Posted on 08/17/2010 5:35:08 PM PDT by dynachrome
The Obama administration invited banking executives Tuesday to offer advice on changing the government's role in backing the mortgage market. While they disagreed on the exact level of support needed, the group overwhelmingly advocated for the government to maintain a large role in the $11 trillion market.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
We need the Government out of housing and banking. Let people put up 10-20% like the good old days.
No home for less than a 20% down and the banks won’t need government backing!!!
The government doesn't have any money.
ENOUGH ALREADY! I thought the bailouts were over?!!
Hmmm ... let's see how this works. The government backs bum mortgages to help banks hide how bad their portfolios are, at the expense of productive sectors of the economy. The Fed`keeps interest rates low so banks can borrow at zero percent and buy T-bills at three percent, giving them a guaranteed source of income without having to lend a dime to productive sectors of the economy.
And yet the left can't figure out why the productive sectors of the economy are failing to create jobs...
NFW!
“I thought the bailouts were over”
California
Michigan
etc.
So called businessmen advocating gov’t takeover. This shows how low we have sunk.
I feel like a sucker everytime I pay the mortgage.
Yeah, ‘cause it worked so well before.
Piss off, bankers. Sink or swim on your own.
They will if inflation returns and they have low interest loans in house..
“They will if inflation returns and they have low interest loans in house..”
That’s got nothing to do with it.
When we bought our home in 66 you either put up 20% or more and you payments couldn’t exceed 30% of your net income including insurance and taxes or you didn’t buy a home!
Anyoue that can’t meet that critera has no business owning a home.
A-freaking-men!
To use Neal Boortz’s taxonomy - the looters want to be sure that the providers are on the hook for the moochers, so that the looters don’t have to bear any meaningful downside.
Man this stuff pisses me off. Why on earth am I indirectly guaranteeing ANYBODY’s mortgage, and why on earth should I expect somebody else to guarantee MY mortgage? That’s what PMI was for back in “the day” when you actually had to come up with a meaningful down payment. When we bought our house you put down 20% and there was no PMI; otherwise it was a minimum of 5% but you had to take out PMI. Somewhere along the way, 5% became a massive down payment - couple that with government guarantees and you get the immense mess we are still cleaning up.
I agree, they just may not get a loan from a smaller community bank unwilling to to take on intesest rate risk of a 30 year loan...
More of the same. Privatise the profit socialize the loses
How about this: Fannie (government) hold first mortgage for 10%, banks hold second mortgage for 80%, owner required to down 10%.
“owner required to down 10%”
That’s racist!/s
“I agree, they just may not get a loan from a smaller community bank unwilling to to take on intesest rate risk of a 30 year loan...”
Ours was from a community bank and in 66 the longest loan was 25 years and there wasn’t any loan selling or government insurance.
The bank held the note until I paid it off 23 years later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.