patrick.net

 
  forgot password?   register

#housing #investing #politics more»
736,903 comments in 75,806 posts by 10,918 registered users, 4 online now: Booger, lostand confused, Patrick, TwoScoopsMcGee

new post

Rising down payments and loan costs will hinder a housing recovery

By golfplan18   2012 Nov 19, 10:46pm   2,582 views   21 comments   watch (0)   quote      

http://ochousingnews.com/news/rising-down-payments-and-loan-costs-will-hinder-a-housing-recovery?source=Patrick.net

Besides credit qualification barriers due to low FICO scores, there are two barriers to originating more loans and selling more houses to owner occupants: (1) insufficient down payment, and (2) increasing loan costs. The FHA still originates loans at 3.5% down, and the credit barriers are limited, despite realtor pleas and rhetoric to the contrary. However, since the FHA is losing a great deal of money and facing a bailout, they are continually raising their insurance fees as they become the replacement for subprime lending. These increasing costs are making houses less affordable and thereby reducing access to credit. As...

#housing

Comments 1-21 of 21     Last »

1   BobMSN     2012 Nov 19, 11:01pm  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote    

It is a crime to provide mortgage to someone with 3.5% down. What’s wrong with renting if one can’t even afford 20% down payment? With 3.5% down, you don’t have the house, but a slave certificate.

2   Oil Can     2012 Nov 19, 11:32pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

BobMSN says

It is a crime to provide mortgage to someone with 3.5% down. What’s wrong with renting if one can’t even afford 20% down payment? With 3.5% down, you don’t have the house, but a slave certificate.

100% agree.

3   Fucking White Male   235/236 = 99% civil   2012 Nov 20, 12:25am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

I'm going to go one further......

Lots of the nation features homes in the $60-150K range. Family incomes in these areas often average $35-50K. Theoretically these homes are in fact affordable by traditional measures to households in these income ranges. However, any savings over a few thousand dollars is very difficult to achieve.

But a mortgage, even with only 3.5% down, is very affordable...cheaper than renting in these areas. Furthermore, if one household member loses their job, its easier to replace a low wage job. And the impact of losing a $12 an hour factory job and replacing it with an $8 Walmart job won't cause the family to miss a mortage payment.

So the deal is, cap off FHA loans around $125-150K. No fucking FHA loans for rich people with six figure incomes buying $400K homes. Yes yes?

Also, please no input from realtors. Do the decently moral thing for once and sew your piehole shut. Let the adults discuss this one.

4   Goran_K   146/146 = 100% civil   2012 Nov 20, 12:53am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

FHA once it's restructured should have a limit of no more than $250,000.

5   Kevin     2012 Nov 20, 1:28am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

dodgerfanjohn says

I'm going to go one further......

Lots of the nation features homes in the $60-150K range. Family incomes in these areas often average $35-50K. Theoretically these homes are in fact affordable by traditional measures to households in these income ranges. However, any savings over a few thousand dollars is very difficult to achieve.

But a mortgage, even with only 3.5% down, is very affordable...cheaper than renting in these areas. Furthermore, if one household member loses their job, its easier to replace a low wage job. And the impact of losing a $12 an hour factory job and replacing it with an $8 Walmart job won't cause the family to miss a mortage payment.

So the deal is, cap off FHA loans around $125-150K. No fucking FHA loans for rich people with six figure incomes buying $400K homes. Yes yes?

Also, please no input from realtors. Do the decently moral thing for once and sew your piehole shut. Let the adults discuss this one.

$417k (current FHA limit) is barely enough to buy a condo in some cities. One limit for the whole country us a very bad idea.

But yes, there is no excuse for allowing 3.5% on a $400k house in the Midwest.

6   Fucking White Male   235/236 = 99% civil   2012 Nov 20, 1:31am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Goran_K says

FHA once it's restructured should have a limit of no more than $250,000.

I have a problem with an FHA limit even this high.

It really should not be any higher than 3x the average household income for the state. That is, a loan package that makes an average home affordable to the average family(if FHA 3.5% should even exist at all).

7   Fucking White Male   235/236 = 99% civil   2012 Nov 20, 1:33am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Kevin says

$417k (current FHA limit) is barely enough to buy a condo in some cities. One limit for the whole country us a very bad idea.

FHA isn't meant to be for high income people. An area being in a bubble or being manipulated by local culture and shyster realtors is irrelevant to how high a FHA 3.5% down loan should be. See my comment about about average household income for what the variation should be.

8   StillLooking     2012 Nov 20, 1:41am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

All FHA does is raise the price of housing. So the best idea is just to close this agency.

What if there was an agency of government whose sole purpose was to raise the price of bread? Well maybe there is such an agency but it is bad idea nonetheless.

How does it help lower incomes to pay higher prices for houses?

9   Fucking White Male   235/236 = 99% civil   2012 Nov 20, 1:52am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

SFace says

StillLooking says

How does it help lower incomes to pay higher prices for houses?

Yes, but what is the alternative? If FHA is not available, and in some, they will have to rent, possibly years to forever. I already told one of my tenant that their interest, property tax and insurance would be around 1K -1,2K a month, they are paying me 2.1K.

Look at the cap rate in the non-prime areas. FHA is a great program and out.

Interest, tax, insurance = $1,200 per month is like $150k sales price.

Where on earth do you have a place that's $150k renting at $2100/mo?

10   BobMSN     2012 Nov 20, 2:08am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

SFace says

Yes, but what is the alternative? If FHA is not available, and in some, they will have to rent, possibly years to never.

Again. What's wrong with renting?

If the difference between own and rent is so much as you said (.9k to 1.1k margin). The private investors, like you, and banks would have enough incentive to buy or lend. Why the tax payers have to take the risk?

Apparently, the government is trying to boost the price so it can control more people’s life. FHA encourages risk lending and borrowing.

11   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch     2012 Nov 20, 2:14am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

It's CASH or FUCK YOU, America!

12   Kevin     2012 Nov 20, 2:40am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

StillLooking says

All FHA does is raise the price of housing. So the best idea is just to close this agency.

What if there was an agency of government whose sole purpose was to raise the price of bread? Well maybe there is such an agency but it is bad idea nonetheless.

How does it help lower incomes to pay higher prices for houses?

Mortgages raise the price of housing, period. Housing would be very cheap if we had to pay cash. It would also mean that 90% of us would be renters.

There is an agency that keeps the price of bread high. Its called the USDA

13   Fucking White Male   235/236 = 99% civil   2012 Nov 20, 4:00am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

SFace says

dodgerfanjohn says

Interest, tax, insurance = $1,200 per month is like $150k sales price.

Where on earth do you have a place that's $150k renting at $2100/mo?

270000 Loan at 3.5% is about 780 in interest

Property tax = 280

Required Insurance = 50

PMI = 50-100

about 1.1K - 1.2K. I don't count principle as that is not a true cost.

Detached SFH are around 2K. The deeper in the east bay the cheaper it is. In Antioch, they can be bought for 150K, in Concord, around 250K, in San Leandro around 350K.

Interest is in fact an expense, which is arguably a more important factor for most buyers. However, point largely conceeded since expense is still cheaper than rent.

I will say that rents are rather remarkable. There's a directly on point market in LA that is the exact same pricing structure, distance from job centers, train into downtown, etc. That is West Covina.

The difference is that in West Covina, homes that sold at $275k in that condition rent at around $1700-1800/mo. The $350k remodeled places rent at $2200-2500.

If such a market as you describe existed in Los Angeles without a backbreaking commute to Downtown, I'd be a buyer too.

14   New Renter     2012 Nov 20, 4:58am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

It's CASH or FUCK YOU, America!

Oh how I've missed that,

15   bmwman91     2012 Nov 20, 5:18am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

It's CASH or FUCK YOU, America!

Amen! How do I join your church?

16   bubblesitter     2012 Nov 20, 5:45am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

It's CASH or FUCK YOU, America!

I've been saving since the first time you said that on this forum. :)

17   drew_eckhardt     2012 Nov 20, 8:42am  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote    

dodgerfanjohn says

So the deal is, cap off FHA loans around $125-150K. No fucking FHA loans for rich people with six figure incomes buying $400K homes. Yes yes?

No. Your populist attitude suggests that you're not in Congress, don't have a PAC, and therefore don't matter. If that's not the case I apologize.

Such policy changes would reduce sales volume, prices, and commissions for real estate agents who would no longer reward the congress critters who allowed such a thing to happen in the next election.

With the National Association of Realtors' PAC ranking first in contributions to candidates for every election cycle since 1998 (probably before then although the opensecrets.org data stops at 1998) that's not something our elected officials want to happen.

18   StillLooking     2012 Nov 21, 12:46am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Kevin says

StillLooking says



All FHA does is raise the price of housing. So the best idea is just to close this agency.


What if there was an agency of government whose sole purpose was to raise the price of bread? Well maybe there is such an agency but it is bad idea nonetheless.


How does it help lower incomes to pay higher prices for houses?


Mortgages raise the price of housing, period. Housing would be very cheap if we had to pay cash. It would also mean that 90% of us would be renters.


There is an agency that keeps the price of bread high. Its called the USDA

Why shouldn't banks lend for people to buy a house If there is a sufficient down payment and sufficient collateral without all the government interference?

19   Kevin     2012 Nov 21, 12:52am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

That government "interference" is the only thing that allows the mortgage industry to work at all.

20   Fucking White Male   235/236 = 99% civil   2012 Nov 21, 12:57am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

drew_eckhardt says

dodgerfanjohn says

So the deal is, cap off FHA loans around $125-150K. No fucking FHA loans for rich people with six figure incomes buying $400K homes. Yes yes?

No. Your populist attitude suggests that you're not in Congress, don't have a PAC, and therefore don't matter. If that's not the case I apologize.

Such policy changes would reduce sales volume, prices, and commissions for real estate agents who would no longer reward the congress critters who allowed such a thing to happen in the next election.

With the National Association of Realtors' PAC ranking first in contributions to candidates for every election cycle since 1998 (probably before then although the opensecrets.org data stops at 1998) that's not something our elected officials want to happen.

I was thinking that even though theres a range of opinions on this thread, that all of us here working together would be able to hammer out a reasonable solution. Perhaps it wouldn't be a cap at $150K, but slightly higher based on local incomes. Perhaps it wouldn't be 3.5% down, but 5 or 7.5% or whatever. But the people that posted in this thread...we'd come up with something that is better than the current situation.

But as you state, thats without anyone being beholden to NAR for funds to run for re-election.

Interestingly enough, I notice that realtors have in fact kept their pieholes sewn shut, at least as far as this thread is concerned. If I knew it was this easy to stuff a sock in a realtors mouth, I would have made the simple request quite some time ago.

21   Kevin     2012 Nov 21, 1:05am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Coming up with a better solution isn't the hard part. Coming up with a better solution that meets the FHA objectives and can get approved by a divided congress is.

Comments 1-21 of 21     Last »

users   about   suggestions   contact  
topics   random post   best comments   comment jail  
patrick's 40 proposals  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home