• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

YAHMT: Housing market before Bush

polarmystery

Diamond Member
I just got this email from a friend. What do you guys think about it? I think it's interesting if that is indeed true.

"Since there is so much talk about this buyout over the WNDA airwaves I thought I would share this article from September 30, 1999 out of the New York Times, a generally more left wing paper. So many people want to blame President Bush for the short coming of the economy and housing market instead of the mortgage lenders and citizens who took on mortgages outside their income. This article was written before he was in office and while Clinton was in office. Below are a couple of paragraphs out of that article that I would like you to read. If you want to read the whole article, and I suggest you do, it is here http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...ec=&spon=&pagewanted=2. If you read the whole article you will see I have taken nothing out of context. This is pretty prophetic and scary if you ask me.



Aaron



Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending

By Steven A. Holmes

Published: September 30, 1999



In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.



The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.



Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.



In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.



''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''


"
 
This has been gone over ad infinitum here. You do understand that there is a difference between the underwriting standards for a FHA (FNMA and FRE) loan and the no-doc and liar's loans that basically got us into this fiasco, right?

I've been practicing real estate law for thirty years, and at the sharp end of the stick regarding property foreclosures for much of that time. IMO, FHA loan underwriting standards were far laxer in the 1970s and 80's then since then. FHA underwriting standards are pretty decent, but they are low downpayment loans. When the housing price cycle switched, it is (and always has been) more likely for them to go into foreclosure. This time around the effect was greatly magnified by the total crap loans written in the private sector and then bundled off. FNMA and FRE ended up with some of those, and that helped accelerate their downfall.

To blame this crisis on FNMA or FRE is like blaming the sixth car in a twenty car chain collision.
 
Garbage in garbage out.

This entire mess just shows you how much integrity loan officers have (I would trust a pile of $#!+ more).
 
E-Mails don't make a good basis for decision making. Like Thump said, this had nothing to do with the curent crisis.
 
Originally posted by: polarmystery
I just got this email from a friend. What do you guys think about it? I think it's interesting if that is indeed true.

"Since there is so much talk about this buyout over the WNDA airwaves I thought I would share this article from September 30, 1999 out of the New York Times, a generally more left wing paper. So many people want to blame President Bush for the short coming of the economy and housing market instead of the mortgage lenders and citizens who took on mortgages outside their income. This article was written before he was in office and while Clinton was in office. Below are a couple of paragraphs out of that article that I would like you to read. If you want to read the whole article, and I suggest you do, it is here http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...ec=&spon=&pagewanted=2. If you read the whole article you will see I have taken nothing out of context. This is pretty prophetic and scary if you ask me.



Aaron

Since there is so much blame put on Bush recently and I know there's no way he could be responsible, I searched on the internet for whatever I could find which I could blame on Clinton, googled "Clinton mortgage" and found this. I don't understand what it says but it sounds blame worthy so I wanted to share it. This is proof that what Clinton did in 1999 is to blame for 2008's economic freefall, not Bush. Very scary if you ask me.




Aaron

Fixed.
 
Originally posted by: Thump553
This has been gone over ad infinitum here. You do understand that there is a difference between the underwriting standards for a FHA (FNMA and FRE) loan and the no-doc and liar's loans that basically got us into this fiasco, right?

I've been practicing real estate law for thirty years, and at the sharp end of the stick regarding property foreclosures for much of that time. IMO, FHA loan underwriting standards were far laxer in the 1970s and 80's then since then. FHA underwriting standards are pretty decent, but they are low downpayment loans. When the housing price cycle switched, it is (and always has been) more likely for them to go into foreclosure. This time around the effect was greatly magnified by the total crap loans written in the private sector and then bundled off. FNMA and FRE ended up with some of those, and that helped accelerate their downfall.

To blame this crisis on FNMA or FRE is like blaming the sixth car in a twenty car chain collision.

Get your facts. FHA has terrible under writting standards. FHA loans have some of the highest forclosure rates of all. The only good thing about them is the banks are not liable for them, FHA is. People with 630 FICO scores and 105% LTV could qualify for the FNMA loan and combine that with them being an IOP and you have disasterous forclosure rates.
 
Originally posted by: ICRS
Originally posted by: Thump553
This has been gone over ad infinitum here. You do understand that there is a difference between the underwriting standards for a FHA (FNMA and FRE) loan and the no-doc and liar's loans that basically got us into this fiasco, right?

I've been practicing real estate law for thirty years, and at the sharp end of the stick regarding property foreclosures for much of that time. IMO, FHA loan underwriting standards were far laxer in the 1970s and 80's then since then. FHA underwriting standards are pretty decent, but they are low downpayment loans. When the housing price cycle switched, it is (and always has been) more likely for them to go into foreclosure. This time around the effect was greatly magnified by the total crap loans written in the private sector and then bundled off. FNMA and FRE ended up with some of those, and that helped accelerate their downfall.

To blame this crisis on FNMA or FRE is like blaming the sixth car in a twenty car chain collision.

Get your facts. FHA has terrible under writting standards. FHA loans have some of the highest forclosure rates of all. The only good thing about them is the banks are not liable for them, FHA is. People with 630 FICO scores and 105% LTV could qualify for the FNMA loan and combine that with them being an IOP and you have disasterous forclosure rates.

You don't know what you're talking about. FHA and FNMA don't lend above 100% LTV.
And while FHA doesn't use modern credit scoring directly (so your 630 score comment is meaningless), it does use traditional credit underwriting methods and has strict income and property requirements (there has never been such a thing as a stated income FHA loan). There has also never been an investment property FHA loan. FHA is for owner-occupied only.

FHA is a mortgage insurance agency, not a lender. They do not lend money, just insure monies lent. And while they have always had a higher than prime foreclosure rate due to their mandate, they have also always been profitable because of their high upfront mortgage insurance premiums.
And finally, FHA has relatively minimal exposure to the housing bubble, mostly because mortgage lenders and brokers treated FHA as the last resort for their borrowers, but also because FHA's strict income and loan amount limits kept borrowers from buying in the big boom markets. So during the height, FHA's lending share fell to less than 3%, and most of that was in the stable rural markets.
 
Back
Top