22 Apr 23
@no1marauder saidOf course they support it, slanthead. It will allow more people to buy more homes. I predict they will mostly all be foreclosed on down the road, they cannot afford them. But Biden will shoehorn them into these homes.
You are confused as always, which is what the right wing propaganda sources want you to be.
The FHA requires those who qualify for their mortgages to purchase mortgage insurance. Reducing the premium on that insurance will have no effect on other mortgages because the " FHA’s mortgage insurance fund has accumulated reserves at a level that is more than five times the r ...[text shortened]... at the National Association of Realtors and Mortgage Bankers Association both support the changes.
I saw all your research above, but it remains, if the low credit people get a 'monetary break' , it has to come from somewhere. Do you understand that it will come from high credit people, their payment of a fee so that the bank can handle these newly found purchasers without going into the red?
Do you understand where it will come from? It has to come from somewhere. You are suffering from the lib belief that things can be free.
The funniest thing in your post...."Assoc of Realtors and Mortgage makers support the changes". Duh.
22 Apr 23
@suzianne saidSuzianne, please read my response to Marauder. Why do the high credit people pay the fee? Do you truly think they are not paying for the low credit people? Tell us where this 'cushion' allowance to the low credit people is coming from. Not the bank, whose number one job is to make money for its stockholders.
Because it's a stupid fricking question!
No, no one is paying for anyone else, jackass.
Why do y'all punish the rich? Some of the low credit people may be employed by the high credit people.
@averagejoe1 saidI already explained this, but you are too brainwashed and stupid to understand that the fund is running a huge surplus so there is no need for other homebuyers to "pay for it".
Of course they support it, slanthead. It will allow more people to buy more homes. I predict they will mostly all be foreclosed on down the road, they cannot afford them. But Biden will shoehorn them into these homes.
I saw all your research above, but it remains, if the low credit people get a 'monetary break' , it has to come from somewhere. Do you understand tha ...[text shortened]... e funniest thing in your post...."Assoc of Realtors and Mortgage makers support the changes". Duh.
That's "somewhere", moron though even at that the fund won't "pay" for it - it will just get less money in the future than it would have gotten if the rate haven't been cut.
EDIT: I should amend that - the fund will get less money per borrower who is eligible, but depending on how many more FHA mortgages get made it could actually increase its total revenue.
22 Apr 23
Try this thought experiment:
Verizon is selling an Android phone for $720 with a payment plan of $30 for 24 months to Group A. It decides to cut the price of the phone to $600 with a payment plan of $25 for 24 months for Group B.
Is Group A being "punished"?
Will their price go up so they can "pay" for Group B?
Let's say that Verizon decides to offer the Group B deal only to certain customers say ones with credit scores under 650 but everyone who buys a new phone is still getting the Group A rate.
Same questions.
22 Apr 23
@no1marauder saidIn plain English, can you explain your first sentence above, in that it talks about a surplus which everybody can glom onto, but I still have this question for you… If that is their purpose and source, to aid homeowners, why is it necessary, I repeat, why is it necessary, for high credit people to pay the 1.50 premium.??
I already explained this, but you are too brainwashed and stupid to understand that the fund is running a huge surplus so there is no need for other homebuyers to "pay for it".
That's "somewhere", moron though even at that the fund won't "pay" for it - it will just get less money in the future than it would have gotten if the rate haven't been cut.
EDIT: I should a ...[text shortened]... but depending on how many more FHA mortgages get made it could actually increase its total revenue.
That payment by the high credit people might be all well and good and have a purpose, but you will notice that they have tied it into this new benefit for low credit people…… so, I am sure that that is the purpose,,, to aid the new lborrowers.
Marauder, you cannot rectify this and you are cofusing our public, Suzy
22 Apr 23
@averagejoe1 saidThere is no extra premium for high credit score borrowers because of this program.
In plain English, can you explain your first sentence above, in that it talks about a surplus which everybody can glom onto, but I still have this question for you… If that is their purpose and source, to aid homeowners, why is it necessary, I repeat, why is it necessary, for high credit people to pay the 1.50 premium.??
That payment by the high credit people might ...[text shortened]... aid the new lborrowers.
Marauder, you cannot rectify this and you are cofusing our public, Suzy
You have been deceived.
22 Apr 23
Maybe what Joe is babbling about is the changes in loan-level price adjustments by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. https://nypost.com/2023/04/16/how-the-us-is-subsidizing-high-risk-homebuyers-at-the-cost-of-those-with-good-credit/
But that program is the exact opposite of what he claims; it charges those with high credit scores and higher down payments a smaller rate. https://singlefamily.fanniemae.com/media/9391/display
True, the proposed changes would somewhat reduce that difference but it would still be lower income and not as good credit score homebuyers subsidizing those with higher incomes and better credit scores and not vice versa.
@no1marauder said"Depending ",,,,and, "could actually"... You do this a lot. The article I posted clearly says that tomorrow, if a rich guy gets a loan, a new program which is meant to help people get into homes requires that he will be surprised at the closing table with 1.5%. He will say 'what is that for?' The bank will say it is to pay into a program, to aid the less fortunate. It is thus paid that day, and the money is collected..........For The Program.
I already explained this, but you are too brainwashed and stupid to understand that the fund is running a huge surplus so there is no need for other homebuyers to "pay for it".
That's "somewhere", moron though even at that the fund won't "pay" for it - it will just get less money in the future than it would have gotten if the rate haven't been cut.
EDIT: I should a ...[text shortened]... but depending on how many more FHA mortgages get made it could actually increase its total revenue.
Marauder is slicing and dicing, going beyond that day, to what MIGHT happen later. Jesus.
Really, Marauder. Forever the contrarian. I don't for a minute think that you don't get it. You just stir it up, and cut into my 11:30 Tee Time!!!
@averagejoe1 saidNo, he won't and no the bank won't say any such thing.
"Depending ",,,,and, "could actually"... You do this a lot. The article I posted clearly says that tomorrow, if a rich guy gets a loan, a new program which is meant to help people get into homes requires that he will be surprised at the closing table with 1.5%. He will say 'what is that for?' The bank will say it is to pay into a program, to aid the less fortunate. It ...[text shortened]... 't for a minute think that you don't get it. You just stir it up, and cut into my 11:30 Tee Time!!!
Though the NY Post article deliberately couches the wording in misleading terms, it still shows that high credit score borrowers will pay a maximum of 1% LLP while low credit score borrowers will be pay a minimum of 1.75% LLP.
So who's paying for who?
@averagejoe1 saidHere's what the Reason article you cited to states:
"Depending ",,,,and, "could actually"... You do this a lot. The article I posted clearly says that tomorrow, if a rich guy gets a loan, a new program which is meant to help people get into homes requires that he will be surprised at the closing table with 1.5%. He will say 'what is that for?' The bank will say it is to pay into a program, to aid the less fortunate. It ...[text shortened]... 't for a minute think that you don't get it. You just stir it up, and cut into my 11:30 Tee Time!!!
"The effective penalty for having a credit score under 680 is now smaller than it was. It still costs more to have a lower score. For instance, if you have a score of 659
and are borrowing 75% of the home's value, you'll pay a fee of 1.5% of the loan balance whereas you'd pay no fee if you had a 780+ credit score."
So who's paying for who by your logic?
22 Apr 23
@no1marauder saidFHA Director : "It is designed to help people with limited income to buy a home." It is designed to.
No, he won't and no the bank won't say any such thing.
Though the NY Post article deliberately couches the wording in misleading terms, it still shows that high credit score borrowers will pay a maximum of 1% LLP while low credit score borrowers will be pay a minimum of 1.75% LLP.
So who's paying for who?
Why does the design include what a high credit borrower is having to pay across the hall? Are you going to tell us that they are not connected. Have you watched the news?
Why can you not speak like we are chatting at Starbucks? The FHA director said that. Is he lying? What in hell, Marauder, is this what you libs mean by that word trolling?
And I don't have to tell you what happened when Bush made borrowing easier, and closing attorneys sat there, closing the deal, knowing these purchasers (with two kids in the office cause they could not afford a babysitter) would be in default within 18 months . They were. My occupation at the time? Let's just say foreclosing.
So, that will happen with this horrible progressive shyte..Will you ever stop this? Ruining our country. You will tell your grandkids, boy that AvJoe knew all along that we would get our way. And you will.
22 Apr 23
@averagejoe1 saidYes, the first program I discussed "is designed to help people with limited income to buy a home."
FHA Director : "It is designed to help people with limited income to buy a home." It is designed to.
Why does the design include what a high credit borrower is having to pay across the hall? Are you going to tell us that they are not connected. Have you watched the news?
Why can you not speak like we are chatting at Starbucks? The FHA director said that. Is he ...[text shortened]... ou will tell your grandkids, boy that AvJoe knew all along that we would get our way. And you will.
No, that program is not at all funded by higher rates on others but by the existing surplus in the fund.
22 Apr 23
@no1marauder saidYou are the top bullshyter on the Forum. The FHA Director said it is a program to help people get a mortgage at a reduced rate. WITHIN THAT PROGRAM, the wealthier have to pay a premium, resulting in the low credit guy getting a discount on HIS premium. Jesus.
Yes, the first program I discussed "is designed to help people with limited income to buy a home."
No, that program is not at all funded by higher rates on others but by the existing surplus in the fund.
That is it, everyone, look it up. I have no idea about Maruauder's smoke.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147482
24 Apr 23
@averagejoe1 saidyou have to keep in mind, this idiot marerider believes a man can become a woman simply by speaking it into existence 😂
You are the top bullshyter on the Forum. The FHA Director said it is a program to help people get a mortgage at a reduced rate. WITHIN THAT PROGRAM, the wealthier have to pay a premium, resulting in the low credit guy getting a discount on HIS premium. Jesus.
That is it, everyone, look it up. I have no idea about Maruauder's smoke.
24 Apr 23
@mott-the-hoople saidWhy does everying boil down to sex and gender for you, Mott?
you have to keep in mind, this idiot marerider believes a man can become a woman simply by speaking it into existence 😂
I mean, I think you do protest too much.