MND NewsWire - All Comments

re: Freddie Mac Green Lights Fed Tapering

Mark Adams — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:54:34 GMT

Well, that may be true but for those needing help in existing homes the higher rates are killing the dream of personal economic recovery. the HARP program helped many, but so many more are locked out. http://www.harploanhelpdesk.com had some good Q&As and you can connect to a live HARP specialist before rates end the refinance era.

re: Freddie Mac Green Lights Fed Tapering

Bryan/Mortgage Finance Group, Inc. — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:43:14 GMT

The economy may well endure QE3 tapering, but probably won't be able to endure Freddie Mac, FNMA, FHA, etc. etc.

re: Shipping Container Houses Are Coming

Jennifer Cuba — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:48:30 GMT

& who will finance this project with no comps? Please let me know!

re: Fed Raises Eminent Domain Issue - A Curious Choice

Alessandro Machi — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 00:04:35 GMT

Come on jpjcollins, Chase bank gave out bonuses 7 times as large for variable mortgage rate loans, even when the buyer qualified for a fixed rate loan.

re: Fed Raises Eminent Domain Issue - A Curious Choice

jpjcollins54 — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 21:55:49 GMT

At some point a borrower must be accountable for their financial decsions and actions. Having no understanding of what you're signing up for is not a defense. Asking Banks to eat losses is a zero sum gain where all are asked to pay for the negligence of the few

re: Fed Raises Eminent Domain Issue - A Curious Choice

Anthony Skiers — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 01:12:28 GMT

At last a reasonable and legally acceptable way to help the underwater homeowners now being held captive by the "unscrupulous lenders and secondary CDO partners from Wall Street " who actually created the prior real estate price buble. These re-written underwater private mortgages today will allow these homeowners to both enhance the general economy by enhancing purchasing power as well as allowing them to become near future seller's and buyer's. It's been a long time coming; let's get started!

re: Fed Raises Eminent Domain Issue - A Curious Choice

Barb Lanis — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 00:43:00 GMT

Typical Academia.edu Lot's of sky high thoughts, no real world solutions. Bring on more papers!

re: Immigration Reform Suggests $500 bln Housing Boom

Matthew Graham — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 23:59:30 GMT

Candace Jo, don't kill the messenger. 'The Media' here doesn't have a collective opinion on the topic (though my own personal assessment might be less than objective). We're just letting you know what the NAHREP and CAP said. Incidentally, if you read the CAP pieces linked at the top of this article, they're essentially suggesting that the secondary mortgage market of the future must cater to riskier borrowers. I'm surprised that's not an even hotter topic than this one (or maybe I'm not...)

re: Immigration Reform Suggests $500 bln Housing Boom

AJ Fathers — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:41:10 GMT

This logic is kind of stupid...!!! If they really want the housing market (and rest of the economy) to rise, the Gov should actually fix the GC process for the already legal workers here on H1B who have an avg income of $100,000 and still not buying houses or any major investment only due the fear of working visa status. Making these poor/uneducated/illegal Hispanic people legal permanent residents won't help for US economy, isn't it a common sense?

re: Immigration Reform Suggests $500 bln Housing Boom

Candace Jo Cagle — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:20:47 GMT

This is such a travesty! Someone my believe this article. Media gone ?MAD!

re: Immigration Reform Suggests $500 bln Housing Boom

Ken Oland — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:11:22 GMT

Increased fees to real estate industry professionals is certainly possible as well as some rehab purchases made at Home Depot etc. To suggest a housing boom though would seem to be ignoring the basic economic principle (i.e. no net change in housing need without additional immigrants coming to US as a result of the change in policy which the article does not suggest) of supply and demand. The decreased rental rates and thus decreased value of rental units if this transition were to occur seems to be ignored in this analysis. No net change in number of households doesn't make a boom. It can make a temporary change as people move from one to the other or it can make a bubble as people speculate but that's about it.

re: Credit Access For Less Secure Borrowers Central to Housing Finance Reform

Ben Mabile — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 00:50:32 GMT

Jana, I could not agree more with your statement. I was a broker from 2001-2010, and throughout that time I never originated one loan with with a PPP extending past the start rate; however, I encounter many, many borrowers who had these types of loans who were trying to refinance out of them. Most of the borrowers told me they either didn't shop around for the mortgage, or at the time they were only concerned with getting the equity out of the property. Either way, it points to financial literacy and a lack of financial responsibility.

re: Immigration Reform Suggests $500 bln Housing Boom

Bryan/Mortgage Finance Group, Inc. — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 23:31:44 GMT

Well, if you believe this then I've got a bridge to nowhere to sell you - but good luck getting financing.

re: Credit Access For Less Secure Borrowers Central to Housing Finance Reform

Jana Holmstrup — Sun, 09 Jun 2013 19:12:11 GMT

This is the only statement I agree with here: "The study attributed this success not so much to the borrowers but to the mortgage product itself. The lenders helped these nontraditional borrowers buy homes they could afford with mortgages they could manage. These success stories exist throughout the country." There are plenty of sustainable products available for Worthy borrowers and in Rural areas we have 100% USDA financing for Worthy borrowers. DPA programs are available for low-income Worthy borrowers. Financing is available and credit is not as tight as the Government would have you believe. Please don't suggest the politicians again get involved with telling us who should qualify for a mortgage. IMO that's what started the irrationality of the last cycle (bubble). During that cycle we saw just about everybody become a "loan officer", your gardener, your bartender, you name it. Many opened their own broker shops and couldn't spell FHA. They didn't have prime loans available to them. Their language was restricted to 2/28 with 3-year prepay. Unfortunately, that's all they knew and that's what they sold. Even more unfortunate, they were allowed to sell Option ARMs that they could neither understand nor explain. I know this because I thoroughly "tested" one of the telemarketers that called my sister back in 2006. The problem was Financial Literacy and a Borrower's failure to shop around. I have an 800 credit score, and if I had applied at one of these broker shops for a loan, I'm sure I would have qualified for their 2/28 with a 3-yr prepay.... They were under no obligation to tell the Borrower that they should go check out XYZ Lender for a Prime loan. There were plenty of choices beyond subprime lending back then... they just didn't look for it. I also dislike the description of MI tax deduction as a 'government housing program' for high-incomes. This is a taxation issue not a housing program. Please compare the Earned Income CREDIT vs. the MI deduction and AMT rules. In fact, it seems with the EIC low-incomes could have their 10% "saved" in two years vs. the 25-30 yr charts above.

re: Payrolls Report Changes Nothing About Fed's Next Move

Matthew Graham — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 00:29:14 GMT

Hey Frank. I know you're making your own separate point, and not necessarily taking exception to mine, additionally, readers should know that we're friends and I'm not trying to cut your points down in any way--simply jumping in to clarify my original points, using your reaction as an outline. Either way, we're both frustrated! Anyway... "Transcending" the flavors of the month isn't hard thing to accomplish between the open and the close wheras maintaining that transcendence through the close is more challenging. If the floor on the range in 10yr yields had been 2.07, it seems significant that the intraday break lower ended up inching back to 2.073 by the close. That alone doesn't render yesterday "meaningless," though. It could be meaningful in other ways, but the "yesterday meant nothing" post was written with loan officers and consumers in mind, in the hopes that they'd not abandon their defensive stances just because of the really excellent head-fake. On the topic of whisper numbers, I know the "fear number" in mortgage markets was 'over 200k,' but whisper numbers were running around 130k behind the scenes. Our informal poll this morning had it around 140k. I saw yesterday as being an all-kinds-of-dangerous situation in that i did not want bond markets going into NFP as an "overdog," yet by starting the day at the very low end of the recent range in Treasuries, that's exactly what happened, and I think we paid an over-steep price for it due to yesterday's set-up. On a final note, regarding "rationalizing lower," you won't hear me disagree that the economic "recovery" isn't much of a recovery at all. But specifically on the 175k topic, be sure to note the Chicago Fed's research yesterday saying 80k is all it takes to chip away at unemployment and that the most vociferous proponent of the 200k benchmark is the president of the Chicago Fed. It's a safe bet that tapering will occur to whatever extent markets allow themselves to "be tapered upon." Ultimately, I said today ended up meaning nothing as well, because it didn't clearly suggest an adjustment to the Fed's decision-making process on June 18-19. If it had done so, we'd either be under 2.07 or over 2.22, but not right back in the same old range.