RAISING THE DOWN PAYMENT FOR FHA INSURED LOANS TO 5% IS O.K.????? 

Just wait until the folks on Capitol Hill proposing the down payment change rediscover another good source of money for income redistribution.  Since the American home owner has few, if any, protectors on Capitol Hill, sooner or later I predict that, a few of them will again attack the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction.  Each year, the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction puts about $70Billion in the hands of American home owners.  The government spenders, Congress, want that money. 

This post inspired by Jeff Belonger's thoughtful article on this subject on October 7. 

WARNING:  This is a political statement.  It's not aimed at a party.  To me they are all the cut from the same cloth.  When one political party has almost unlimited power, they always appear to develop a pecular kind of hubris involving taking tax money and spending it on their contributors' interests.  Whenever I want to find the motivation for a politician's actions, I just try to follow the money.   

SPEAKING FROM EXPERIENCE.   Jeff Belonger's article discusses the proposal by some Congresspersons to raise the FHA down payment to 5% as the solution to FHA mortgage defaults.  I hope this proposal doesn't get legs.  Of course, unlike the Congresspersons floating that balloon, I have actual experience with home buyers who financed their home purchase with an FHA loan.

Over the past 25 years, agents in my network or brokerage have assisted over 750 home buyers using the FHA loan to finance their home purchase.  During the "boom" years of 2004-2007, FHA loans were few because conventional financed Contracts of Sale received seller preference.  HA!  Those eschewed FHA loans had some irritating features that protect home buyers through conservative appraisals and property condition requirements (VA borrowers received the same treatment).  Those FHA loans were made when the down payment was about 2.75%, 3% and now 3.5%.  Many of these loans were made with the Down Payment Assistance program whereby a seller (not taxpayers) contributed up to 4% of their net proceeds to assist the buyers with their down payment.  As of January 1, 2009. Congress killed those programs, Nehemiah/Ameridream, etc.  I have over 2,000 past FHA buyer/clients in my database and have not yet received any information that a single buyer using FHA financing has defaulted. 

SYNONYM:  "Skin in the game" is another term for "squeezing blood out of turnips".

DON'T WANT POLITICAL TALK?  Folks who don't want these matters to get into political discussions, have their head in the sand. Head in Sand

IT'S ALL POLITICAL.  The entities that are making the decisions that make or break mortgage loans are politicians.  The politicians make decisions daily that determine who can buy a home and who cannot.  They determine, through their power, who can keep a home and cannot.  Find out who benefits from the reduction of FHA insured loans and you'll probably find PAC money going to politicians proposing an increase in FHA down payments. 

WAS IT POLITICAL TO GIVE $TRILLIONS TO THE BANKS AND WALL STREET GANGS THAT PROFITTED FROM THE MORTGAGE MESS?  When tax money was budgeted in the $Trillions to banks and Wall Street and the American home owner is kicked under the bus, that decision was made by politicians who have control of our tax money.

THE GOVERNMENT BUDGET IS LIKE A TAPE WORM?  IT NEVER GETS ENOUGH TO EAT.  Just wait until the politicians now in power get desperate for more money, they will be after the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction. 

DO WE WANT A NATION WITH A MAJORITY HOME OWNERSHIP?  OR, DO WE WANT A NATION WITH A MAJORITY OF TENANTS??

Raise the FHA down payment to 5% and another small percentage of prospective home buyers will remain tenants.

 
Post is included in group: The Ninety-ninth Percentile
Post is included in group: Real Estate Trends
Post is included in group: Club Chaos
Post is included in group: AR Twitter Users

36 Comments on RAISING THE DOWN PAYMENT FOR FHA INSURED LOANS TO 5% IS O.K.?????

OCT
08
243,918 Points 2 Featured Posts Outside Blog

Hi Lenn~ I think they want a majority of more tenants, that way the government can control us even more!  Raising the down payment for FHA will only produce the results of more tenants.  What is happening to the American Dream??

6:29am • #1
154,264 Points 6 Featured Posts Outside Blog

There was a big difference between 3% and allowing some closing costs to count towards the percentage, and the new rule of straight up 3.5%. Regulators and legislators are convinced that the Community Reinvestment loans (100%) and FHA loans (3%, with DPA no out of pocket funds) are a major cause of delinquency.

They blame the buyer, not the underwriting.

I wish I could find someone with those statistics to show that the correlation of default is with downpayment. I think the correlation between downpayment and delinquency was shown false with the analysis that became scoring models.

But what the heck - we keep sending the same people back to Congress. The same people who are caused this in the first place.

Richard

6:40am • #2
894,940 Points 213 Featured Posts Localism Sponsor Outside Blog Hit Router

Vickie.  I agree completely.

Richard.  Right you are.  A pox on both all their houses. 

6:47am • #3
106,666 Points Outside Blog

Lenn,

I find your arguements suffering a bit from double standards.  What I mean is you're complaining about the government changing laws regarding home ownership and mandated lending practices in a way that would, in your opinioin, decrease your business opportunities. 

However, it is those same laws and regs that are benefitting you in their current form.  I think the government needs to back out of the markets altogether.  Their laws are skewing the markets in a major way and have created the mess we're in now.

Let the markets determine what is good lending practice, who is a good credit risk for loans and if we have to go slow but grow, that is far more preferrable to having the banking and lending system so puckered up waiting to find out if they can breathe according to some government law/order/mandate/regulation.

Enough is enough.  Abolish the meddling!  Whether I personally benefit now or not.  The destination of all well intended laws is ultimately an even bigger mess we have to get out of.  

6:49am • #4
646,419 Points 112 Featured Posts Localism Sponsor Outside Blog Hit Router

Good morning Lenn...

I guess I'm old fashioned, because I like the 20% down standard. I do think that if you truly want to "own" a home, then you should actually buy it. But that's my vision of Never-never land and won't fly in the real world.

We do 100% USDA loans every day, and I can't help but think:

"Here we go again!"

7:15am • #5

I agree Lenn, if one doesn't see the politics in these congressional (and presidential) policies, they must have their head in the sand.  Follow the money and don't trust your politicians to do what is in your best interest.

It is time for term limits for these Senators and Congressman.  When will we determine that the longer these political officials stay in office, the more corrupt they become?  I used to think that corruption in politics was only in communists countries and third world countries with dictators. 

Then I grew up.

I did think however back in 2004, that the concept of 100% loans was looney.  Anyone should have been able to anticipate what will happen when the bubble bursts, as it does every 20 or so years.  It appears that the entire country was hooked on the cocaine of easy money and promises of property riches in a repeat of many periods in history.

7:31am • #6
316,174 Points 2 Featured Posts Outside Blog

Unfortunately I think true home ownership  is a thing of the past. Even with the 3% or 5% down, many will never buy or pay off the loan.  Take the tax deduction away and may be a renter myself or get a little trailer down by the beach!

7:32am • #7
245,157 Points 6 Featured Posts Outside Blog

Lenn, It is my understanding that currently, the buyer needs 3.5% of their own money in the deal.  Of that 3.5%, some or all of it can be a gift for a relative.  In addition to that, the seller can kick in up to 6% toward allowable closing costs.  The only thing I see changing if our friends on Capital Hill have their way, is parents are going to have to come up with 5% instead of 3.5% if they want to help their children own a home.  Of course, there are many, many, many people who do not have parents who could have come up with even 1% to help their kids in the currently economic climate.  If my kids were ready to buy a house this year, I could help some, but I couldn't help 3.5% or 5% some!

7:43am • #8
199,907 Points 12 Featured Posts Outside Blog

Lenn - You warn readers that your post is political--The process is political.  Nothing comes out of DC that doesn't pass the "smell test."  Unfortunately for us, what usually comes out stinks.  And now we "discover" what we already knew, that Bernanke and Paulson lied about the stability of the banks receiving billions of TARP money. 

Public benefit is never the driving force behind legislation; it's always political expediency.  Until we vote them all out, we can expect more of the same.

7:45am • #9
449,786 Points 9 Featured Posts Localism Sponsor Outside Blog

Lenn:  I agree with your general standing on poliitical parties, but I definitely agreed with the Nehemiah program going away.  When there was no money put down on homes from hard earned paychecks, savings accounts, etc, I saw myself how easy it was for folks to get p.o.'ed that their house had lost value (a lot of value) and walk away.  I don't necessarily know if raising FHA to 5% is a bad thing off the bat.  My gut says that it will hurt sellers more than anything in closing contributions.  But asking if we want a nation of homeowners or tenants, well, I would like a nation of qualified home buyers.  We are seeing the results of putting unqualified buyers into homes.  I'm not happy as a taxpayer to pay for someone else's mistakes.  Sure the 5% change would change the qualifications, but on teh $250,000 homes I've been showing, that's only an additional $3,750.  If you can't save that much money, on top of what you already have, maybe home ownership isn't for you.  Home ownership is more expensive than renting. Home repairs, improvements, etc. 

As a result of that last statement, if the government decided to outlaw the mortgage interest tax deduction, THAT would really hurt.  But with all the tax credits being given out like lollipops, that reason to own a home is getting lost.

Love your blog and love to hear what's on your mind. Thanks for getting my brain in gear this morning.

8:14am • #10
403,143 Points 63 Featured Posts Localism Sponsor Outside Blog

Hi Lenn, Great topic and so well defined. I got the paper this morning at 5:30 and in it was an article about what the Health Care plan that is going to be coming our way, will cost Californians. 8 Billion in new taxes. For a Health care bill that was to be paid by the rich, I didn't realize that the definition just slides to include anyone working. Seems we searched out rich in 3rd world countries and adopted the definition for ourselves. How cool is that. NOT.

oops, sorry for going off point. But all this seems to be coming from the same people that are from the government and are here to help us. Right.

8:58am • #11
146,446 Points 14 Featured Posts Localism Sponsor Outside Blog

FHA loans weren't done here because the bubble created by the stated income loans (and other instruments of choice) elevated properties to price point above what was permissable under FHA guidelines.

But of course, this must be a good reason to eliminate the value of an FHA loan, now that pricing is reaching a level where some might well have the ability to actually USE the benefits of an FHA. They're trying to fix the wrong "broke" with many other pressing agendas to handle before this bit of nonsense. This is all just too much sometimes.

Let's not forget that FHA and VA eliminated the non-qualifying assumption feature years ago- except, isn't that basically what loans over the last several years have provided anyway with no doc loans, etc.? Ridiculous, this tampering with FHA.

9:05am • #12

Lenn - Over the years the bulk of my clients bought houses with FHA or VA loans until the boom made them obsolete. I encourage all buyers to look at the possibility of financing with one of these loans first because of the safety net in regards to re-financing.

If they do increase the down-payment to 5% , all I can see is the amount of closing cost assistance from the seller increasing which will cause additional appraisal shortages moving forward.

As usual "Less for More" conceptional thinking , on our governments part

9:48am • #13
199,401 Points 14 Featured Posts Localism Sponsor Outside Blog

"the American home owner has few, if any, protectors on Capitol Hill" Today we are in complete agreement and it's unfortunate but true that Congress, insurance companies and banks all constantly seem to be trying to pick the public pockets clean. I also like the fact that you are one of the few people I know that know how to use the word HUBRIS and in this case arrogance is it's companion!

10:42am • #14
894,940 Points 213 Featured Posts Localism Sponsor Outside Blog Hit Router

Mr. Mike Michaud.  Your comment:

 

Lenn,

I find your arguements suffering a bit from double standards.  What I mean is you're complaining about the government changing laws regarding home ownership and mandated lending practices in a way that would, in your opinioin, decrease your business opportunities.

is so grossly insulting to all agents, brokers, loan officers, and all of us who work hard to satisfy the needs of the American home buying consumers, risking our time and our capital, you have ceased to exist in my world. 

 

10:51am • #15
894,940 Points 213 Featured Posts Localism Sponsor Outside Blog Hit Router

Russel.  Thanks.  Few things can get me worked up more than watching the fat cats on Capitol Hill inflicting pain and financial hardships on the American home owners. 

Laura.  I suppose it's possible that the lobbyists for the banks have persuaded a few on the Hill to float this trial balloon.

Laurie.  FHA and VA are still assumable, except that the buyer now has to qualify.  VA in 1988 and FHA in 1989 were fully assumable without qualifying.  I did a lot of them.

William J.  Go off topic anytime.  I always enjoy expanding the discussion.

Chris Ann.  that's only an additional $3,750.  I suspect that we have a different perspective on what is real money.  Thanks for your thoughtful comment. 

John M.  Indeed.  Bernanke and Paulson kicked the American home owner under the bus.

Susan M.   The parents can't always help.  Over the years, I have probably had no more than 25 or so purchasers with give money.  There was a time when sellers could help, but that help is shrinking with the loss of equity.

Gary.  I'll be right next door.   If it's going to be on a beach, I'll catch dinner.

 

 

 

 

11:09am • #16
894,940 Points 213 Featured Posts Localism Sponsor Outside Blog Hit Router

Dan.  Term limits indeed.  Also reduce their staff, their expense account and their health and retirement benefits and their ability to make money on their part time jobs like paid speaking.  Let's get some statesmen in there.

Richard.  We shall continue to disagree.  However, the nice thing about FHA, VA, USDA, et al is that those loans are generally better documented than the 20% down.  At least that's my experience. 

 

11:14am • #17
106,666 Points Outside Blog

Lenn,

Where did that come from?  Do you always treat people this way that don't agree with you 100%? 

Since I have been singled out for non-existance, I thought I ought to respond, but not in-kind.

In no way was I insulting those in our profession.  However, since you have taken great offense at my comment, I apologize. 

My point is the legal situation cuts both ways.  And there-in lies the problem.  The government is screwing things up so badly by trying to manipulate or micro-manage every aspect of our business.  So while the current regs of 3.5% are OK, 5% is going to far?  Why have the 3.5% at all?  Why have the government dictating any of it at all?  And we, the sheep, go along with it.  Home ownership is a private right, reserved to the people under the Constitution.  The government has no business telling any of us how to transact our business as long as it is ethical to all parties involved.

Even though I am no longer in your world, I thought I would try to explain things, from "the other side".

 

1:57pm • #18
613,610 Points 95 Featured Posts Localism Sponsor Outside Blog Hit Router

Well, let's hope this doesn't happen. It was cripple the housing recovery?

We bought our first home with FHA in 1979 and put down 3.5%. Yes, it was hard but my parents and grandmother helped and Mike and I saved.

Here is what I read this AM, if you delete the link I understand.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aOmu318hOZr4 it is about FHA in a 54 Billion dollar Short Fall and may need a bailout.

God help us.

3:30pm • #19
894,940 Points 213 Featured Posts Localism Sponsor Outside Blog Hit Router

Missy.  Thanks.  I wouldn't delete that link.  It's a good link.  In fact, it describes why FHA is good for the mortgage industry: 

"Due to solid underwriting requirements and responsible lending practices, FHA has avoided the brunt of defaults and foreclosures facing the rest of the real estate finance industry," Campbell said in the prepared testimony.

This is what I've been saying for ages.  FHA loans are documented and not the risk folks believe them to be because of the 3.5% down payment. 

Cure the unemployment problem and folks won't be in default.

3:49pm • #20
248,084 Points 4 Featured Posts Outside Blog

You are so right it is all political.  It's like citi bank being against cram down rates until they were given 40 BILLION reasons to be for it. 

There are not nearly the number of FHA foreclosures in my area as there were conventional loans. 

Oh and your comment to Dan made me remember this quote:

"A politician is a man who understands government. A statesman is a politician who's been dead for 15 years." -Harry S. Truman

I think the moral compass is too lost to get anything but thieves in Washington.

4:23pm • #21
358,513 Points 4 Featured Posts Outside Blog

Lenn - I have benefited from no money down VA loans more than once. I have never missed a house payment. I know dozens of people with the same record (and I am not even beginning to include clients). The problem is not "no skin in the game", the problem(s) are the government trying to get people that cannot afford it to get into a home. The problem is groups like Acorn blackmailing banks and lending institutions into making bad loans. The problem is lenders accepting less than credible applications. The problem is rewarding directors for how many loans Fannie & Freddie buy, not the quality.

5% down, or no money down, will not change the default rate if due diligence is not performed, and as long as the government rewards and encourages irresponsible behaviour, by all parties involved.

7:17pm • #22
119,947 Points 1 Featured Post Outside Blog

Lenn,  It is so hard for young families who are just starting out to buy a home.  The conservative appraisals required by FHA and VA are helpful in keeping home prices realistic.

11:26pm • #23
OCT
09
506,258 Points 151 Featured Posts Outside Blog

Lenn.... first off, thanks for the mention.  I guess AR has some sort of block on certain google alerts because I never received an alert with my name on this one.

In regards to how you laid this one out, nice job.I particulary liked this statement... "

"SYNONYM:  "Skin in the game" is another term for "squeezing blood out of turnips".

I agree, that this is political, no matter whose side you are on. I don't trust most anymore, because there always seems to be an angle or something in it for the politician. But I don't want this to be about politics. The overall fact is that FHA & VA loans worked in the past. Sure, stated loans and no doc loans forced prices up. But what is going on now and has been for a few years in regards to many foreclosures is the loss of jobs. Yet the gov't seems to focus on other issues that could just flat out kill the real estate market. Alright, maybe not kill, but certainly hurt. Overall, in 17 years, I know of 3 clients of mine going into foreclosures.  2 were 2nd homes which both were done with subprime financing. But both had family and job issues that led to these foreclosures.  And my other one, a FHA loan to where the woman's son co-signed for her and he was supporting her. Well, he suddenly died at an earlier age and she foreclosed. Gee, I wonder if the gov't should do 2 independent studies of why so many go into foreclosure and not assume that it's because they have no skin in the game.

 

 

Mike Michaud - I am not going to get into it, on how Lenn responded, but I did have some anger and resentment when I first read your first comment. Hey, we all have opinions and I can live with that.  But here is what I took from your first comment. Here is what you said...

"I find your arguements suffering a bit from double standards.  What I mean is you're complaining about the government changing laws regarding home ownership and mandated lending practices in a way that would, in your opinioin, decrease your business opportunities."

Let's start off by asking this... would you agree that there is normally two sides to everything. Meaning, you either agree with one side or the other?  yes or no? 

My point.. I believe there is one side of this or the other side. So if Lenn complained about this from the other side, agreed with the 5% down, etc, etc..  then she is suffering from??  And what about the gov't in this one then?  They get their cake and are able to eat it too? My anger to your comment is simply this. Yes, we are all here to make a profit. But just because we disagree with the gov't, as in this case, that could hurt the real estate industry, which yes, could hurt us financially also, doesn't mean that we don't care.  I know Lenn cares... I have spoken to her many of times. I know I care... I have spoken at a rally in DC about the gov't shutting down the seller-funded DPA program, which would not only hurt our real estate industry, but hurt buyers and sellers.  The governments 1 major complaint?  It's driving the price of the home up, that appraisers are making the values work. Hell, my appraisers never drove up value...  Secondly, to argue this point... what about the 1st time home buyers tax credit?  That is costing us tax payers money.  And secondly, tax credit also drives up the price of the home.

If you want to argue with merit, please read this article. It actually was researched and let's know who were the ones that normally walked away. You might be shocked. Overall, your very first statement makes me cringe because you are assuming that we are attacking the gov't for the sake of profit, that it will cut me in half, that I won't be able to survive. Okay, yes, all of those things could happen. But when Lenn or myself argue something like this, it's because we believe in certain things and stand up and fight for them. Because we want to help the homeowner and feel that the gov't is stepping in when it doesn't belong, just because they can... and they don't always think before they do and here is a prime example.

WHo's most likely to walk away from a mortgage.

jeff belonger

10:36am • #24

Lenn,

The knee jerk reaction by Realtors against raising the down payment to 5% isn't speaking well for your profession. As Michael states, this outrage, at the minimum, APPEARS that is being driven by a decrease in business opportunities for agents.

When the taxpayer is insuring these mortgages, and home prices are at risk of continuing to fall in places in California, Neveda, Arizona, and Florida where the majority of these FHA loans are being funded, isn't it responsible to ask for a higher down payment? This gives the taxpayer more protection, albeit it might decrease Realtors sale volumes.

While the FHA loans are written with strong standards, unexpected things happen in life. The borrower might lose his job, there might be a death in the family, or possibly an unexpected divorce that cause delinquency that lead to a sale. Since the TAXPAYER is insuring these loans against ANY loss... they need a cushion. Five percent down, in a declining CA/NV/FL/AZ real estate market, does NOT see like too much to ask.

It turns out that not having"SKIN IN THE GAME" is the single most important factor in foreclosures (WSJ, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657539489189043.html).

Let's not repeat the errors of the past.

John Price
2:34pm • #25
894,940 Points 213 Featured Posts Localism Sponsor Outside Blog Hit Router

Mike.  I agree completely. 

Sybil.  Right you are.  I have no problem with the appraisals of late.  I know how to prepare CMAs and know value when I write a contract. 

Jeff.  When the comment accuses me of only having opinions that will help me earn a commission, they are history.  That is a personal attack and not worthy of a response.  There's another one, a Mr. John Price, not even signed in, above.  I wonder if he and the other one work for nothing or donate their earnings to charity. 

3:52pm • #26

Hi Lenn,

It just a fact of life that given your experiences biases are going to creep up into anyone's analysis.

Given the fact that agents 1) deal directly with homeowners having difficulty selling their homes 2) deal directly with first time buyers that are having a hard time coming up with a down payment and 3) earn their money off commissions from home sales... it doesn't surprise me that they look upon lower down payments as beneficial.

But given the taxpayers are insuring these loans, 5% down does not seem like an unreasonable cushion given that taxpayers face the risk on the downside. I'd actually like to see it back to 20% or whatever the non-government insured mortgages demand in the market place.

As a taxpayer and renter, please understand it is disheartening to see my money subsidizing home purchases and agent commissions. At the minimum I deserve more protection given that FHA losses are now projected to be over $54 billion.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aOmu318hOZr4 

John Price
4:36pm • #27
453,041 Points 48 Featured Posts Localism Sponsor Outside Blog

Lenn,

The drawing is what grabbed my attention!  That's cool, and I'll bet you did it.

Mike in tucson

10:42pm • #28
OCT
10
472,758 Points 76 Featured Posts Localism Sponsor Outside Blog

Hi Lenn:  In response to Mike's 'double standard' comment--it's the fat cat politicians who are the ones practicing double standards--what IS he talking about?!  I agree wholeheartedly with you--and I love your comparison of the government to a tape worm...how TRUE is that and it's grown by LEAPS and bounds over the past year.  Is there an end in sight to this nonsense?

Debe in Charlotte

12:30am • #29
894,940 Points 213 Featured Posts Localism Sponsor Outside Blog Hit Router

Mike J.  Of course.  It's rather crude, but it sends a message. 

Debe.  I don't know what he's talking about.  I don't see an end to it.  Every time they open their mouths, taxes go up and opportunity for Americans to own their own homes goes down. 

 

3:12am • #30
152,049 Points 29 Featured Posts Localism Sponsor Outside Blog

Hi Lenn,

Thanks for posting this.  After reading I immediately called my mom who is half foot out half foot in the buying marketing right now for a house.

10:37am • #31
506,258 Points 151 Featured Posts Outside Blog

@ John Price....  you made this statement... "But given the taxpayers are insuring these loans, 5% down does not seem like an unreasonable cushion given that taxpayers face the risk on the downside. I'd actually like to see it back to 20% or whatever the non-government insured mortgages demand in the market place."

How blind of a statement is that one. Taxpayers insuring these loans....???   Yea, now, after the gov't screws some things up. This is not the norm of the business, so I feel that comment of yours is just reflection of today's market, from the goofs and blunders of the gov't.  So you blame who that the taxpayers have to pay this?  And secondly, from that comment of yours, I have to assume it's because buyers who aren't putting money down, are the ones costing the tax payers money?  Did you read this article?

WHo's most likely to walk away from a mortgage.

I would suggest reading that and doing some research before you act just the gov't, who makes up rules and guidelines,

Overall... your whole theory of that the tax payer needs more protection from risk, blame the politicians. The gov't pushed Fannie Mae to lend more, to give more credit in 1998 and in 2002. You did talk about job loss and stuff. So in reality, with that in mind, do you really think an extra 1.5% is going to help? It could very well hurt more than help. And I do take offense to your statement to Lenn and mentioning realtors,that by doing this could hurt their profit.  Why?  Because I am a loan officer and I am not your typical loan officer. I try to make loans to help those with their American Dream. For many years, in the big boom of business, I made less than my competition that most aren't in the business any more. Because those same individuals had one thing in mind, lining their pockets as quickly as possible. It was a job to them. This is a career for me, just like it is to Lenn. So yes, I do take offense to your comment and find it funny that you to stick up for Mike's comment.  Again, please read the link that I supplied.... and if you still feel the same, then I don't know what to tell you.

One more thing to offer... FHA loans have been around snce 1934. The gov't with the help of HUD, started this to help making the home buying process more affordable. Gee, that has worked up until??? oh, now... in the last 3 years, when foreclosures starting to hit at record numbers. And yes, now FHA is up to about 8% default rate, up from 3%. There are two main issues to this and it doesn't have to do with down payment. Many companies jumped on the FHA bandwagon and DE underwriters jumped, more than doubled... many who didn't know as much, haven't been around long enough.  Many that were subprime underwriters... and many that were instructed by their owners of that company to make loans. I know a lot of this from past companies, from HUD, and specific people that have contacts within. I am tired of assumptions... that is too easy. The other issues?  Jobs... loss of jobs and loss of income. One other key note to the foreclosures... those no docs and stated loans. Yes, I have seen spreadsheets from many large lenders, that showed me what loans weren't performing well.  Many that had 10% to 20% down were a part of this.  And the other half... no doc and stated loans. I bring all of this up because it seems that you need more facts, before you assume with what you stated, or because you followed and agreed with Mike...

Overall.. I have actually seen the proof. .. and don't rely on the gov't to feed me answers that sound good.  Just as they did when they shot down the seller-funded down payment assitance programs... yet they allow the $8,000 tax credit, which is essentially doing the same thing now. Raising offers and purchase prices... = raising the value of real estate. Except one majpr problem with this..  the tax credit costs taxpayers money, the seller-funded DPA's didn't.  So, you argue about the taypayers paying for loans, because of down payment issues... what about what I just mentioned?

Jeff Belonger

11:45am • #32
894,940 Points 213 Featured Posts Localism Sponsor Outside Blog Hit Router

Jeff.  I read that comment "tax payers paying the insurance".  Clearly made by someone who hasn't a clue.

4:00pm • #33

Lenn,

Taxpayers fund the federal government. If the federal govt is going to bailing out the FHA to the tune of $54 billion then taxpayers are de facto insurers.

Jeff,

24% of FHA loans issued in 2007 are in some stage of default. Already 20% of FHA loans issued in 2008 are in some stage of default.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/business/09fha.html

Higher down payments would have certainly lowered these horrific numbers (notice how your article talks about more strategic defaults in negative equity areas).Taxpayers will be picking up the bill. Realtors and loan officers tied to these FHA loans are two parties that are benefiting at taxpayers expensee. Maybe not you or Lenn specifically, but too many have worked the system if that many delinquent FHA insured loans are in the pipeline.

John Price
11:43pm • #34
OCT
11
699,135 Points 104 Featured Posts Localism Sponsor Outside Blog Hit Router

Lenn- It drives me crazy when agents say they don't want to discuss politics in a public forum when so many issues relating to their real estate business are driven by politics. The NAR is political. It all is political. All these issues need to be discusses and agents need to understand what is going on and not live their lives with their heads in the sand.

The mortgage interest credit is already being attacked. That will hurt me a lot since we pay a really high interest rate on our mortgage compared to many others. That credit helps us with our operating costs in our business, gives us a profit to work with, hire people, pay people, buy supplies, postage, keeps other people in their jobs and on and on and .......

It is not a two party system. It is a one party system now. We need to have term limits, pure and simple. Of course - who in congress would ever vote themselves out of a job!

7:52pm • #35
OCT
12
894,940 Points 213 Featured Posts Localism Sponsor Outside Blog Hit Router

Katerina.  I agree completely.  In fact, I wrote in a post recently that housing industry policy is purely political.  Dont' think for one minute that ACORN isn't a political arm of one party.  All of the home buyers they worked with are also voters. 

I discuss politics all the time.  Good grief, the jokers on Capitol Hill, politicians all, are affecting our lives and our jobs every single day in everything they do. 

IMO, watching what the politicians do is a part of our job.

Any ActiveRain member who has advertised or written about the income tax credit is writing about political action whether or not they realize it.

5:34am • #36

This blog does not allow anonymous comments

 


Links

Archives

RSS 2.0 Feed for this blog