And there goes Countrywide....

[JD50]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: rpanic
If people were required to put 20% down like the use to we wouldn't be in this boat. And it would have kept prices down for people who should.



All the sheep that got us into this mess are going to have to pay for there fiscal irresponsibility?s. Just like nobody should be covering the banks for giving loans to people that did not deserve them.

Why? That would do nothing but hurt first time homebuyers. Goodluck finding a first time home buyer that has 50k to put down on a starter home, thats ridiculous. The only homeowners would be the rich, and people in their 30s that decided not to have kids. The rest of us would be renting. So basically, you are saying fuck the lower and middle class, and those that have families.

Maybe the problem is your so called 250K start home and not that no first time buyers have 50K sitting in the bank. But worry not that problem will fix itself soon enough. As less buyers are qualified for a loan that means the price of house will have to fall to find a buyer. This creates a nice positive feedback cycle. The falling price increases the bank's risk which will means they will raise rates and qualification so the price has to drop some more. Rise and repeat until current owners are the ones getting fucked over while first time buyer who are smart enough to save their money get house on the cheap with high interest rates.

Good luck finding a home in a decent area in the Baltimore/DC area for under 250k....:roll:

 

[Rogodin2]

I would have to paid to live in Baltimore or DC.

Rogo

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Rogodin2
I would have to paid to live in Baltimore or DC.

Rogo

I would never live in either of those cities, I was talking about the suburbs.

 

[dmcowen674]

More Dave was right..........

8-18-2007 First Mortgage Financial suspends 99% of operations closes 300 offices, lays off nearly 6,000

TUCSON, Ariz. - First Magnus Financial Corp., a national mortgage lender that is suspending operations, says it has laid off 99 percent of its nearly 6,000 employees nationwide and closed all of its more than 300 offices.

According to a notice filed with the state Friday, the Tucson-based company that originated home loans and then sold bundled loans into the secondary loan market expects to retain only about 60 of its employees.

First Magnus officials said a bankruptcy filing was possible.

On Thursday, First Magnus announced that it had stopped originating new loans and was suspending operations.

Company officials said the lender was caught in the credit liquidity crunch now causing a meltdown in the mortgage industry, even though First Mangus was not engaged in selling "sub-prime" mortgages that sparked the crisis in recent months.

First Magnus, which calls itself one of the largest privately held mortgage banking operations in the country, funded more than $30 billion in loans in 2006.

The company's retail outlets include Great Southwest Mortgage and Charter Funding, recently renamed First Magnus Home Loans.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: rpanic
If people were required to put 20% down like the use to we wouldn't be in this boat. And it would have kept prices down for people who should.



All the sheep that got us into this mess are going to have to pay for there fiscal irresponsibility?s. Just like nobody should be covering the banks for giving loans to people that did not deserve them.

Why? That would do nothing but hurt first time homebuyers. Goodluck finding a first time home buyer that has 50k to put down on a starter home, thats ridiculous. The only homeowners would be the rich, and people in their 30s that decided not to have kids. The rest of us would be renting. So basically, you are saying fuck the lower and middle class, and those that have families.

Maybe the problem is your so called 250K start home and not that no first time buyers have 50K sitting in the bank. But worry not that problem will fix itself soon enough. As less buyers are qualified for a loan that means the price of house will have to fall to find a buyer. This creates a nice positive feedback cycle. The falling price increases the bank's risk which will means they will raise rates and qualification so the price has to drop some more. Rise and repeat until current owners are the ones getting fucked over while first time buyer who are smart enough to save their money get house on the cheap with high interest rates.

Good luck finding a home in a decent area in the Baltimore/DC area for under 250k....:roll:

Like I said that is in the process of fixing itself.

 

[rpanic]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: rpanic
If people were required to put 20% down like the use to we wouldn't be in this boat. And it would have kept prices down for people who should.



All the sheep that got us into this mess are going to have to pay for there fiscal irresponsibility?s. Just like nobody should be covering the banks for giving loans to people that did not deserve them.

Why? That would do nothing but hurt first time homebuyers. Goodluck finding a first time home buyer that has 50k to put down on a starter home, thats ridiculous. The only homeowners would be the rich, and people in their 30s that decided not to have kids. The rest of us would be renting. So basically, you are saying fuck the lower and middle class, and those that have families.

Maybe the problem is your so called 250K start home and not that no first time buyers have 50K sitting in the bank. But worry not that problem will fix itself soon enough. As less buyers are qualified for a loan that means the price of house will have to fall to find a buyer. This creates a nice positive feedback cycle. The falling price increases the bank's risk which will means they will raise rates and qualification so the price has to drop some more. Rise and repeat until current owners are the ones getting fucked over while first time buyer who are smart enough to save their money get house on the cheap with high interest rates.

TO JD50

I am in my early 30s and just had a kid 6 month ago, but instead of being a idiot and buying a house when they were so far above market fundamentals I waited. If you can?t even wait to save 20% you shouldn?t be looking at houses. I don?t care if you have to wait 5 or 10 years. It has nothing to do with fucking the lower or middle class. They use to be far stricter with buying a house and the middle class was a lot bigger then.


Exactly smack Down

If it weren?t for all this liquid paper money flying around you wouldn?t be dealing with a 250k house in the first place (wish they were 250k here, they are still 500-750k here so stop you crying).

I have worked my ass off to save for a house, and watch my baby after work, and the same goes for my wife. My wife has bugged me for a while to buy a house and I had to explain all this to her to so I know that there is a mental drive to get a house especially if you have children but we are all adults and have to make tough discussions. And if some of you are the unlucky ones that bought a house in the last 5 years with 0 down or took equity out to buy things will that?s your mistake you have no choice but to pay or walk.

I don?t now why some of you can?t see how making it to easy to buy a home just hurts more people in the end. Just like the Fed bailing out the crooks now it?s going to just prolong the pain and make things worse.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

When some working family has gotten into credit trouble either on their own or through medical bills or bankruptcy and tries to use a loophole to get a house, they are guilty of fraud?

Yes, they are. Are those accounts listed on their credit report their accounts? Do they have access to those accounts? If the answer to either is "no" and they list them on their loan application (which they will because the lender will question why they are not included as a liability when they appear on the credit report), then yes, they are absolutely positively guilty of commiting fraud by means of material misstatements of fact.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

When some working family has gotten into credit trouble either on their own or through medical bills or bankruptcy and tries to use a loophole to get a house, they are guilty of fraud?

Yes, they are. Are those accounts listed on their credit report their accounts? Do they have access to those accounts? If the answer to either is "no" and they list them on their loan application (which they will because the lender will question why they are not included as a liability when they appear on the credit report), then yes, they are absolutely positively guilty of commiting fraud by means of material misstatements of fact.

You neglect to mention the contributary negligence of the loan officer.

They would never 'fudge' the paperwork to close on a loan, would they ???

(/sarcasm)

 

[rpanic]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

When some working family has gotten into credit trouble either on their own or through medical bills or bankruptcy and tries to use a loophole to get a house, they are guilty of fraud?

Yes, they are. Are those accounts listed on their credit report their accounts? Do they have access to those accounts? If the answer to either is "no" and they list them on their loan application (which they will because the lender will question why they are not included as a liability when they appear on the credit report), then yes, they are absolutely positively guilty of commiting fraud by means of material misstatements of fact.

You neglect to mention the contributary negligence of the loan officer.

They would never 'fudge' the paperwork to close on a loan, would they ???

(/sarcasm)

Hey Corn do you understand how the law works.

Piggybacking does raise FICO scores, I am not arguing the ethics of it. I also said it would probably not work anymore next year. Its not fraud it?s the dumb banks fault they where so greedy all they were looking at where FICO scores, I had one loan officer even tell me that I could get a loan for 460k and they didn?t even need any paperwork because my credit was good.

As far as law is concerned its not considered fraud so therefore it?s not a crime. Show me one case of this being illegal just one, and explain all the business and articles on said subject that show it is not.

This is a problem with the way FICO scores are calculated.

And as a comparison because I know you all love our goverment, its no different than Bush saying there are WMDs and then we find out there are none and data was manipulated, or government pork belly projects, these are both wrong but not a crime (at least not yet).

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

When some working family has gotten into credit trouble either on their own or through medical bills or bankruptcy and tries to use a loophole to get a house, they are guilty of fraud?

Yes, they are. Are those accounts listed on their credit report their accounts? Do they have access to those accounts? If the answer to either is "no" and they list them on their loan application (which they will because the lender will question why they are not included as a liability when they appear on the credit report), then yes, they are absolutely positively guilty of commiting fraud by means of material misstatements of fact.

You neglect to mention the contributary negligence of the loan officer.

They would never 'fudge' the paperwork to close on a loan, would they ???

(/sarcasm)

My experience finds its usually the LO that pushes these "credit repair" schemes on the borrowers in the first place. Sarcasm not necessary.

One important thing to be noted is that most loan officers would never consider committing fraud as a means of "getting the deal done". There are a lot of used car salesman turned LO's that do, but they are the minority. Most brokers are hard working, ethical, and knowledgable professionals.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: rpanic

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: rpanic
If people were required to put 20% down like the use to we wouldn't be in this boat. And it would have kept prices down for people who should.



All the sheep that got us into this mess are going to have to pay for there fiscal irresponsibility?s. Just like nobody should be covering the banks for giving loans to people that did not deserve them.

Why? That would do nothing but hurt first time homebuyers. Goodluck finding a first time home buyer that has 50k to put down on a starter home, thats ridiculous. The only homeowners would be the rich, and people in their 30s that decided not to have kids. The rest of us would be renting. So basically, you are saying fuck the lower and middle class, and those that have families.

Maybe the problem is your so called 250K start home and not that no first time buyers have 50K sitting in the bank. But worry not that problem will fix itself soon enough. As less buyers are qualified for a loan that means the price of house will have to fall to find a buyer. This creates a nice positive feedback cycle. The falling price increases the bank's risk which will means they will raise rates and qualification so the price has to drop some more. Rise and repeat until current owners are the ones getting fucked over while first time buyer who are smart enough to save their money get house on the cheap with high interest rates.

TO JD50

I am in my early 30s and just had a kid 6 month ago, but instead of being a idiot and buying a house when they were so far above market fundamentals I waited. If you can?t even wait to save 20% you shouldn?t be looking at houses. I don?t care if you have to wait 5 or 10 years. It has nothing to do with fucking the lower or middle class. They use to be far stricter with buying a house and the middle class was a lot bigger then.


Exactly smack Down

If it weren?t for all this liquid paper money flying around you wouldn?t be dealing with a 250k house in the first place (wish they were 250k here, they are still 500-750k here so stop you crying).

I have worked my ass off to save for a house, and watch my baby after work, and the same goes for my wife. My wife has bugged me for a while to buy a house and I had to explain all this to her to so I know that there is a mental drive to get a house especially if you have children but we are all adults and have to make tough discussions. And if some of you are the unlucky ones that bought a house in the last 5 years with 0 down or took equity out to buy things will that?s your mistake you have no choice but to pay or walk.

I don?t now why some of you can?t see how making it to easy to buy a home just hurts more people in the end. Just like the Fed bailing out the crooks now it?s going to just prolong the pain and make things worse.

Well, it looks like you fucked up big time. If you would have bought a house 5 years ago in my area (DC/Baltimore) you'd still be up pretty good right now. Since you said that you are in your early 30s, if you would have bought your first house at the same time that I did with 0 down (I was 22) then you would have at least doubled, if not trippled your investment, with absolutely $0 down. 250k here btw is a starter home/townhouse, a decent single family is at least 400k. So, its too bad that you took your own advice.

My wife and I bought our first home 2 and a half years ago for $225k, and that was up at least 50k from what it was 3 or 4 years before. So for almost 3 years we have had the exact same monthly payment. If we would have stayed in our 2 bedroom rental, our payments would have kept going up every month, most likely exceeding what our current mortgage is, with absolutely nothing to show for it. We would have had to move to a very unsafe area if we wanted to be able to save 50k for a down payment to live in an ok area, and with a 2 year old (at the time) and my wife to worry about, I'm not going to risk that.

So, if I took your advice, I'd still be living in a 2 bedroom apartment, or paying more and renting a house, for the same that it cost me to buy a house. I'd have nothing to show for it. Instead, we are selling our house without a realtor for 255k in a week, coming away with about 30k, and moving to a nicer area and a nice big single family home. Not to mention, the area that I am moving to won't depreciate nearly as much as the area that I am in now if the market does tank. There is no way that we could have saved 30k with our current monthly payment over the past 3 years. I'm glad I didn't take your advice, and I'm sorry that you did. On top of that, I have great credit and can get a great rate because of 3 years of perfect payments on a home. Not to mention the tax break I get from paying the interest on my mortgage.

Sorry, but 100 percent house loans have done wonders for a ton of people.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: rpanic
Vic, first I never said it was ethical or the right thing to do, to piggyback on someone, two its not a federal crime like you said or illegal. Look at the links or Google it I?m am sorry if you have a problem admitting if you are wrong lets stick to the facts.

Poor people use to be able to buy houses before with 20%. But nobody likes to wait everyone likes instant gratification. Now everyone one got on the easy money train without thinking of the impact, and prices on houses skyrocketed.

I am sorry if I hit a sore spot with some people, but facts are facts this isn?t about two wrongs don?t make a right or whatever else you are going to come up with.

No, you're wrong. Intentional material misrepresentation on a mortgage application is a crime. I have 13 years experience in the lending industry, including underwriting certifications.

To the 2nd part, you are wrong again. The advent of no/low down mortgages, beginning with Fannie Mae's original charter from the government to do veterans loans as part of FDR's New Deal in the 30s, and then with the creation of Private Mortgage Insurance in the 50s and 60s, is widely credited with having increased homeownership rates in the US from barely 45% in the 1900s to nearly 70% today. You can literally see the corresponding increases on this graph. Text

Basically, you're just an idiot spreading FUD and nonsense about something you know jack about. Why don't you tell me whatever it is that you do for a living so that I can spread ignorant lies about that industry while pretending I know what I'm talking about?

:roll:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

When some working family has gotten into credit trouble either on their own or through medical bills or bankruptcy and tries to use a loophole to get a house, they are guilty of fraud?

Yes, they are. Are those accounts listed on their credit report their accounts? Do they have access to those accounts? If the answer to either is "no" and they list them on their loan application (which they will because the lender will question why they are not included as a liability when they appear on the credit report), then yes, they are absolutely positively guilty of commiting fraud by means of material misstatements of fact.

You neglect to mention the contributary negligence of the loan officer.

They would never 'fudge' the paperwork to close on a loan, would they ???

(/sarcasm)

If you'd actually bothered to read the thread instead of being a troll, you would see that such fraud by certain loan officers was the very first thing Corn mentioned when rpanic brought up the whole scheme.

Here, I'll quote the exact post for you:

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: rpanic

Your might be able to piggyback onto someone else?s credit for a fee. But beware they are rewriting the way the FICO score is calculated for 2008 and this could affect some people that even have good credit now.
http://efinancedirectory.com/a...y.html?ref=patrick.net

LOL, the fraudsters have little shame I see. Obviously you must be a has-been mortgage loan officer. Are you back to selling used cars?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Corn
My experience finds its usually the LO that pushes these "credit repair" schemes on the borrowers in the first place. Sarcasm not necessary.

One important thing to be noted is that most loan officers would never consider committing fraud as a means of "getting the deal done". There are a lot of used car salesman turned LO's that do, but they are the minority. Most brokers are hard working, ethical, and knowledgable professionals.

Yeah, and good riddance to the dirtbags as far as I'm concerned. They also show up during the booms, and they always seem to vacuum up the stupidest borrowers. Probably because those arrogant/ignorant borrowers are the ones that just call the phone book asking "What's your rate?" and guaranteed the dirtbag is gonna be the one to lie and quote the lowest rate (which he can't even offer).

 

[rpanic]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: rpanic
Vic, first I never said it was ethical or the right thing to do, to piggyback on someone, two its not a federal crime like you said or illegal. Look at the links or Google it I?m am sorry if you have a problem admitting if you are wrong lets stick to the facts.

Poor people use to be able to buy houses before with 20%. But nobody likes to wait everyone likes instant gratification. Now everyone one got on the easy money train without thinking of the impact, and prices on houses skyrocketed.

I am sorry if I hit a sore spot with some people, but facts are facts this isn?t about two wrongs don?t make a right or whatever else you are going to come up with.

No, you're wrong. Intentional material misrepresentation on a mortgage application is a crime. I have 13 years experience in the lending industry, including underwriting certifications.

To the 2nd part, you are wrong again. The advent of no/low down mortgages, beginning with Fannie Mae's original charter from the government to do veterans loans as part of FDR's New Deal in the 30s, and then with the creation of Private Mortgage Insurance in the 50s and 60s, is widely credited with having increased homeownership rates in the US from barely 45% in the 1900s to nearly 70% today. You can literally see the corresponding increases on this graph. Text

Basically, you're just an idiot spreading FUD and nonsense about something you know jack about. Why don't you tell me whatever it is that you do for a living so that I can spread ignorant lies about that industry while pretending I know what I'm talking about?

:roll:

Ok Vic I guess all of the businesses and mainstream articles on the subject of piggybacking are wrong and you are right ok.

VA loans I can actually agree with you and they were an incentive to join the military. But your chart barely increases from the 60s on and I would also like to see a more current chart than 1996 were is it now.

 

[rpanic]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: rpanic

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: rpanic
If people were required to put 20% down like the use to we wouldn't be in this boat. And it would have kept prices down for people who should.



All the sheep that got us into this mess are going to have to pay for there fiscal irresponsibility?s. Just like nobody should be covering the banks for giving loans to people that did not deserve them.

Why? That would do nothing but hurt first time homebuyers. Goodluck finding a first time home buyer that has 50k to put down on a starter home, thats ridiculous. The only homeowners would be the rich, and people in their 30s that decided not to have kids. The rest of us would be renting. So basically, you are saying fuck the lower and middle class, and those that have families.

Maybe the problem is your so called 250K start home and not that no first time buyers have 50K sitting in the bank. But worry not that problem will fix itself soon enough. As less buyers are qualified for a loan that means the price of house will have to fall to find a buyer. This creates a nice positive feedback cycle. The falling price increases the bank's risk which will means they will raise rates and qualification so the price has to drop some more. Rise and repeat until current owners are the ones getting fucked over while first time buyer who are smart enough to save their money get house on the cheap with high interest rates.

TO JD50

I am in my early 30s and just had a kid 6 month ago, but instead of being a idiot and buying a house when they were so far above market fundamentals I waited. If you can?t even wait to save 20% you shouldn?t be looking at houses. I don?t care if you have to wait 5 or 10 years. It has nothing to do with fucking the lower or middle class. They use to be far stricter with buying a house and the middle class was a lot bigger then.


Exactly smack Down

If it weren?t for all this liquid paper money flying around you wouldn?t be dealing with a 250k house in the first place (wish they were 250k here, they are still 500-750k here so stop you crying).

I have worked my ass off to save for a house, and watch my baby after work, and the same goes for my wife. My wife has bugged me for a while to buy a house and I had to explain all this to her to so I know that there is a mental drive to get a house especially if you have children but we are all adults and have to make tough discussions. And if some of you are the unlucky ones that bought a house in the last 5 years with 0 down or took equity out to buy things will that?s your mistake you have no choice but to pay or walk.

I don?t now why some of you can?t see how making it to easy to buy a home just hurts more people in the end. Just like the Fed bailing out the crooks now it?s going to just prolong the pain and make things worse.

Well, it looks like you fucked up big time. If you would have bought a house 5 years ago in my area (DC/Baltimore) you'd still be up pretty good right now. Since you said that you are in your early 30s, if you would have bought your first house at the same time that I did with 0 down (I was 22) then you would have at least doubled, if not trippled your investment, with absolutely $0 down. 250k here btw is a starter home/townhouse, a decent single family is at least 400k. So, its too bad that you took your own advice.

My wife and I bought our first home 2 and a half years ago for $225k, and that was up at least 50k from what it was 3 or 4 years before. So for almost 3 years we have had the exact same monthly payment. If we would have stayed in our 2 bedroom rental, our payments would have kept going up every month, most likely exceeding what our current mortgage is, with absolutely nothing to show for it. We would have had to move to a very unsafe area if we wanted to be able to save 50k for a down payment to live in an ok area, and with a 2 year old (at the time) and my wife to worry about, I'm not going to risk that.

So, if I took your advice, I'd still be living in a 2 bedroom apartment, or paying more and renting a house, for the same that it cost me to buy a house. I'd have nothing to show for it. Instead, we are selling our house without a realtor for 255k in a week, coming away with about 30k, and moving to a nicer area and a nice big single family home. Not to mention, the area that I am moving to won't depreciate nearly as much as the area that I am in now if the market does tank. There is no way that we could have saved 30k with our current monthly payment over the past 3 years. I'm glad I didn't take your advice, and I'm sorry that you did. On top of that, I have great credit and can get a great rate because of 3 years of perfect payments on a home. Not to mention the tax break I get from paying the interest on my mortgage.

Sorry, but 100 percent house loans have done wonders for a ton of people.

We are both in very different situations, you are right I would have saved a lot on a house. Not sure if I would be better off. When I was 22 I was in college, and not married so there is no comparison, except that now I could save the money you are going to make (which I wish you the best of luck), in 6 months and have ZERO debt. And my wife just finished her MS so we have had everything on delay for the long run. I think we will get a better return off the education and sacrifices that we have made in the long run. So I don?t think I fucked up. And I am glad things are working out for you.

Your rent went up every month that?s messed up; I have never seen anyone with a rental that went up every month. There are tons of areas that have dropped 20% in six months already here perhaps your area is not a volatile, another 30% and its back five years. And In two years I will be sitting with a 100k in the bank and investments making a 4 to 7% return while the houses go down.

A lot of people did not do what you did, instead they took their equity and blew it. Or got a ARM and can?t refinance out of it. Nobody ever saves anymore and we are now as a country for the first time as of this year negative 1.3% in savings, which is an all time record low.

In Japan they had the same sort of housing bubble from easy liquidity in the early 90s and are just now just getting over a 55% decline in prices. The only difference is that ours will probably be much more rapid.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: rpanic
Ok Vic I guess all of the businesses and mainstream articles on the subject of piggybacking are wrong and you are right ok.

VA loans I can actually agree with you and they were an incentive to join the military. But your chart barely increases from the 60s on and I would also like to see a more current chart than 1996 were is it now.

Why are you so stupid? Corn and I have been very clear to say that piggyback itself is legal. What is illegal is using that misrepresentative information to obtain a mortgage loan. Photoshop is perfectly legal too, and you can use that to doctor your paystubs. But if you use those photoshop-doctored paystubs to qualify for a mortgage, then you've broken the law. Get it?

Regarding the chart, like I said, the 50s and 60s was when PMI came into widespread use, allowing for less than 20% for conventional purchase money loans, which proved wrong your argument that poor people could buy homes when 20% down was a requirement. Like I said, you can literally see the corresponding increases on this graph. So either you didn't read or you don't get it.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: rpanic

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: rpanic

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: rpanic
If people were required to put 20% down like the use to we wouldn't be in this boat. And it would have kept prices down for people who should.



All the sheep that got us into this mess are going to have to pay for there fiscal irresponsibility?s. Just like nobody should be covering the banks for giving loans to people that did not deserve them.

Why? That would do nothing but hurt first time homebuyers. Goodluck finding a first time home buyer that has 50k to put down on a starter home, thats ridiculous. The only homeowners would be the rich, and people in their 30s that decided not to have kids. The rest of us would be renting. So basically, you are saying fuck the lower and middle class, and those that have families.

Maybe the problem is your so called 250K start home and not that no first time buyers have 50K sitting in the bank. But worry not that problem will fix itself soon enough. As less buyers are qualified for a loan that means the price of house will have to fall to find a buyer. This creates a nice positive feedback cycle. The falling price increases the bank's risk which will means they will raise rates and qualification so the price has to drop some more. Rise and repeat until current owners are the ones getting fucked over while first time buyer who are smart enough to save their money get house on the cheap with high interest rates.

TO JD50

I am in my early 30s and just had a kid 6 month ago, but instead of being a idiot and buying a house when they were so far above market fundamentals I waited. If you can?t even wait to save 20% you shouldn?t be looking at houses. I don?t care if you have to wait 5 or 10 years. It has nothing to do with fucking the lower or middle class. They use to be far stricter with buying a house and the middle class was a lot bigger then.


Exactly smack Down

If it weren?t for all this liquid paper money flying around you wouldn?t be dealing with a 250k house in the first place (wish they were 250k here, they are still 500-750k here so stop you crying).

I have worked my ass off to save for a house, and watch my baby after work, and the same goes for my wife. My wife has bugged me for a while to buy a house and I had to explain all this to her to so I know that there is a mental drive to get a house especially if you have children but we are all adults and have to make tough discussions. And if some of you are the unlucky ones that bought a house in the last 5 years with 0 down or took equity out to buy things will that?s your mistake you have no choice but to pay or walk.

I don?t now why some of you can?t see how making it to easy to buy a home just hurts more people in the end. Just like the Fed bailing out the crooks now it?s going to just prolong the pain and make things worse.

Well, it looks like you fucked up big time. If you would have bought a house 5 years ago in my area (DC/Baltimore) you'd still be up pretty good right now. Since you said that you are in your early 30s, if you would have bought your first house at the same time that I did with 0 down (I was 22) then you would have at least doubled, if not trippled your investment, with absolutely $0 down. 250k here btw is a starter home/townhouse, a decent single family is at least 400k. So, its too bad that you took your own advice.

My wife and I bought our first home 2 and a half years ago for $225k, and that was up at least 50k from what it was 3 or 4 years before. So for almost 3 years we have had the exact same monthly payment. If we would have stayed in our 2 bedroom rental, our payments would have kept going up every month, most likely exceeding what our current mortgage is, with absolutely nothing to show for it. We would have had to move to a very unsafe area if we wanted to be able to save 50k for a down payment to live in an ok area, and with a 2 year old (at the time) and my wife to worry about, I'm not going to risk that.

So, if I took your advice, I'd still be living in a 2 bedroom apartment, or paying more and renting a house, for the same that it cost me to buy a house. I'd have nothing to show for it. Instead, we are selling our house without a realtor for 255k in a week, coming away with about 30k, and moving to a nicer area and a nice big single family home. Not to mention, the area that I am moving to won't depreciate nearly as much as the area that I am in now if the market does tank. There is no way that we could have saved 30k with our current monthly payment over the past 3 years. I'm glad I didn't take your advice, and I'm sorry that you did. On top of that, I have great credit and can get a great rate because of 3 years of perfect payments on a home. Not to mention the tax break I get from paying the interest on my mortgage.

Sorry, but 100 percent house loans have done wonders for a ton of people.

We are both in very different situations, you are right I would have saved a lot on a house. Not sure if I would be better off. When I was 22 I was in college, and not married so there is no comparison, except that now I could save the money you are going to make (which I wish you the best of luck), in 6 months and have ZERO debt. And my wife just finished her MS so we have had everything on delay for the long run. I think we will get a better return off the education and sacrifices that we have made in the long run. So I don?t think I fucked up. And I am glad things are working out for you.

Your rent went up every month that?s messed up; I have never seen anyone with a rental that went up every month. There are tons of areas that have dropped 20% in six months already here perhaps your area is not a volatile, another 30% and its back five years. And In two years I will be sitting with a 100k in the bank and investments making a 4 to 7% return while the houses go down.

A lot of people did not do what you did, instead they took their equity and blew it. Or got a ARM and can?t refinance out of it. Nobody ever saves anymore and we are now as a country for the first time as of this year negative 1.3% in savings, which is an all time record low.

In Japan they had the same sort of housing bubble from easy liquidity in the early 90s and are just now just getting over a 55% decline in prices. The only difference is that ours will probably be much more rapid.

One correction, I meant that my payments went up every year, not month, my bad.

As for the bold, yea, thats my point. The problem is not the people that are getting 100 percent financing, its the people that took the 100k equity out of their home at the height of the bubble and bought cars and pools. My house has gone done, comps in my area were selling for about 275k at the height of the bubble. For my next house, I don't really care what the short term market does, I plan on being in that for many years. The vast majority of people would be better off owning their home with 100 percent financing than waiting around trying to save up money and time the market just right.

My point is, when you said "And if some of you are the unlucky ones that bought a house in the last 5 years with 0 down " that is just not true, most people are very lucky to have bought within the last 5 years, just not the last year or two. Even still, it doesn't matter, unless they were planning on flipping it after being in it for just two years.

Oh, and owning a home is good debt, not something to be ashamed of.

Edit - I forgot to add that yes, in a perfect world, your way would be the best way to do it, but we just don't live in a world like that anymore, unfortunately.

 

[smack Down]

As for the bold, yea, thats my point. The problem is not the people that are getting 100 percent financing, its the people that took the 100k equity out of their home at the height of the bubble and bought cars and pools. My house has gone done, comps in my area were selling for about 275k at the height of the bubble. For my next house, I don't really care what the short term market does, I plan on being in that for many years. The vast majority of people would be better off owning their home with 100 percent financing than waiting around trying to save up money and time the market just right.

A down payment has nothing to do with what is best for the home owner. It has to do with what is best for the bank. The idea being that the top 20% of a mortgage carries so much risk that no one will loan the money so the owner needs to come up with it himself.

 

[rpanic]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: rpanic
Ok Vic I guess all of the businesses and mainstream articles on the subject of piggybacking are wrong and you are right ok.

VA loans I can actually agree with you and they were an incentive to join the military. But your chart barely increases from the 60s on and I would also like to see a more current chart than 1996 were is it now.

Why are you so stupid? Corn and I have been very clear to say that piggyback itself is legal. What is illegal is using that misrepresentative information to obtain a mortgage loan. Photoshop is perfectly legal too, and you can use that to doctor your paystubs. But if you use those photoshop-doctored paystubs to qualify for a mortgage, then you've broken the law. Get it?

Regarding the chart, like I said, the 50s and 60s was when PMI came into widespread use, allowing for less than 20% for conventional purchase money loans, which proved wrong your argument that poor people could buy homes when 20% down was a requirement. Like I said, you can literally see the corresponding increases on this graph. So either you didn't read or you don't get it.

If I miss read it about the piggy thing that?s on me I will check later (my turn with baby). I will agree that providing false documentation is a crime I thought you put piggybacking with rest. I got your chart although I am sure there are also other things contributed to effects at that time like wars. And wish it went to 2007 out of curiosity. I think my big stink is that I think people don?t save and don?t plan for problems and then other people have to pay. Both of my parents never saved and were horrible with the finances and that is why I am such a save freak. I don?t want my kid (kids soon) to be in the same boat and work so hard.

 

[Jhhnn]

Commoditization of mortgages into MBS's combined with really cheap money has led to the current situation. Only the buyer and the investors in the corporate entity who ends up holding the mortgage actually care if an individual deal is sound or not.

The seller doesn't care, he just wants his money.

The real estate agent doesn't care, he just wants his commission.

The mortgage broker doesn't care, nor does the company he represents, because they just want to collect on the pass-thru to an investment house. If he does care, then he loses the deal to somebody else...

The management of the investment house doesn't care, either, because their income is largely derived from churn, and the rules of the game actually discourage them from being responsible to the investors, anyway... it's not their money, and the whole enterprise is leveraged to the hilt on top of investor money.

The banks who finance the investment firms haven't been looking beyond the end of the quarter, either, because it hasn't been in the interest of their managers to do so...

And the Federal Reserve Board under Greenspan's guidance has been so desperate to generate "growth" that they've completely disregarded the whole idea of sustainability as they've done so... and now attempt to close the barn door after the horses are out, so to speak...

And buyers, particularly first time buyers, have been barraged with news of explosively rising prices for years, instilling a sense of urgency when they approach the purchase horizon. All the people they deal with tell them to hurry up and buy now- owners, agents, mortgage brokers... they'll practically bend over backwards to qualify you for a loan of some sort or another, and will do their best to convince you that it's really a good deal to be stretched out like a drum head- it'll only be for a few years, and you really don't have to fudge a lot on the declarations to qualify for this 80/20 5 year floating interest deal... but you better hurry, because it'll only get worse...

Even if you have 20% down, the first thing they'll do is encourage you to buy even more house with a lower % down- why? because they make more money, that's why.... You can handle it, right?

At least that's the way it's worked for the last several years. Now it's becoming entirely different, mostly because the rising cost of money and investor caution will force prices down and will force many recent buyers over the edge, and the fortunes of their highly leveraged creditors along with them.

Creditors who survive will, quite naturally, attempt to reduce risk by tightening up, refusing to buy all but the best MBS paper, which just makes the short term situation worse... because the pool of buyers who can honestly qualify for conventional loans at today's prices is really a lot smaller than the amount of housing on the market.... Few homeowners could actually afford to buy the house they live in at today's prices, starting from a zero equity minimal down payment scenario...

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: OS
all over the news now, but CFC is experiencing a run on it's bank

I'm sure that has nothing to do with all the media lies and FUD that's been spread about an otherwise perfectly solvent institution. :roll:

But I'm sure you have no problem when the credit card companies jack up rates if it looks like you might default. Why then should you complain when the public does the same to a bank?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: OS
all over the news now, but CFC is experiencing a run on it's bank

I'm sure that has nothing to do with all the media lies and FUD that's been spread about an otherwise perfectly solvent institution. :roll:

But I'm sure you have no problem when the credit card companies jack up rates if it looks like you might default. Why then should you complain when the public does the same to a bank?

Well, I'm sure that not only are you wrong about what I would have no problem about, but also that you clearly have no problem putting words in my mouth, troll. :roll:<^>

 

[Rogodin2]

The USD was value-based to gold (gold standard); Nixon changed its' tie to 'oil'. Whatever happens in this 'infinite growth' economic model is truly fudge.

We're on the top of a mountain and about ready to fall down the incline.

Rogo

 

[dmcowen674]

8-20-2007 Layoffs begin at Countrywide

LOS ANGELES - Countrywide Financial Corp., the nation's largest mortgage lender, has begun laying off staff as part of its effort to ride out the credit crunch that has rocked the home loan industry, according to a report published Monday.

The job cuts occurred in Countrywide's Full Spectrum Lending unit, according to the Wall Street Journal, citing an internal e-mail sent Friday to employees of that division.