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.
The pendulum has swung so far that good credit in most cases is no longer sufficient, only excellent credit if sufficient. I believe the story in the OP mentioned that the average credit scores for new mortgages at FNMA is 750.
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.
The pendulum has swung so far that good credit in most cases is no longer sufficient, only excellent credit if sufficient. I believe the story in the OP mentioned that the average credit scores for new mortgages at FNMA is 750.
Actually, if I lent money and too many people defaulted my pendulum would be off the radar. Burn me once, that is all I need to learn my lesson.
My question is why can't Americans save at least 10% for a downpayment? The average home in many areas is about 200K. (I said home, I didn't say McMansion). Why does the government keep on pushing for homeownership and try to put people into home with the lowest downpayment option?
Not everyone is meant to own a home.
Those who make an average of 60K should be able to afford a middle class home of of about 200K with a 10% downpayment (a 180K mortgage).
Can't American's save 20K? Cable bill $100, Cell phone bills $150, heating/AC/Gasoline, going out/entertainment expenses. I am sure you can find at least a $300-400 savings each month.
$400 month X12 months equals $4800 a year. Save for 5-6 years. You can make that 10% down payment.
Start by adjusting your thermostat. It doesn't need to be 72-73 degrees in the winter or summer months. You can live with thermostate in the low 60s during the daytime in the winter. And mid 60s at night. Same thing goes for the summer months. We are in Florida. Thermostat is set for 81 during daytime, 78 at nighttime. It's all relative. 78 degree may seem hot to some people. But cooling down from 81 makes it seem cool. You body will get used to the temps. Your pocket book with thank you for it.
When a buyer has excellent credit, puts 20% down, has 3 + months emergency funds it saves the buyer a hue amount of money both in monthly payments and in terms of total interest paid for the life of the mortgage.
The banks don't tack PMI onto the monthly payment, best interest rate terms, lower payments because of less money borrowed. Personally I think downpayment should be part of determining how much house someone can afford.
Lowing lending qualifications has a result and maybe that is exactly what Obama is after. Many of us understand his way of manipulating is bizarre. It is another bandage approach. And low interest rates didn't work because people losing jobs, bad credit, underwater houses people could not take advantage of it. So Obama is encouraging banks to loosen the lending qualifications. Low interest rates and easy money will drive housing prices up. Instead of doing positive things that will help the economy recover do you think this is the liberal way (bandage approach) of helping people who are under water but as anyone who understands finance knows he would be doing this at the risk of another housing crash.
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.
I keep it real simple. 20% down and a credit score of 700 or higher. What other's think is up to them. Sounds like the standard you regard as 'too strict' yet comparable to the standard 40 years ago.
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.
Oh please. Banks do not want to get burned again. That's why there are strict standards. If it was you loaning the money, you would do likewise.
Obama is concerned about 2 things, the 2014 election and his legacy. Economic numbers show that he is not concerned with the poor or black population. But as politicians do he will use the people, in this case the poor and black americans as his weapon to get what he wants. Instead of working on the cause of the problem he is putting on a bandage which will make it appear that he is doing a good job just in time for 2014.
The housing market is an indicator. If lending qualifications are relaxed, more people qualify and buy which drives housing prices up. Not only can unqualified people get into a home, housing prices go up which helps people who are underwater. When this happens and housing numbers are good the liberal media can point to the housing market and sing praises to Obama and the uneducated will sing along.
If Obama gets his way, the results of the bandage will happen in just in time. The singing and praising that will help Democrats in the 2014 election. The housing market will continue to get better and people will feel better about the economy and it will help Obama's legacy.
When the housing market crashes, Obama will not be in office and the liberals media will turn vicious on the current president making sure Obama does not take blame.
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
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.
I would not view 30% down as a bad thing. You don't have to pay PMI and borrowed less making you're monthly payments lower. It works for the banks and it "is" better for you.
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.
"Weaker" does not mean bad.
