R.E. lobby pushing to make more sales

But the realtors are still wrong.

If everything they say is true, what happens.... housing prices go down further, making them more affordable.

Not a bad thing to have lower prices and more people putting down 20%.

Riversider and swe don't want poor minorities to be able to afford to buy a house.

Making credit more available is the wrong way to increase the home ownership rate. The right way is through improving incomes. We saw the last time around that giving credit to people with insufficient incomes just creates a future default. Decreasing the demand by those least available to purchase keeps a lid and ironically allows more people to afford a home.

Just think of all those homes that dropped in price by two thirds. They're certainly more affordable now!

RS: I think your description is somewhat simplistic. The default data does not track well with the data on CRA and FHA backed loans. My understanding is that such loans are not more likely to be in default than traditional, less subsidized loans.

However big government subsidies of the housing market (including both those targeted at the less well-off and the government's preposterous battery of other home ownership subsidies that are not dependent on income) do seem to have been a big factor in causing prices to get out of control, far beyond anything that makes economic sense. That, in turn, was probably the single biggest factor in the 2008-ish crash.

To be clear, I agree with your broadly stated policy prescription. (Don't subsidize home ownership specifically. Just focus on making everyone wealthier.) However the "blame the poor" implications of the way you presented it seem to me to be both harsh and inaccurate.

Post87. My understanding of those programs is that effects of low down payment can be mitigated by the right borrower education programs and insisting on Full DOC. I suspect the latter would never be practical on the largest of scales and that various lobbies would speak to the unfairness of full doc citing the usual garbage(e.g. that incomes rise or that some people own their own business etc).

By the way, GNMA loans which are FHA default much more than Fannie & Freddie conventionals.

Just to be fair, GNMA'S can also include VA loans and Rural housing services. But as a total they default much more..

just to be fair?

as in accurate?

you?

since when?

Riversider News: Fairly Unbalanced

> Riversider and swe don't want poor minorities to be able to afford to buy a house.

You are an idiot.

I want home prices to be lower... so EVERYONE can more easily afford.

Your idiotic Barney Frank model totally screwed tons of minorities. Shame on you!

"If allowed to take effect, the rule would put home ownership out of reach for middle-income Americans." - there are no more middle-income Americans.

Fuck that! 20% downpayment or no mortgage! It's that simple!
In facts, markets auto regulate themselves, and home price would drop to reach middle income earners!
After ripping it off on a massive scale, that's where banks realize that they do need the Middle Class after all! The top 1% earners isn't enough to get the economy goin'!

Double fk that. 100% equity purchases.

In order to make the 'mkt' fair, on rentals an offer from a LL for renewal must be offered to the current renter, and must live with that offer for 3 months. I.e. Cannot lower that rent. Thereby giving the LL an incentive to price it correctly to begin with.

"If allowed to take effect, the rule would put home ownership out of reach for middle-income Americans." - there are no more middle-income Americans.

Maybe policies that deal with the earnings of the middle class would be a better place to start. Getting rid of down payments means having to come up with 5 times what one could not before purchasing the home. Add interest cost on top of that and the buyer is hosed.

Riversider, you just described the real estate market in Harlem and the hundreds of thousands of "Harlems" across the US before government forced banks to lend in those areas. Redline much?

"If allowed to take effect, the rule would put home ownership out of reach for middle-income Americans." - there are no more middle-income Americans.

Here's what's really stupid about this statement and how it defies common sense. If the loans were that good simple competition would have the private market bidding and competing for these loans instead of seeing them go the gov't route. The truth is at at the mortgage rates do not cover the risk. This is why the typical suspects want the tax payer to bear the risk.

Riversider, you just described the real estate market in Harlem and the hundreds of thousands of "Harlems" across the US before government forced banks to lend in those areas. Redline much?

There's a huge difference between the government enforcing anti-discrimination laws and forcing an imprudent loan. Hartman playing the race card?