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 can't stabilize something that is doomed to fail from the start. Don't lower standards, don't make little to no down payment loans, boom/bust avoided.
Would you bar private entities from using low standards? Would you bar private entities from lending money with no money down by the borrower?
I've already pointed out the fact that 1 in 3 mortgages in 2006 were 3 percent down or less. Why did they sky rocket after the American Down Payment Act of 2003?
They've been gaining share ever since Fannie Mae pioneered them in the 1990s. Who wouldn't take advantage of a 3%-down or less loan when Franklin Raines said the Fannie Mae high LTV loans would be available to ALL who qualified for a mortgage?
Quote:
The government under Clinton didn't do nearly the damage as what happened when Bush was in office. Bush himself, encouraged it.
Not true, at all. Home ownership expanded MUCH more under Clinton. More homeownership = more loans.
Furthermore, when 50% of the loans the largest mortgage funding providers buy have to be made to low-income, tarnished credit, and/or redlined area homebuyers, what do you think is going to happen?
Not true, at all. Home ownership expanded MUCH more under Clinton. More homeownership = more loans.
Furthermore, when 50% of the loans the largest mortgage funding providers buy have to be made to low-income, tarnished credit, and/or redlined area homebuyers, what do you think is going to happen?
Typical informedconsent logic...
If more home ownership occurred under Clinton... Then why did the bubble burst occur near the end of Bush Jr's second term?
You are missing something in your failed logic in your partisan attempt to blame everything on the government and democrats. Most of the toxic loans occurred under bush jr despite homeownership being greater under clinton
If more home ownership occurred under Clinton... Then why did the bubble burst occur near the end of Bush Jr's second term?
People stopped paying their mortgages. In much higher percentages, it was those who never should have been given a loan to buy a house to begin with. And the GSEs KNEW that, because they had prior experience with the exact same thing:
Quote:
"Among the most controversial of the products is a 3%-down loan that caused an uproar within Fannie Mae when it was introduced in the mid-1990s. Some senior executives, including the company's chief credit officer at the time, were opposed to the loans, in large part because a Fannie Mae experiment with 5%-down loans in Texas in the early 1980s was disastrous, with one in four borrowers defaulting.
Robert Levin, a Fannie Mae executive vice president who helped pioneer the 3%-down loans, recalls angry phone calls from regional executives who feared the loans were too risky. "People were saying, 'What are you doing? Nobody has ever been successful at this in the history of mankind!'"
People stopped paying their mortgages. In much higher percentages, it was those who never should have been given a loan to buy a house to begin with. And the GSEs KNEW that, because they had prior experience with the exact same thing:
They've been gaining share ever since Fannie Mae pioneered them in the 1990s. Who wouldn't take advantage of a 3%-down or less loan when Franklin Raines said the Fannie Mae high LTV loans would be available to ALL who qualified for a mortgage?
Not true, at all. Home ownership expanded MUCH more under Clinton. More homeownership = more loans.
More loans were made under Bush than Clinton, you brought that up.
You still haven't shown proof of the amount of little to no down payment loans that were made under Clinton. I've given a few examples of the incredible growth of those type of loans under Bush. Like I said it got legs under Clinton and got on steroids under Bush.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Furthermore, when 50% of the loans the largest mortgage funding providers buy have to be made to low-income, tarnished credit, and/or redlined area homebuyers, what do you think is going to happen?
Your preaching to the choir. First payments were missed, that wasn't seen before.
Furthermore, when 50% of the loans the largest mortgage funding providers buy have to be made to low-income, tarnished credit, and/or redlined area homebuyers, what do you think is going to happen?
Maybe nothing major, but we will never because of how the private sector ended up packaging and selling the loans, which greatly accelerated under president bush jr.
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.
