On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 01:24:42 -0700, Michael Coburn wrote (in article
Post by Michael Coburn Post by _ Prof. Jonez _ Post by OneTwoThree Post by Reality_CheckÂ© Post by OneTwoThree Post by Reality_CheckÂ© Post by OneTwoThree Post by Reality_CheckÂ© Post by OneTwoThree Post by TigerLuck Post by Reality_CheckÂ© Post by TigerLuck Post by Reality_CheckÂ© Post by TigerLuck
I ran into a painter on the job who said that in his area,
mortgage brokers would deposit $30,000 into the account of
a client for whom they were trying to get a loan. The
otherwise unqualified buyer would have instant good
credit. After the loan was granted, the broker pulled his
Complete BULLSHIT !
Gospel truth, so help me...
Complete BULLSHIT ... not even god can help.
1) Depositing $30,000 doesn't change bad credit into "instant
in fact it doesn't change your credit score at all.
2) Depositing $30,000 doesn't change anyone's DTI ratios from
bad to good 3) Depositing $30,000 *does* raise mortgage
and if being
used towards the purchase of the home, would require a
verified source statement
as to the exact origin of the funds, and a sworn statement
that the funds were
Now take your BULLSHIT back to your "painter" friend and tell
him to EAT IT.
And yet, we are faced with the reality that mortgage brokers
were able to obtain home loans for clients who had no money to
put down, no income and no assets.
using "stated income" and paying a couple more points, which
were tacked into the final loan amout.
Higher costs for higher risks.
Post by OneTwoThree
another trick of the trade was to wrap a couple of years
payments into the loan, so that the buyer could pay the
mortgage while maybe fixing up a little and getting ready to
sell in a year for that now infamous 10-20% "profit"
And MILLIONS of buyers did that successfully.
Post by OneTwoThree
I'm with the other guy - your story may well be an urban myth,
especially as it was not necessary to do such things during the
heat of the RE bubble.
Deadbeats ALWAYS blame other's for their own failures ... it's
the Amerikkkan way !
Post by OneTwoThree Post by TigerLuck
Some mortgage brokers are exclusively lenders of their own
money and provide a direct source of mortgage funding to
clients. This money can be used to secure funds from a third
party. If the deal is done right, the broker can be paid back
from the third party loan.
if they are lending their own money, why would they need to
involve a 3rd party?
Exactly. TigerLuck is full of shit.
Post by OneTwoThree
a LOT of the questionable loans came from third party brokers
who received a commission for finding the client and working
the client through the paperwork process.
And EVERY ONE of those loans required the homeowner/borrower to
declare -- numerous times -- under penalty of perjury and/or
fraud, that *all* the information they submitted is TRUE and
ACCURATE. And no one forced these loser homeowners to borrow the
$$ and spend it in the first place.
Amerikkan greed and ignorance collided with
there is your own bottom line - everything is the fault of
republicans....... forget the dems who fought stricter regulation
of Fannie and Freedie over the years
You mean the Repugnikkkan controlled Congress implementing
"Reaganomics" for over 20 years?
Post by OneTwoThree
,,, forget that there were never any republican repeals of
regulations that would otherwise have prevented this mess in the
folks like you are the ones making the claim that is was
"republican deregulation" that caused the problem.
It was the combination of deregulation and the cheer-leading for more
and more home ownership and housing by the Republican administration
that "caused" the over extended borrowing. That is a plain fact.
I believe you mean "Democrat" cheer leading. Don't you?
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 15, 2002
The National Association of Realtors(R) announced today that it has made
a pledge to the White House to help meet the President's challenge to
increase the number of minority homeowners in America by 5.5 million
before the end of the decade.
The (P)resident made this commitment to increase home ownership at a time
when home ownership was already rising very fast. The initial housing
bubble actually started in 1999/2000 after the 1997 zero capital gains
taxes on residences used for only 2 years, and the slashing of capital
gains taxes from 28% to 20%.
October 15, 2003
President Calls on Senate to Pass American Dream Downpayment Act
Remarks by the President on Housing and the Economy
THE PRESIDENT: Como esta? (Applause.) Me, too. (Laughter.)
But here are some of the things that we intend to do and we discussed
today earlier. Sometimes people have trouble finding the down payment for
a home. It makes them nervous when they hear the down payment. We need to
have a down payment fund to help people with down payments if they
qualify. The Congress -- the House passed my request for $200 million a
year. It's stuck in the Senate. The Senate needs to act. If they're
interested in closing the minority home ownership gap, they need to act
on the down payment fund.
This actually turned out to be a way to induce people who could not
afford the home into buying the home. Yet the Republicans want to blame
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 16, 2003
President Bush Signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003
This administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership
society in America. We want more people owning their own home. It is in
our national interest that more people own their own home. After all, if
you own your own home, you have a vital stake in the future of our
country. And this is a good time for the American homeowner. Today we
received a report that showed that new home construction last month
reached its highest level in nearly 20 years. (Applause.)
This is actually the American Dream _NO_ Downpayment Act and it was
part of the Bush and Republican dream of currency destruction as a way of
destroying the US government and replacing it with a fascist Republican
And here we have the wraparound and the whole enchilada. We have no
downpayment and no taxation on home speculation. This doesn't even count
the mortgage deductability. That interest is 99.9% of the payment on the
home and it is deductible. The untaxed appreciation of the home and the
government subsidy as a break on the interest was actually a way to live
in the house essentially for free. Just sell it at the end of 2 years or
refinance it and you were the smartest kid on the block. You be in the
Mortgage Banking, March, 2004
FANNIE MAE HAS ANNOUNCED A PLEDGE to help 6 million families--including
1.8 million minority families--become first-time homeowners over the next
decade. The pledge boosts the company's commitment to President Bush's
Minority Homeownership Initiative and will help raise the minority
homeownership rate from 50.6 percent currently to 55 percent, with the
ultimate goal of closing the gap between minority homeownership rates and
nonminority homeownership rates.
The Democrats had control of George Bush and his mouth at all times.
Bush was the Democrat's dummy and Fannie Mae was acting completely on its
own in this lowball mortgage scam.
B O T T O M L I N E &&&&&&
The Republicans were in total control of every facet of the Government in
the years 2001 - 2007. The operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are
the responsibility of the people in control in the government and that is
the Republicans and not the Democrats. This argument over more oversight
at Fannie Mea is rather silly in view of the fact that The Office of
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) was able to remove Frank
Raines from his position of CEO and replace him in 2004. And it is
assumed that he was replaced with someone more approved by the Bush
Republicans as that person was able to write off $6B in Fannie
misrepresentations. I got some news for the Republican noise machine nit
pickers. $6B is peanuts and the Republicans took it all over in 2004.
So with the OFHEO able to remove the CEO I am not quite sure why the
current oversight mechanism needs to be adjusted or exactly how Freddie
is accountable for the Bush policies that it tried to follow.
Post by Michael Coburn
I am ever amazed at how some people think they can ascribe emotion in
other people with more accuracy than the people that are supposedly