at 9:58 AM #148562ParticipantDoesn’t FHA have a 31% limit for PITI expenses on top of the 43% DTI limit? If so I’d imagine that would be a deal-breaker for most Californians.
Jillayne Schlicke at raincityguide.com makes a few pointed observations about FHA “reform”:
FHA Secure: A Political Power Move Disguised as a Helping Hand to Those in Need
Among other things, she notes that FHA loan performance is already less than stellar. And I love this rant:
When I pay my federal income tax next spring, perhaps there will be a box I can check to elect whether or not I’d like to give my taxes over to the corporate welfare plan cleverly disguised as more FHA loan programs and subsidizing pre-foreclosure loan modifications. Government was never intended to bail out corporations. Let the invisible hand of the free market take its toll. Let the corporations that screwed up go down, let those employees re-enter the workforce elsewhere, let the homebuyers who fell for pay option, interest only, negative am ARMs re-enter the home market as renters.
Ooooh 🙂
February 5, 2008 at 9:58 AM #148630ParticipantDoesn’t FHA have a 31% limit for PITI expenses on top of the 43% DTI limit? If so I’d imagine that would be a deal-breaker for most Californians.
Jillayne Schlicke at raincityguide.com makes a few pointed observations about FHA “reform”:
FHA Secure: A Political Power Move Disguised as a Helping Hand to Those in Need
Among other things, she notes that FHA loan performance is already less than stellar. And I love this rant:
When I pay my federal income tax next spring, perhaps there will be a box I can check to elect whether or not I’d like to give my taxes over to the corporate welfare plan cleverly disguised as more FHA loan programs and subsidizing pre-foreclosure loan modifications. Government was never intended to bail out corporations. Let the invisible hand of the free market take its toll. Let the corporations that screwed up go down, let those employees re-enter the workforce elsewhere, let the homebuyers who fell for pay option, interest only, negative am ARMs re-enter the home market as renters.
Ooooh 🙂
February 5, 2008 at 10:12 AM #148286Eugene
ParticipantIIRC it’s 29% not 31%.
February 5, 2008 at 10:12 AM #148536ParticipantIIRC it’s 29% not 31%.
February 5, 2008 at 10:12 AM #148554ParticipantIIRC it’s 29% not 31%.
February 5, 2008 at 10:12 AM #148567ParticipantIIRC it’s 29% not 31%.
February 5, 2008 at 10:12 AM #148635ParticipantIIRC it’s 29% not 31%.
February 5, 2008 at 10:19 AM #148291NotCranky
Participant“Please forgive the stupid question. Help me understand. Isn’t FHA going to be Federally insured? I.e., government insured, i.e. if someone defaults/forecloses on loan, the government bails them out, i.e. the taxpayers? Or as mentioned, will it be a HUD home. Cool. HUD homes in 4S Ranch. I like that.”
The Housing and Urban Development department repossesses homes, mainly through its FHA program. The FHA insures lenders who make loans(see my Post above for how this is supposed to work). When a borrower defaults, the FHA makes good the loan to the lender, and takes the property back.
Watch out for a new plan for HUD to put the homes in an subsidized affordable rental housing scheme. (crackpot conspiracy theory but don’t let Washington catch wind of the idea)
I haven’t seen anyone post it but I think they might be in part targeting houses with 90 days or longer delinquencies, at least the gse’s anyway. I tried to find the reference to this topic but couldn’t right away so I quit.
February 5, 2008 at 10:19 AM #148541Participant“Please forgive the stupid question. Help me understand. Isn’t FHA going to be Federally insured? I.e., government insured, i.e. if someone defaults/forecloses on loan, the government bails them out, i.e. the taxpayers? Or as mentioned, will it be a HUD home. Cool. HUD homes in 4S Ranch. I like that.”
The Housing and Urban Development department repossesses homes, mainly through its FHA program. The FHA insures lenders who make loans(see my Post above for how this is supposed to work). When a borrower defaults, the FHA makes good the loan to the lender, and takes the property back.
Watch out for a new plan for HUD to put the homes in an subsidized affordable rental housing scheme. (crackpot conspiracy theory but don’t let Washington catch wind of the idea)
I haven’t seen anyone post it but I think they might be in part targeting houses with 90 days or longer delinquencies, at least the gse’s anyway. I tried to find the reference to this topic but couldn’t right away so I quit.
February 5, 2008 at 10:19 AM #148559Participant“Please forgive the stupid question. Help me understand. Isn’t FHA going to be Federally insured? I.e., government insured, i.e. if someone defaults/forecloses on loan, the government bails them out, i.e. the taxpayers? Or as mentioned, will it be a HUD home. Cool. HUD homes in 4S Ranch. I like that.”
The Housing and Urban Development department repossesses homes, mainly through its FHA program. The FHA insures lenders who make loans(see my Post above for how this is supposed to work). When a borrower defaults, the FHA makes good the loan to the lender, and takes the property back.
Watch out for a new plan for HUD to put the homes in an subsidized affordable rental housing scheme. (crackpot conspiracy theory but don’t let Washington catch wind of the idea)
I haven’t seen anyone post it but I think they might be in part targeting houses with 90 days or longer delinquencies, at least the gse’s anyway. I tried to find the reference to this topic but couldn’t right away so I quit.
February 5, 2008 at 10:19 AM #148572Participant“Please forgive the stupid question. Help me understand. Isn’t FHA going to be Federally insured? I.e., government insured, i.e. if someone defaults/forecloses on loan, the government bails them out, i.e. the taxpayers? Or as mentioned, will it be a HUD home. Cool. HUD homes in 4S Ranch. I like that.”
The Housing and Urban Development department repossesses homes, mainly through its FHA program. The FHA insures lenders who make loans(see my Post above for how this is supposed to work). When a borrower defaults, the FHA makes good the loan to the lender, and takes the property back.
Watch out for a new plan for HUD to put the homes in an subsidized affordable rental housing scheme. (crackpot conspiracy theory but don’t let Washington catch wind of the idea)
I haven’t seen anyone post it but I think they might be in part targeting houses with 90 days or longer delinquencies, at least the gse’s anyway. I tried to find the reference to this topic but couldn’t right away so I quit.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.