Seriously? Not even a Hindu Goddess has enough hands to facepalm as much as this news needs

[sperbonzo]

It's a shame that we don't have any actual real-world results that we can look at as a consequence of actions like these, huh? (anyone remember the CRA?)


http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...755_story.html

"Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit


By Zachary A. Goldfarb, Published: April 2

The Obama administration is engaged in a broad push to make more home loans available to people with weaker credit, an effort that officials say will help power the economic recovery but that skeptics say could open the door to the risky lending that caused the housing crash in the first place.

President Obama?s economic advisers and outside experts say the nation?s much-celebrated housing rebound is leaving too many people behind, including young people looking to buy their first homes and individuals with credit records weakened by the recession.

In response, administration officials say they are working to get banks to lend to a wider range of borrowers by taking advantage of taxpayer-backed programs ? including those offered by the Federal Housing Administration ? that insure home loans against default.

Housing officials are urging the Justice Department to provide assurances to banks, which have become increasingly cautious, that they will not face legal or financial recriminations if they make loans to riskier borrowers who meet government standards but later default.

Officials are also encouraging lenders to use more subjective judgment in determining whether to offer a loan and are seeking to make it easier for people who owe more than their properties are worth to refinance at today?s low interest rates, among other steps.

Obama pledged in his State of the Union address to do more to make sure more Americans can enjoy the benefits of the housing recovery, but critics say encouraging banks to lend as broadly as the administration hopes will sow the seeds of another housing disaster and endanger taxpayer dollars.

?If that were to come to pass, that would open the floodgates to highly excessive risk and would send us right back on the same path we were just trying to recover from,? said Ed Pinto, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former top executive at mortgage giant Fannie Mae.

Administration officials say they are looking only to allay unnecessary hesihatahation among banks and encourage safe lending to borrowers who have the financial wherewithal to pay.

?There?s always a tension that you have to take seriously between providing clarity and rules of the road and not giving any opportunity to restart the kind of irresponsible lending that we saw in the mid-2000s,? said a senior administration official who was not authorized to speak on the record.

The administration?s efforts come in the midst of a housing market that has been surging for the past year but that has been delivering most of the benefits to established homeowners with high credit scores or to investors who have been behind a significant number of new purchases.

?If you were going to tell people in low-income and moderate-income communities and communities of color there was a housing recovery, they would look at you as if you had two heads,? said John Taylor, president of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a nonprofit housing organization. ?It is very difficult for people of low and moderate incomes to refinance or buy homes.?
"













.

[Serge Litehead]

same bs over again

politics is a joke

[BlackCrayon]

well that's moronic.

[Sly]

But but but, I thought it was all the banks fault!

[DWB]

Hey, it totally fucked things up the first time so lets do it again. This time it will be different. I promise. Trust me.

[CyberHustler]

[purecane]

Originally Posted by Sly

But but but, I thought it was all the banks fault!

one thing that's been terribly overlooked in the real estate and housing market collapse is the local property appraisers responsibility to accurately assess a home or properties value. having been a Florida mortgage broker i saw first hand a hyperinflation that was ultimately too big for anyone to imagine while it happened. i bought my first house in Jan. of '98 for 73 grand. house lot package. and just 5 years later the vacant lot next to my house sold for 64k....no house, no site prep. vacant land. someone in the county appraisers office should not have allowed that to happen.

[_Richard_]

It's too bad we don't have any real life experience to determine how this may work out.

Oh. Wait.

[sperbonzo]

Under the CRA banks were pushed into making loans to people who( could not afford them, and the wording of government policy under the CRA was exactly the same is this announcement. (Notice the name of the last group quoted in the article). Consequences of pushing banks into risky loans is known to us all, and it also showed banks that "real property" cannot be counted on as equity. It should be up to the lender how much risk they want to take, not the government. There are always unintended consequences when you mess with the free market, as the whole world saw in 2008. I'm boggled by this craziness....





.

[Rochard]

I am fine with this.

The recession destroyed the credit of a lot of people. I have friends who did nothing wrong, but both husband and wife lost their jobs, lost their homes, and couldn't pay any of their bills.

Having bad credit doesn't mean they cannot afford a home. And the entire "credit system" is a fucking farce anyhow - You can have perfect credit but then you loose your job and suddenly four months later you cannot pay any of your bills.

[atom]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I am fine with this.

The recession destroyed the credit of a lot of people. I have friends who did nothing wrong, but both husband and wife lost their jobs, lost their homes, and couldn't pay any of their bills.

Having bad credit doesn't mean they cannot afford a home. And the entire "credit system" is a fucking farce anyhow - You can have perfect credit but then you loose your job and suddenly four months later you cannot pay any of your bills.

what is wrong with you? are you serious or do you just troll?

If your friends lost their jobs and couldn't pay their bills it shows they lived beyond their means and are not responsible. They should NOT be given another loan by a bank to buy another house. Especially when it's my fucking tax money that had to bail them out the first time around.

Not sure about you but if both my wife and I lost our jobs we would have well over a year to find a new one before we had to worry about defaulting on bills. In the meantime I would go shovel shit if I had to so i could extend that cushion as long as possible while I actively looked for any job that was better.

unreal....

[Tofu]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Seriously? Not even a Hindu Goddess has enough hands to facepalm as much as this news needs

Best thread title, ever.

[Sly]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I am fine with this.

The recession destroyed the credit of a lot of people. I have friends who did nothing wrong, but both husband and wife lost their jobs, lost their homes, and couldn't pay any of their bills.

Having bad credit doesn't mean they cannot afford a home. And the entire "credit system" is a fucking farce anyhow - You can have perfect credit but then you loose your job and suddenly four months later you cannot pay any of your bills.

You forgot to blame Bush.

[Webmaster Advertising]

Originally Posted by atom

If your friends lost their jobs and couldn't pay their bills it shows they lived beyond their means and are not responsible.

If your entire family lose their job, within a month of each other... Through no fault of their own, does that mean that they also lived beyond their means and were not responsible?

[atom]

Originally Posted by Webmaster Advertising

If your entire family lose their job, within a month of each other... Through no fault of their own, does that mean that they also lived beyond their means and were not responsible?

and they have no money saved? Thats exactly what it means.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Under the CRA banks were pushed into making loans to people who( could not afford them, and the wording of government policy under the CRA was exactly the same is this announcement. (Notice the name of the last group quoted in the article). Consequences of pushing banks into risky loans is known to us all, and it also showed banks that "real property" cannot be counted on as equity. It should be up to the lender how much risk they want to take, not the government. There are always unintended consequences when you mess with the free market, as the whole world saw in 2008. I'm boggled by this craziness....





.

also helps when several billions of dollars goes missing

but, back to your regular programming

[woj]

Originally Posted by Webmaster Advertising

If your entire family lose their job, within a month of each other... Through no fault of their own, does that mean that they also lived beyond their means and were not responsible?

People unexpectedly lose their jobs all the time, it's actually a pretty common occurrence, responsible people plan ahead for it...

Rochard friend's situation is kinda like saying "my server HD died, so I'm out of business", responsible people realize the fact that shit happens, and plan ahead accordingly for it, like for example by making backups of all your data, or in the case of family budget saving up substantial $$ cushion before taking on a mortgage...

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by Tofu

Best thread title, ever.

*blushes and simpers*

Much appreciated.

[Captain Kawaii]

The Vultures at the top noticed a few drops of blood left in society and decided to come back for the last.
Politicians should be rounded up and shot.

[TheSquealer]

This is all you need to know...

(Margin Call - based loosely on Lehman Brothers and the decision to start dumping all their toxic loan portfolios (Mortgage Backed Securities) as it was realized it was going to go bad, before everyone else in the market could)

"So you think we might have put a few people out of business today. That its all for naught. You've been doing that everyday for almost forty years Sam. And if this is all for naught then so is everything out there. Its just money; its made up. Pieces of paper with pictures on it so we don't have to kill each other just to get something to eat. It's not wrong. And it's certainly no different today than its ever been. 1637, 1797, 1819, 37, 57, 84, 1901, 07, 29, 1937, 1974, 1987-Jesus, didn't that fuck up me up good-92, 97, 2000 and whatever we want to call this. It's all just the same thing over and over; we can't help ourselves. And you and I can't control it, or stop it, or even slow it. Or even ever-so-slightly alter it. We just react. And we make a lot money if we get it right. And we get left by the side of the side of the road if we get it wrong. And there have always been and there always will be the same percentage of winners and losers. Happy foxes and sad sacks. Fat cats and starving dogs in this world. Yeah, there may be more of us today than there's ever been. But the percentages-they stay exactly the same."

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

*blushes and simpers*

Much appreciated.

[Horatio Caine]

Haven't we've been that road before with bunch of people defaulting?

[suesheboy]

Originally Posted by atom

what is wrong with you? are you serious or do you just troll?

If your friends lost their jobs and couldn't pay their bills it shows they lived beyond their means and are not responsible. They should NOT be given another loan by a bank to buy another house. Especially when it's my fucking tax money that had to bail them out the first time around.

Not sure about you but if both my wife and I lost our jobs we would have well over a year to find a new one before we had to worry about defaulting on bills. In the meantime I would go shovel shit if I had to so i could extend that cushion as long as possible while I actively looked for any job that was better.

unreal....

Please post more often!

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by suesheboy

Please post more often!

lol !

.

[bigluv]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I am fine with this.

The recession destroyed the credit of a lot of people. I have friends who did nothing wrong, but both husband and wife lost their jobs, lost their homes, and couldn't pay any of their bills.

Having bad credit doesn't mean they cannot afford a home. And the entire "credit system" is a fucking farce anyhow - You can have perfect credit but then you loose your job and suddenly four months later you cannot pay any of your bills.

Jesus Rochard, I expect more critical thinking from you usually.

First of all creditworthiness and "did nothing wrong" don't belong in the same sentence.

You are way oversimplifying here to the point of irrationality. As someone above pointed out, living on the ragged edge of affordability with little or no savings or assets or diversification and not much employability or willingness to adapt is EXACTLY the definition of non creditworthy.

Just because you think they are nice people you want to start the whole cycle over again? No. Fuck them. They can try harder, retrain, take a lower paying job, and live in a smaller house or rent. There is just NO other option. Nobody can afford to carry the rest of society on our backs no matter how good the economy is/how rich you are /etc.
That is to say - altruism would be great. If we could afford it.

When you remove evolutionary fitness and feedback from a system (which this does) you cripple the systems ability to self correct and begin a process that will end in a death spiral.

The only way to compensate for a system like that is to import value from outside the system to balance out your losses in value and productivity and fitness etc. Short of 100% efficient cheap solar or "free energy" or nuking the rest of the world to plunder their resources there is just no way to do this right now. And of course you would never escape the price indolence and lack of fitness/competition/adaptation would exact.

A hand up to the deserving is not the same as a crutch. This is a crutch.
Encouraging weakness never, ever, ends well.

Now, you wanna talk limiting profiteering, gouging, government fuckery, the whole system of corporations having way too much influence and getting away with too much, sure, let's redefine the system a little.

As far as I know in the history of the world, whenever something is paid for by the government (and this is similar) it gets more expensive to compensate. Quality probably goes down. And more money is concentrated in the hands of the people in charge, not the people it was meant to help.

[MrMaxwell]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I am fine with this.

The recession destroyed the credit of a lot of people. I have friends who did nothing wrong, but both husband and wife lost their jobs, lost their homes, and couldn't pay any of their bills.

Having bad credit doesn't mean they cannot afford a home. And the entire "credit system" is a fucking farce anyhow - You can have perfect credit but then you loose your job and suddenly four months later you cannot pay any of your bills.

So the rest of society should pay for it, AGAIN.

You use to make sense, I think that was you.

What in the world are you talking about?

You REALLY want the government forcing banks to loan, AGAIN?

Let's just continue the largest theft of wealth in the history of EARTH to continue.. Not only that but lets accelerate the progress of it exponentially if at all possible. YaY.

[Bill8]

As I read the commentary about it, the idea is to increase home lending a controlled amount, not go back to the bush era practices of NINJA and liar loans.

If it was Romney saying this - and he would have, it's the same politics on both sides, and both sides want to see the housing market recover, and not just by investor purchasing which is driving the current small surge - all you guys would be all like YEAH SAVE THE HOUSING MARKET THATS GOOD POLICY.

You're all a pack of whiners - boohoo, obama the hahahahahaha is fucking us again.

Almost every commentator I have read the past three years said the banks tightened up too much and got too conservative. Some of what I have been reading says the banks are doing it on purpose to extort the government into not hauling the top execs into federal court.

The Washingtonpost's big business guy wrote this about it today:

From 2007 through 2012, new-home purchases fell 30 percent for people with credit scores above 780 (out of 800), according to Federal Reserve Governor Elizabeth Duke. But they declined 90 percent for people with scores between 680 and 620 ? historically a respectable range for a credit score.

?If the only people who can get a loan have near-perfect credit and are putting down 25 percent, you?re leaving out of the market an entire population of creditworthy folks, which constrains demand and slows the recovery,? said Jim Parrott, who until January was the senior adviser on housing for the White House?s National Economic Council.

One reason, according to policymakers, is that as young people move out of their parents? homes and start their own households, they will be forced to rent rather than buy, meaning less construction and housing activity. Given housing?s role in building up a family?s wealth, that could have long-lasting consequences.

?I think the ability of newly formed households, which are more likely to have lower incomes or weaker credit scores, to access the mortgage market will make a big difference in the shape of the recovery,? Duke said last month. ?Economic improvement will cause household formation to increase, but if credit is hard to get, these will be rental rather than owner-occupied households.?

Who's against it? The article quotes an American Enterprise wonk, the same folks who brought us the neocon policy that started the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions. Oh, and look - he was an admin at fannie mae before he joined American Enterprise.

Obama pledged in his State of the Union address to do more to make sure more Americans can enjoy the benefits of the housing recovery, but critics say encouraging banks to lend as broadly as the administration hopes will sow the seeds of another housing disaster and endanger taxpayer dollars.

?If that were to come to pass, that would open the floodgates to highly excessive risk and would send us right back on the same path we were just trying to recover from,? said Ed Pinto, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former top executive at mortgage giant Fannie Mae.

you guys need to read real news more, and watch less tv. yeah, like that'll happen.

I don't personally give much of a fuck, I own my house free and clear and don't care wether you dickwads can buy one. It's just pathetic to see a bunch of goobers jabber on, when it's all sour fucking grapes.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by bigluv

Jesus Rochard, I expect more critical thinking from you usually.

First of all creditworthiness and "did nothing wrong" don't belong in the same sentence.

You are way oversimplifying here to the point of irrationality. As someone above pointed out, living on the ragged edge of affordability with little or no savings or assets or diversification and not much employability or willingness to adapt is EXACTLY the definition of non creditworthy.

Just because you think they are nice people you want to start the whole cycle over again? No. Fuck them. They can try harder, retrain, take a lower paying job, and live in a smaller house or rent. There is just NO other option. Nobody can afford to carry the rest of society on our backs no matter how good the economy is/how rich you are /etc.
That is to say - altruism would be great. If we could afford it.

When you remove evolutionary fitness and feedback from a system (which this does) you cripple the systems ability to self correct and begin a process that will end in a death spiral.

The only way to compensate for a system like that is to import value from outside the system to balance out your losses in value and productivity and fitness etc. Short of 100% efficient cheap solar or "free energy" or nuking the rest of the world to plunder their resources there is just no way to do this right now. And of course you would never escape the price indolence and lack of fitness/competition/adaptation would exact.

A hand up to the deserving is not the same as a crutch. This is a crutch.
Encouraging weakness never, ever, ends well.

Now, you wanna talk limiting profiteering, gouging, government fuckery, the whole system of corporations having way too much influence and getting away with too much, sure, let's redefine the system a little.

As far as I know in the history of the world, whenever something is paid for by the government (and this is similar) it gets more expensive to compensate. Quality probably goes down. And more money is concentrated in the hands of the people in charge, not the people it was meant to help.

Standing ovation for this ^^^....





.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by Bill8

As I read the commentary about it, the idea is to increase home lending a controlled amount, not go back to the bush era practices of NINJA and liar loans.

If it was Romney saying this - and he would have, it's the same politics on both sides, and both sides want to see the housing market recover, and not just by investor purchasing which is driving the current small surge - all you guys would be all like YEAH SAVE THE HOUSING MARKET THATS GOOD POLICY.

You're all a pack of whiners - boohoo, obama the hahahahahaha is fucking us again.



you guys need to read real news more, and watch less tv. yeah, like that'll happen.

I don't personally give much of a fuck, I own my house free and clear and don't care wether you dickwads can buy one. It's just pathetic to see a bunch of goobers jabber on, when it's all sour fucking grapes.

First of all, I hardly ever watch TV news, I get my news from many sources. Secondly there were plenty of "experts" telling us that the housing policy under the CRA in the 90s and early 00s was a great idea, and thirdly if you think that the Republicans are any different from the Democrats when it comes to this stuff you are sadly mistaken, both of those parties are just after more control. (I campaigned and voted for Gary Johnson.). Fourthly, I don't have to worry about buying a house, but the whole world will take a big bite of crap if this leads to another bubble and bank bailout.



.

[ThunderBalls]

The banks are able to get money from the Feds (our money) currently anywhere from 0.0 - 0.25% and the banks turn around and resell that money to us for mortgages, etc. Take the banks out of the mortgage picture, have the govt loan our own money back to us at these rates on mortgages and not only would the economy shoot up like a rocket but home ownership would be affordable to a lot more. Of course this would never happen but it shows how the entire system is geared to enrich a few at everyone elses expense.

[bigluv]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Standing ovation for this ^^^....





.

Thanks.

8char

[sperbonzo]

I'm pretty sure that Einstein's definition of insanity applies here...



.

[MrMaxwell]

Agreed.
Obama and Bush BOTH had a hand in this, last time.
Here the fuck we go again, I am sure.

[PornoMonster]

Originally Posted by Bill8

As I read the commentary about it, the idea is to increase home lending a controlled amount, not go back to the bush era practices of NINJA and liar loans.

If it was Romney saying this - and he would have, it's the same politics on both sides, and both sides want to see the housing market recover, and not just by investor purchasing which is driving the current small surge - all you guys would be all like YEAH SAVE THE HOUSING MARKET THATS GOOD POLICY.

You're all a pack of whiners - boohoo, obama the hahahahahaha is fucking us again.

Almost every commentator I have read the past three years said the banks tightened up too much and got too conservative. Some of what I have been reading says the banks are doing it on purpose to extort the government into not hauling the top execs into federal court.

The Washingtonpost's big business guy wrote this about it today:

From 2007 through 2012, new-home purchases fell 30 percent for people with credit scores above 780 (out of 800), according to Federal Reserve Governor Elizabeth Duke. But they declined 90 percent for people with scores between 680 and 620 ? historically a respectable range for a credit score.

?If the only people who can get a loan have near-perfect credit and are putting down 25 percent, you?re leaving out of the market an entire population of creditworthy folks, which constrains demand and slows the recovery,? said Jim Parrott, who until January was the senior adviser on housing for the White House?s National Economic Council.

One reason, according to policymakers, is that as young people move out of their parents? homes and start their own households, they will be forced to rent rather than buy, meaning less construction and housing activity. Given housing?s role in building up a family?s wealth, that could have long-lasting consequences.

?I think the ability of newly formed households, which are more likely to have lower incomes or weaker credit scores, to access the mortgage market will make a big difference in the shape of the recovery,? Duke said last month. ?Economic improvement will cause household formation to increase, but if credit is hard to get, these will be rental rather than owner-occupied households.?

Who's against it? The article quotes an American Enterprise wonk, the same folks who brought us the neocon policy that started the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions. Oh, and look - he was an admin at fannie mae before he joined American Enterprise.

Obama pledged in his State of the Union address to do more to make sure more Americans can enjoy the benefits of the housing recovery, but critics say encouraging banks to lend as broadly as the administration hopes will sow the seeds of another housing disaster and endanger taxpayer dollars.

?If that were to come to pass, that would open the floodgates to highly excessive risk and would send us right back on the same path we were just trying to recover from,? said Ed Pinto, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former top executive at mortgage giant Fannie Mae.

you guys need to read real news more, and watch less tv. yeah, like that'll happen.

I don't personally give much of a fuck, I own my house free and clear and don't care wether you dickwads can buy one. It's just pathetic to see a bunch of goobers jabber on, when it's all sour fucking grapes.

Banks are Not Tight, they are back to NORMAL, but year and years ago.
If they were that tight my realtor friends would be starving.
Think they just released housing sales on the rise again.
I barely see any house for sale signs on my streets anymore.
You just have to have a Big Down Payment and great credit or pay more points.

[atom]

Originally Posted by PornoMonster

Banks are Not Tight, they are back to NORMAL, but year and years ago.
If they were that tight my realtor friends would be starving.
Think they just released housing sales on the rise again.
I barely see any house for sale signs on my streets anymore.
You just have to have a Big Down Payment and great credit or pay more points.

Banks are more tight, the feds have made sure of that. Before everything melted you didn't have to provide shit for docs to back up your earnings. You could just put a figure of $XXX,XXX as income in the box and they would accept it as truth. Now they are required to verify via tax statements.

Realtor's who have stuck in there are making money again because a lot of their competition has been wiped out. They went years with barely being able to keep their head above water and not take a paycheck. One of my friends went almost a year without a sale, got a big commission and said fuck this, I'm going back to school.

Housing stats are on the rise because investment firms are running around and buying the properties up. They are getting houses for pennies on the dollar and handling them off to management firms for rentals.

All the houses in my immediate neighborhood that were either for sale or bank repo'd were all bought up by the same company. There was also a story last week on NBC about some firms in Boston and a few other Cities in the US that were actually squeezing people out of buying homes. They were purchasing site unseen before it could ever go to market and because of this, people who were pre-approved were unable to find a house to purchase.