A self-serving proposal to inflate house prices and pass risk to taxpayers

Jul 21st, 2011  
by IrvineRenter  in Library News

Astute Observations

Astute Observation by octal77
2011-07-21 07:19 AM

Richard Cirelli wrote:

“... they may be *forced* into a higher rate simply because they had to increase their use of credit cards during a difficult period which lowered their credit scores while their equity diminished due to the economy…”

Gotta love the use of the word “forced”.

Whats next? “they put a gun to our heads and demanded that we spend beyond our means”

Are we becoming a society of victims?

What ever happened to personal responsibility and accountability?

Have we as a society lost our backbones and become so frail minded that we can no longer say NO to institutions pushing debt?

Astute Observation by Casual Observer
2011-07-21 08:04 AM

Cirelli’s opinion and other’s like his are designed to undermine Dodd-Frank.  Ever since it passed in April of last year, NAR, CAR, and every starving real estate agent on the planet have been trying to dilute, modify, and make it extinct.  The guidelines it puts forward are no different than conventional lending was in the 1970’s.  We’ve had two major recessions since then with lax lending as a centerpiece in the housing element.  Either we’re all very stupid, or we really like pain.  It’s not rocket science to want to collect (notice I didn’t say earn) a commission on a $1,000,000 sale rather than a $100,000 sale….they both require the same amount of work.  But if the cost of that is constantly trying to hold up prices that are not feasible, who are we kidding?

Astute Observation by Mark
2011-07-21 09:27 AM

Cirelli wrote: “I’m suggesting some common sense ideas and tweaking of the existing guidelines that would enable more qualified people to buy and refinance their homes to help the economic recovery.”

Yeah, “common sense” and “the economic recovery”.

Wow. Thank goodness.  And I was starting to worry that this bankrupt country of ours had run out of lenders with nothing but good intentions and….wait for it…common sense.

I’m pretty sure we’ve seen this part of the movie before. This is the sort of advice that destroyed banks and bankrupted the nation in the first place. 

Another Lifetime original TV special: “The Lender Who Wanted To Help” starring Lindsay Wagner, Danny Devito and Chuck Norris.

Astute Observation by scottinnj
2011-07-21 09:50 AM

Where are PMI standards these days?  I know when I bought my house in the early 90’s we were able to get a loan with only 10% down (our FICO and DTI ratios were more than fine).  We had to take out the PMI which was around 3/8% per annum (part of our monthly escrow).  Once we got to LTV of 80% we could have it cancelled, which we did in a few years.  I’ve no idea if 3/8% is too high or too low, but I never thought that fee we paid was unreasonable, it was a cost to us of buying before we had saved the extra 10%.

Astute Observation by Perspective
2011-07-21 10:18 AM

Since there is virtually no private lending, I don’t know what PMI standards (“private mortgage insurance”) might look like today. 

However, FHA MIP (“mortgage insurance premium”) can be found at:

http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/hudclips/letters/mortgagee/files/11-10ml.pdf

If you put 10% down today using an FHA 30Y loan, your upfront MIP would be 100 bps and you’re on-going MIP would be 110 bps.  The MIP could drop-off once your LTV falls below 78%, but no sooner than five years.

That’s my rough understanding at least…

Astute Observation by Chuck Ponzi
2011-07-21 01:29 PM

PMI is wicked bad.  I recently saw rates that brought the effective rate of the remaining 10% (on a 90%loan) hovering somewhere near 10-12%.

You better save a lot if you want to buy a house over 729K.  Or even 625K.  But… is anyone surprised by that?

Is 625 a “starter” home where the best you can do is scratch together 20K?  Seriously?  That’s the problem.

In my opinion, the higher end has already adjusted.  It’s the mid-range that is having real problems.  No equity means no move-ups.

Chuck

Astute Observation by irvine_home_owner
2011-07-21 05:06 PM

$20k used to be 20% when a young single could buy a starter condo for $100k.

The problem is home prices have gone up so much it’s difficult to save 20% without equity flips (as AZDave likes to remind us).

A family with children could have probably saved up $50k for that $250k 3/2 SFR in 1999 but with today’s unemployment, that’s much more difficult for a $500k home today… and now that DP is 10% and falls into PMI or MIP land.

I think low down payments are fine as long as appropriate lending guidelines are being followed.

Astute Observation by scottinnj
2011-07-21 01:39 PM

Ouch, that is a bit more expensive.  I’m pretty sure my mortgage in the 90’s was considered to be FNMA conforming (ie to conform is why I was required to buy PMI). Then again unlike the FHA at that time we had mid 20’ DTI and c. 800 FICO so were fine except the down payment.

Astute Observation by One, Two, Many Vietnams
2011-07-28 10:43 AM

I L-O-V-E Richard T. Cirelli’s idea! Then again, I WANT to see the United States COLLAPSE into a pile of SHYT. Anything that will keep you WAR CRIMINAL, FINANCIAL FRAUDSTERS and PERVERTS busy & away from innocent people worldwide is a GOOD thing. I hope you ALL wind-up eating out of garbage cans and shooting each other on the streets. May all the EVIL you American douchebags have done to others return to bite you in the azz A THOUSANDFOLD!

Astute Observation by CynicalBastard
2011-07-28 10:59 AM

“Fortunately, the government is not going to do this”

Ha!  Just wait and watch, folks. 

Sorry IrvineRenter.  But you should know better than to not take into consideration just how both parties are totally whored out to the FIRE (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate) sector of our economy.

F.I.R.E: It is just like James Bond’s S.P.E.C.T.R.E, only when they throw in into the piranha pool they take their time eating you slowly.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

<< Back to main