20 Year Old Buys House with 3.5% Down with Toxic Mortgage Subsidized by Taxpayers
Started by The_President
about 16 years ago
Posts: 2412
Member since: Jun 2009
Discussion about
I feel left out. When I was 20, I barely had enough money for a used clunker. And here is this 20 year old buying a house. 20 Year Old Buys Home With $183,000 FHA Loan And Just 3.5% Down Denise Tejada bought a house last month at the age of 20, thanks in large part to a loan guaranteed by the Federal Housing Authority. Without question, Tejada's loan is toxic--to her and to the taxpayers who are... [more]
I feel left out. When I was 20, I barely had enough money for a used clunker. And here is this 20 year old buying a house.
20 Year Old Buys Home With $183,000 FHA Loan And Just 3.5% Down
Denise Tejada bought a house last month at the age of 20, thanks in large part to a loan guaranteed by the Federal Housing Authority.
Without question, Tejada's loan is toxic--to her and to the taxpayers who are backing the loan. Her house cost $155,000. Tejada's loan was apparently made on a micro-down payment of just 3.5%, the minimum down payment to qualify for an FHA loan. On top of this, however, she got an additional government backed loan to make improvements. Her total loans amount to $183,0000. In short, she was immediately underwater on her new house.
---------------------------------------
Let me repeast the last sentence, because I find it shocking:
**In short, she was immediately underwater on her new house.**
The monthly payments on her debt amount to $1328. Her income is $2470, leaving her with just $285 a week to live on. She's paying 54% of her income to make the mortgage payments. She earns that income by holding down one full time and two part time jobs. Obviously, this woman has a strong work ethic. But it also means her income is precarious. With unemployment still rising, she obviously should be worried about losing one of her three jobs. A loss of one of them would likely leave her unable to make the debt payments.
-----------------
Let me repeat the 2nd sentnece, because I also find it shocking:
***Her income is $2470, leaving her with just $285 a week to live on.***
And finally, I love this gem:
"I bought my house for $155,000. And now, after all the fixing, after all the remodeling, my house is worth $255,000. So just within a month period, I made a $100,000," she tells Market Place's Scott Jagow.
Sure you did...
http://www.businessinsider.com/20-year-old-buys-home-with-183000-fha-loan-and-just-35-down-2009-10[less]
Response by The_President
about 16 years ago
Posts: 2412
Member since: Jun 2009
When she defaults, I'm not covering her loss. Let's just send her away to a rental in one of those flying saucer balloon thingies.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Riversider
about 16 years ago
Posts: 13572
Member since: Apr 2009
Tejada sees her house as an investment rather than a home. And she is planning on buying more homes
Is she being encouraged to go to college or trade school? This is just absurd.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by notadmin
about 16 years ago
Posts: 3835
Member since: Jul 2008
"When she defaults, I'm not covering her loss. "
it's the clear trade off. if the average tax payer wants home prices to remain inflated, tax dollars will go either to subsidize the purchase of 1st time buyers or covering losses when they default. it would be better to let the mkt work by letting home prices overshoot downwards...
when you were 20 homes were practically given away for free with respect to today's prices. the big issue is that most of USA middle class (even the "affluent" one) had saved nothing... in average 75% of their net worth is their house which price went up thanks to lower cost of credit and lax lending standards. take that credit away and home prices come back to normal (ie, what people were paying in the 70s and 80s). i'm 100% for this, but ask baby boomers without retirement saying (just a few hundred thousands) how do they feel about doing this?
but kicking the can is one of gov's favorite pastime.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by notadmin
about 16 years ago
Posts: 3835
Member since: Jul 2008
the young are the ones being hurt by credit-fueled inflated prices. that's the evil, not that they finally realize how to play the game. the game was set up to f*ck them. it's great they can get around it imho.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by notadmin
about 16 years ago
Posts: 3835
Member since: Jul 2008
the young are the ones being hurt by credit-fueled inflated prices. that's the evil, not that they finally realize how to play the game. the game was set up to f*ck them. it's great they can get around it imho.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Riversider
about 16 years ago
Posts: 13572
Member since: Apr 2009
But admin, this really looks like a default waiting to happen. so the game she's playing is not one she'll win.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by notadmin
about 16 years ago
Posts: 3835
Member since: Jul 2008
if she FC she will be living rent free for a while in the house and after all is said and done, she will be able to buy again within 3 to 5 years.
at this point, reinflating the RE bubble means making anybody left a homeowner. how many qualified 1st time homebuyers that are not willing to walk away if it doesn't "work" are out there? not many!
imho the renters on the sidelines left are those that demand much lower house prices to get in. hence, they are not "useful" policy wise. the only ones left are those barely entering the labor force, 20 to 25 years old. super risky lending (non existent work history, no downpayment, very short credit history, ...), but that's what the majority is asking in a democracy... so they get what they want. the majority imho is asking for home prices to have a low floor even though they remain high with respect to incomes.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by NYCROBOT
about 16 years ago
Posts: 198
Member since: Apr 2009
I just vomited when I read this post. How utterly outrageous that the government is allowing this uneducated idiot to do this!!! There is a >90% chance in my mind that she will default at some point and need to go to foreclosure.
This is truly tragic. Obama obviously has the data on the Depression that would ensure if housing prices flopped back to historical levels too quickly. Trillions would be wiped out from baby boomers net worth and we would certainly be in a depression. Instead, the government is trying to keep prices up at ridiculous levels so that people don't take such a big hit on their homes when they try to sell them in order to move into their retirement communities in Florida. This is truly a generational clusterfuck.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by notadmin
about 16 years ago
Posts: 3835
Member since: Jul 2008
unfortunately that's how i see it. so the only ones taking the plunge in still very expensive MSA are those not good in math or/and those willing to walk away if it doesn't work (besides investors/flippers that are almost always ready to walk away).
the responsible that's not math challenged is left behind, victim of the need to keep home prices inflated. at least i would love society to recognize openly that the young responsible demographic is being sacrificed to achieve the "lets reinflate most people's net worth" goal.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Riversider
about 16 years ago
Posts: 13572
Member since: Apr 2009
The rich get things because they of their donations to politicians, the poor because of the votes they deliver that are exchanged for entitlements. It's the middle class that gets screwed.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by notadmin
about 16 years ago
Posts: 3835
Member since: Jul 2008
"It's the middle class that gets screwed."
wait a second, isn't it the middle class the one hoping for home prices to stay high to the detriment of the young? they feel entitled to own an over valued money pitt to make up for the lack of real savings. or did i miss something...
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Riversider
about 16 years ago
Posts: 13572
Member since: Apr 2009
no, good point, 90% of the country is screwing the 10% who act responsibly.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by urbandigs
about 16 years ago
Posts: 3629
Member since: Jan 2006
ahh, i see we have learned from our prior errant ways
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Riversider
about 16 years ago
Posts: 13572
Member since: Apr 2009
It's just plainfully clear, that government and the fed is the single biggest source of boom and bust and for a variety of reasons cause the opposite of what one would call Stability. What have we had like 8 major blow-ups since the late 1980's.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by notadmin
about 16 years ago
Posts: 3835
Member since: Jul 2008
i don't see a stop to that boom/busts provided by the FED/treasury in the future. actually, i' pretty sure one could make a living by following those cycles. more paper shufflers are not what the world needs, but it might still pay better than working hard "making a difference".
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by falcogold1
about 16 years ago
Posts: 4159
Member since: Sep 2008
AYHIIIIICHIWHAAWHAA!!!!
Where will me and my little dog live?
Now that the place is all fixed up I think I'm rich!
What do you say we all suck it up and, anti-up for an educational system that works.
Pay now or pay latter.
It's really not a bad plan if you don't need food or transportation or utilities or health care or plan on any socialization. Then again, a cute little chacita like this won't have to pay for too many meals or drinks from her own pocket. To be young and beautiful...the world is your taco.
When she defaults, I'm not covering her loss. Let's just send her away to a rental in one of those flying saucer balloon thingies.
Tejada sees her house as an investment rather than a home. And she is planning on buying more homes
Is she being encouraged to go to college or trade school? This is just absurd.
"When she defaults, I'm not covering her loss. "
it's the clear trade off. if the average tax payer wants home prices to remain inflated, tax dollars will go either to subsidize the purchase of 1st time buyers or covering losses when they default. it would be better to let the mkt work by letting home prices overshoot downwards...
when you were 20 homes were practically given away for free with respect to today's prices. the big issue is that most of USA middle class (even the "affluent" one) had saved nothing... in average 75% of their net worth is their house which price went up thanks to lower cost of credit and lax lending standards. take that credit away and home prices come back to normal (ie, what people were paying in the 70s and 80s). i'm 100% for this, but ask baby boomers without retirement saying (just a few hundred thousands) how do they feel about doing this?
but kicking the can is one of gov's favorite pastime.
the young are the ones being hurt by credit-fueled inflated prices. that's the evil, not that they finally realize how to play the game. the game was set up to f*ck them. it's great they can get around it imho.
the young are the ones being hurt by credit-fueled inflated prices. that's the evil, not that they finally realize how to play the game. the game was set up to f*ck them. it's great they can get around it imho.
But admin, this really looks like a default waiting to happen. so the game she's playing is not one she'll win.
if she FC she will be living rent free for a while in the house and after all is said and done, she will be able to buy again within 3 to 5 years.
at this point, reinflating the RE bubble means making anybody left a homeowner. how many qualified 1st time homebuyers that are not willing to walk away if it doesn't "work" are out there? not many!
imho the renters on the sidelines left are those that demand much lower house prices to get in. hence, they are not "useful" policy wise. the only ones left are those barely entering the labor force, 20 to 25 years old. super risky lending (non existent work history, no downpayment, very short credit history, ...), but that's what the majority is asking in a democracy... so they get what they want. the majority imho is asking for home prices to have a low floor even though they remain high with respect to incomes.
I just vomited when I read this post. How utterly outrageous that the government is allowing this uneducated idiot to do this!!! There is a >90% chance in my mind that she will default at some point and need to go to foreclosure.
This is truly tragic. Obama obviously has the data on the Depression that would ensure if housing prices flopped back to historical levels too quickly. Trillions would be wiped out from baby boomers net worth and we would certainly be in a depression. Instead, the government is trying to keep prices up at ridiculous levels so that people don't take such a big hit on their homes when they try to sell them in order to move into their retirement communities in Florida. This is truly a generational clusterfuck.
unfortunately that's how i see it. so the only ones taking the plunge in still very expensive MSA are those not good in math or/and those willing to walk away if it doesn't work (besides investors/flippers that are almost always ready to walk away).
the responsible that's not math challenged is left behind, victim of the need to keep home prices inflated. at least i would love society to recognize openly that the young responsible demographic is being sacrificed to achieve the "lets reinflate most people's net worth" goal.
The rich get things because they of their donations to politicians, the poor because of the votes they deliver that are exchanged for entitlements. It's the middle class that gets screwed.
"It's the middle class that gets screwed."
wait a second, isn't it the middle class the one hoping for home prices to stay high to the detriment of the young? they feel entitled to own an over valued money pitt to make up for the lack of real savings. or did i miss something...
no, good point, 90% of the country is screwing the 10% who act responsibly.
ahh, i see we have learned from our prior errant ways
It's just plainfully clear, that government and the fed is the single biggest source of boom and bust and for a variety of reasons cause the opposite of what one would call Stability. What have we had like 8 major blow-ups since the late 1980's.
i don't see a stop to that boom/busts provided by the FED/treasury in the future. actually, i' pretty sure one could make a living by following those cycles. more paper shufflers are not what the world needs, but it might still pay better than working hard "making a difference".
AYHIIIIICHIWHAAWHAA!!!!
Where will me and my little dog live?
Now that the place is all fixed up I think I'm rich!
What do you say we all suck it up and, anti-up for an educational system that works.
Pay now or pay latter.
It's really not a bad plan if you don't need food or transportation or utilities or health care or plan on any socialization. Then again, a cute little chacita like this won't have to pay for too many meals or drinks from her own pocket. To be young and beautiful...the world is your taco.