So what if loose regulation of loans caused the housing bubble... Barney says lets do it again...

[rudder]

Fannie and Freddie asked to lower restrictions on loans

Currently Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have rules in place to prevent guarunteeing loans in developments that could get into trouble.

Barney Frank says these need to be relaxed a little.

People blame republicans for the housing mess... but it was this same Barnie that opened the floodgates and enabled fannie and freddie to loan money to people who could not pay it back.

 

[Atreus21]

Frank is such a goober.

 

[GoPackGo]

Its sort of like fixing a leak in Hoover Dam with chewing gum.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Its sort of like fixing a leak in Hoover Dam with chewing gum.

Better than closing the barn door after the horse already got out. 😉

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Its sort of like fixing a leak in Hoover Dam with chewing gum.

Better than closing the barn door after the horse already got out. 😉

What about knocking the barn over with a bulldozer, lighting the rubble on fire, then pissing on it to put it out after the horses have gotten out?

 

[Skitzer]

One of the reasons he gave seemed to make sense though. If I want to get into a nice condo complex but only 50% of the units have buyers the chances of a loan go down. How can the housing industry grow under those restrictions?

 

[Harabec]

Why does the housing industry have to grow if there are no buyers?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Harabec
Why does the housing industry have to grow if there are no buyers?

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

They're trying to reinflate the bubble rather than let the economy contract, even if it's further than need be, and let it grow again naturally.

We're gonna stimulate our way out of this recession one way or another, even if we have to destroy the economy to do it!

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Harabec
Why does the housing industry have to grow if there are no buyers?

How dare you use logic and common sence in P&N. Everything here should be politically biased and opinionated.

I think Barney wants it to grow because someone bought a bunch of stock in tanking developer stock and is looking to make a buck.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Its sort of like fixing a leak in Hoover Dam with chewing gum.

I think it's more like waking up with a hangover and having one more drink to try and ward it off.

One of the reasons he gave seemed to make sense though. If I want to get into a nice condo complex but only 50% of the units have buyers the chances of a loan go down. How can the housing industry grow under those restrictions?

Should it grow outside of them?

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Skitzer
One of the reasons he gave seemed to make sense though. If I want to get into a nice condo complex but only 50% of the units have buyers the chances of a loan go down. How can the housing industry grow under those restrictions?

That is a decent point, but lest we all forget, there's a baby amongst the bathwater here.

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: Harabec
Why does the housing industry have to grow if there are no buyers?

But there are buyers .... they just can't get loans.
I'd like to move to a better home, I've been in mine for almost 16 years. I have a better job than i did then and have saved quite a bit of money.
Isn't that the American dream? To better your surroundings as you become more prosperous?
Doesn't it help the economy to purchase new homes?
What am I missing here?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: Harabec
Why does the housing industry have to grow if there are no buyers?

But there are buyers .... they just can't get loans.
I'd like to move to a better home, I've been in mine for almost 16 years. I have a better job than i did then and have saved quite a bit of money.
Isn't that the American dream? To better your surroundings as you become more prosperous?
Doesn't it help the economy to purchase new homes?
What am I missing here?

If you can't get a loan, you're not a buyer.

In your case, 16 years of equity plus savings and a better job, it should be a simple task to move into another home if you want.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: Harabec
Why does the housing industry have to grow if there are no buyers?

But there are buyers .... they just can't get loans.
I'd like to move to a better home, I've been in mine for almost 16 years. I have a better job than i did then and have saved quite a bit of money.
Isn't that the American dream? To better your surroundings as you become more prosperous?
Doesn't it help the economy to purchase new homes?
What am I missing here?

If you can't get a loan, you're not a buyer.

In your case, 16 years of equity plus savings and a better job, it should be a simple task to move into another home if you want.

But what if he wants to move into a condo.

I know nothing about this subject, I know nothing about economics, but it seems to me that somewhere I learned to think and that it seems to be a rare ability.

Here we see some really illogical comments that have nothing at all to do with the givens of the link:

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Edit: Removed my post because it wasn't really relevant to the matter at hand.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: Harabec
Why does the housing industry have to grow if there are no buyers?

But there are buyers .... they just can't get loans.
I'd like to move to a better home, I've been in mine for almost 16 years. I have a better job than i did then and have saved quite a bit of money.
Isn't that the American dream? To better your surroundings as you become more prosperous?
Doesn't it help the economy to purchase new homes?
What am I missing here?

If you can't get a loan, you're not a buyer.

In your case, 16 years of equity plus savings and a better job, it should be a simple task to move into another home if you want.

But what if he wants to move into a condo.

I know nothing about this subject, I know nothing about economics, but it seems to me that somewhere I learned to think and that it seems to be a rare ability.

Here we see some really illogical comments that have nothing at all to do with the givens of the link:

The trouble is this. Let's say a developer builds a high-rise with 100 units. The market is down and over the course of a couple years, he only manages to sell, let's say, 40 units. At some point, the repsonisbility for the association fees fall to the condo association. Now, you've got 40 people covering a tab that was originally designed for 100.

The average Association fee is probably not too far from $400. So, now they're paying $800. Oh shit. now they're not paying it. The association starts failing, and now the property becomes devalued from the original price because the groundskeeper isn't getting paid. Meanwhile, the developer isn't going to be selling any more units with the place looking like that, and almost all of your owners are upside-down or powerless to take care of the place themselves.

It makes sense to have an occupancy requirement for some loans. How it's handled in multi-building developments can be different, since some buildings in a phased construction project could be full with a new one nearly empty, as some costs are borne by all residents of the development, and others only by those in a particular building.

But, I'm rambling. There are a number of angles on this, and given the current sitaution, I tend to be conservative about it. Plus, given the source of the idea, I say hell no.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: Harabec
Why does the housing industry have to grow if there are no buyers?

But there are buyers .... they just can't get loans.
I'd like to move to a better home, I've been in mine for almost 16 years. I have a better job than i did then and have saved quite a bit of money.
Isn't that the American dream? To better your surroundings as you become more prosperous?
Doesn't it help the economy to purchase new homes?
What am I missing here?

If you can't get a loan, you're not a buyer.

In your case, 16 years of equity plus savings and a better job, it should be a simple task to move into another home if you want.

But what if he wants to move into a condo.

I know nothing about this subject, I know nothing about economics, but it seems to me that somewhere I learned to think and that it seems to be a rare ability.

Here we see some really illogical comments that have nothing at all to do with the givens of the link:

Buying a condo is just like buying a house. The only difference is that you have to pay association fees, community development fees, etc. per month/year, whereas a house might not have those fees (though some might depending on your neighborhood).

You take out a mortgage on a condo. You pay property taxes on a condo. You carry homeowner's insurance on a condo. As far as the buying and owning process goes, it is no different than buying a regular house.

No, that's not true. Banks have an occupancy rate requirement on condo loans. They also have a number of other hoops you have to jump through dealing with who has liens on common property, how taxes are paid, etc. The principles are the same, but the details are different.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: Harabec
Why does the housing industry have to grow if there are no buyers?

But there are buyers .... they just can't get loans.
I'd like to move to a better home, I've been in mine for almost 16 years. I have a better job than i did then and have saved quite a bit of money.
Isn't that the American dream? To better your surroundings as you become more prosperous?
Doesn't it help the economy to purchase new homes?
What am I missing here?

If you can't get a loan, you're not a buyer.

In your case, 16 years of equity plus savings and a better job, it should be a simple task to move into another home if you want.

But what if he wants to move into a condo.

I know nothing about this subject, I know nothing about economics, but it seems to me that somewhere I learned to think and that it seems to be a rare ability.

Here we see some really illogical comments that have nothing at all to do with the givens of the link:

The trouble is this. Let's say a developer builds a high-rise with 100 units. The market is down and over the course of a couple years, he only manages to sell, let's say, 40 units. At some point, the repsonisbility for the association fees fall to the condo association. Now, you've got 40 people covering a tab that was originally designed for 100.

The average Association fee is probably not too far from $400. So, now they're paying $800. Oh shit. now they're not paying it. The association starts failing, and now the property becomes devalued from the original price because the groundskeeper isn't getting paid. Meanwhile, the developer isn't going to be selling any more units with the place looking like that, and almost all of your owners are upside-down or powerless to take care of the place themselves.

It makes sense to have an occupancy requirement for some loans. How it's handled in multi-building developments can be different, since some buildings in a phased construction project could be full with a new one nearly empty, as some costs are borne by all residents of the development, and others only by those in a particular building.

But, I'm rambling. There are a number of angles on this, and given the current sitaution, I tend to be conservative about it. Plus, given the source of the idea, I say hell no.

condo fail

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: Harabec
Why does the housing industry have to grow if there are no buyers?

But there are buyers .... they just can't get loans.
I'd like to move to a better home, I've been in mine for almost 16 years. I have a better job than i did then and have saved quite a bit of money.
Isn't that the American dream? To better your surroundings as you become more prosperous?
Doesn't it help the economy to purchase new homes?
What am I missing here?

If you can't get a loan, you're not a buyer.

In your case, 16 years of equity plus savings and a better job, it should be a simple task to move into another home if you want.

But what if he wants to move into a condo.

I know nothing about this subject, I know nothing about economics, but it seems to me that somewhere I learned to think and that it seems to be a rare ability.

Here we see some really illogical comments that have nothing at all to do with the givens of the link:

Buying a condo is just like buying a house. The only difference is that you have to pay association fees, community development fees, etc. per month/year, whereas a house might not have those fees (though some might depending on your neighborhood).

You take out a mortgage on a condo. You pay property taxes on a condo. You carry homeowner's insurance on a condo. As far as the buying and owning process goes, it is no different than buying a regular house.

No, that's not true. Banks have an occupancy rate requirement on condo loans. They also have a number of other hoops you have to jump through dealing with who has liens on common property, how taxes are paid, etc. The principles are the same, but the details are different.

True, true...I guess my explanation was too basic, only covering the overall process and not going into the details. 😛

I have thus removed my post since it doesn't really address the details of the matter at hand.

 

[ZeGermans]

As much as republicans love a chance to be racist, subsidized loaning of freddy/fannie to poor black people had nothing to do with the crisis. It was banks that could make any loan with no risk and instantly sell it for a profit. Because of deregulation in the private sector.

 

[Moonbeam]

"People blame republicans for the housing mess... but it was this same Barnie that opened the floodgates and enabled fannie and freddie to loan money to people who could not pay it back."

The article discussed the fact that condo buyers who are able to pay back can't get loans for other reasons, not because they can't pay back.

----------------

"Frank is such a goober."

An idiot piles on.

--------------

"Why does the housing industry have to grow if there are no buyers?"


The article addresses the fact that there are buyers and they can't buy because of regulations that have nothing to do with their ability to pay.

--------------

"Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

They're trying to reinflate the bubble rather than let the economy contract, even if it's further than need be, and let it grow again naturally.

We're gonna stimulate our way out of this recession one way or another, even if we have to destroy the economy to do it!"

What glorious reason should there be for the economy to contract further than need be? How about a law that forbids people buying anything? What is natural about having regulations that prevent natural growth. Is it natural for a person who can buy a condo not being able to?

--------------

"How dare you use logic and common sence in P&N. Everything here should be politically biased and opinionated.

I think Barney wants it to grow because someone bought a bunch of stock in tanking developer stock and is looking to make a buck."


You are a perfect demonstration of that which you criticize. Not only do you exercise no common sense or logic, but you demonstrate a profound ability to see your own worthlessness in others.

----------------

"Should it grow outside of them?"

The link was about relaxing restrictions and said nothing about growing outside of them.

----------------

 

[Moonbeam]

"You take out a mortgage on a condo. You pay property taxes on a condo. You carry homeowner's insurance on a condo. As far as the buying and owning process goes, it is no different than buying a regular house."

The article and others here say otherwise.

 

[Moonbeam]

Oops

 

[Moonbeam]

"The trouble is this. Let's say a developer builds a high-rise with 100 units. The market is down and over the course of a couple years, he only manages to sell, let's say, 40 units. At some point, the repsonisbility for the association fees fall to the condo association. Now, you've got 40 people covering a tab that was originally designed for 100.

The average Association fee is probably not too far from $400. So, now they're paying $800. Oh shit. now they're not paying it. The association starts failing, and now the property becomes devalued from the original price because the groundskeeper isn't getting paid. Meanwhile, the developer isn't going to be selling any more units with the place looking like that, and almost all of your owners are upside-down or powerless to take care of the place themselves.

It makes sense to have an occupancy requirement for some loans. How it's handled in multi-building developments can be different, since some buildings in a phased construction project could be full with a new one nearly empty, as some costs are borne by all residents of the development, and others only by those in a particular building.

But, I'm rambling. There are a number of angles on this, and given the current sitaution, I tend to be conservative about it. Plus, given the source of the idea, I say hell no."

Good job. You describe the real issue and openly express your bias. I do not know enough to say if you are right or wrong, but you are reflexive and if Frank came up with the best idea in the world it would ipso facto be lost on you. Something you might want to consider.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"You take out a mortgage on a condo. You pay property taxes on a condo. You carry homeowner's insurance on a condo. As far as the buying and owning process goes, it is no different than buying a regular house."

The article and others here say otherwise.

The basic process of buying a condo is no different. You still do all those things, just like a normal house. Now, I updated my original post as well, there might be other details that vary from bank to bank and community to community. I suppose I was being too basic in my explanation, focusing on the overall instead of the details. 😛

Removed my post since it wasn't really relevant to the details of the matter.