Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 17, 2008 at 12:51 PM in reply to: FDIC Chairman On the Great Credit Squeeze: How it Happened, How to Prevent Another; #206591May 17, 2008 at 12:51 PM in reply to: FDIC Chairman On the Great Credit Squeeze: How it Happened, How to Prevent Another; #206620
HLS
ParticipantKingside,
What are you suggesting….
That wraparound mortgages and AITD’s become acceptable ?You are correct in saying that a DOS is not likely to be enforced anyway.
A servicer would have to have an IQ of 2 to call a loan that has payments being made, regardless of who is making them.This goes so far beyond that. See the YIKES! thread.
One problem today is “investors” seeing houses as a share of stock.
Reality ?
1)Require non-owner occupied loans to require 50% down.
2)Allow one ONE mortgage in a persons name unless they have had it at least 24 months
3)Create a system of “fair” rent control, so a tenant can have a 10-20 year lease and know that they won’t be inflated out of a place to live.
Not attractive to a landlord? Tough, then don’t become one.Ya, it might sound crazy, but would give a whole lot of stability to people’s sense of security.
Wanna really discourage house investing ?
Raise the capital gains on profits to 50%Wanna control prices ?
Require 50% down for owner occupied..Market will correct to affordability real quickly..
This is just as extreme as allowing 100% financing to make houses UNaffordable…The entire market is nothing more than a ponzi scheme, with the govt as the puppeteer, pulling the strings, except now the responsible taxpayer is involved with an expensive ticket to see the show of all the irresponsible puppets, whether we want to watch it or not.
It’s like watching a train wreck in slow motion, you know what the outcome is going to be, but you can’t help watching the destruction unfold.
May 17, 2008 at 12:27 PM in reply to: YIKES! Lower Down Payments From FNMA !! Only 3% now possible.. #206472ParticipantBaron,
This is not a partisan issue though, this to avoid admitting meltdown…Admitting that the house of cards built on debt has collapsed and is going to cost tens of billions of dollars to rebuild.
What is at stake is a lot more than FB’s having to go rent a place to live.
It’s an engineered economic experiment that has blown up like the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
We’ve got Fat Man and Little Boy making the decisions,
and Wall Street is the “Manhattan Project”Perhaps a history lesson is in order….
I’ll be the first one to agree that history repeats itself, but not only the positive events repeat like most people want to believe.If mission is aborted or unsuccessful,
Can you say “DEPRESSION” ??May 17, 2008 at 12:27 PM in reply to: YIKES! Lower Down Payments From FNMA !! Only 3% now possible.. #206525ParticipantBaron,
This is not a partisan issue though, this to avoid admitting meltdown…Admitting that the house of cards built on debt has collapsed and is going to cost tens of billions of dollars to rebuild.
What is at stake is a lot more than FB’s having to go rent a place to live.
It’s an engineered economic experiment that has blown up like the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
We’ve got Fat Man and Little Boy making the decisions,
and Wall Street is the “Manhattan Project”Perhaps a history lesson is in order….
I’ll be the first one to agree that history repeats itself, but not only the positive events repeat like most people want to believe.If mission is aborted or unsuccessful,
Can you say “DEPRESSION” ??May 17, 2008 at 12:27 PM in reply to: YIKES! Lower Down Payments From FNMA !! Only 3% now possible.. #206555ParticipantBaron,
This is not a partisan issue though, this to avoid admitting meltdown…Admitting that the house of cards built on debt has collapsed and is going to cost tens of billions of dollars to rebuild.
What is at stake is a lot more than FB’s having to go rent a place to live.
It’s an engineered economic experiment that has blown up like the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
We’ve got Fat Man and Little Boy making the decisions,
and Wall Street is the “Manhattan Project”Perhaps a history lesson is in order….
I’ll be the first one to agree that history repeats itself, but not only the positive events repeat like most people want to believe.If mission is aborted or unsuccessful,
Can you say “DEPRESSION” ??May 17, 2008 at 12:27 PM in reply to: YIKES! Lower Down Payments From FNMA !! Only 3% now possible.. #206581ParticipantBaron,
This is not a partisan issue though, this to avoid admitting meltdown…Admitting that the house of cards built on debt has collapsed and is going to cost tens of billions of dollars to rebuild.
What is at stake is a lot more than FB’s having to go rent a place to live.
It’s an engineered economic experiment that has blown up like the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
We’ve got Fat Man and Little Boy making the decisions,
and Wall Street is the “Manhattan Project”Perhaps a history lesson is in order….
I’ll be the first one to agree that history repeats itself, but not only the positive events repeat like most people want to believe.If mission is aborted or unsuccessful,
Can you say “DEPRESSION” ??May 17, 2008 at 12:27 PM in reply to: YIKES! Lower Down Payments From FNMA !! Only 3% now possible.. #206609ParticipantBaron,
This is not a partisan issue though, this to avoid admitting meltdown…Admitting that the house of cards built on debt has collapsed and is going to cost tens of billions of dollars to rebuild.
What is at stake is a lot more than FB’s having to go rent a place to live.
It’s an engineered economic experiment that has blown up like the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
We’ve got Fat Man and Little Boy making the decisions,
and Wall Street is the “Manhattan Project”Perhaps a history lesson is in order….
I’ll be the first one to agree that history repeats itself, but not only the positive events repeat like most people want to believe.If mission is aborted or unsuccessful,
Can you say “DEPRESSION” ??May 17, 2008 at 9:46 AM in reply to: YIKES! Lower Down Payments From FNMA !! Only 3% now possible.. #206422ParticipantFHA has had a 3% down program for awhile. The guidelines to qualify were easy at low credit score (even below 600)
but tougher on income qualifying limits (DTI) and are full doc only…FNMA has been at 95% LTV (5% down) but needing a higher credit score, usually 620+, but was easier to qualify based on imcome/debts. DTI up to 60% on loans below $417K
A few months ago, pricing became higher for scores below 680, and much higher from 580-620.
Starting in Dec 2007, FNMA had “areas of declining value” based on zip codes, that added 5% instantly. Most of So Cal was affected, so what had been a possibility for a 95% loan was now 90% in declining markets, which is where it’s stayed until now….
Without knowing the qualifying factors yet, for a qualifying borrower in a declining market, what would have required 10% down today, will only require 3% down on June 1st as a minimum down.
The details of approvals remain to be seen. It might be that even higher credit scores and lower DTI’s are required.
I don’t know if the programs will be the same up to $697,500 limit vs $417k limit…WHAT SAY YE ??
May 17, 2008 at 9:46 AM in reply to: YIKES! Lower Down Payments From FNMA !! Only 3% now possible.. #206473ParticipantFHA has had a 3% down program for awhile. The guidelines to qualify were easy at low credit score (even below 600)
but tougher on income qualifying limits (DTI) and are full doc only…FNMA has been at 95% LTV (5% down) but needing a higher credit score, usually 620+, but was easier to qualify based on imcome/debts. DTI up to 60% on loans below $417K
A few months ago, pricing became higher for scores below 680, and much higher from 580-620.
Starting in Dec 2007, FNMA had “areas of declining value” based on zip codes, that added 5% instantly. Most of So Cal was affected, so what had been a possibility for a 95% loan was now 90% in declining markets, which is where it’s stayed until now….
Without knowing the qualifying factors yet, for a qualifying borrower in a declining market, what would have required 10% down today, will only require 3% down on June 1st as a minimum down.
The details of approvals remain to be seen. It might be that even higher credit scores and lower DTI’s are required.
I don’t know if the programs will be the same up to $697,500 limit vs $417k limit…WHAT SAY YE ??
May 17, 2008 at 9:46 AM in reply to: YIKES! Lower Down Payments From FNMA !! Only 3% now possible.. #206505ParticipantFHA has had a 3% down program for awhile. The guidelines to qualify were easy at low credit score (even below 600)
but tougher on income qualifying limits (DTI) and are full doc only…FNMA has been at 95% LTV (5% down) but needing a higher credit score, usually 620+, but was easier to qualify based on imcome/debts. DTI up to 60% on loans below $417K
A few months ago, pricing became higher for scores below 680, and much higher from 580-620.
Starting in Dec 2007, FNMA had “areas of declining value” based on zip codes, that added 5% instantly. Most of So Cal was affected, so what had been a possibility for a 95% loan was now 90% in declining markets, which is where it’s stayed until now….
Without knowing the qualifying factors yet, for a qualifying borrower in a declining market, what would have required 10% down today, will only require 3% down on June 1st as a minimum down.
The details of approvals remain to be seen. It might be that even higher credit scores and lower DTI’s are required.
I don’t know if the programs will be the same up to $697,500 limit vs $417k limit…WHAT SAY YE ??
May 17, 2008 at 9:46 AM in reply to: YIKES! Lower Down Payments From FNMA !! Only 3% now possible.. #206531ParticipantFHA has had a 3% down program for awhile. The guidelines to qualify were easy at low credit score (even below 600)
but tougher on income qualifying limits (DTI) and are full doc only…FNMA has been at 95% LTV (5% down) but needing a higher credit score, usually 620+, but was easier to qualify based on imcome/debts. DTI up to 60% on loans below $417K
A few months ago, pricing became higher for scores below 680, and much higher from 580-620.
Starting in Dec 2007, FNMA had “areas of declining value” based on zip codes, that added 5% instantly. Most of So Cal was affected, so what had been a possibility for a 95% loan was now 90% in declining markets, which is where it’s stayed until now….
Without knowing the qualifying factors yet, for a qualifying borrower in a declining market, what would have required 10% down today, will only require 3% down on June 1st as a minimum down.
The details of approvals remain to be seen. It might be that even higher credit scores and lower DTI’s are required.
I don’t know if the programs will be the same up to $697,500 limit vs $417k limit…WHAT SAY YE ??
May 17, 2008 at 9:46 AM in reply to: YIKES! Lower Down Payments From FNMA !! Only 3% now possible.. #206558ParticipantFHA has had a 3% down program for awhile. The guidelines to qualify were easy at low credit score (even below 600)
but tougher on income qualifying limits (DTI) and are full doc only…FNMA has been at 95% LTV (5% down) but needing a higher credit score, usually 620+, but was easier to qualify based on imcome/debts. DTI up to 60% on loans below $417K
A few months ago, pricing became higher for scores below 680, and much higher from 580-620.
Starting in Dec 2007, FNMA had “areas of declining value” based on zip codes, that added 5% instantly. Most of So Cal was affected, so what had been a possibility for a 95% loan was now 90% in declining markets, which is where it’s stayed until now….
Without knowing the qualifying factors yet, for a qualifying borrower in a declining market, what would have required 10% down today, will only require 3% down on June 1st as a minimum down.
The details of approvals remain to be seen. It might be that even higher credit scores and lower DTI’s are required.
I don’t know if the programs will be the same up to $697,500 limit vs $417k limit…WHAT SAY YE ??
May 17, 2008 at 8:36 AM in reply to: FDIC Chairman On the Great Credit Squeeze: How it Happened, How to Prevent Another; #206417ParticipantCAR, you got it.
On the surface it sounds GREAT to everyone who might be helped stay in their house.
(The house that they bought that they cannot afford and have no real equity in anyway)But there are more things not to like for those that won’t benefit from it.
IF it is allowed to work, it will artificially keep prices high. Anyone who it doesn’t directly help should be outraged.
She repeats that it’s not a bailout. What she wants to say is that it is not a bailout of homeowners..OK, sorta.
But she doesn’t admit that it IS a bailout of LENDERS.There is no pain for those who were irresponsible.
Irresponsible buyers AND irresponsible lenders. This allows them to carry on their merry way “until the market improves” Let them suffer the consequences of their actions.There is NO REASON for houses to increase in value at this time. The improvement is the falling prices for those waiting to buy.
For ANYONE to suggest that things will be better in 5 years is irresponsible and wishful thinking. It’s certianly not a guarantee.
It just passes the problem off to a diff group of folks and a different administration, who will be just as cluless what to do when they need to deal with it.
OK… what genius has the next idea that isn’t going to work either ??
May 17, 2008 at 8:36 AM in reply to: FDIC Chairman On the Great Credit Squeeze: How it Happened, How to Prevent Another; #206468ParticipantCAR, you got it.
On the surface it sounds GREAT to everyone who might be helped stay in their house.
(The house that they bought that they cannot afford and have no real equity in anyway)But there are more things not to like for those that won’t benefit from it.
IF it is allowed to work, it will artificially keep prices high. Anyone who it doesn’t directly help should be outraged.
She repeats that it’s not a bailout. What she wants to say is that it is not a bailout of homeowners..OK, sorta.
But she doesn’t admit that it IS a bailout of LENDERS.There is no pain for those who were irresponsible.
Irresponsible buyers AND irresponsible lenders. This allows them to carry on their merry way “until the market improves” Let them suffer the consequences of their actions.There is NO REASON for houses to increase in value at this time. The improvement is the falling prices for those waiting to buy.
For ANYONE to suggest that things will be better in 5 years is irresponsible and wishful thinking. It’s certianly not a guarantee.
It just passes the problem off to a diff group of folks and a different administration, who will be just as cluless what to do when they need to deal with it.
OK… what genius has the next idea that isn’t going to work either ??
May 17, 2008 at 8:36 AM in reply to: FDIC Chairman On the Great Credit Squeeze: How it Happened, How to Prevent Another; #206500ParticipantCAR, you got it.
On the surface it sounds GREAT to everyone who might be helped stay in their house.
(The house that they bought that they cannot afford and have no real equity in anyway)But there are more things not to like for those that won’t benefit from it.
IF it is allowed to work, it will artificially keep prices high. Anyone who it doesn’t directly help should be outraged.
She repeats that it’s not a bailout. What she wants to say is that it is not a bailout of homeowners..OK, sorta.
But she doesn’t admit that it IS a bailout of LENDERS.There is no pain for those who were irresponsible.
Irresponsible buyers AND irresponsible lenders. This allows them to carry on their merry way “until the market improves” Let them suffer the consequences of their actions.There is NO REASON for houses to increase in value at this time. The improvement is the falling prices for those waiting to buy.
For ANYONE to suggest that things will be better in 5 years is irresponsible and wishful thinking. It’s certianly not a guarantee.
It just passes the problem off to a diff group of folks and a different administration, who will be just as cluless what to do when they need to deal with it.
OK… what genius has the next idea that isn’t going to work either ??
-
AuthorPosts
