Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 06/10/2011 7:24:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Kaslin
Earlier this year, the six federal agencies tasked with drafting the rules added a requirement that homebuyers make a 20 percent down payment to qualify for low-interest mortgages.

This is a good idea and long overdue.

In addition, the new proposals announced this week would cap the amount of income that borrowers could devote to mortgage payments to no more than 28 percent of gross income.

This is a good idea and long overdue.

Worse, it would disqualify any borrower whose combined debt payments amounted to more than 36 percent of monthly gross income.

This is a good idea and long overdue.

2 posted on 06/10/2011 7:30:00 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (Populism is antithetical to conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Why is it a good idea for individuals to go into debt up to their eyeballs just like the government.

The housing bubble was created because it vastly increased demand by lowering lending standards. Now that those folks can’t pay, the bubble pops.

There is nothing preventing private lenders from holding loans to doctors, lawyers etc who have high income upside, they just can’t sell them to the government and leave the tax payers holding the bag if things go bad with the loan.


3 posted on 06/10/2011 7:30:39 AM PDT by rwilson99 (Please tell me how the words "shall not perish and have everlasting life" would NOT apply to Mary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
I'm not so sure this is all a bad thing. A lot of people bought homes they couldn't afford do so with the idea of flipping them for a profit. I think those days are gone...at least for those who can't afford the down payment, and that's probably a good thing. But then, you've got Chris Dodd and other idiots arguing to keep the subsidized housing loans from Freddie and Fannie by making statements like:

If we don't keep these programs, how will people who can't afford housing by a home?

Good grief, I'm surprised he can fog a mirror by himself.

4 posted on 06/10/2011 7:32:03 AM PDT by econjack (Some people are as dumb as soup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Terrible idea. The lender gets huge profit and no risk. You think home sales are slow now? Institute these changes and nothing will sell. Longer term loans are a better idea than this.


6 posted on 06/10/2011 7:41:05 AM PDT by Crooked Constituent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
"Homeownership, as we know it, could be a thing of the past""

It's not just 'home ownership', it is a question of where a society wishes to invest it's wealth. McMansions for the masses with those lovely 9 foot ceilings requiring all that extra heating and cooling, or factories to create wealth for current and future generations. Are we talking home ownership for those who can afford it or palace ownership for everyone?

7 posted on 06/10/2011 7:41:59 AM PDT by I am Richard Brandon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Aren’t these the rules that used to be pretty standard for most banks naturally? I don’t have any problem with it. I would just say that for every 10% additional down payment beyond 20%, there should be some flexibility in the debt to income ratios. If someone has serious “skin” in the game they are a much better risk and the loan to asset ratio is much safer.


8 posted on 06/10/2011 7:42:36 AM PDT by Codeflier (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama - 4 democrat presidents in a row and counting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

A solid recovery can only happen when home buyers “have skin in the game”.

Has the cause of this disaster already been forgotten?

Like so much else that damages America, the federal government precipitated this recession/depression with their foolish racist demands that lenders finance homes for people who do not have the ability to pay back the loans.

Of course, lending institutions ran amok with the policy once they found the profitable loopholes, but the root cause is social engineering by a leftist, racist government.


13 posted on 06/10/2011 7:54:34 AM PDT by Iron Munro (The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. -- John Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
Linda, Linda, Linda...

Returning the housing industry to normal is going to take at least five years, so why not get it right?

Financially, the biggest problem our nation has is Leverage, i.e. we're over-leveraged: Wall Street, the federal debt, credit cards, student loans...need I go on?

I don't know where the bottom is on housing prices, but it's obvious we aren't there yet.

20% too steep? What's wrong with 15% combined with a credit score of 720+ and verifiable income for the past 3 years?

Beats the heck out of someone with a credit score of 550 and no verifiable income getting a home loan for $600K.

19 posted on 06/10/2011 8:08:36 AM PDT by Night Hides Not (If Dick Cheney = Darth Vader, then Joe Biden = Dark Helmet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

I am against micro-management of the economy by government prescription. Very often, so called consumer protection regulations have just the opposite effect. They hurt more than they help. This is just another manifestation of the nanny state in action.

Intervention by the government created the housing market bubble in the first place. Relaxing market based qualifications by government coercion was the main culprit. Such a regulation would swing the pendulum back in the opposite direction way too far. The market had it right and the government had it wrong all along. The government should butt out and let the market place do what it does best.


20 posted on 06/10/2011 8:09:35 AM PDT by RatRipper (I'll ride a turtle to work every day before I buy anything from Government Motors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Those were the rules when we bought our home and never should have been repealed!

Kick the low income and those that don’t save and live on credit leaches out in the street!


25 posted on 06/10/2011 8:24:44 AM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
...homebuyers make a 20 percent down payment to qualify for low-interest mortgages... cap the amount of income that borrowers could devote to mortgage payments to no more than 28 percent of gross income. Worse, it would disqualify any borrower whose combined debt payments amounted to more than 36 percent of monthly gross income.

Wow.. This is EXACTLY the underwriting criteria routinely used prior to the 1990s. You know, back when sanity reigned? Before the build-up to disaster that was caused by the lax standards Chavez apparently wants to retain?

33 posted on 06/10/2011 8:36:22 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

The enactment of all these rules would guarantee that in 18 months I could afford any house I wanted.


37 posted on 06/10/2011 8:40:47 AM PDT by dartuser ("Dealing with preterists is like cleaning the litter box ... but at least none of the cats are big.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

This may not exclude as many people as they think. Making it more difficult to buy a house will lower the value of houses, making them easier to buy. What the net effect would be is hard to figure.

Bottom line is that the government shouldn’t be manipulating the housing market at all.

In my area, there are huge developments full of huge “spec” houses full of tiny families with no furniture or equity. There are also many, many empty brand-new houses. These “modern” houses only have a life expectancy of 40-50 years because of the cheap construction. Their values start dropping immediately upon completion. The housing marking is going down, down, down.

Sucks to be “in” real estate, but I suspect that the cost of living, rather than investing, in homes, will be going down fast.

Big government f’s up again.


43 posted on 06/10/2011 8:46:40 AM PDT by Born to Conserve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

This is truly interesting and I’d be on the fence about this if it weren’t for the fact that “home buying” may not be such a great idea after all. Many of the “youngsters” I talk to are renting. If they’re interested in buying, they’re looking at undeveloped acreage far away from city centers as weekend get-a-ways and places to go to play, often near suitable rivers or lakes for boating and fishing. Just my opinion, but frankly, I think that makes a lot of sense. When I ask why, they’re first concern is that if they lose a job or get a job move notice, they don’t want to be concerned with having a house they can’t sell. Mobility is important in this job market.


55 posted on 06/10/2011 9:01:49 AM PDT by Rich21IE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

At the rate of price deterioration, now reaching back to the mid-1990’s, I predict that within five years, we will start seeing the government pushing large, private corporations to start buying up distressed housing developments and leasing them to their employees, most of whose current houses will be underwater/foreclosed. The same will happen with private magnates who will be able to buy developments for pennies on the dollar and, with the blessings of the local municipalities, fill them with formerly-middle-class families who can no longer qualify for mortgages.

Real estate will start looking more like the construct of feudal society instead of private property.


62 posted on 06/10/2011 10:23:17 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

This will offically kill what is left of the housing market. Few people would have the $20,000 down needed on a $100,000 home


77 posted on 06/10/2011 12:49:22 PM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

It is incredibly stupid to make regulations out of rules of thumb. What mechanisms exist to change these regulations when the economics and markets vary over time? (none,..which is why we are in such a socialist malaise at present.)


85 posted on 06/10/2011 8:35:56 PM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

“But the effect will be to disqualify millions of potential homebuyers.”

That’s the basic idea, Linda. The 20% downpayment and the 28% ratio of mortgage to income is nothing more than the traditional lending standard that was in effect before the bubble insanity took over the mortgage industry. That’s exactly what I had to meet 40 years ago.

Why it’s a bad idea to return to the numbers that prevented mass default on mortgage loans is something known only to Linda Chavez.


87 posted on 06/10/2011 9:02:23 PM PDT by Pelham (Vermin Supreme for Emperor and/or President 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
Earlier this year, the six federal agencies tasked with drafting the rules added a requirement that homebuyers make a 20 percent down payment to qualify for low-interest mortgages. In addition, the new proposals announced this week would cap the amount of income that borrowers could devote to mortgage payments to no more than 28 percent of gross income.

The flaw in the article is that it agrees there should be rules. Then it whines about which rules.

There should be no rules. Nor should there be Fannie and Freddie or any other taxpayer guarantee. Nor should any lender be too big to fail. Let the market figure out what's an appropriate down payment, interest rate, income percentage, and what not. And if they're wrong, well, screw 'em!

And if some bank in Bavaria goes bust from over-investing in California liar loans, we shouldn't wring our hands. We should laugh. (Of course, if the Krauts were intentionally fed lies about the liar loans, that should be cause for a perp walk. I guess I'm not against all rules, just most rules invented since English common law was established.)

113 posted on 06/16/2011 11:25:34 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson