Because They Just Can’t Help Themselves
The Washington Post announced this week that a new opportunity for home ownership is available to credit-worthy low-to-moderate-income borrowers through Fannie Mae’s new HomeReady mortgage program.
It’s a short notice in the Real Estate section of the paper, offering little detail, but you can read the HomeReady FAQs here, or you can cut to the chase and read an enlightening editorial at Investor’s Business Daily that pretty much tells you all you need to know about the “new” program:
Subprime 2.0: The White House is rolling out a new low-income mortgage program that for the first time lets lenders qualify borrowers by counting income from nonborrowers living in the household. What could go wrong?
The HomeReady program is offered through Fannie Mae, which is now controlled by Obama’s old Congressional Black Caucus pal Mel Watt. It replaces the bankrupted mortgage giant’s notorious old subprime program, MyCommunityMortgage.
In case renaming the subprime product fails to fool anybody, the affordable-housing geniuses in the administration have re-termed “subprime,” a dirty word since the mortgage bust, “alternative.”
So HomeReady isn’t a subprime mortgage program, you see, it’s an “alternative” mortgage program.
But it might was well be called DefaultReady, because it is just as risky as the subprime junk Fannie was peddling on the eve of the crisis.
At least before the crisis, your income had to be your own. But now, as a renter, you can get a conventional home loan backed by Fannie by claiming other people’s income. That’s right: You can use your apartment roommate’s paycheck to augment your qualifying income. Or your abuela.
What’s that quote, something about those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it? Yeah, that.
Read the whole thing.
–Dana
Hello.
Dana (86e864) — 1/9/2016 @ 9:35 amWhat could possibly go wrong? As usual under Democrats, folks who pay their bills on time and play by the rules – and qualified under sensible financial qualification requirements – will get properly buggered in the end when the inevitable bubble bursts.
Colonel Haiku (467f23) — 1/9/2016 @ 9:46 amjesus these people are ghetto
IBD:
from the FAQ:
nimby please
happyfeet (831175) — 1/9/2016 @ 9:54 amHere we go again. Setting the country up for Housing Bubble 2.0; bet they already have the MSM talking points for blaming Republicans when it inevitably bursts written and predeployed with their political operatives with bylines.
Bill M (906260) — 1/9/2016 @ 10:50 amDana, they remember the past very clearly and want to repeat it. The housing default or bubble created a whole new slew of democrat voters as the dems managed to pass all the blame from the Fed and the actions of guys like Barney Frank and Chris Todd to Republicans (and it in part gave us Obama). And they will do it again! The left knows exactly what they’re doing. From open borders encouraging Mexicans to pour in to the US, to moslem “refugees” bringing the “religion of peace” to our cities to effective economic destabilization with actions like this. They know exactly what they’re doing. To this day about 90% of the money and support from “Wall Street Bankers” goes to the democrat party and pigs like Hillary! specifically yet if you ask the man on the street who supports Wall Street 9 out of 10 will say Republicans. They control the education, they control the media, they control entertainment and therefore they control the narrative.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 1/9/2016 @ 11:12 amIf they are only putting 3% down, then they already in the hole as it will cost them 10% to sell the house.
TaxPaying Sucker (e7aef8) — 1/9/2016 @ 11:29 amThis time when the value of my house reaches $400,000, I’ll sell.
jim (a9b7c7) — 1/9/2016 @ 12:26 pmFrom yesterday’s IBD’s editorials – deju vue all over again. Happy New Year.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/010716-788747-government-wants-to-lend-more-to-high-risk-immigrants.htm
Judy Eaton (a1a820) — 1/9/2016 @ 12:36 pmWhoops – see your link to the same article. Afraid to ask what’s next on the social engineering agenda.
Judy Eaton (a1a820) — 1/9/2016 @ 12:51 pmAnd I bet it includes floating rate mortgages, which are headed up. So, huff and puff to qualify a 3% note, then have it go to 5% in two years. This isn’t even hard to predict.
I also like the idea of these being cash-out refis. Hey, kids, Aunt Mabel is going to stay with us for a few weeks, isn’t that great! Then we’re all going on vacation!
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/9/2016 @ 1:15 pmIn the 00’s, US mortgages were packaged as meta-securities and used the underpin national currencies. Then the US, and Fannie Mae in particular, debased these securities with counterfeit mortgages. Everything died.
Now they are doing it again, once more thinking that PMI will cover the losses.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/9/2016 @ 1:19 pmThis loan program is directed toward recent immigrants. It allows borrower Muhammad to include the rental income he intends to collect from tenants Abdul and Farook to qualify for the loan. Then after the deal closes, Muhammad adds Abdul and Farook to the title (but not to the note). Consequently, Abdul and Farook have suddenly acquired an equity position in the subject property but no corresponding obligation to pay the mortgage. Muhammad subsequently quit claims his position on the title and refuses to make mortgage payments on a home which he no longer owns or has a equity position.
Abdul and Farook now occupy a home to which they have unencumbered title and no obligation to pay the mortgage. The mortgage lender is protected against loss by Fannie Mae. So guess who takes the hit?
ropelight (8d26d3) — 1/9/2016 @ 1:25 pmwho?
happyfeet (831175) — 1/9/2016 @ 1:37 pmYes, ropelight, it is targeted at immigrants. Typically, immigrant families under one roof include the immediate family with any number of relatives also residing with them. Hence the “abuela” snark in the editorial.
Dana (86e864) — 1/9/2016 @ 1:38 pmI what state can you put someone on the deed (title) but not the mortgage (note)?
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 1/9/2016 @ 1:44 pmSo, Muhammad can include welfare, food stamp, housing, and utility benefits for the whole extended family in order to qualify for the loan as well as the generous rental income he expects to collect from tenants Abdul and Farook. Hell, Muhammad my have his loan application approved even if he’s been out of work since the US State Department paid the family’s travel expenses to come to the land of the freeloaders.
ropelight (8d26d3) — 1/9/2016 @ 1:49 pmHoagie, plenty of ’em, but you gotta work quick.
ropelight (8d26d3) — 1/9/2016 @ 1:49 pmropelight —
Did you know that purchase-money loans in California are no-recourse?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/9/2016 @ 2:05 pm#12
Muhammad now goes and blows himself up at a Jewish Community Center, and Abdul and Farook now have clear title.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/9/2016 @ 2:06 pmAlthough, you don’t need this program to do this kind of quitclaim fraud. It’s just harder to qualify. And I have to think that there are laws against this.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/9/2016 @ 2:08 pmSo, if Bob and Sally borrow $10K from Bob’s parents to put down on a house, but tell the lender that they didn’t borrow any part of the down payment, they’re felons. But if they instead just claim that Bob’s parents will pay $500/month of the mortgage, they can get a 3% down note and everything is OK.
I’ll be pissed if this tracks back to The Onion.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/9/2016 @ 2:13 pmThey find a ridiculous way to gain lifetime votes at enormous expense to the future taxpayer and actually the whole economy. Then when it blows up, they will have another genuine crisis that they know the media will somehow blame on the folks who say this is a terrible idea, just like in 2008.
Why wouldn’t the dems do this again? Besides, a whole lot of folks know how to make a whole lot of money before the bubble bursts. That’s the real motivation. Gorelick made $26 million employed at Fannie Mae without any finance education or experience, but just think about the money to be made by the Goldman Sachs crowd.
History will not be kind to us.
Dustin (2a8be7) — 1/9/2016 @ 2:13 pmHoagie, your question deserves a more complete response. Since the lending institution is a separate entity from the agency responsible for recording titles, there’s a little wiggle room. The trick is to record the changes in title before the lender gets wind of it and calls the loan. Lenders strongly disapprove of anyone on title (has an equity position) who isn’t also obligated to make the payments.
Typically, a recording office collects all the deed changes for one day and records them all at the opening of the next work day. That’s where the wiggle comes in. At closing, lenders usually include in the garbage fees the cost of a contract to monitor the deeds on properties they lend on and notify them of any unauthorized changes. But it takes a little time.
So, if Muhammad can add Abdul and Farook then also quite claim his interest in the property to them and get it recorded before the lender is notified, Muhammad can return to his native Swamp Arab village somewhere between the lower Tigris and Euphrates knowing he’s struck a blow against the Great Satan and added a new safe-house for jihadis in need.
ropelight (8d26d3) — 1/9/2016 @ 2:14 pmKevin M, you may not know jackshit about politics but you’ve got the makings of a first class grifter.
ropelight (8d26d3) — 1/9/2016 @ 2:22 pmIf you go read the FAQs, it is actually worse than how IBD paints it.
It is possible to get a 105% set of loans, use the overage to pay the down payment on the 1st TD, and still have it qualify. Any income whatsoever (e.g. unemployment income, housing assistance, lottery winnings, etc) can be used to piece up to the qualifying income.
The interest rate is better-than-market and so are the PMI rates.
People who live in minority neighborhoods can borrow without limit. People who live in other places have limits.
Read the FAQ.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/9/2016 @ 2:23 pmCruz really needs to denounce this as loudly as possible, before Trump does.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/9/2016 @ 2:24 pmropelight, that sure sounds like fraud — akin to renting out a house you don’t own multiple times then walking away with all the deposits.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/9/2016 @ 2:26 pmHere’s a better one. Rent a vacation home using a fake name during the off season directly from the owners who live in a different state. While there rent the home to an unsuspecting couple and collect a 1st and last’s month’s rent plus a cleaning deposit and as many monthly rental checks as possible till the owners show up.
ropelight (8d26d3) — 1/9/2016 @ 2:33 pmIt amazes me how every single policy, regulation and tax proposed and implemented (the same thing since apparently nothing can stop the left) by leftists has as its goal the further disintegration of the Republic. Obviously there are not enough unemployed, freeloading Americans so we need to bring them in from Mexico, Africa and the Middle East. Is there no low end, anti American, non Christian “person of color” whom we don’t have to bring or let in to this country or is our sovereignty gone completely? Or is this all being done to “brown out” America and eliminate Christianity?
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 1/9/2016 @ 2:34 pmKevin, now that I re-read my comment is seems you anticipated me. I knew you had the right stuff.
ropelight (8d26d3) — 1/9/2016 @ 2:34 pmSo as usual, the leftist bigots are Red-Lining “People who live in other places”. I guess that’s their version of real estate affirmative action.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 1/9/2016 @ 2:38 pmHoagie, don’t you know what a miserable country the US is? How we mistreat women and minorities, making them live in ghetto conditions with big screen TV, computers, and cell phones? It’s outrageous they can’t get Thunderbird and Marlboro cigarettes tax free or a the very least pay with food stamps.
No foreigner would ever voluntarily come here and suffer the insults and humiliations of free handouts, healthcare, education, and mortgage loans without being forced to come at the point of a bayonet.
ropelight (8d26d3) — 1/9/2016 @ 2:42 pmWhat’s that quote, something about those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it?
That doesn’t even take into account the way What’s-His-Name’s US Justice Department has been hassling (if not outright extorting) the banking industry for the past many years to bend over backwards when dealing with mortgage applications from clearly unqualified would-be homeowners. The feds have made bankers dealing with applicants who state they’re on welfare, for example, as either not a disqualifying factor or as information that’s politically incorrect and intrusive.
I always snicker when I think of all the liberals out there who believe or claim that George W Bush triggered the Great Recession of 2008 by causing, as one major factor, the home-mortgage industry to implode.
Mark (f713e4) — 1/9/2016 @ 2:42 pmI believe that is also a crime.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/9/2016 @ 2:43 pmKevin M:
Those Kali non-recourse loans allow the lender to take the house back and sell it. They can’t go after other assets like they can with a second loan or refinancing the original purchase loan.
Quit claim deeds aren’t recognized by the lender; once you sign the loan docs, only the lender has the option to let you off the hook. My neighbor quit claimed the family home to her ex-husband; didn’t matter. She had the income and the bank went after her as the loan was a refinance.
Everybody should go see the movie ‘Short’; how the last time some sharpies shorted home mortgages and made a fortune. Do the same…
dee (6dd71d) — 1/9/2016 @ 2:48 pmCruz really needs to denounce this as loudly as possible, before Trump does.
heidi’s boys at goldy sacky won’t appreciate that
happyfeet (831175) — 1/9/2016 @ 3:10 pmdee–
And if the house is worth considerably less than the loan amount, the lender eats the loss. There’s no short sale, and no “forgiveness” so there is no tax event for the former owner. This came up repeatedly in 1991-3 and 2009 (until Obama made all loan losses non-taxable events).
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/9/2016 @ 3:16 pmdee–
I thought they were shorting firms that had heavy reliance on repurchase agreements, as well as firms that wrote them. It’s like insuring against earthquakes — everyone has a claim at the same time, and ooops.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/9/2016 @ 3:20 pmwell a couple things I noted about the big short, one of the major players, Eiseman, cites ACORN approvingly, there is no reference to the CRA revisions which was the driver.
narciso (732bc0) — 1/9/2016 @ 3:43 pmKevin M:
I haven’t seen the movie, so I’m not sure exactly what they used to short the mortgage market. I should read up on what they did. But they made $4 billion?? in a year, so it must have been some real money involved.
I think the dems in Congress got a law passed that the IRS couldn’t claim mortgage relief in a foreclosure or short sale as income and tax them on it. Another neighbor had a $75,000 tax lien after getting foreclosed in ’93. Actually it was both my neighbors that got hammered by the govt tax agencies. It was foreclosures on every house around me during the ’90s.
dee (6dd71d) — 1/9/2016 @ 3:47 pmfrom riffing through the book, they helped create the market for credit default swaps, did they force the market down sooner then it would have, there had never been a downturn in an election year, up until that point, well perhaps the silent one of 1920-21, the one resolved without govt intervention,
narciso (732bc0) — 1/9/2016 @ 3:56 pmWhen leeches like Gorelick end up in the crow bar hotel, we will have turned the corner.
mg (31009b) — 1/9/2016 @ 4:12 pmFortunately, reality put The Onion out of business a while ago. This might open up a wormhole.
JD (34f761) — 1/9/2016 @ 4:21 pmgas prices didn’t help all them loser failmericans pay them fancy mortgages none either Mr. narciso
happyfeet (831175) — 1/9/2016 @ 4:22 pmnor, did the reset interest rates, which I surmise, Greenspan did almost to spite those who voted to reelect W.
narciso (732bc0) — 1/9/2016 @ 4:28 pmthere’s more truth, here then in the book or the film, which is helmed by will farrell’s wrangler,
http://linkis.com/ols8W
narciso (732bc0) — 1/9/2016 @ 4:42 pm39
I haven’t seen the movie, so I’m not sure exactly what they used to short the mortgage market. …
During the housing bubble many home mortgages were packaged into Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (CMOs), pools of mortgages with rights to the payments sliced up (divided into tranches) in complicated ways. Because of a combination of stupidity and corruption on the part of the rating agencies these securities were over rated making them worth more in total than the underlying mortgages (particularly when the underlying mortgages were of low quality). This created a demand for lousy mortgages. So much so that the actual supply of lousy mortgages was insufficient. Hence the Synthetic CDO (a CDO or Collateralized Debt Obligation is a more general form of CMO in which the underlying loans don’t have to be mortgages) was invented. These were a bet between two parties (long and short) which paid off based on how a reference pool of actual securities performed. The rating agencies carried over their ratings for the reference securities to the synthetic CDOs (long side) even if the ratings for the reference securities were stale (old) and their actual default rates were running way above the expected rates the original ratings were based on.
So John Paulson (and others) made a fortune by coming up with reference pools consisting of the most over rated on the verge of default CMOs they could find, getting investment banks like Goldman Sachs to turn them into synthetic CDOS, which the rating agencies would rate AAA although in fact they were nearly worthless. Goldman Sachs paid Paulson to take the short side and sold the long side to some poor sucker based on the AAA rating. When the underlying CMOs soon defaulted Paulson made a fortune and the sucker was left holding the bag.
James B. Shearer (0f56fb) — 1/9/2016 @ 5:20 pmthat puts the cart before the horse, why were so many subprime mortgages issued, why would banks get involved in such untrustworthy instruments, well the explanation goes back aways to the 90s, and it’s not about Glass Steagal
narciso (732bc0) — 1/9/2016 @ 5:32 pmseems like dejavu all over again,
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877335,00.html
he previously ran the scam that was bill clinton’s ‘balanced budget’
narciso (732bc0) — 1/9/2016 @ 5:42 pmropelight is talking about The Gap. The time between the delivery of a deed and mortgage and recording them. The title company, also known as escrow in California and other places, covers that. That’s why California closing, among others, are “in escrow”. The title company holds on to the money and documents and does not disburse until the documents are recorded and the lender and the borrower are in first position on record. Title companies also sell gap coverage, paid for by the borrower, in case something goes wrong and somebody sneaks in during the gap. It’s also several crimes (the federal one punishable by up to thirty years), and fraudulent transfer which is a nullity — the quit claim does not give anything to the sneaked-in owners except the possibility a jail term.
nk (dbc370) — 1/9/2016 @ 5:44 pmback seemingly a lifetime ago, the Bush administration went after executives at Enron, World Com, Global Crossing, and secured convictions for it’s top executives, in this administration, they pay a fine, which gets channelled into preferred community groups, or the offending execs, move to middle and upper govt posts,
narciso (732bc0) — 1/9/2016 @ 5:54 pmNone of this matters.
All that matters as far as making the payemnts is concerned is the credit score (which tells the lender whether somebody usually pays bills or not) and the ability to pay the first year’s payments (provided that the mortgage payments do not rise later)
What this now does is count income of people not legally liable for the debt. Those people may not still be living together later. But that may not matter.
You get a bubble when people accept higher and higher prices for a house, and eventually cannot sell if things go wrong.
Sammy Finkelman (dbec95) — 1/9/2016 @ 5:55 pmthat puts the cart before the horse, why were so many subprime mortgages issued, why would banks get involved in such untrustworthy instruments, well the explanation goes back aways to the 90s, and it’s not about Glass Steagal
Because people like plaintiff’s attorney Barack Obama sued the living crap out of banks that “redlined” and regulators demanded that they issue these mortgages. The idea was that 1) home ownership was a mark of the middle class, and 2) therefore we should help people guy houses so they’d be middle class.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/9/2016 @ 6:06 pmMy CPA client encountered a mortgage broker who forged my client’s signature on a false profit and loss statement to qualify his borrower for a loan. We communicated with the “lender”, actually the bank who gave out the money and assigned the loan immediately to mortgage investors. They didn’t care. They made their money from the application fees and the points. Eventually, TARP would take care of the investors or maybe the borrower would make his payments. There’s a lot of fingers in the pie.
nk (dbc370) — 1/9/2016 @ 6:06 pm21. Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/9/2016 @ 2:13 pm
What if the down payment is a gift? If that’s a problem, how long do they have to have had the money for this not to be a problem?
No, what it says I think is that Bob’s parents have to be living in the same house. There is no claim that they will pay $500 of the mortgage, but their income can be factored into ability to pay since if Bob loses the house, they’ll have to move too.
There may not be a promise that they will both move together, just that they’re living together now. Which means what? Bob or Sally lives with their parents, and then they get married and their parents’ income can be used in evaluating their ability to pay back the loan?
Is this only for re-financing the same house where people are now living together? Or maybe no, the case of a new home also qualifies, but they all have to say they will move into the same house and give up their old quarters?
Sammy Finkelman (dbec95) — 1/9/2016 @ 6:12 pmThe real problem, caused by previous surreal estate bubbles, is that if you dry up the mortgage market enough, home prices will drop to half their original purchase price, and the “middle class” will scream to high heaven. Nobody, but nobody, in politics, is going to have the guts to let go of this tiger’s tail.
nk (dbc370) — 1/9/2016 @ 6:13 pmof course, they would they never suffered any consequence,
http://www.examiner.com/article/housing-nominee-mel-watt-helped-spawn-the-2008-financial-crisis
narciso (732bc0) — 1/9/2016 @ 6:18 pmA long time ago (circa 1990), I had a mortgage broker encourage me to inflate my income to get a loan. I didn’t, but I bet a lot of people did. Later I heard that the bank had packaged up a lot of loans and sold them off. A decade later, they took this to new heights.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/9/2016 @ 6:28 pm47
that puts the cart before the horse, why were so many subprime mortgages issued, …
Because they could be immediately sold for a profit. The people buying them were assembling CMO pools which the rating agencies were giving inflated ratings to.
why would banks get involved in such untrustworthy instruments …
Because banks wanted to keep up with their competitors. As the head of Citigroup said in 2007 (with regard to leveraged buyouts but the dynamic was the same):
“As long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance,” he said. “We’re still dancing.”
Citigroup stock would go on to drop about 98% from high to low.
James B. Shearer (0f56fb) — 1/9/2016 @ 8:38 pmJames is intentionally ignoring why this was happening.
JD (274546) — 1/9/2016 @ 9:19 pmIf you don’t have a lot of money saved up, renting is amazingly advantageous: your monthly housing costs are fixed. If the toilet stops working or the roof leaks, your landlord pays for the repairs. It’s not you, Joe Schmoe with $439 in the bank, who has to figure out how to spend eight grand to get the roof fixed.
But take that Joe Schmoe, enable him to “own” the house without putting down a cent in equity, and said roof leak occurs, and suddenly, you have someone who “jingle mails” the keys back to the mortgage company and takes off for the greener pastures of fixed-expenses renting. (After all, he doesn’t lose any money in the deal – he didn’t spend ten years painstakingly saving up for a 20% down payment.) The bank then has to figure out how to recover its money from the house with all the water damage that is worth a lot less than the money they paid for it.
bridget (37b281) — 1/10/2016 @ 8:35 ambridget:
Unless this thing has been going on for a long time, a person buys a house expecting to keep it, without the fallback plan of, not only leaving the house, but abandoning the house and the loan. They won’t be too ready to give it up. Furthermore, mailing back the keys damages their credit and their ability to rent.
Sunk costs don’t matter except emotionally, and while that’s something, it is not everything and there are sunk costs in any case. The mortgage is probably costing them more than rent did, so if they give it up, it was all for nothing, just like the 20% was for nothing, and they might be getting closer to having some equity.
The question is not whether they saved up 20% or not, but if they have equity now, or can expect to have it.
The second question is, about repairs, is do they have a credit line, or do they have any savings? The keys get sent back only if there is no other choice (or possibly if it looks like throwing good money after bad, because the mortgage is badly underwater.)
Now, when they don’t make mortgage payments there may be no other choice. Someone will eventually come and try to foreclose. But if the problem is a leaky roof, in that case they’ll just put a bucket of water under it and live with the leaky roof for however many years it takes them to be able to afford the repair. Maybe they will consider suing someone. They still have more space and a better neighborhood etc, and nobody is going to come and inspect it and revoke the certificate of occupancy. At least if they don’t tell anyone.
Someone who paid 3% down and has no equity, but retains savings, would seem to be in better shape if emergency repairs are needed than someone who uses up all their savings to make the down payment (if they have no further ability to borrow.)
Your question also seems to assume stable housing prices, but the whole point is that prices are NOT stable, and appraisals don’t take account of that fact. A person can make a 20% down payment, but if the housing market crashes, or the bubble bursts, they won’t have equity and that was actually case in most of the abandoned houses. It wasn’t people deciding they just couldn’t make the payments.
They may have been gambling on housing prices continuing to rise, or in interest rates not going up, but it wouldn’t be one unexpected bill, but a question of whether or not they can (or should) make the mrtgage payment. If foreclosures have been frozen, they might want to pay other bills first. But send back the keys? That’s a last resort, and only happens if there is no equity now, and no likely sign of it in the future, and they have some place else to go for less, and it may happen even if they do have money, although if they owe at least $100,000, and have it, the mortgage holders can choose to sue.
Sammy Finkelman (dbec95) — 1/10/2016 @ 9:22 amI bought a house with little down with an FHA mortgage,
Never occurred to me to skip out on it.
I think there are issues other than the amount of down payment that goes into it, such as likelihood of being able to pay it and defaulting being not a good option.
MD in Philly (not in Philly) (deca84) — 1/10/2016 @ 9:33 amI think a lot of people don’t like the idea of trying to rebuild their credit after bankruptcy,
I know I am not interested in trying it.
MD in Philly, you are so middle class honkey. “Rebuild their credit after bankruptcy”, why aren’t you just the cutest little thing. These people don’t rebuild shite, they walk away. After they sell all the appliances, garbage disposal, granite counter tops, cabinets and bathroom fixtures that is. Then they get a new fresh girl with a 580 credit and she gets minority preference and they do it again. There’s no “rebuilding”, there’s no “repaying” because there’s no responsibility. They are the victims not the perpetrators.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 1/10/2016 @ 10:20 amI’m in moderation. Sorry.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 1/10/2016 @ 10:23 amI understand, Hoagie.
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 1/10/2016 @ 3:57 pmMaybe the problem is not simply not requiring a significant down payment, but allowing people with bad credit scores, i.e., who have not shown to have the ability to handle finances well, to get in on the programs,
but I guess that is the point of the program, to let people buy houses who not only don’t have the down payment,
but who really aren’t a good risk to pay it back in other respects as well.
another timebomb set to go off nine years from now,just in time for the end of two republican terms in the WH.
firefirefire (933c5b) — 1/11/2016 @ 5:32 am67.another timebomb set to go off nine years from now,just in time for the end of two republican terms in the WH.
Mortgages don’t usually take 9 years to go bad. And if the Republicans control Congress and the White House and don’t get rid of this program then any further bad results are on them.
James B. Shearer (0f56fb) — 1/11/2016 @ 9:28 pmBecause FNMA and FHLMC were willing to buy them, which took away their excuse for not making these loans. Every time congressional committees and Housing Dept bureaucrats would ask them why they didn’t make such loans they’d say they couldn’t because of the risk; once there was a willing purchaser that excuse was no longer acceptable. “If you don’t trust the borrower, just sell the loan.”. And once Fannie and Freddie were buying these loans, their private competitors had to do the same in order to stay in business.
Milhouse (87c499) — 1/11/2016 @ 10:46 pmNo, he’s not. It was the resaleability of these loans that made the banks issue them. Without that they had a solid reason not to. “We had a fiduciary responsibility to our shareholders not to throw their money down the toilet, so I’m sorry Mr Congressman, we just can’t lend that money to people who are not going to pay it back.”
Milhouse (87c499) — 1/11/2016 @ 10:51 pm