Hike in payments for good-credit homebuyers to subsidize high-risk mortgages

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting people in houses they cannot afford is generally a bad idea. People who have bad credit typically have bad credit for a reason and should pay the entire premium reprinting their risk profile to the lender.

This is going to make the housing shortages just that much worse. This is a horrible idea on so many levels. And yes-responding to another poster, this seems like socialism to me 100%.

This does not seems like a socialism, it is socialism. People in DMV so ignorant, most of them were clueless about this changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting people in houses they cannot afford is generally a bad idea. People who have bad credit typically have bad credit for a reason and should pay the entire premium reprinting their risk profile to the lender.

That's how we had 2008 housing crash, giving loans to people who lack financial discipline is a risky business.

This is the goal of this administration and we are getting there. Love Biden! Hope he will win the next term.

[Anonymous]

<reads thread>

<laughs in 2021 mortgage>

[Anonymous]

BREAKING: 34 state financial officers from 27 states have signed-on to a letter to the Biden Administration demanding that they end their new mortgage equity program, which forces buyers with good credit to pay higher rates to subsidize loans for riskier borrowers.

https://twitter.com/WillHild/status/1653031906454171649

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting people in houses they cannot afford is generally a bad idea. People who have bad credit typically have bad credit for a reason and should pay the entire premium reprinting their risk profile to the lender.

This is going to make the housing shortages just that much worse. This is a horrible idea on so many levels. And yes-responding to another poster, this seems like socialism to me 100%.

You know what’s socialism? The government being in the mortgage business at all. Feel free to pay market rates for a nonconforming if you don’t like the terms of the government subsidy.

This. People are really really ignorant about the mortgage market if they think a minoe pricing change is what pushes it into socialism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Redistribution of wealth, plain and simple. But then, it's what every single person on this board (bar the few republican voters) voted for, enjoy it. You worked hard to do this to us.

Meh, until the GOP changes its stance on sensible gun legislation and abortion, they will not have my vote. This doesn't change it.

Meh? How old are you? I truly don't care about your voting issues, you voted for this as did most on this board, it is just the beginning of redistribution. I will happily laugh when you lose your home and other possessions for such careless handling of this countries finances.

Your rhetoric is poor: you just told her that her vote was poor then said you don't care about her voting issues, you are not making any sense. In any event, why is it that you insist Republicans given alone? Politicians used to work together, now Republicans feel they are the only ones that are legitimate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is one of the most boneheaded decisions I’ve seen from this inept administration and I VOTED FOR THEM. Shame on me, I suppose. This pisses me off.

Again, Republicans can try governing WITH other instead of doing nothing with other politicians and just sitting back saying let me have 100% control. Your "you voted for this line" I'd old. The government is all of ours, not a ball to be passed back and forth between one party and another

[Anonymous]

After all the outrage about this, no one wanted to give an update? This got rescinded, right?

https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/FHFA-Announces-Rescission-of-Enterprise-Upfront-Fees-Based-on-Debt-To-Income-Ratio.aspx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting people in houses they cannot afford is generally a bad idea. People who have bad credit typically have bad credit for a reason and should pay the entire premium reprinting their risk profile to the lender.

This is going to make the housing shortages just that much worse. This is a horrible idea on so many levels. And yes-responding to another poster, this seems like socialism to me 100%.

Yes, we all remember that the main tenet of socialism is "charge the rich slightly higher fees than they used to pay, while slightly lowering the fees on the poor but still charging them higher fees than we charge the rich, for government-backed mortgages."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After all the outrage about this, no one wanted to give an update? This got rescinded, right?

https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/FHFA-Announces-Rescission-of-Enterprise-Upfront-Fees-Based-on-Debt-To-Income-Ratio.aspx

wow. how embarassing for FHFA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After all the outrage about this, no one wanted to give an update? This got rescinded, right?

https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/FHFA-Announces-Rescission-of-Enterprise-Upfront-Fees-Based-on-Debt-To-Income-Ratio.aspx

wow. how embarassing for FHFA.

How embarrassing that you don't even realize this was just one element of their proposed fee changes. They are getting rid of DTI as a factor in the fee matrix. The proposal would've charged a 0.375% fee if the borrower had greater than a 40% DTI. It was supposed to be charged in order to strengthen the safety and soundness of Fannie Mae. But that is being rescinded. Instead, Fannie will continue to give a break to over-leveraged people (including lots of rich people who like to use lots of debt).

Here's a plain English reading if you can't handle Fannie press releases and FR notices: https://www.ocregister.com/2023/05/10/fhfa-rescinds-controversial-debt-to-ratio-fee-change-for-home-loans/

This is completely separate from the ginned up controversy about marginally lower fees for people with lower credit scores. That is still moving ahead.

Imagine being so dumb and not understanding what you're sharing on the Internet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting people in houses they cannot afford is generally a bad idea. People who have bad credit typically have bad credit for a reason and should pay the entire premium reprinting their risk profile to the lender.

This is going to make the housing shortages just that much worse. This is a horrible idea on so many levels. And yes-responding to another poster, this seems like socialism to me 100%.

Yes, we all remember that the main tenet of socialism is "charge the rich slightly higher fees than they used to pay, while slightly lowering the fees on the poor but still charging them higher fees than we charge the rich, for government-backed mortgages."

This is why I come to DCUM. This is just perfection and exactly encapsulates this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After all the outrage about this, no one wanted to give an update? This got rescinded, right?

https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/FHFA-Announces-Rescission-of-Enterprise-Upfront-Fees-Based-on-Debt-To-Income-Ratio.aspx

wow. how embarassing for FHFA.

How embarrassing that you don't even realize this was just one element of their proposed fee changes. They are getting rid of DTI as a factor in the fee matrix. The proposal would've charged a 0.375% fee if the borrower had greater than a 40% DTI. It was supposed to be charged in order to strengthen the safety and soundness of Fannie Mae. But that is being rescinded. Instead, Fannie will continue to give a break to over-leveraged people (including lots of rich people who like to use lots of debt).

Here's a plain English reading if you can't handle Fannie press releases and FR notices: https://www.ocregister.com/2023/05/10/fhfa-rescinds-controversial-debt-to-ratio-fee-change-for-home-loans/

This is completely separate from the ginned up controversy about marginally lower fees for people with lower credit scores. That is still moving ahead.

Imagine being so dumb and not understanding what you're sharing on the Internet.

This thread was all about the fee for high DTI. That's what people cared about. And that's what's being rescinded. The "ginned up controversy" you mention is a controversy you ginned up right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After all the outrage about this, no one wanted to give an update? This got rescinded, right?

https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/FHFA-Announces-Rescission-of-Enterprise-Upfront-Fees-Based-on-Debt-To-Income-Ratio.aspx

wow. how embarassing for FHFA.

How embarrassing that you don't even realize this was just one element of their proposed fee changes. They are getting rid of DTI as a factor in the fee matrix. The proposal would've charged a 0.375% fee if the borrower had greater than a 40% DTI. It was supposed to be charged in order to strengthen the safety and soundness of Fannie Mae. But that is being rescinded. Instead, Fannie will continue to give a break to over-leveraged people (including lots of rich people who like to use lots of debt).

Here's a plain English reading if you can't handle Fannie press releases and FR notices: https://www.ocregister.com/2023/05/10/fhfa-rescinds-controversial-debt-to-ratio-fee-change-for-home-loans/

This is completely separate from the ginned up controversy about marginally lower fees for people with lower credit scores. That is still moving ahead.

Imagine being so dumb and not understanding what you're sharing on the Internet.

This thread was all about the fee for high DTI. That's what people cared about. And that's what's being rescinded. The "ginned up controversy" you mention is a controversy you ginned up right now.

Oh bless your heart for doubling-down. Go read the very first post on page 1 and tell me what they quoted from the Washington Times...

[Anonymous]

It's one fee.