« prev   random   next »

0
1

Please support HARP 3 to refinance ALL mortgages

By AJ212 following x   2012 Jul 31, 3:12am 8,798 views   24 comments   watch   nsfw   quote     share    


http://www.whitehouse.gov/refi

Just like HARP 2, refinance with low credit scores, no appraisals and no proof of job.
The only problem for me and 30millions americans is that my loan isn't owned by Freddie orFanny.

HARP 3 would allow all homeowners to refi and benefit from lower rates (I could be saving $450/month at today's rates). How much could you save?

Go to the link and support HARP 3 by entering your name and email.
Thanks.

#housing

1   PockyClipsNow   ignore (0)   2012 Jul 31, 3:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Were getting closer and closer to a 'everyone just rents from the government' society. Government providing all mortgages (cheaply!) is the first step I guess. Or the last one...

2   PockyClipsNow   ignore (0)   2012 Jul 31, 8:39am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Yeah the people in California/NY or anyone with a big expensive home really make out when they can get a loan by lying, then HELOC 1m, then declare BK.

Right after the sheriff kicks them out after the 4th year of squatting for free in Newport Beach, CA - they move to Skokie, IL and have TONS OF CASH (fleeced from one or more large 729k mortgages) where they run up the prices of local homes.

3   Peter P   ignore (0)   2012 Jul 31, 8:52am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Moral hazard!

4   StillLooking   ignore (0)   2012 Jul 31, 9:25am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

PockyClipsNow,

Skokie IL ain't cheap by any stretch. And why is the government underwriting loans? Do you think a government beauracrat is worried about saving tax dollars.

I would like to buy something but what if the government is forced to quit handing trillions of dollars over to the housing market to keep prices out of wack? One could lose a whole bunch of money if we did return to a real housing market.

5   David9   ignore (0)   2012 Jul 31, 9:38am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Kinda related. Today, some business associates are moving to Texas because they think California is sinking, high home prices, 45 kids in a classroom, 'and it's not changing'.

Also today, I saw at least 3 pundit housing articles that the housing market has 'bottomed last winter', 'LA prices rise', and 'the market has turned the corner'. All with verbiage like the lispy credit card lady on the phone when you renew your credit card,'don't you want to take advantage of these low rates and lower prices?'

Well, all of this just makes me want to vomit. True, with all the manipulation, hard to tell which direction it will take.

6   StillLooking   ignore (0)   2012 Jul 31, 10:24am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

StillLooking says

You would think it is fine. I am disgusted that my tax money is going to pay for the guy that took at a huge HELOC, bought an expensive car, sent his kid to college and then took a trip to Paris France with the money and now is underwater.

And now I get to pay for all that with my taxes.

Tax money in support of individual guaranteed mortgages would be breadcrumbs compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars poured into Freddie, Fannie, and AIG because of the mortgage fraud committed by commercial banks.

Allowing the government direct access to this extremely corrupt market isn't only a good thing, but it's far cheaper than the alternative.

I am not sure what your point is here. Please elaborate.

7   mell   ignore (2)   2012 Aug 1, 9:30am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I hope it gets and stays defeated - just because you can screw over the taxpayer /saver in "worse" ways doesn't make it any better. I think for those people "trapped" the best and right option is to default and squat until they get kicked out, then use the savings to rent. The government should not be in the business of defining what a "good loan" is worth subsidizing vs a "bad loan" not worth subsidizing. Interest rates need to sort themselves out and right now should be - without constant gov. intervention" close to or in the double digits.

8   PockyClipsNow   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 1, 11:07am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

http://www.hypnosis.edu/
Start a New Career as a Certified Hypnotherapist
A Unique Alternative to a Traditional Psychology Degree

(scam college loan is outta control)

9   FortWayne   ignore (4)   2012 Aug 3, 2:48pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Moral hazard. I don't agree with bailouts.

Why should we waste our tax dollars on those who got greedy and fraudulent.

10   Hutad   ignore (0)   2012 Sep 11, 10:08am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Big fan of all the HARP programs. I certainly hope Obama gets re-elected and can institute HARP 3. I would be all in favor of this.

Can you imagine if all underwater homeowners could refinance! That would be awesome! I read this blog and it speaks about some of the differences to HARP 2 vs HARP 3

http://activerain.com/blogsview/3291473/harp-2-0-loans-and-harp-3-0-loans

11   mell   ignore (2)   2012 Sep 11, 12:06pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Also, let's not forget that it takes two to make a fraudulent loan that could otherwise not be awarded to/afforded by the wanna-be-house-owner. Definitely moral hazard. How is that any different from somebody asking for a taxpayer bailout for their 401k losses? Or student loans?

12   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2012 Sep 11, 12:12pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Iceland is the only country to have made the "right" choice of refusing to bailout their banks-despite threats by the Europeans. They fell down and are back up again-unlike the rest of the west. Moody's is threatening to downgrade us again.

13   cc0   ignore (0)   2012 Sep 26, 12:57am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Call it Crazy says

Looks like it ain't going to happen....

That article is from July.

I wish someone in the "con" camp would explain to me - in clear, simple, unambiguous terms - how this would be a bad move. I think this should have been done months ago.

From what I understand, this is the premise:

  • - As opposed to the insane "refi if you're late" program, this program only applies to people who are currently paying on-time.
  • - This only applies to people who have loans backed through Freddy or Fannie: i.e. people for whom the taxpayer is already on the line.
  • - Existing ~6% MBS bondholders get their principle back; new ~4% bonds are issued. Demand for bond yield appears insatiable, but we can expect certain REITs to fall?
  • - People get a lower monthly payment but no principle reduction. Their indebtedness doesn't change but they now have more cash to feed the consumerist machine -- so JOBS JOBS BS JOBS.

What moral hazard is introduced by this program?

14   cc0   ignore (0)   2012 Sep 26, 1:11am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Call it Crazy says

cc0 says

That article is from July.

My post was made in July...

You're going to have to try harder to keep up here.....

Gak. Thread appeared in the email alert this morning - assumed it was new; didn't check the dates. Apologies.

However, the whitehouse site says the loans must be freddy/fanny backed, but the advertisement I clicked on from the front page said it applied to non-freddy/non-fanny loans as well, which is confusing.

Either way, rational arguments still appreciated.

15   Quigley   ignore (0)   2012 Sep 26, 3:58am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

This HARP3 will probably pass, and it will drive Fannie, Freddie, and the FHA into deeper trouble. It will, however, stimulate the economy like nothing else has done so far. Lots of people will finally be able to cut their mortgage rates nearly in half and the resultant savings in household income will not be saved. Rather it will be spent! This will give the economy a real shot in the arm.
It might just be worth it just for this reason. It WILL cost tax payers to bail out Fannie and Freddie for a few more years, but things should stabilize and allow for far fewer strategic defaults.
Looking at this from a "what's fair" perspective it is all messed up. But it would help the people, the middle class most of all, and might just help out economy get back on track. Might be worth the debt.

16   BayArea   ignore (1)   2012 Sep 26, 4:42am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I would like to understand if HARP3 would still have thse stipulation that your loan must have originated before June 1st, 2009 (as is the case with HARP2 and HARP3)

17   TyShoes   ignore (0)   2012 Oct 2, 2:56am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

BayArea says

I would like to understand if HARP3 would still have thse stipulation that your loan must have originated before June 1st, 2009 (as is the case with HARP2 and HARP3)

This. Our mortgage was secured in Dec 2009, the only thing keeping us from refinancing under HARP 2.0.

18   BayArea   ignore (1)   2012 Oct 2, 2:58am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TyShoes says

BayArea says

I would like to understand if HARP3 would still have thse stipulation that your loan must have originated before June 1st, 2009 (as is the case with HARP2 and HARP3)

This. Our mortgage was secured in Dec 2009, the only thing keeping us from refinancing under HARP 2.0.

There is no shortage of people under water whose loans orginated after June 1st, 2009. This is also the gating item keeping me from refi.

19   Sinking Fast   ignore (0)   2012 Dec 9, 10:52pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Financially responsible homeowners with good credit and conventional mortgage loans were disproportionally impacted by the Real Estate Market Crash in 2008. The impact to most Banks/Investors was immediately addressed using TARP Funds. Homeowners borrowing under Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, FHA, VA, USDA were also provided financial relief through the HOPE, HAMP and PRA programs. Some of these programs provided “Short Sales” or principal reduction at taxpayer expense. However, there are many responsible homeowners still diligently paying comparatively high mortgage interest rates of 5.5%, and well above, on homes that have lost significant value. There is currently no help for these responsible homeowners, taxpayers, who do not meet the very specific and prohibitive Government requirements to qualify for any mortgage refinance.

For many the problem is as simple as appraisals are coming in too low to refinance under current Federal laws and regulations. Realistically, appraisals vary so widely that it’s difficult to believe they actually mean anything. Homes in thriving suburban and rural areas no longer yield reasonable sales comparables. In addition to foreclosures, a primary reason for this decline is that the Federal Government made lending rules/regulations more restrictive and have artificially depressed loan limits by county or township, making it possible to have homes with just a few miles of each other receive drastically different appraisal values. Clearly, county boundaries are not efficient and the limits artificially drive down home prices, especially in boundary transition areas.

HARP 3 must temporarily amend current laws and regulations to include aggressive real refinance relief for responsible homeowners. It must consider the following measures for responsible homeowners who executed First and Second Mortgages on their primary residence before January 1, 2009.

• Allow First and Second Mortgages to be fully refinanced into a combined single Mortgage at the lower rates currently available, regardless of appraised value or county loan limit. This should be permitted IF 20% was invested on the original purchase of the home or subsequent improvement investment is equivalent to 20% of the Cost-To-Build/Replace value or a combination of both equal to 20%.
• Allow mortgages refinance appraisals to indicate Market Value OR Cost-To-Build/Replace (including land value), whichever is greater. The home should be insured for the replacement cost. Additionally, mortgage refinance appraisals should not consider foreclosures– this practice only perpetuates misfortune.
• Acknowledge that a mortgage refinance is on a home already purchased and the homeowner does not require protection from an over-priced housing market. (In this scenario, the homeowner actually requires protection from the mortgage market.) The home price is already established as the remaining mortgage debt based on different market conditions that did not consider foreclosures and is no longer negotiable. The terms of the refinance mortgage loan are the only negotiable terms and should be required to benefit the responsible homeowner/borrower who is still willing to continue payment in this distressed market.
• For the purposes of appraisal, all agricultural land included in the property should be fully accessed at the full market value and not discounted as for tax purposes.
• For VA Eligible Homeowners, waive the Funding Fees to refinance to a VA Mortgage from a conventional Mortgage (Cash Out Refinance). This fee can be up to 3.3% (3.3 Points) and is prohibitive. Further, it is ridiculous and offensive for a Veteran to pay thousands of dollars for an earned benefit when they’ve already lost up to 50% of their homes equity.
• Recognize that Mortgage Insurance should not be required IF 20% was invested on the original purchase of the home or subsequent investment is equivalent to 20% of the Cost-To-Build/Replace value or a combination of both equal to 20%.
• Re-evaluate FHA loan limits and valuation methodologies. Consider that exceptions and variances exist. Recognize that inappropriate FHA Loan Limits artificially deflate potential loan amounts and ultimately reduce appraised values.

A mortgage refinance under current market conditions should be an indication that the homeowner/borrower would purchase the property for at least what is currently owed. Because most homes in this situation are deprecated in value, a refinance is a sale in every sense, except the property does not change ownership. But, even though many have lost all their homes equity and in some cases more, most taxpayers want to pay their Mortgage and are not interested in foreclosure or Federal assistance in the form of principal reduction or other benefit that would add to the Federal debt. What taxpayers do expect is that the Government ensure that those citizens who are responsible borrowers are not disadvantaged. The current mortgage relief programs give the appearance that irresponsible borrowers are rewarded and responsible borrowers earn only the privilege to keep paying and paying. The Banks are clearly the beneficiary of this oversight and continue to unfairly drain responsible homeowners of their incomes and savings.

• All things being equal, except the “appraised” value, the real risk to the lender is arguably less if the homeowner is paying less on the same money with the same physical collateral. It is reasonable to project that an employed homeowner, with good credit, who is has consistently paid their mortgage since the 2008 Real Estate Market Crash and before, will continue to do so if their mortgage payment is less.
• For VA eligible homeowners moving from a conventional loan to a VA loan the total risk to the lender is actually less than the current mortgage loan by the additional amount of the VA Loan Guarantee.
• Each dollar saved will likely make its way back into the middle economy. Homeowners who have been putting off purchasing durable goods will have increased financial opportunity provided by the significant monthly savings.
• There are no additional costs to the Federal Government incurred from this proposal and implementation will ultimately benefit the private sector.

20   Tenpoundbass   ignore (14)   2012 Dec 9, 11:02pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Obama's MO.

Throw out false hope to make it look like he's trying. False hopes he knows with out a doubt wont go anywhere. So he can later blame the GOP.

21   mell   ignore (2)   2012 Dec 10, 12:33am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says

This HARP3 will probably pass, and it will drive Fannie, Freddie, and the FHA into deeper trouble. It will, however, stimulate the economy like nothing else has done so far. Lots of people will finally be able to cut their mortgage rates nearly in half and the resultant savings in household income will not be saved. Rather it will be spent! This will give the economy a real shot in the arm.
It might just be worth it just for this reason. It WILL cost tax payers to bail out Fannie and Freddie for a few more years, but things should stabilize and allow for far fewer strategic defaults.
Looking at this from a "what's fair" perspective it is all messed up. But it would help the people, the middle class most of all, and might just help out economy get back on track. Might be worth the debt.

Great! I'll send you a bill with my recent food expenses (organic food is not cheap) and a couple of not-so-optimal stock transactions from 2012, and maybe you can help me out with my latest credit card statement as well! I am counting on your support and hey, I will have more money to spend from your subsidy which will be a booster shot in the arm for the economy! Everybody is a winner!

22   RealEstateIsBetterThanStocks   ignore (0)   2012 Dec 10, 1:21am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

i made a dumb mistake and now i want you all to pay for it.

23   bmwman91   ignore (1)   2012 Dec 10, 2:02am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

cc0 says

- As opposed to the insane "refi if you're late" program, this program only applies to people who are currently paying on-time.
- This only applies to people who have loans backed through Freddy or Fannie: i.e. people for whom the taxpayer is already on the line.
- Existing ~6% MBS bondholders get their principle back; new ~4% bonds are issued. Demand for bond yield appears insatiable, but we can expect certain REITs to fall?
- People get a lower monthly payment but no principle reduction. Their indebtedness doesn't change but they now have more cash to feed the consumerist machine -- so JOBS JOBS BS JOBS.

You know, I actually don't have too much of an issue with it if these are the actual stipulations. The "stop paying your mortgage to get free shit" type bail-outs were really bad. If someone has been diligently paying their mortgage on an underwater house for 3+ years, I think that it is reasonable to offer a refi since they are obviously interested in LIVING in the house more than trying to make quick money. If I was in that boat, I'd be thrilled...keep paying the "6%" monthly payments on my new 4% loan and kill it off even faster.


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions