3
0

NAR Lobbies Against 20% Downpayments


               
2011 May 18, 9:52am   90,062 views  232 comments

by Patrick   follow (59)  

A realtor forwarded me the email below, showing that he is being pressured by the NAR to lobby against 20% downpayments. Lending without 20% down is very risky, but it generates realtor commissions -- and commissions are the only thing that the NAR cares about. The NAR clearly does not care that risky lending causes banks to fail, and forces taxpayers to bail out failed banks.

The email contains a dead giveaway that the NAR knows it is encouraging bad lending : "it would take 14 years for a typical person to save up a 20% down payment to buy a median-priced home."

If it would take a buyer 14 years to pay only 20% (one fifth) of the purchase price, it would take five times as long to pay it all off, and that's 70 years!

Anyone who needs 70 years to pay off a house should not be buying that house. If realtors can't get a commission because some math-challenged buyer can no longer borrow ten times his income, that would be a very good thing. If prices fall to the point where most people can afford a house without crazy amounts of mortgage debt, that would be an even better thing.

Please write congress and strongly support the QRM proposal. Your chance of getting a reasonably priced house depends on stopping the criminally insane lending that realtors are lobbying to continue.

Tell Congress: 20% Down Payments Put the American Dream Out of Reach
Could your clients afford a 20% down payment? Could you? Can you envision what your prospective client pool will look like if new regulations governing Qualified Residential Mortgages (QRM) take effect this year?

Neither can we. And neither can many elected officials in Congress who did not intend for these regulatory provisions to be so narrowly defined. We must continue our efforts to explain how detrimental the new QRM rules would be to the ongoing housing and lending crisis in America.

According to NAR Research, 60% of recent home buyers made less than a 20% down payment, and it would take 14 years for a typical person to save up a 20% down payment to buy a median-priced home.

Please contact Congress today and ask them to make it clear to the regulators that this proposed regulation was not their legislative intent and to instead implement a more reasonable Qualified Residential Mortgage (QRM) that will keep credit-worthy buyers in the market and able to acquire a loan.
Take Action Button

Message Subject: Subject: Ask Federal Regulators to follow Dodd-Frank intent of QRM exemption provisions
Dear [Decision Maker],
As both a constituent and one of a million members of the National Association of REALTORS, I believe that our economic recovery depends largely on a housing market recovery. Implementing a new rule requiring a twenty percent or higher down-payments would stop the housing recovery in its tracks.
That is what will happen if the restrictions in the proposed Qualified Residential Mortgage (QRM) regulation are implemented. It is my belief that this was not your legislative intent.
I am writing to ask you as my Senators and Representative to sign on to a letter being circulated by your colleagues, Senators Landrieu (D-LA), Isakson (R-GA), and Hagan (D-NC). In the House, Representatives Campbell (R-CA), Sherman (D-CA), Perlmutter (D-CO), Capito (R-WV), Moore (D-WI), Miller (R-CA), Himes (D-CT) and Posey (R-FL) are circulating a similar letter. Both letters ask Federal Regulators to follow the intent and language of the QRM exemption provision contained in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
The proposed QRM rule would create an enormous down-payment requirement and reduce the availability of affordable mortgages for qualified consumers. Few borrowers would be able to meet these requirements and those that do would be forced to pay much higher rates and fees for safe loans did not meet the exceedingly narrow QRM criteria.
Congress included the QRM to exempt safe, well-underwritten mortgages from the risk retention requirements. Well-underwritten loans, regardless of down payment, were not the cause of the mortgage crisis.
I urge you to insist that regulators to follow congressional intent. Please sign the Landrieu-Hagan-Isakson letter or the Sherman-Campbell letter today to help keep the American Dream of Home Ownership in reach.

#housing

Comments 1 - 9 of 232       Last »     Search these comments

1   Sean7593   @   2011 May 18, 10:14am  

Classic patrick.net.

If it would take a buyer 14 years to pay only 20% (one fifth) of the purchase price, it would take five times as long to pay it all off, or 70 years!

Good catch. Longer, if you figure in interest.

Your chance of getting a reasonably priced house depends on stopping the criminally insane lending that realtors are lobbying to continue.

The insane lending has stopped, Patrick. Which is part of the reason housing is going lower.

NAR is now the vox clamantis in deserto (voice crying in the wilderness).

Like you used to be.

2   corntrollio   @   2011 May 18, 10:15am  

Ultimately, what we need is to get Fannie and Freddie to be smaller and encourage private lenders to lend again. Private lenders have historically found 20% down, traditional 30-year fixed mortgages with 28/36 ratios to have predictable default rates, whereas other "affordability products" don't always work out so well. Even *traditional* subprime (i.e. B-paper/C-paper) has a predictable default rate, but not the kind of subprime products that were sold during the boom (Option ARMs, Alt-A, etc.). We need to get the banksters in the boring business of banking, rather than the scam-artist business of creating financial "innovations" that really just fleece the public.

3   Patrick   @   2011 May 18, 10:21am  

Sean7593 says

The insane lending has stopped, Patrick. Which is part of the reason housing is going lower.

Insane lending has lessened, but not stopped. We still have 3%-downpayment FHA mortgages and a slew of other ways for borrowers to get into deep trouble, at taxpayer expense.

The NAR itself brags about how it can corrupt our laws to benefit realtors:

http://www.realtor.org/realtororg.nsf/pages/AboutUsLobbying

Of course they don't call it "corruption". They call it "federal legislative objectives".

4   Sean7593   @   2011 May 18, 10:30am  

Insane lending has lessened, but not stopped. We still have 3%-downpayment FHA mortgages...

Yes, I'm looking into one of those, myself. Though I can afford to put down 50 percent (been saving for over 10 years).

But I know what you mean.

5   Sean7593   @   2011 May 18, 10:39am  

The NAR itself brags about how it can corrupt our laws to benefit realtors:

http://www.realtor.org/realtororg.nsf/pages/AboutUsLobbying

Of course they don’t call it “corruption”. They call it “federal legislative objectives”.

It's not fair and it's not fair that it's not fair.

I am writing in support of the QRM proposal, per your suggestion. FWIW.

Thanks, as always.

6   swebb   @   2011 May 18, 10:40am  

If it would take a buyer 14 years to pay only 20% (one fifth) of the purchase price, it would take five times as long to pay it all off, and that’s 70 years!

It may take them 70 additional years to _save up_ enough to buy the house outright at that rate, but if they get a mortgage to buy the house (that presumably they can live in), then they stop paying rent on the old place...I guess it depends on many unknowable factors but I doubt they would have a 70 year mortgage...Who knows, maybe their monthly housing payment gets cut in half.

7   Â¥   @   2011 May 18, 10:40am  

it would take five times as long to pay it all off, and that’s 70 years!

Sean7593 says

Good catch. Longer, if you figure in interest.

Actually, this is utterly wrong. People saving for a house have to pay RENT.

i'd be all for max 80% LTV if, and ONLY if, non-owner-occupied SFH and condos had a confiscatory rent tax.

Anything less just pushes supply away from families and to the parasitical specuvestors that are already nearly monopolizing the market in many segments and areas.

8   Patrick   @   2011 May 18, 10:44am  

Troy says

People saving for a house have to pay RENT.

True, but people who have a mortgage have to pay rent on the money they borrowed (that rent is called "interest").

9   Â¥   @   2011 May 18, 10:48am  

We still have 3%-downpayment FHA mortgages

There's nothing wrong with 3% down. Hell, there's nothing wrong with 0% down.

The important thing is that SUSTAINABLE lending programs remain in force.

As long as the system doesn't find interest rates rising faster than real disposable incomes, the current system is in fact sustainable.

What made the 2001-2007 market unsustainable was not the 0% down but rather the LIAR loans and pay-option / negative amortization / teaser-rate loans that roped borrowers into a temporary affordability bubble but required APPRECIATION to bail them out.

This is obvious, no?

A well-underwritten 0% down loan doesn't require appreciation, in fact, as the payments proceed the loan becomes more affordable.

Unless, of course, the macro economy resumes sliding down the drain and/or disposable incomes come under pressure due to large tax hikes.

Comments 1 - 9 of 232       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   users   suggestions   gaiste