Comments 1 - 9 of 232 Next » Last » Search these comments
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.
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.
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".
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 “corruptionâ€. They call it “federal legislative objectivesâ€.
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.
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.
it would take five times as long to pay it all off, and that’s 70 years!
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.
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").
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 Next » Last » Search these comments
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.
#housing