Here we go again, houses for $1 down

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
by Ilyce Glink, CBSMoney Watch
Wednesday, May 4, 2011



Isn't this partially what contributed to the burst of the housing bubble in 2007? The latest Florida mortgage deal carries a potential taxpayer burden that could leave you wondering what happened to the last four years.

Earlier this month, The Daily reported a plan being developed in Cape Coral, to address the community's vast real estate problems. It's no secret that Sunshine State has been hit hard with a double whammy of depreciating home values and astronomical foreclosure rates.

A large developer in the Southeast region of the country, Adams Homes believes it has come up with an attractive solution. The program, nicknamed "A-Dollar-and-a-Dream," would allow prospective home buyers to purchase a brand-new $150,000 home (model below) with a down payment of $1.

According to The Daily's report, the developer stands to lose nothing as they receive the full purchase price, regardless of the buyer's ability to continue making mortgage payments. This risk in this scenario is assumed by two government programs (in other words, you the taxpayer) that guarantee the loans for those who want a house but lack the cash for a standard down payment and closing costs.

The deal provides for two different mortgages. The first comes courtesy of the Federal Housing Authority, which services a mortgage for 96.5 percent of the purchase price. The second involves a smaller federally insured loan covering some or all of the down payment and closing costs.

In other words, prospective homeowners have very little to lose under this arrangement, and thus very little reason to remain in the property should they ultimately have trouble making their payments.

So it won't come as a surprise to learn that many real estate experts are sounding the alarm.

"This is a recipe for a new, massive wave of foreclosures," warned Jack McCabe, founder of Miami-based McCabe Research and Consulting. "That's what got us in this problem in the first place, giving 100 percent financing and not requiring the homeowner to have any skin in the game."

While Adams Homes may not have much trouble finding buyers with such an attractive offer, the types of government-backed mortgages utilized here enables irresponsible behavior all around, say some experts.

"These [programs] are terrible," said University of Texas-Dallas economics professor Stan Leibowitz. "Allowing people into homes with zero down leads to much higher defaults than average. Government budgets are in bad enough shape that they cannot afford to be subsidizing homes that are likely to go into default, costing taxpayers more money."

I'm starting to see more of these creative lending deals pop up, and not just from developers. Lenders are boasting about non-FHA loans that require "far less" than a 3 percent down payment.

What's really amazing is how short everyone's memory has become. Apparently, turning back the clock even four years is just a few years too far.
 
Last edited:

greg334

Veteran Expediter
It is sad that our country is so stupid.

We should have revolted in order to change our mortgage system to only allow conventional loans with the right amount down.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Yet another blatant stereotype: that those who "have no skin in the game" [and what a charming phrase that is] also have no sense of responsibility, or desire to keep their home - easy come, easy go, right?
Sure, there are some who fit the bill, but how many lost their homes because they lost their jobs? Or because they got slammed with medical bills?
It gets really tiresome, reading how those who based their decisions an a decent paying job [and current good health] that disappeared are to blame for not being able to keep up with their financial commitments....
If there were decent paying jobs for whomever needs and wants them, as there were through at least the 70's, the blame would be legitimate, but there aren't any such jobs, and whose fault is that?

 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Yep, it is starting again. NOTHING changes. Get rid of Fanny and Freddie. People SHOULD buy BELOW what they can afford. SMALLER than they might want. ETC ETC. Yes, some have lost homes to job loss. How many of those would NOT have been lost had they NOT been living above their means to start with?

How many still had cell phones, cable, 3 cars, all with payments. Ate out 3 days a week?
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Yep, it is starting again. NOTHING changes. Get rid of Fanny and Freddie. People SHOULD buy BELOW what they can afford. SMALLER than they might want. ETC ETC.
Just who are you to say what people should do with the money they earn?
Yes, some have lost homes to job loss. How many of those would NOT have been lost had they NOT been living above their means to start with?
And just who decides what is "above their means"?

How many still had cell phones, cable, 3 cars, all with payments. Ate out 3 days a week?
Does it make you feel better to have such a judgemental attitude? Maybe, if it ever happens to you, [get hurt or sick and can't pay for anything], you'll take some comfort in knowing why people blame you for your troubles: because it's easier than admitting that greed took the jobs away from us.
Personally, I can't see going without a cell phone, car, or whatever other items I consider necessary, because I might not have a job next year, or I might get cancer, go through my entire life's savings, and end up on welfare.
What a crazy philosophy!

 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Cheri wrote:

And just who decides what is "above their means"?

Good question..kinda like saying one makes too much and corps make too much and are just greedy....Who decides how much is too much??? :rolleyes:
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Yep, it is starting again. NOTHING changes. Get rid of Fanny and Freddie. People SHOULD buy BELOW what they can afford. SMALLER than they might want. ETC ETC.
Just who are you to say what people should do with the money they earn?
Yes, some have lost homes to job loss. How many of those would NOT have been lost had they NOT been living above their means to start with?
And just who decides what is "above their means"?

How many still had cell phones, cable, 3 cars, all with payments. Ate out 3 days a week?
Does it make you feel better to have such a judgemental attitude? Maybe, if it ever happens to you, [get hurt or sick and can't pay for anything], you'll take some comfort in knowing why people blame you for your troubles: because it's easier than admitting that greed took the jobs away from us.
Personally, I can't see going without a cell phone, car, or whatever other items I consider necessary, because I might not have a job next year, or I might get cancer, go through my entire life's savings, and end up on welfare.
What a crazy philosophy!



I don't give a flip what others do. Just don't ask ME to pay for it and right now that is EXACTLY what is going on. The government has NO business in the housing market, in the mortgage or banking businesses.

I have made EVERY financial mistake that can be made. It is MY fault and I will have to live with it. I will cover MY stupidity MY SELF. It is called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

It was greed that lead a LOT of people to buy houses that they could not afford too. Just buy it, it will go up FAST and you can sell at a HUGH profit. Don't worry about down payments. Don't worry about that balloon payment. AND THEY BOUGHT IT! They saw dollar signs.

It is FAR too easy to relief the idea of personal responsibility by blaming others "greed".

There is MORE than enough blame to go around. The ONLY way to stop this is for everyone to look in a mirror.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Cheri wrote:



Good question..kinda like saying one makes too much and corps make too much and are just greedy....Who decides how much is too much??? :rolleyes:

It's nothing like it. Living within one's means is pretty easily determined: provide all necessities, some extras, and save some for future needs. Whatever your income, that's how it works. There is zero evidence to suggest any of those who lost their homes were 'living beyond their means', right? It's just the comforting mantra of the conservatives: 'they deserve it.'
"How much is too much" is not so simple - but it's pretty obvious when we see it. Corporations who move jobs overseas, pay no US taxes [but reap the benefits taxpayers provide], and take from rather than contribute to the community, are guilty of too much greed for our own good.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
And just who decides what is "above their means"?

The lenders/banks should be the judge of that on the basis of good lending practices.

IF we want to continue with this fallacy of the American dream is owning a house, then we have to take a serious look at who actually can and can NOT afford to own a house. IT isn't all about the mortgage payments but also how they keep up with repairs and so on.

IF YOU want to know what happened in Detroit, it is simply that many who left the city were keeping up the houses they owned by making repairs and painting them periodically. Once the ownership shifted to lower income people or those who actually made more than the previous owner but didn't give a crap, they neglected the house and repairs to the point that the house was falling apart. My grandparents house just got the first coat of paint in more than 50 years. The last four owners never painted the house and this included two auto worker families who could afford to paint the house every year.

OUTSIDE of the fact that we have to pay a lot more in taxes in our lives, have to HAVE a lot more "stuff" that we are told we need, it is an never ending battle to prevent people from getting a house when they can't truely afford it. Some NPR thing I heard a few weeks ago said we realistically pay less per square foot for a house today than we did in 1925, adjusting this for the dollar difference AND they stressed that was usually on a single income over a 20 year period where we saved for the down payment and made it a commitment to repay the loan in good faith.

Less than 3% of the population is faced with mounting medical bills, but more than 70% of people don't want to compromise on house ownership, meaning they refuse to save and want a cheap mortgage.

ON TOP of all of this, people who are steadfast in paying their bills on time are the ones who pay for the ignorant and stupid who insist on buying something they can't obviously afford. NOT just that, but many are running around saying there is no moral obligation to pay for something they committed to pay for.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
And just who decides what is "above their means"?

The lenders/banks should be the judge of that on the basis of good lending practices.

IF we want to continue with this fallacy of the American dream is owning a house, then we have to take a serious look at who actually can and can NOT afford to own a house. IT isn't all about the mortgage payments but also how they keep up with repairs and so on.

IF YOU want to know what happened in Detroit, it is simply that many who left the city were keeping up the houses they owned by making repairs and painting them periodically. Once the ownership shifted to lower income people or those who actually made more than the previous owner but didn't give a crap, they neglected the house and repairs to the point that the house was falling apart. My grandparents house just got the first coat of paint in more than 50 years. The last four owners never painted the house and this included two auto worker families who could afford to paint the house every year.

OUTSIDE of the fact that we have to pay a lot more in taxes in our lives, have to HAVE a lot more "stuff" that we are told we need, it is an never ending battle to prevent people from getting a house when they can't truely afford it. Some NPR thing I heard a few weeks ago said we realistically pay less per square foot for a house today than we did in 1925, adjusting this for the dollar difference AND they stressed that was usually on a single income over a 20 year period where we saved for the down payment and made it a commitment to repay the loan in good faith.

Less than 3% of the population is faced with mounting medical bills, but more than 70% of people don't want to compromise on house ownership, meaning they refuse to save and want a cheap mortgage.

ON TOP of all of this, people who are steadfast in paying their bills on time are the ones who pay for the ignorant and stupid who insist on buying something they can't obviously afford. NOT just that, but many are running around saying there is no moral obligation to pay for something they committed to pay for.

I do think there needs to be a temporary "safety net" for those that truly need it. TEMPORARY is the big component. Bad things happen to good people.
With that said, welfare didn't exist along time ago, and people got by. As Cheri said, the corporate world pays little taxes and moves jobs overseas. So what. Back in the day, they didn't do that, but they didn't pay anything either. Nowadays, everyone wants a high dollar income with little or no education and minimal effort.
As for housing, just watch HGTV a few times. It is riddled with college grads with little income and down payments looking at half a million dollar houses. Are you kidding me? Or, when you give free housing, (Carter era), look at what happened. They were trashed and eventually tore down. So much for free government housing.
Offer help to a point, and shut it off. People got to do it on their own. There is no way I would support a person working 80 hours a week to get ahead to support another who thinks part time is sufficient because someone else will pickup the rest.
 

dieseldiva

Veteran Expediter
I do think there needs to be a temporary "safety net" for those that truly need it. TEMPORARY is the big component. Bad things happen to good people.
With that said, welfare didn't exist along time ago, and people got by. As Cheri said, the corporate world pays little taxes and moves jobs overseas. So what. Back in the day, they didn't do that, but they didn't pay anything either. Nowadays, everyone wants a high dollar income with little or no education and minimal effort.
As for housing, just watch HGTV a few times. It is riddled with college grads with little income and down payments looking at half a million dollar houses. Are you kidding me? Or, when you give free housing, (Carter era), look at what happened. They were trashed and eventually tore down. So much for free government housing.
Offer help to a point, and shut it off. People got to do it on their own. There is no way I would support a person working 80 hours a week to get ahead to support another who thinks part time is sufficient because someone else will pickup the rest.

Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Give a man a fish every day and soon, he'll begin to believe that YOUR fish belong to HIM!
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Yep, it is starting again. NOTHING changes. Get rid of Fanny and Freddie. People SHOULD buy BELOW what they can afford. SMALLER than they might want. ETC ETC.
Just who are you to say what people should do with the money they earn?

They can do whatever they want so long as I, the American taxpayer don't have to support them when they're broke due to irresponsible spending habits. If they're down on their luck through no fault of their own, then it's a different situation.
Yes, some have lost homes to job loss. How many of those would NOT have been lost had they NOT been living above their means to start with?
And just who decides what is "above their means"?
The entity or financial institution that loans them money.
How many still had cell phones, cable, 3 cars, all with payments. Ate out 3 days a week?
Does it make you feel better to have such a judgemental attitude? Maybe, if it ever happens to you, [get hurt or sick and can't pay for anything], you'll take some comfort in knowing why people blame you for your troubles: because it's easier than admitting that greed took the jobs away from us.
Personally, I can't see going without a cell phone, car, or whatever other items I consider necessary, because I might not have a job next year, or I might get cancer, go through my entire life's savings, and end up on welfare.
What a crazy philosophy!
It's all about debt. If Joe S. can afford the cell phone payments every month and pays cash for the meals at the restaurant - fine & dandy. If he's maintaining his lifestyle with credit cards, then he's got a problem. Should he lose his job, the American taxpayer shouldn't have to bail out him or the stupid bank that gave him the credit card. Same deal with housing loans - if there's a bank that's stupid enough to take a chance on $1 down payments, they shouldn't be bailed out by the American taxpayer. Banks like this should be allowed to go out of business when they fail, regardless of how big they are.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Nowadays, everyone wants a high dollar income with little or no education and minimal effort.

Dave, it is also the other way around, they get a degree and feel they deserve the big bucks without proving themselves.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Dave, it is also the other way around, they get a degree and feel they deserve the big bucks without proving themselves.

Very true.
On a side note without knowing the specifics, I did her today that the Obama is floating a plan to give 21k per household that is three months or greater behind in their mortgage.
They are trying to figure out how to it without legislation because they don't think they can get it through the house.
Government just needs to get out of the housing market.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
I totally understand the expectation that people must be self sufficient - the only problem is, most require a job to accomplish that. [Not enough rich relatives or winning lottery tickets to fill the need, sigh.]
Not since the Great Depression have so many been 'out of work', through no fault of their own, and I see the pointing fingers as kicking people who are already down. [Course, I don't watch tv, but are they representative of the average? Are the Jersey Shore idiots representative, too?]
A healthy society must have productive citizens, and what is being done to accomplish that?
Without the means to earn a living, we cannot call our society a success, IMO.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I totally understand the expectation that people must be self sufficient - the only problem is, most require a job to accomplish that. [Not enough rich relatives or winning lottery tickets to fill the need, sigh.]
Not since the Great Depression have so many been 'out of work', through no fault of their own, and I see the pointing fingers as kicking people who are already down. [Course, I don't watch tv, but are they representative of the average? Are the Jersey Shore idiots representative, too?]
A healthy society must have productive citizens, and what is being done to accomplish that?
Without the means to earn a living, we cannot call our society a success, IMO.

When responsible people lose a job they take stock. What are my job skills? Have I kept pace with the modern work force? What do I need to do to improve them? What can I do to provide myself with a job? Do I need to move to an area where there is work?

"Society" is NOT responsible for creating jobs. Neither is government. Business is. Most jobs in this country are NOT created by big business, they are created by small business.

Our governments, local, state and federal are impeding job growth. High business taxes are driving business out of many areas. You just have to look at California and Michigan to see that in action. Low tax states are growing. Canada is growing with new business, of course they LOWERED their business taxes.

It is MORE than possible to "manufacture" you own job. My lawn care guy is doing exactly that and doing well at it. He and his wife run two small businesses. She cleans homes, (my wife did that too for a long time, made a LOT of money doing it too) he runs a lawn care/snow plowing business. Keep in mind we live in SE Michigan and this area is NOT doing good for jobs at all. His business tripled last year and he is HIRING! He needed a job. He did NOT wait for society to "give" him one. He took responsibility for his life and acted to improve his ability to earn a living.

He is just ONE example of how it should be done. There are many many more out there. Instead of sitting around waiting for someone to provide jobs people should be looking for ways to make their own. Keep in mind, all those big businesses out there started out that way, SMALL. One person with an idea.

The ONLY thing we need to do to increase business activity is get government out of the way. People need to start dreaming again and thinking for themselves. Yes, it IS hard. So what? Who ever said it had to be easy?
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
I totally understand the expectation that people must be self sufficient - the only problem is, most require a job to accomplish that. [Not enough rich relatives or winning lottery tickets to fill the need, sigh.]

I can't agree with that at all. A job has nothing to do with being self-sufficient. I know a lot of people don't or didn't have a job and worked their way through the mess they were handed by taking control of things and making the best of it. I'm one of them.

A lot of people are now lazy, expecting government to do something to fix something that could runes it for others.

IT really has to do with opportunities, nothing more than that. We don't have the opportunities we had in the depression - I used the example before how I wanted to sell veggies and fruit but couldn't afford the permits and couldn't get through the state/county hassles that were needed to setup an operation.

ON top of all of that, during the depression, people stuck together. They did what they had to do to survive, like lived together, pooled their resources together and so on. WE do not have that today by any stretch of the imagination. We live in a society where the individual rules and must be an individual - it isn't about them but him or her.

A lot of people expect to have stuff while not sacrificing for it or saving for it, look around and see how it is marketed to them and look at companies who want to sell a product regardless of the long term cost is to them (GM is a good example).


Not since the Great Depression have so many been 'out of work', through no fault of their own, and I see the pointing fingers as kicking people who are already down. [Course, I don't watch tv, but are they representative of the average? Are the Jersey Shore idiots representative, too?]

We don't have type of out of work people like we did in the depression nor are we approaching the number that actually affects the country in a negitive way. Look around, we have job losses but we don't have market losses and we have too many government programs that allow people not to work.

Kicking people who are down?

Not at all, but kicking people who are selfish and greedy - d*mn right.

Those who choose the cheap way out in buying a house or treating it as just an investment with the intent to flip it as soon as possible. The cheap way is not having a down payment or little one and using a vrm or some other cheap payment.


A healthy society must have productive citizens, and what is being done to accomplish that?
Without the means to earn a living, we cannot call our society a success, IMO.

But we haven't had a healthy society in a number of years, maybe going back to 1964.

We shouldn't also call a society a success, ever. It leads to what we have today - a breakdown of society based on false numbers and definitions. Our poor are fat and lazy while the rest of the world's poor are starving and work hard to just make ends meet daily. Our poor have cell phones and cars, computers and even big screen tvs but the worlds poor walk where they have to go, get their news in mass and may never used a phone in their lives.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
When we have a socialist like Obama in the White House whose message is supported by his willing accomplices in the MSM, the public easily loses sight of the economic big picture. Businesses aren't created to provide jobs - they're created to make money. When successful companies and businessmen are villified, demonized, and taxed out of business we get a stagnant condition like we have today. Of course this condition is made worse by the highest spending and worst govt deficit in history.
True unemployment is in double digits and has been for some time. IMHO we won't see any substantial turnaround unless and until the GOP at least controls both houses of congress with margins large enough to neutralize Obama. A better situation would be for the radical liberals to be flushed out of congress and the White House altogether to allow sensible, conservative economic and financial policies to be put in place. Under those conditions we'll see the economy begin to take off again, people will be able to find jobs and the revenues to the govt. will increase - just like they did when Reagan cleaned up the Carter mess.
 
Top