puterbac wrote:>>>It was me that insisted upon the 20% down in cash, and NO it most certainly is not fine if you have less than that, (not as far as I'm concerned.) If you don't have enough cash for 20% down, buy a smaller/cheaper home, save another six-months/year/whatever, or (if you are functionally incapable of saving cash) then you are too incompatant to be homeowner. Rent for the rest of your life. You are not entitled to a home mortgage.<<<
WTF ever said anyone was entitled to a mortgage?
Congress mostly. But that is the entire "concept" of 5% down, the thought being
that ordinary people aren't responsible enough to save 20% in cash. If you look at the entire history of home mortgages, there isn't a very long one with the 5% down (or less) mindset.
You need to UNLEARN that which you have learned about 5% down. Either that, or you need to LEARN from what really happened in 2008. We made history here puter.
puterbac wrote:>>>It was the people who put just 5% down (or less) that got us into this mess. And why? Because they didn't have any real skin in the game. It is against the principle of human nature to continue paying for an asset that you can walk away from if it is worth so much less than what you owe on it, IF you haven't really invested any real money in it. I don't give a fuck what your credit rating is. I know more than just a few people who willfully allowed their 750+ credit ratings to be utterly obliterated simply because they couldn't flip their house.<<<
>>>I'm quite sure you pulled this 80-15-5 shit off before the 2008 financial crisis. Good luck getting that situation today. The fact that your lender allowed you to take a second loan on your house for 15% of its value (just so you could avoid that infernal mortgage insurance) makes them fools. You don't have enough skin in the game. At anytime, you could welch, and the two banks would either have to write off your debt, go after your other assets, or try and collect on their AIG insurance policies. If I am a bank President, I would NEVER allow you to do this, never. I'm going to want to see all the cash in your bank account to cover 20% of the purchase price before I move on any home loan. There is too much risk, otherwise.
Really? So my 80-15-5 in 2002 is what got us into this mess? The mortgage that has never been late or missed a payment caused the mess? This is the kind of stupid zero-tolerance, one size fits all, that I was talking about and its just fucking dumb.
Its not fucking dumb. What is dumb is your inability to understand that even the people with the best of credit (getting similar mortgages like
what you got) still welched and fucked us all.... yes they did.
We almost had another Great Depression brought on by a mere 5% default rate on every home and commercial mortgage in this country. Our lending institutions can handle 1% to 2% in defaults provided they have proper insurance on all the risk. With the Savings and Loan crisis, we were up near 3% to 3.5% defaults and that was a fucking disaster, ended the entire S&L industry and cost every tax payer in this country $4000+ each. Ask anyone who worked for the FDIC in 1990 and they will tell you some horror stories, but even that wasn't anywhere CLOSE to what we just had. Hank Paulson had to cut AIG an $85,000,000,000 check for them to start making good on all those insurance claims to keep banks in our country, open.
And your cavalier attitude is just... well, because YOU can manage to pay your bills with 5% we need to keep it that way. No we don't puter. And don't give me any of this "...well look at our financials, we were a good credit risk..." horseshit, because you aren't the only person with great credit history.
puterbac wrote:So in your response, for some reason, you assumed I bought a house to flip it, bought a house that I couldn't afford, and you assume we somehow cheated to buy our house? How about fuck you?
How about, you are jumping to conclusions and you need to stop acting like an emotional woman and act like an objective man?
I never said that I thought YOU were going to flip your house. I just knew too many people who were trying to do that (and if you asked them before they signed on the dotted line, very few would have admitted their house-flipping-motives to the lenders.) That said, I don't want ANYONE getting a home loan if all they can put is 5% down. You puter, just cheated by finding a way to finagle the numbers to avoid paying Mortgage Insurance. That is all you did. And shame on the primary lender for letting you abuse them like that. Your 80-15-5 scenario (that you got in 2002, long before the shit hit the fan), you and I will not see those scenarios anymore because just enough people welched on their homes.
puterbac wrote:All the stupid shit you just assumed applied to me is the kind of stuff that a lender should take into account and that changes the sliding scale. If any of the dumb shit you assumed is true, the down payment should be higher or the credit rating needs to be even better or both. In your eyes a 500 score with 20% down is a better risk than 750 with 5% which is retarded.
It isn't stupid or retarded. What is retarded is your inability to see that when people must part with REAL money (instead of a damn credit rating) they are less likely to walk away from which they are accountable. Your person with the 500 score and 20% down (
and that is not going to happen in your fictitious, bullshit scenario, since a person with a 500 score is functionally incapable of doing anything other than living check-to-check) actually antied up
real money while all YOU DID is anty up your reputation. That isn't enough for me. And that shouldn't be enough for you. I don't give a fuck how credit worthy you think you are.
Do you even have any idea how we got ourselves in this mess? Do you? Did you do any research at all before you starting typing your inane screed? Or did you just start typing because I hurt your feelings/made you feel like shit? It was the people walking away from their houses that turned the mortgages into "toxic assets." Those "toxic assets" were created out of a number of different mortgage formulas of varying degrees of fixed and floating interest rates with any number of years on the mortgage term. Some of them were even interest only mortgages! (
...and we wont see those again either....)
Okay, so all these "toxic assets" what did they share? What was common among them? It wasn't the credit rating, the weren't all 500s puter. It wasn't the interest rate. It wasn't the term on the mortgage. No.
What was common among all these "toxic assets" was that the person who defaulted put 5% or less down on their mortgage.
And just a 5% default rate on these 5% mortgage products almost ended our entire financial system. And jamokes LIKE YOU seem to think this is OKAY just because YOU can make your payments.
Let me clue you in on something,
your lender can not tell your motives or your character from your assets or your three credit scores. Got it? What matters is real commitment. Its just like your 19 year old pregnant daughter telling you to put down the shotgun because her 24 year old boyfriend loves her and wants to be with her forever, even though he wont marry her yet. Talk is cheap. Requiring that 20% be put down in cash on any mortgage transaction, shows real commitment. There is NO BS there, money talks, bullshit walks. It also protects the bank better (with no need for insurance on your risk) as even a 20% reduction in home price that you default on, means the bank wont lose a penny.
puterbac wrote:*This was not a second house it was first house for long term dwelling and not something to flip.
*Our personal debt was a car and maybe 7k in student loans with no credit card debt. Hell I haven't carried ANY kind of balance on a credit card in 14 years.
*The payment to income ratio was about 10%, so it was a house that we could afford on my salary alone. That this thing called planning.
*It was less than a 150k house and not 500k btw.
*And last I checked my score was 830 so fuck your 750 example.
I'm sorry someone obviously fucked up yours or a family members retirement plans, but it wasn't me or my bogeyman 80-15-5.
And hell a year later in 2003 we refied to a straight up 30 year that was a percent less and paid $55 in PMI until it came off a year or so ago and it would have been off far sooner if I had someone come out to do an appraisal. As it is we are around 40% in equity today.
A one size fits all policy is straight up dumb.
I don't care what your personal situation is. If we have learned one thing about 2008 (if we haven't learned a thing) it is that 5% simply isn't enough. Are you going to sit there and tell me that people with an 830 credit score didn't walk away from houses in 2008? Because I assure you, they did, but ONLY if they put 5% or less, down....
