Here we go again: Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit (gasoline, politicians)
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.
You mean having a job and good credit as well as at least 20% down? Yes. That is what I had to do in 1986.
No, I mean the topic in the OP regarding the assurance about waving the penalty in case of failing borrowers if the borrower qualified based on the current standards. Currently the standard is very strict, probably too strict. Is there a point in threatning the bank with a penalty if the borrower had good credit? I do not believe in such penalties, and I believe such penalty is in fact what you called "*******" policy, and I find it surprising to see so many people who think they are conservatives, defend such "*******" policies to tooth and nail.
PS I had to put down 30% when I bought one in 2011, and my credit is very good.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 04-07-2013 at 06:48 AM..
I think private companies with private money not underwritten by the taxpayer should be able to lend to anyone they want at any rate they want.
It is weird what partisanship does to people. They have to oppose everything coming from the other party, and they do not even realize they end up arguing against their own principles. In this case the people who claim to be conservatives, and who claim Obama is a socialist, actually place themselves to the left side of Obama.
In order to prevent homebuyers from getting into a home they cannot afford, FHA requirements and guidelines have been set in place requiring borrowers and/or their spouse to qualify according to set debt to income ratios. These ratios are used to calculate whether or not the potential borrower is in a financial position that would allow them to meet the demands that are often included in owning a home. The two ratios are as follows: 1) MORTGAGE PAYMENT EXPENSE TO EFFECTIVE INCOME
Add up the total mortgage payment (principal and interest, escrow deposits for taxes, hazard insurance, mortgage insurance premium, homeowners' dues, etc.). Then, take that amount and divide it by the gross monthly income. The maximum ratio to qualify is 31%. See the following example:
No, I mean the topic in the OP regarding the assurance about waving the penalty in case of failing borrowers if the borrower qualified based on the current standards. Currently the standard is very strict, probably too strict. Is there a point in threatning the bank with a penalty if the borrower had good credit? I do not believe in such penalties, and I believe such penalty is in fact what you called "*******" policy, and I find it surprising to see so many people who think they are conservatives, defend such "*******" policies to tooth and nail.
PS I had to put down 30% when I bought one in 2011, and my credit is very good.
You've mentioned this several times
Just to be sure we're talking about the same thing.....was this for a buyer occupied residence and was it an FHA loan?
As well as, this is no longer 2 years ago and you will admit things can change a lot in 2 years.
You've mentioned this several times
Just to be sure we're talking about the same thing.....was this for a buyer occupied residence and was it an FHA loan?
As well as, this is no longer 2 years ago and you will admit things can change a lot in 2 years.
It has not changed a lot in the past two years. We went through A LOT of banks, and the experience was quite frustrating, and in the end the best offer we got was with 30% down. It is what it is, the banks have been afraid to give out loans, because the Finance Regulation Reform went too far.
When I first read of this "plan" in the Washington Post, I couldn't believe I was seeing it. I really resent that we could be setting ourselves up for a new bubble/bust once again.
I am STILL underwater here in San Antonio only b/c the short-sales and foreclosures pop up on appraisal. I've never missed a payment in my life; I bought way under what I could have and yet I watch anyone breathing get a $250,000 house. Some of our neighbors are not even legal and they didn't pay the mortgages for yrs and squatted in the homes. We also have alot of shadow homes sitting. I want nothing to do with housing once this is over, for sure. You get nothing for being responsible in this country.
You've mentioned this several times
Just to be sure we're talking about the same thing.....was this for a buyer occupied residence and was it an FHA loan?
As well as, this is no longer 2 years ago and you will admit things can change a lot in 2 years.
I think private companies with private money not underwritten by the taxpayer should be able to lend to anyone they want at any rate they want.
I'm OK with the loans as long as they are transparent, so that a Credit Agency would be able to correctly determine the risk when rating the quality of financial instruments like CDOs made up of such loans.
If this had occurred during the last bubble then it would have been clear that the CDOs shouldn't have been rated triple A and therefore eligible for purchase by firms which were only seeking the highest quality investments. Firms buying insurance (swaps) from companies like AIG would have known that the contracts weren't worth the paper they were written on.
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.
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.
