More Mortgage Freebies from Obama ..ie taxpayers !

[INTIMADATOR2007]

http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/20...oyed-expanded/


"The Obama administration will require mortgage companies to extend more generous mortgage relief to help certain unemployed borrowers from losing their homes to foreclosure."




What makes him think he can tell people how to run there bussiness ?

[AUTaxMan]

I guess they haven't learned their lesson yet:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/frontporc...ailed_mis.html

[duane1969]

Brace yourself, I am going to defend this Obama move.

Not all mortgage companies are in the business of keeping people in their homes and the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae thing proved that nothing is gained by mortgage companies owning thousands of empty houses.

Looking at the current housing market there doesn't appear to be many people buying houses right now. Kicking out the current home owners for the house to sit empty accomplishes nothing.

There are a lot worse things that he could do than give people a chance to keep their home.

[Star_Cards]

I would think that a mortgage company would benefit in the long run to keep people in their homes rather than toss them out and the let the homes sit empty and wait months before they are even placed on the market. I get both sides of the story because ideally one should be able to pay for their house every month. The house next to me went into foreclosure and it sat empty for about a year and just recently went on the market. The bank didn't kick the home owners out of this specific house, but I would guess this is standard for any house going through foreclosure. I'm not sure what they are selling the home for but I'd guess there is a loss of some sort that the bank will have when they eventually sell.

If you have an owner that will be a viable payer on their mortgage once they get back on their feet, in the long run the banks may be better off.

[AUTaxMan]

The point is that you are requiring the banks to carry loans on their books that are probably going to default anyway. You are just postponing the banks ability to clearing out the inventory for an additional 8 months (since it's already 4).

Also, I can just see the campaign promises a year from now. Vote for Obama, and we'll extend the mortgage relief for the unemployed. Vote for the republicans, and you'll be kicked out of your house. Maybe that's just my tinfoil hat talking. I certainly hope so.

[duane1969]

The point is that you are requiring the banks to carry loans on their books that are probably going to default anyway. You are just postponing the banks ability to clearing out the inventory for an additional 8 months (since it's already 4).

Also, I can just see the campaign promises a year from now. Vote for Obama, and we'll extend the mortgage relief for the unemployed. Vote for the republicans, and you'll be kicked out of your house. Maybe that's just my tinfoil hat talking. I certainly hope so.

I see your point and it is valid.

However, assuming they take back the houses, who will buy them? The housing market is dead already. Adding another 10,000 or more empty homes to the market won't help. Over-saturation will only serve to drive down real estate prices and all of those former home-owners will now have too bad of credit to buy again, in essence pulling buyers off of the market.

More houses + less buyers will not equal long-term success for the economy or housing market.

Nevermind the impact that an even weaker housing market will have on the construction business.

This is one of those subjects with no easy answer.

[sanfran22]

I agree with Duane on his points that empty houses create a huge problem. However, i don't believe the gov't should be forcing private banks to do anything. If its a govt backed loan, maybe. But otherwise stay out of their business.

[duane1969]

Forcing? No. Giving incentives? Yes.

How about a $2000 kickback for every home loan that is over 180 days past due that they issue a 6 month interest-free extension on?

Or how about a $1000 kickback for every loan that they refinance that is 1 year past due?

There are ways to fix the problem without kicking people out of their homes or forcing banks to do something.

[sanfran22]

Forcing? No. Giving incentives? Yes.

How about a $2000 kickback for every home loan that is over 180 days past due that they issue a 6 month interest-free extension on?

Or how about a $1000 kickback for every loan that they refinance that is 1 year past due?

There are ways to fix the problem without kicking people out of their homes or forcing banks to do something.

I agree with you. That article appears to only deal with govt backed mortgages as well....

[AUTaxMan]

Forcing? No. Giving incentives? Yes.

How about a $2000 kickback for every home loan that is over 180 days past due that they issue a 6 month interest-free extension on?

Or how about a $1000 kickback for every loan that they refinance that is 1 year past due?

There are ways to fix the problem without kicking people out of their homes or forcing banks to do something.

As a taxpayer, I don't want the government paying people's mortgages for them. I have a hard enough time paying my own. That is essentially what would be happening.