Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Killing the Housing Market
Townhall.com ^ | June 10, 2011 | Linda Chavez

Posted on 06/10/2011 7:24:42 AM PDT by Kaslin

And you thought things couldn't get worse on the housing front. The U.S. housing market is in the worst shape since the Great Depression, and now the Obama administration's solution is to impose new rules that would banish 60 percent of current homebuyers from the market.

The proposed Mortgage Qualification Rules are the result of legislation passed in the wake of the financial meltdown to ensure that mortgage-backed securities are based on high-quality loans. But the effect will be to disqualify millions of potential homebuyers.

Earlier this year, the six federal agencies tasked with drafting the rules added a requirement that homebuyers make a 20 percent down payment to qualify for low-interest mortgages. In addition, the new proposals announced this week would cap the amount of income that borrowers could devote to mortgage payments to no more than 28 percent of gross income. Worse, it would disqualify any borrower whose combined debt payments amounted to more than 36 percent of monthly gross income.

What does this mean in practical terms? In 2009 (the last year for which we have accurate data), median household income was just under $50,000. Under the proposed new mortgage rules, an average family would be ineligible for a low-interest mortgage if they owed more than $1,500 a month in payments for all their financed debt: mortgage, cars, credit cards, student loans, and anything else bought over time. And the mortgage payment alone could not be higher than $1,166, including escrow for taxes and insurance.

The proposed rules would put an end to the American Dream for much of the middle class. As Urban League president Marc Morial said, "Homeownership, as we know it, could be a thing of the past" if the proposed rules take effect.

But the damage extends beyond depriving individuals of the opportunity to buy a home -- it will ripple throughout the economy. There is no question that the depression in the housing market is costing jobs, and not just the obvious ones in construction. Part of what has made the American economy more resilient than other countries' over the years is the willingness of Americans to pick up and move when jobs in one area disappeared but were available in other places. But the inability of many people to sell homes has reduced American geographic mobility to historic lows.

The consequence is to keep those people who have lost their jobs, but own their homes, from moving to states where jobs are more plentiful. If they can't find a buyer because the government has made it so difficult to qualify for loans, they're better off staying put and collecting unemployment insurance.

There is no question that many Americans have become addicted to debt and live way beyond their means. But one of the best ways of determining whether or not someone can really afford his or her lifestyle is to examine credit history-not simply the level of debt. But these new rules would punish even those borrowers who have never missed a payment and have exemplary credit ratings.

It also treats income as if it is fixed over a borrower's lifetime. A relatively young college graduate may have significant debt from earning that degree, but his or her income is likely to increase substantially over the 30 years of a mortgage, and restricting access to a loan on that basis makes little sense.

And, of course, the obverse is also possible. Incomes fall as well as rise. Just because someone is earning a lot today doesn't mean he or she will be making the same amount next year or the following.

But the real problem with these rules is what they will do to the overall housing market. Without buyers, home prices will continue to plummet. There are already too many unsold houses on the market, about twice the number you'd expect in a healthy environment. And the administration's solution is to drive millions of credit-worthy buyers from being able to purchase them?

These Obama administration rules could turn what increasingly appears to be a double-dip economic recession into a full-scale depression. The president will pay politically for this disastrous policy -- but Americans will pay out of their actual pockets for his folly.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-119 next last

1 posted on 06/10/2011 7:24:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Earlier this year, the six federal agencies tasked with drafting the rules added a requirement that homebuyers make a 20 percent down payment to qualify for low-interest mortgages.

This is a good idea and long overdue.

In addition, the new proposals announced this week would cap the amount of income that borrowers could devote to mortgage payments to no more than 28 percent of gross income.

This is a good idea and long overdue.

Worse, it would disqualify any borrower whose combined debt payments amounted to more than 36 percent of monthly gross income.

This is a good idea and long overdue.

2 posted on 06/10/2011 7:30:00 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (Populism is antithetical to conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Why is it a good idea for individuals to go into debt up to their eyeballs just like the government.

The housing bubble was created because it vastly increased demand by lowering lending standards. Now that those folks can’t pay, the bubble pops.

There is nothing preventing private lenders from holding loans to doctors, lawyers etc who have high income upside, they just can’t sell them to the government and leave the tax payers holding the bag if things go bad with the loan.


3 posted on 06/10/2011 7:30:39 AM PDT by rwilson99 (Please tell me how the words "shall not perish and have everlasting life" would NOT apply to Mary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I'm not so sure this is all a bad thing. A lot of people bought homes they couldn't afford do so with the idea of flipping them for a profit. I think those days are gone...at least for those who can't afford the down payment, and that's probably a good thing. But then, you've got Chris Dodd and other idiots arguing to keep the subsidized housing loans from Freddie and Fannie by making statements like:

If we don't keep these programs, how will people who can't afford housing by a home?

Good grief, I'm surprised he can fog a mirror by himself.

4 posted on 06/10/2011 7:32:03 AM PDT by econjack (Some people are as dumb as soup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwilson99

“The housing bubble was created because it vastly increased demand by lowering lending standards.”

Which then fed on itself as people could bid up the price of houses with money they were never going to pay back, forcing financially responsible people to pay an artificially high price. For those responsible people, it was like they had to use their own real money to bid against someone using Monopoly money.


5 posted on 06/10/2011 7:40:06 AM PDT by Flash Bazbeaux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Terrible idea. The lender gets huge profit and no risk. You think home sales are slow now? Institute these changes and nothing will sell. Longer term loans are a better idea than this.


6 posted on 06/10/2011 7:41:05 AM PDT by Crooked Constituent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
"Homeownership, as we know it, could be a thing of the past""

It's not just 'home ownership', it is a question of where a society wishes to invest it's wealth. McMansions for the masses with those lovely 9 foot ceilings requiring all that extra heating and cooling, or factories to create wealth for current and future generations. Are we talking home ownership for those who can afford it or palace ownership for everyone?

7 posted on 06/10/2011 7:41:59 AM PDT by I am Richard Brandon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Aren’t these the rules that used to be pretty standard for most banks naturally? I don’t have any problem with it. I would just say that for every 10% additional down payment beyond 20%, there should be some flexibility in the debt to income ratios. If someone has serious “skin” in the game they are a much better risk and the loan to asset ratio is much safer.


8 posted on 06/10/2011 7:42:36 AM PDT by Codeflier (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama - 4 democrat presidents in a row and counting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

Financially, yes, but should the government (who was largely responsible for the problem to begin with) force it?

Also, it would destroy what little equity remains since it would essentially take 70% of potential buyers out of the market for two reasons:

1. Fewer have the 20% down

2. Those that have enough equity to sell and “buy up” no longer will after their values plummet even more.

It will basically snowball a decline in home values to far UNDER their likely intrinsic value for a good decade.

Probably something ultimately good would result, but, there will be a LOT of people, probably 40% of the population, who are so far underwater in their homes that the value of their home will likely be less than 50% of their mortgage balance.

I’m not even getting into the income requirements, but analyzing that it seems to be pretty on-target with what most requirements are anyway.

If a private lender without a government guarantee wants to lend at less than 20% down though, why should the government stop them?


9 posted on 06/10/2011 7:42:56 AM PDT by RockinRight (Who is "Generic Republican" and why does he poll so much better against Obama than anyone else?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: I am Richard Brandon

Here in the south, I find my 9 foot ceilings more comfortable in the summer than my previous 8 foot ceilings. My next house will have 12 foot ceilings.


10 posted on 06/10/2011 7:44:50 AM PDT by Codeflier (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama - 4 democrat presidents in a row and counting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

I think these standards swing the pendulum too far in the opposite direction. The domino effect from taking that many buyers out of the market will be disasterous, at least in the short term.


11 posted on 06/10/2011 7:45:08 AM PDT by Trust but Verify (Let's party like it's 1773!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Codeflier

Aristocracy!


12 posted on 06/10/2011 7:53:09 AM PDT by I am Richard Brandon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

A solid recovery can only happen when home buyers “have skin in the game”.

Has the cause of this disaster already been forgotten?

Like so much else that damages America, the federal government precipitated this recession/depression with their foolish racist demands that lenders finance homes for people who do not have the ability to pay back the loans.

Of course, lending institutions ran amok with the policy once they found the profitable loopholes, but the root cause is social engineering by a leftist, racist government.


13 posted on 06/10/2011 7:54:34 AM PDT by Iron Munro (The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. -- John Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

Yes, all good ideas. But the government has no business being in the reale estate market and the financial markets at all. The market should determine whether the person is at risk or not. This is more regulation from central planners...


14 posted on 06/10/2011 7:55:20 AM PDT by fatez ("If you're going through Hell, keep going." Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Codeflier
Here in the south, I find my 9 foot ceilings more comfortable in the summer than my previous 8 foot ceilings. My next house will have 12 foot ceilings.

Ladder futures are rising as we speak. ;^)

15 posted on 06/10/2011 8:01:21 AM PDT by Night Hides Not (If Dick Cheney = Darth Vader, then Joe Biden = Dark Helmet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

I agree with all these rules, however the US Gov is why there is a mess right now, subprimes loans in addition to Fannie/Freddie owning in incredible amounts of loans. I just found out they own our loan, a normal over 20% down down coventional 15 year. Why are they buying loans like mine?? The gov needs to get out of the loan business.


16 posted on 06/10/2011 8:04:32 AM PDT by ThisLittleLightofMine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

I agree with all these rules, however the US Gov is why there is a mess right now, subprimes loans in addition to Fannie/Freddie owning in incredible amounts of loans. I just found out they own our loan, a normal over 20% down down coventional 15 year. Why are they buying loans like mine?? The gov needs to get out of the loan business.


17 posted on 06/10/2011 8:04:42 AM PDT by ThisLittleLightofMine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fatez

Central planning got us into this mess. So their solution is more central planning.


18 posted on 06/10/2011 8:06:02 AM PDT by Texas resident (Hunkered Down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Linda, Linda, Linda...

Returning the housing industry to normal is going to take at least five years, so why not get it right?

Financially, the biggest problem our nation has is Leverage, i.e. we're over-leveraged: Wall Street, the federal debt, credit cards, student loans...need I go on?

I don't know where the bottom is on housing prices, but it's obvious we aren't there yet.

20% too steep? What's wrong with 15% combined with a credit score of 720+ and verifiable income for the past 3 years?

Beats the heck out of someone with a credit score of 550 and no verifiable income getting a home loan for $600K.

19 posted on 06/10/2011 8:08:36 AM PDT by Night Hides Not (If Dick Cheney = Darth Vader, then Joe Biden = Dark Helmet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I am against micro-management of the economy by government prescription. Very often, so called consumer protection regulations have just the opposite effect. They hurt more than they help. This is just another manifestation of the nanny state in action.

Intervention by the government created the housing market bubble in the first place. Relaxing market based qualifications by government coercion was the main culprit. Such a regulation would swing the pendulum back in the opposite direction way too far. The market had it right and the government had it wrong all along. The government should butt out and let the market place do what it does best.


20 posted on 06/10/2011 8:09:35 AM PDT by RatRipper (I'll ride a turtle to work every day before I buy anything from Government Motors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crooked Constituent

I beg to differ. The price will adjust and homes will sell at that price. It’s basic economics.

What isn’t basic economics is artificial stimulation or government regulation. Remove those, and prices will find their correct level.


21 posted on 06/10/2011 8:11:09 AM PDT by Larry Lucido (Free Lazamataz! Last day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Texas resident
Central planning got us into this mess. So their solution is more central planning.

Not necessarily. Wall Street, i.e. the financial community has proven time and again that it cannot police itself. There is much more to come over the MERS scandal, and it's going to cost banks much more than $20 Billion.

The only way to get us out of this mess is to ratchet down the use of leverage, and enforcing hard limits on the use of leverage by financial institutions is a legitimate function of regulators, i.e. the government.

22 posted on 06/10/2011 8:13:30 AM PDT by Night Hides Not (If Dick Cheney = Darth Vader, then Joe Biden = Dark Helmet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Codeflier

Up until the 1990s you had to put down 10% and 10% was insured through private mortgage insurance. And the 26/36 rule was there. FHA was 29/41. VA was 41% only with no front ratio.

From 2007 to 2010 my wife and must have sold 80 houses or so. Only one buyer put down more than 3%. Not one of those buyers have gone into foreclosure yet.

What caused this mess was phony values and no doc “B” paper interest only and and adjustable loans. People bought what they could afford at the time but when the rate adjusted the houses had dropped to what they should have been valued at to begin with. Now they can’t refinance because their house doesn’t appraise. Were they stupid to have paid the over valued prices? Sure. But knocking another huge percentage of buyers from the market is not the solution.

I can see a mortgage moratorium in the future. Plus, a major bank failure is looming, too. Times are really going to get tough.


23 posted on 06/10/2011 8:16:45 AM PDT by Terry Mross (Only a SECOND party will get my vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

And I forgot the zero down stupidity. But there were many who did put money down but their rate went through the roof and their value went through the cellar so they couldn’t refinance. Plus there are millions who bought by the rules but are losing their homes because they lost their jobs.

People are saying on here to let this sort itself out and homes will sell when the price reaches it’s bottom. Sadly I’m afraid many of them will be crack houses by then. And those will never sell.

I don’t know what the answer is but I do not believe the government going to the extreme is the solution.


24 posted on 06/10/2011 8:24:13 AM PDT by Terry Mross (Only a SECOND party will get my vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Those were the rules when we bought our home and never should have been repealed!

Kick the low income and those that don’t save and live on credit leaches out in the street!


25 posted on 06/10/2011 8:24:44 AM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThisLittleLightofMine

Your kind of loan used to be really all Fannie did...


26 posted on 06/10/2011 8:30:07 AM PDT by RockinRight (Who is "Generic Republican" and why does he poll so much better against Obama than anyone else?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Night Hides Not

I’d even say 10% if you have other assets out there and over a 720 FICO.

Less than 10% is really where things get hairy...but I’ll even concede that 3% down FHA loans really didn’t have major losses until they started using it as a subprime substitute.


27 posted on 06/10/2011 8:31:51 AM PDT by RockinRight (Who is "Generic Republican" and why does he poll so much better against Obama than anyone else?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Trust but Verify
I am currently in the situation of having a home with a mortgage in one state and a job and a rent to own agreement in another. This is likely to catch us in a tight spot due to there being no buyers. Plenty of lookers but few buyers. We are thinking doing a rent to own deal with the house we have a mortgage on.

I think this will make a lot of people landlords and renters at the same time. We will rent out the house we have mortgaged and be renting a house that someone else has mortgaged. If a lot of people are put into this situation I can see things getting real messy real quick. One renter not paying rent for too long and a domino effect may occur.

28 posted on 06/10/2011 8:32:37 AM PDT by Angry_White_Man_Syndrome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
Were they stupid to have paid the over valued prices? Sure. But knocking another huge percentage of buyers from the market is not the solution.

Terry, I share your concerns, but removing truly unqualified "buyers" from the market is a big part of the solution.

If a young couple know they're going to have to put down 15-20% to qualify for a house, they'll do it, even if it means they'll have to give up their Beemers and all the other goodies that they thought they were "entitled" to.

It makes no sense whatsoever to approve a mortgage with a 25% front end ratio, when the back end ratio is over 60% due to student loans, car loans, and credit card debt.

29 posted on 06/10/2011 8:33:09 AM PDT by Night Hides Not (If Dick Cheney = Darth Vader, then Joe Biden = Dark Helmet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

The real problem is more on the income/assets/credit side than the down payment side. Stated income loans, etc, and just general overvaluation caused by easy money.

Should people have “skin” in the game? Absolutetly. Does it have to be a full 20%? Maybe, maybe not. Traditional FHA loans had low overall losses until recently, when they started giving them to people who really didn’t qualify, hoping they could be swept under the rug when they were packaged and sold.


30 posted on 06/10/2011 8:34:10 AM PDT by RockinRight (Who is "Generic Republican" and why does he poll so much better against Obama than anyone else?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Texas resident
Central planning got us into this mess. So their solution is more central planning.

But it was a kinder, gentler, more compassionate central planning.

31 posted on 06/10/2011 8:35:56 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

What do you mean by a mortgage moratorium?


32 posted on 06/10/2011 8:36:01 AM PDT by RockinRight (Who is "Generic Republican" and why does he poll so much better against Obama than anyone else?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
...homebuyers make a 20 percent down payment to qualify for low-interest mortgages... cap the amount of income that borrowers could devote to mortgage payments to no more than 28 percent of gross income. Worse, it would disqualify any borrower whose combined debt payments amounted to more than 36 percent of monthly gross income.

Wow.. This is EXACTLY the underwriting criteria routinely used prior to the 1990s. You know, back when sanity reigned? Before the build-up to disaster that was caused by the lax standards Chavez apparently wants to retain?

33 posted on 06/10/2011 8:36:22 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

Starting a “new fannie” that uses late 1990s guidelines might be a good start. Let this be a more truly private organization than the GSE’s ever were (FNMA WAS private even then though).


34 posted on 06/10/2011 8:37:23 AM PDT by RockinRight (Who is "Generic Republican" and why does he poll so much better against Obama than anyone else?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Night Hides Not

I agree with your basic idea accept for the credit score. Credit scores only show haw good you are at using credit cards. Banks need to start looking at peoples budgets. My credit score is low, but it is because the only debt I have had in the last 3 years is a mortgage. I don’t even have a credit card.


35 posted on 06/10/2011 8:37:50 AM PDT by Angry_White_Man_Syndrome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight
I’d even say 10% if you have other assets out there and over a 720 FICO.

Throw in 3 years of verifiable income, and I think we've got it licked.

A "one size fits all" approach just doesn't work, but common sense does. If I'm a mortgage lender, I would demand 25% down (or more) from attorneys, due to their sophistication and knowledge of ways to get around the system.

Attorneys have a poor reputation when it comes to paying their bills on time.

36 posted on 06/10/2011 8:39:14 AM PDT by Night Hides Not (If Dick Cheney = Darth Vader, then Joe Biden = Dark Helmet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The enactment of all these rules would guarantee that in 18 months I could afford any house I wanted.


37 posted on 06/10/2011 8:40:47 AM PDT by dartuser ("Dealing with preterists is like cleaning the litter box ... but at least none of the cats are big.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Night Hides Not

I agree on attorneys...but enforcing a different set of rules on one type of people would open the door for lawsuits...wait, that brings in more attorneys!


38 posted on 06/10/2011 8:41:17 AM PDT by RockinRight (Who is "Generic Republican" and why does he poll so much better against Obama than anyone else?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

I take it you don’t own a home with a mortgage now?

I thought the same thing, but then thought “what do I do with the house I have that’s already $20k upside down?”


39 posted on 06/10/2011 8:42:32 AM PDT by RockinRight (Who is "Generic Republican" and why does he poll so much better against Obama than anyone else?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ThisLittleLightofMine

Same with me. I bought a house last year, 20% down, no other debt whatsoever, credit scores over 800, and decent sized savings accounts. Wells Fargo sold it to FNMA.


40 posted on 06/10/2011 8:42:57 AM PDT by sanjuanbob (Festina Lente)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight; Night Hides Not

With all this posting, including mine, I don’t beleive these guidelines are in effect. They’ve been talking about this for several years. I do know they’ve instituted the limit on what the seller can “pay” in closing costs. It used to be 5%, or maybe a little more, can’t remember. Now it’s $3,000.

I meant “stated income” when I said “B” paper loans. Many people were buying homes who should not have been buying them. Those people were weeded out about 2 years ago. Up until we got out of the biz in early 2011 a buyer had to have a 680 credit score, minumum 3 1/2% down and ratio no more than 50%.

The guidelines have been moving constantly since 2007. Then you could buy with a 400 credit score with seller paid down payment and seller paid closing costs. Basically no money down if you had a job. Then it moved to 580. Then 620 with 3 1/2% down payment. And now it’s up to 680 (unless it’s gone up again) and a maximum of 3% seller “contribution”.

Personally I see many more people walking away. That means banks crashing and builders going under. There’s no fair and easy way out of this.


41 posted on 06/10/2011 8:44:27 AM PDT by Terry Mross (Only a SECOND party will get my vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Crooked Constituent
Terrible idea. The lender gets huge profit and no risk.

Are you sure you are on the right website? Do you want the taxpayers bailing out Fannie Mae indefinitely? Do you want to continue the 'liar loans' indefinitely?

42 posted on 06/10/2011 8:44:46 AM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This may not exclude as many people as they think. Making it more difficult to buy a house will lower the value of houses, making them easier to buy. What the net effect would be is hard to figure.

Bottom line is that the government shouldn’t be manipulating the housing market at all.

In my area, there are huge developments full of huge “spec” houses full of tiny families with no furniture or equity. There are also many, many empty brand-new houses. These “modern” houses only have a life expectancy of 40-50 years because of the cheap construction. Their values start dropping immediately upon completion. The housing marking is going down, down, down.

Sucks to be “in” real estate, but I suspect that the cost of living, rather than investing, in homes, will be going down fast.

Big government f’s up again.


43 posted on 06/10/2011 8:46:40 AM PDT by Born to Conserve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Angry_White_Man_Syndrome
Good point on the credit score. Like you, I'm down to no credit cards, so my score will never reach the upper 700s.

Within two years, I expect to have 6 months worth of bills in my emergency fund, with the ability to tap my nascent 401K for a loan if the need arises.

Fortunately, I'm a TX resident with about 30% equity in my home.

Mortgage lenders need to do their due diligence and make a credit decision based on common sense and sound financial data...one size doesn't fit all.

44 posted on 06/10/2011 8:47:30 AM PDT by Night Hides Not (If Dick Cheney = Darth Vader, then Joe Biden = Dark Helmet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

I hate to say this, but instead of all the crap they’ve tried to do to fix the housing market, we’d have been better off, both in overall cost, and effectiveness, to subsidize loan modifications where principal was reduced (to reduce walkaways) in the first place.

Not saying I *like* that idea either, but it would have been more effective.

I know most mods now fail, but that’s based more on how they’re done and for whom (i.e., they’re only done for people who really can’t afford the house no matter what and already have credit issues from the get-go) than anything else.


45 posted on 06/10/2011 8:49:16 AM PDT by RockinRight (Who is "Generic Republican" and why does he poll so much better against Obama than anyone else?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: All

During the great depression there was a mortgage moratorium. Nobody was foreclosed on. I’m not sure how long it went.

The problem today is not the lack of buyers. It’s the values have dropped so much that people owe much more than they can sell the house for. If they walk away they end up paying rent that’s probably less than their payments. They’ll rent a smaller house from someone else who can’t sell their house.

I can also see the government and banks becoming landlords. Plus there’ll be a lot of crack houses. Have you guys checked the increase of crack houses in every little town in America?


46 posted on 06/10/2011 8:51:24 AM PDT by Terry Mross (Only a SECOND party will get my vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Angry_White_Man_Syndrome

Credit scores do take “installment” loans (car, mortgage, etc) into consideration, but what’s most heavily weighted is having credit cards, paying them on time and keeping the balance-to-limit ratio as low as possible (under 10% is ideal).

The budget matters, but do you pay those on time, that’s more important, really.

Verification of rent should be more focused on too, if you pay rent on time, you’re more likely to pay a mortgage on time.


47 posted on 06/10/2011 8:51:30 AM PDT by RockinRight (Who is "Generic Republican" and why does he poll so much better against Obama than anyone else?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: sanjuanbob

That was was FNMA and FHLMC used to do, the “regular” loans like that.

Its only thanks to Frank, Dodd, etc that they got weird.


48 posted on 06/10/2011 8:52:55 AM PDT by RockinRight (Who is "Generic Republican" and why does he poll so much better against Obama than anyone else?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
There’s no fair and easy way out of this.

You have my vote to be the next Treasury Secretary. An absolutely brilliant comment.

More brilliant than my voice mail message:

"If you agree with me that true conservatism is the last best hope for this country, feel free to leave your name, number, and a brief message."

"If not, then Good Day and GOOD LUCK!!!"

49 posted on 06/10/2011 8:53:03 AM PDT by Night Hides Not (If Dick Cheney = Darth Vader, then Joe Biden = Dark Helmet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Born to Conserve
Making it more difficult to buy a house will lower the value of houses, making them easier to buy.

It will for people that don't already have a house that they'd need to sell first. So again, it's hard to determine the net affect.

50 posted on 06/10/2011 8:53:58 AM PDT by RockinRight (Who is "Generic Republican" and why does he poll so much better against Obama than anyone else?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-119 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson