Big Orange Junky wrote:There's not too much risk if the person has demonstrated years of responsibility and has the credit score to prove it.
I disagree
ENTIRELY.
How many people do you know (personally) with great credit who (of their own free will) allowed their homes to go into foreclosure? You might not have known any, but I knew of 3 people in my own IT department who did this very thing.
And why?
Greed. They wanted to flip their houses and when they couldn't, they just couldn't stomach being so upside down on their assets. When you are looking at something that is $200,000 upside down, the desire to preserve that 750 credit rating is of almost
no value if you have NO real financial investment in the asset you are paying off....
Big Orange Junky wrote:There's not too much risk depending on the situation such as the old Physician Loans that had an almost zero default rate even though they were 100% loans (because they were specialty loans to allow residents, who make nothing, to move into a home in their price range at their new practice location).
Every situation is different and each individual should be looked at.
That's the problem though, they gubment was mandating that for everyone with great credit that could afford the home the banks had to lend to someone that was on gubmen assistance with a poor credit score on a house they couldn't pay for.
I don't know anything about these "
old Physician Loans." The fact that you had to add that adjective "
old" to describe them, makes me think that that these 100% loans could not be gotten with today's financial realities. So I'm not going to comment on them.
The other issue you mentioned (government mandates for people on government assistance with poor credit scores getting approved for loans) I think that is more the Community-Reinvestment-Act. The original principle behind this was to prevent banks from redlining.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
Banks redlined, because they didn't have as much credit information in the 1950s, 60s, and even the 70s as they do today. It was much easier for a lender to say "
...hey, that loan application is for a building in a predominantly black neighborhood. Black people can't be trusted with a home loan, so in this area, we will have to charge a higher interst rate or maybe, not even offer a loan because we don't think they will ever make a payment..." It was racially motivated based on the belief that certain people are just too risky. So Congress passed a law, the Community Reinvestment Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
They couldn't really tell a private bank that they HAD to lend in these areas (per se) but they COULD say that if they DIDN'T make loans in previously redlined areas, that the bank could not "
expand" (add branches/merge with other banks). That was the punishment for assuming the worst in people based on where they want to invest to live and work. As far as I know, that is still the punishment. Some lenders willingly accept this punishment since they may have no interest in expanding.
Here is what has been done recently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_ ... anges_2007
The Obama Administration started cracking down on lenders that refused to do business in predominantly black communities. He did that the first few days of his administration. The fact that so many of the loans that were in default (and so many of the houses in foreclosure) were the result of loans that came into being
specifically because of the Community Reinvestment Act, was not an issue that was allowed to impact current legislation. To me, this is yet another reason why I feel that Congress never really wanted to fully fix the 2008 Financial Crisis because politics and responsibility were more important to our Congressmen, than reality.
Feminism: Eve eats ALL the apples, gives God the middle finder when He confronts her, and has the serpent serve Adam with an injunction ordering him to both stay away from her AND to provide her food and shelter because he dragged her out of the Garden.