Anonymous wrote:Everyone should know the people with the best credit already subsidize the worst via credit card rates. The Card Act, which eliminated double cycle billing (which should have been gotten rid of), also eliminated precision in card rate pricing such that higher credit scores end up in pricing buckets with lower scores. It would take a while to explain but it’s akin to sedentary, overweight smokers and healthy workout types being treated equally in actuary tables. This is more of the same.

cite please? I don’t think this is true.

How are people with bad credit scores buying houses? My 21 year old DD has had a 770+ credit score on her own CC since she turned 18. I don’t mean that she’s an authorized user on our card. Pays for a lot of her life expenses at this point on her own. Pretty sure she’s not in a position to buy a house anytime soon.

Everyone should know the people with the best credit already subsidize the worst via credit card rates. The Card Act, which eliminated double cycle billing (which should have been gotten rid of), also eliminated precision in card rate pricing such that higher credit scores end up in pricing buckets with lower scores. It would take a while to explain but it’s akin to sedentary, overweight smokers and healthy workout types being treated equally in actuary tables. This is more of the same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is unacceptable.

I guess I will have to tank my own credit score now.

The highest credit scores still get the lowest fees. If you have a 25% downpayment, your fee is 10x higher with 660 FICO (225bps) compared to someone with a 740 FICO (25bps).

Nothing wrong with the proposal, aside from rightwing outrage media machine manipulating your emotions.

You are totally missing the point AND trying to spin this. Do you think people are stupid here? Why should someone with good credit have to pay for those without good credit and then also have to complete with them to purchase possibly the same house?!

SMH at YOU trying to manipulate this!

It's more that people with good-but-not-great credit scores, and who borrow very high amounts for their purchases, pay slightly higher fees than they would otherwise pay so that people with low credit scores pay slightly lower fees than they would otherwise pay. If this affects you, and you think that lowering your credit will help you, you are an idiot and deserve to pay the penalties.

Anonymous wrote:This is completely and utterly insane.

+1000 This is ridiculous and infuriating!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is unacceptable.

I guess I will have to tank my own credit score now.

The highest credit scores still get the lowest fees. If you have a 25% downpayment, your fee is 10x higher with 660 FICO (225bps) compared to someone with a 740 FICO (25bps).

Nothing wrong with the proposal, aside from rightwing outrage media machine manipulating your emotions.

You are totally missing the point AND trying to spin this. Do you think people are stupid here? Why should someone with good credit have to pay for those without good credit and then also have to complete with them to purchase possibly the same house?!

SMH at YOU trying to manipulate this!

Anonymous wrote:This is unacceptable.

I guess I will have to tank my own credit score now.

The highest credit scores still get the lowest fees. If you have a 25% downpayment, your fee is 10x higher with 660 FICO (225bps) compared to someone with a 740 FICO (25bps).

Nothing wrong with the proposal, aside from rightwing outrage media machine manipulating your emotions.

This is unacceptable.

I guess I will have to tank my own credit score now.

So I’m looking at the old and new LLPA rates (https://singlefamily.fanniemae.com/media/33201/display) and it seems there’s a modest increase on people with very high credit scores because they eliminated brackets over 740 (everyone over 740 is now treated the same). The example in the article - 680 - seems to come with the highest increase assuming 20% down, but people with higher scorers will experience either a smaller increase or no increase.

If we give government the power to set mortgage fees by credit score, we shouldn’t be surprised to see this from a Dem president.

Anonymous wrote:Nothing on this thread is true it’s fox and Jordan propaganda

Move along everyone or go to Twitter it’s been debunked like 100s of times already

Stop getting info from Ny post and fox

Oh please stop. It is right on the fhfa website.

I am a mortgage underwriter. The loan level price adjustments (LLPA) from my vantage point equate to borrowers who are borrowing at a higher LTV (such as over 80%) accompanied with a higher (approximately over 41%) DTI will end up paying more.

This is completely and utterly insane.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So your saying I worked hard, saved, have excellent credit and now want to buy a house and I have to pay for those with bad credit scores AND compete with them to buy the same house I spent decades saying for?

Good old USA punish success and reward failure!!!

You are an idiot.

This is the truth. Your comment of just saying "you are an idiot" without being able to articulate why is pointless and sad.

I'm tired of poor people

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing on this thread is true it’s fox and Jordan propaganda

Move along everyone or go to Twitter it’s been debunked like 100s of times already

Stop getting info from Ny post and fox

And Wall Street Journal? https://www.wsj.com/articles/upside-down-mortgage-policy-212fd736

Did you unironically just link to the WSJ Opinion Page?

$40/month to flatten the penalty curve. Communism indeed