Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Barney Frank at it againFollow

#1 Jun 24 2009 at 3:17 PM Rating: Default
And this is why the economy is in the state it is;

Quote:
(Reuters) - Two U.S. Democratic lawmakers want Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to relax recently tightened standards for mortgages on new condominiums, saying they could threaten the viability of some developments and slow the housing-market recovery, the Wall Street Journal said.


Yet these same people blame W for the economy. Liberal Democrats are the reason for the housing market being what it is. Liberal Democrats are the reason people who should never be loaned money are. Liberal Democrats are the reason people who pay their mortgages on time will be expected to bail out bad risks. But you liberals feel free to keep blaming your problems on those nasty businessmen.

Pathetic.

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Housing/idUSTRE55L39120090622
#2 Jun 24 2009 at 3:31 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
It's unrestricted capitalism. You should be all for it.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#3 Jun 24 2009 at 3:49 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Liberal Democrats are the reason for... Liberal Democrats are the reason people... Liberal Democrats are the reason people... But you liberals feel free to keep blaming your problems on...

publiusvarus wrote:
Pathetic.
#4 Jun 24 2009 at 4:38 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
This has nothing to do with loaning money who don't deserve loans nor does it have anything to do with the reasons for the housing market collapse.

Did you even read the art--- no, of course not.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Jun 24 2009 at 5:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Debalic wrote:
It's unrestricted capitalism. You should be all for it.


Nothing about Freddie or Fannie is "capitalism". Regulating those two is regulation of government interference in the market, not regulation of the market itself. It's annoying when people get this backwards, usually with the same sort of smug "But if you regulate them, you regulate the market" statement you just made. Or worse, the oft-repeated argument that the housing crisis was caused by a lack of regulation on the market, when it was a lack of regulation on the GSEs that caused the problem.

They are not the same thing. GSEs are extensions of the government into the market. The relationship is reversed when it comes to regulation.


As to the issue itself? I'd need more specific information before I could make any sort of call on this. Without knowing what prompted the changes, I can't say what is motivating the opposition to them.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#6 Jun 25 2009 at 12:12 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Do you really think I'm that naieve? I'm just trying to bait varus; leave me alone.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#7REDACTED, Posted: Jun 25 2009 at 9:35 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) This is exactly what caused the current housing crisis. Govn run Fannie and Freddie RELAXING standards for loaning people money to buy houses. Same thing here except with supposedly just "new condominiums".
#8 Jun 25 2009 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
Quote:
Barney Frank at it again


I totally thought this would be Varrus talking about "******." I'm a little disappointed, honestly.
#9 Jun 25 2009 at 9:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
This is exactly what caused the current housing crisis. Govn run Fannie and Freddie RELAXING standards for loaning people money to buy houses. Same thing here except with supposedly just "new condominiums".
Only in the most general of senses.

World War I started for exactly the same reason as the French-Indian War. Someone shot someone else.

Makes sense, right?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10REDACTED, Posted: Jun 25 2009 at 10:31 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#11 Jun 25 2009 at 10:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
No that's what happened. Have you ever rented to someone who is living just above the poverty line? How about loaning money to a complete stranger who tells you they're unemployeed?
That's not what's being discussed here.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Jun 25 2009 at 11:17 AM Rating: Good
Yeah, um, no. You did not read the article.

The "relaxing of standards" in this case has to do with how many units in a condo housing complex are occupied for Fannie or Freddie to guarantee a loan. It has nothing to do with relaxing the standards for people who can obtain a mortgage, or income requirements, or employment requirements. It has everything to do with trying to allow new condominium complexes to sell units to people who 1. can get approved for a mortgage and 2. want a brand new condo instead of a used one.

#13REDACTED, Posted: Jun 25 2009 at 11:22 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Cat,
#14 Jun 25 2009 at 11:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
If someone can get approved why would they need to relax the standards? I know I just blew your mind.
Because the first 70% of loans wouldn't be approved not because of the person, who could be making a bajillion dollars a year, but because they're in the first 70% of the units.

OMG!!! THAT!!! THAT RIGHT THERE!!! THAT JUST HAPPENED!!!!!

Edited, Jun 25th 2009 2:25pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 Jun 25 2009 at 11:40 AM Rating: Default
Jophed,

Quote:
Because the first 70% of loans wouldn't be approved not because of the person but because they're in the first 70% of the units.


wtf is this supposed to mean?



#16 Jun 25 2009 at 11:52 AM Rating: Good
ITT: Varus fails at high school level reading comprehension.
#17 Jun 25 2009 at 12:46 PM Rating: Decent
publiusvarus wrote:
Have you ever rented to someone who is living just above the poverty line?
How about being someone who's renting and living just above the poverty line? Does that count?
#18 Jun 25 2009 at 2:39 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
wtf is this supposed to mean?


IT MEANS (and I'll spell it out for you in simple words):

People who build condominiums usually sell them before the units are finished, so they will have enough money to finish them and guarantee a return on investment. They don't want to build a bunch of buildings they can't sell later on. Mortgage companies don't want to offer mortgages for buildings that won't get built, either; therefore the builder's bank loans depend on selling a certain number of units so they can afford to complete the work, and units sold after that are sold at a profit.

From the article:

Quote:
In March, Fannie Mae (FNM.N)(FNM.P) said it would no longer guarantee mortgages on condos in buildings where fewer than 70 percent of the units have been sold, up from 51 percent, the paper said. Freddie Mac (FRE.P)(FRE.N) is due to implement similar policies next month, the paper said.


It used to be that Fannie and Freddie would guarantee mortgages in condo units where 50% of the units have been sold. That is, a condo builder would have to sell half the units with standard bank mortgages, and after that Fannie and Freddie qualified buyers could start buying units.

Fannie said they were raising that requirement to 70%, and Freddie followed suit.

Quote:
In addition to the 70 percent sales threshold, Fannie Mae will also not purchase mortgages in buildings where 15 percent of owners are delinquent on condo association dues or where one owner has more than 10 percent of units, as the firm sees these as signals that a building could run into financial trouble, the paper added.


No where does it talk about relaxing the second quoted standard; if builders are stupid enough to sell units to people who might make delinquent mortgages one time, Fannie and Freddie know they'll be stupid enough to do it again. So they won't back mortgages where it's obvious that the units were overpriced for the cost of living in the area (i.e. causing people to get behind on mortgage payments.)

But the 70% units sold rule is scaring away qualified potential buyers from new condo units, at a time when the housing market desperately needs to move real estate. Basically, this is forcing otherwise perfectly qualified people to have to get used condominiums rather than going to new developments for no good reason.

So one again, the standards for the people applying for the mortgage aren't going to change.
#19 Jun 25 2009 at 2:41 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
p.s. It's naive.

So?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 263 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (263)