U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate > Mortgages
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-10-2008, 11:31 AM
 
Location: Kansas
3,855 posts, read 11,459,937 times
Reputation: 1706

Advertisements

"...under McCain's plan, if a borrower owes $150,000 on a home worth only $100,000, the lender would have to reduce the loan to $90,000. The $60,000 difference in principal would be split three ways: The lender and federal government would get as much as $20,000 each, depending on how much the home sells for when the borrower moves, and the owner would get the rest.

The new mortgage would be a 30-year fixed rate loan, and the government would back 80% of the new loan."

The above is a quote from CNN.

It'll probably never happen. It sounds good and all but I'm having a hard time seeing how they're going to finance it without either cutting back somewhere or raising taxes. And his overall stance is not raising taxes. By the time it would get passed (assuming it ever would) this whole deal may have turned the corner anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-10-2008, 11:39 AM
 
Location: Halfway between Number 4 Privet Drive and Forks, WA
1,516 posts, read 4,126,300 times
Reputation: 650
Quote:
"...under McCain's plan, if a borrower owes $150,000 on a home worth only $100,000, the lender would have to reduce the loan to $90,000. The $60,000 difference in principal would be split three ways: The lender and federal government would get as much as $20,000 each, depending on how much the home sells for when the borrower moves, and the owner would get the rest.

The new mortgage would be a 30-year fixed rate loan, and the government would back 80% of the new loan."

The above is a quote from CNN.

It'll probably never happen. It sounds good and all but I'm having a hard time seeing how they're going to finance it without either cutting back somewhere or raising taxes. And his overall stance is not raising taxes. By the time it would get passed (assuming it ever would) this whole deal may have turned the corner anyway.

Too bad insurance companies don't offer "gap insurance" to cover loss of value of your home if you have to sell it at a loss. The homeowner can pay for it along with their homeowner's insurance...

Hey, now, there's an idea! Elect me for president! LOL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2008, 12:47 PM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
9,043 posts, read 11,323,362 times
Reputation: 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by drjones96 View Post
"...under McCain's plan, if a borrower owes $150,000 on a home worth only $100,000, the lender would have to reduce the loan to $90,000. The $60,000 difference in principal would be split three ways: The lender and federal government would get as much as $20,000 each, depending on how much the home sells for when the borrower moves, and the owner would get the rest.

The new mortgage would be a 30-year fixed rate loan, and the government would back 80% of the new loan."

The above is a quote from CNN.

It'll probably never happen. It sounds good and all but I'm having a hard time seeing how they're going to finance it without either cutting back somewhere or raising taxes. And his overall stance is not raising taxes. By the time it would get passed (assuming it ever would) this whole deal may have turned the corner anyway.
McCain likes zero Fed rates too. It's just socialism with some different color stripes.

Argentina anyone?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2008, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 69,870,497 times
Reputation: 27519
Quote:
Originally Posted by drjones96 View Post
"...under McCain's plan, if a borrower owes $150,000 on a home worth only $100,000, the lender would have to reduce the loan to $90,000. The $60,000 difference in principal would be split three ways: The lender and federal government would get as much as $20,000 each, depending on how much the home sells for when the borrower moves, and the owner would get the rest.

The new mortgage would be a 30-year fixed rate loan, and the government would back 80% of the new loan."

The above is a quote from CNN.

It'll probably never happen. It sounds good and all but I'm having a hard time seeing how they're going to finance it without either cutting back somewhere or raising taxes. And his overall stance is not raising taxes. By the time it would get passed (assuming it ever would) this whole deal may have turned the corner anyway.
One small hole there..so let's say that was me. I pay off the mortgage. Now a few years later I sell. How is the mortgage company and the government going to find me to get the $$ ? And that is assuming values go back up. What if they don't ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2008, 03:31 PM
 
Location: Kansas
3,855 posts, read 11,459,937 times
Reputation: 1706
I think there are many holes in the quoted above. I mean in the near term you could do this deal while your home is experiencing a decline in value. But what happens 20 years later when your home has more than doubled in value and you sell it? Do you now owe the government all the money you made back? This plan could get very complicated very fast. It's trying to fix a near term problem in such a way that can have long term reprocussions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2008, 03:35 PM
 
Location: Orange County
200 posts, read 496,565 times
Reputation: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
One small hole there..so let's say that was me. I pay off the mortgage. Now a few years later I sell. How is the mortgage company and the government going to find me to get the $$ ? And that is assuming values go back up. What if they don't ?
Easy enough.....they will put a lien on the property which will have to be cleared prior to transfer of title
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2008, 03:52 PM
 
Location: The Big D
14,874 posts, read 36,236,200 times
Reputation: 5787
Quote:
Originally Posted by OCNYISHOME View Post
Easy enough.....they will put a lien on the property which will have to be cleared prior to transfer of title
That is what I was thinking. A lien is pretty easy to do and I'd bet they do that right off the bat. Or they could tack it onto the end of the note. If you stay past the 30 years once you finish paying off the "new original" mortgage you start paying off the "gov't loan".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2008, 03:56 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 69,870,497 times
Reputation: 27519
Yes, but the devil is in the details. We'll have to wait and see what they come up with to track this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate > Mortgages
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top