Home Buying & Real Estate Thread

This article is a couple months old now, but I thought it was interesting since it's still making its way through committee.
[h1]Call to End GSEs’ FICO-Only Credit Scoring Wins Bipartisan Support[/h1]
As of now, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac only consider the FICO credit scoring model when making mortgage purchase decisions. A bill introduced Thursday is trying to change this singular model and move toward a more multifaceted model.

The H.R. 4211 bill, also titled the “Credit Score Competition Act of 2015,” was introduced byU.S. Rep. Ed Royce (R-California) and U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Alabama)—both members of the House Financial Services Committee—to the House of Representatives.

Both Reps. Royce and Sewell announced on their websites that the bill would allow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to consider alternative credit-scoring models instead of the FICO model, which would open up homebuying options for many consumers whose credit does not meet the current standards.

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the largest mortgage purchasers in the nation, but they rely on credit score models that don’t necessarily take into account something as simple as whether borrowers have paid their rent on time," Rep. Sewell explained in the release.

She continued, "Home ownership is an integral part of the American Dream that shouldn’t be out of the reach for low-income, rural, and minority borrowers who lack access to traditional forms of credit. This legislation takes an important step towards addressing this issue and helps make homeownership a reality for more Americans across the country."

Reps. Royce and Sewell noted that if the GSEs are allowed to make mortgage purchase decisions with access to "multiple empirically derived, statistically sound credit scoring models," risk found in their portfolios would be mitigated and the chance of systemic risk in our housing market would lower.

Together, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac occupy 90 percent of the secondary mortgage market, the release said. The use of one credit scoring model has nearly created a monopoly in this field. Reps. Royce and Sewell suggest that additional credit scoring models would "foster competition and innovation in the credit scoring industry."

Consumers looking to purchase a home with no FICO score or one under 620 are not eligible for a mortgage that can be sold to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, and lower-to-middle income Americans that qualify to purchase a home but cannot due to their a low, or nonexistent FICO score are finding themselves locked out the housing market. These two groups of consumers could greatly benefit from other credit-scoring models, Reps. Royce and Sewell said.

“The GSEs' use of a single credit score is an unfair practice that stifles competition and innovation in credit scoring. Breaking up the credit score monopoly at Fannie and Freddie will also assist them in managing their credit risk and decreases the potential for another taxpayer bailout," Rep. Royce said.

The VantageScore credit score model, an alternative to the FICO score, recently praised the new legislation introduced by Reps. Royce and Sewell in a statement on the company's website.

Barrett Burns, President and CEO, VantageScore Solutions, LLC explained that "outdated credit scoring models required by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac limit opportunities for millions of creditworthy borrowers who, through no fault of their own, are unfairly locked out of the automated underwriting programs used by most mortgage lenders."

"Locking out competitive models and creating what is essentially a government sanctioned monopoly also undermines innovation among model developers, which must be preserved and encouraged in order for the market to operate efficiently for borrowers and lenders," he added.

"We strongly support a bill that promotes access to sustainable mortgage credit, and healthy choice and competition among credit scoring models. We encourage industry leaders to voice their support of this bipartisan measure,” Burns said.
 
Anyone familiar with a non-profit called NACA? My credit is pretty solid but my agent recommended them because he said I can save closing costs and avoid PMI which would be huge for me.
 
Serious question - is it really worth it to live in a city that has a ridiculous cost of living (SF, Portland, LA, NYC, Chicago, etc.) that might have "more stuff to do" compared to living in a smaller market that is WAY more affordable?
For me, Nope. I live 30mins outside the SF Bay Area and am completely satisfied with driving into the city for "something to do" and home prices are half compared to the areas 15-30mins from me. But I guess depends on your lifestyle. Most folks start families and move out to the Burbs of the Bay, NY, Seattle, LA etc...
 
Anyone familiar with a non-profit called NACA? My credit is pretty solid but my agent recommended them because he said I can save closing costs and avoid PMI which would be huge for me.
I heard you have to jump through hoops to close with them, your state doesn't have any first time home buyer programs?
 
Serious question - is it really worth it to live in a city that has a ridiculous cost of living (SF, Portland, LA, NYC, Chicago, etc.) that might have "more stuff to do" compared to living in a smaller market that is WAY more affordable?
For me, Nope. I live 30mins outside the SF Bay Area and am completely satisfied with driving into the city for "something to do" and home prices are half compared to the areas 15-30mins from me. But I guess depends on your lifestyle. Most folks start families and move out to the Burbs of the Bay, NY, Seattle, LA etc...
Are you talking metro to metro (SF to Dallas) or City to Suburb when you say smaller market?

A SF suburb is probably a lot more expensive than living within city limits of Dallas.
 
^ what program did you use in MD and what did they offer (down payment assistance, closing costs etc)? Was it grants or just a separate deferred loan?
 
^ what program did you use in MD and what did they offer (down payment assistance, closing costs etc)? Was it grants or just a separate deferred loan?
I used Maryland's Mortgage Program (You've Earned It program). 3.75% interest rate, $7,500 0% deferred loan (doesn't have to be paid until home is paid off, sell the house, or refi) for closing assistance. Great program for Bmore, a lot of assistance for the purchasing in the county.

http://mmp.maryland.gov/Pages/default.aspx
 
Anyone familiar with a non-profit called NACA? My credit is pretty solid but my agent recommended them because he said I can save closing costs and avoid PMI which would be huge for me.
Yes, I have. They're worthless IMO and I've heard very few good things about them.

Personally, I would fire my agent and question their credibility for even mentioning them, but that's just me.

Getting a solid lender who knows what they're doing and can close the loan on time with the new TRID standards is worth a lot more than the couple thousand you can save on closing costs & PMI.
 
 
 
Serious question - is it really worth it to live in a city that has a ridiculous cost of living (SF, Portland, LA, NYC, Chicago, etc.) that might have "more stuff to do" compared to living in a smaller market that is WAY more affordable?
For me, Nope. I live 30mins outside the SF Bay Area and am completely satisfied with driving into the city for "something to do" and home prices are half compared to the areas 15-30mins from me. But I guess depends on your lifestyle. Most folks start families and move out to the Burbs of the Bay, NY, Seattle, LA etc...
Are you talking metro to metro (SF to Dallas) or City to Suburb when you say smaller market?

A SF suburb is probably a lot more expensive than living within city limits of Dallas.
I was basically saying something like living in Kansas City (where I plan to settle down eventually) where houses can literally be 25% of the price compared to SF, Portland, LA, NYC, etc.
 
yea for a single family detached home, that is what you get in that high 400s-500s price range. anything nicer than what you see there and bigger, expect to pay a lot more. there are bigger single family homes in that price range like you see in the pic, but in a lot worse neighborhood and the house is usually fixer upper.

i believe bay area is crazier than socal. most people are happy to buy a $300-400k 2 bedroom condo built back in the 70s and 80s

Bro, that's insane! That's essentially what i paid for my waterview 3,000 sq/ft home in a wooded neighborhood not even two years back here in CLT. No offense, but that type of home would either be in one of the few poverty areas of CLT or demolished by the city. CLT does not play when it comes to demoloshing homes the last 20 years (article i happened to read) in order to keep the city on a certain beautification level, must be a southern thing.

Serious question - is it really worth it to live in a city that has a ridiculous cost of living (SF, Portland, LA, NYC, Chicago, etc.) that might have "more stuff to do" compared to living in a smaller market that is WAY more affordable?

That's a question that alot of dudes really need to ask themselves. At the end of the day, you have to have a balance. What i paid for my home, im living very comfortable and i sacrifice nothing living in the 'burbs of CLT and im still only 25mins from Uptown or any of the more "Hype" areas of the city. I could never see myself being house poor, because me and the wife like to travel AND keep the bank accounts healthy AND not have to worry about penny pinching.
 
I was basically saying something like living in Kansas City (where I plan to settle down eventually) where houses can literally be 25% of the price compared to SF, Portland, LA, NYC, etc.
Affordability would be important, but wouldn't be the sole deciding factor for most people.

Is buying a home in Kansas City more affordable than buying a home in SF? Yes. When deciding to settle down, you'd have to ask yourself more than that:
Do you have family, friends or a support system in KC?
Can you transfer your job from SF to KC? Or will you take a lower pay?
Can your significant other do the same?

So yes you can have live in a cheaper house in KC, but if you then have to give up a lot of the other things (doesn't even relate to "stuff to do"), then it may not be worth it to you.
 
Serious question - is it really worth it to live in a city that has a ridiculous cost of living (SF, Portland, LA, NYC, Chicago, etc.) that might have "more stuff to do" compared to living in a smaller market that is WAY more affordable?

yes. just depends on what you like to do.

I'm 26, don't see myself getting married for like 8-10 yrs. Ideally in a few years I could see myself maybe living in downtown LA, or in Hollywood. some of these luxury apartments seem dope, on site gym, rooftop pool on the 13th floor getting lit during spring/summer :smokin not to mention walking distance to staples center so all types of entertainment at the leisure 8)

I don't really plan to leave LA, not when my family & friends are here. only way i move to another city is for some type of lucrative business/job opportunity.
 
Last edited:
Case-Shiller-1890.jpg
 
I dont know if its too early for me but that chart/ graph is all over the place.

If the trend seems to always trend up and then correct back down why does their prediction have it trending down for 26 years? What information supports this?
 
There are several things wrong with these projections. First, relative payments are actually lower than what they were 30 years ago due to low interest rates. If rates stay low, prices should remain relatively high/stable. Second, Prior to WWII, most people wouldn't have imagined buying a home with credit (mortgage). Most homes during that period were bought with cash and then when mortgages did come around, the banks held the notes. Only once Fannie & Freddie came into being and injected liquidity in the market and started buying mortgages were rates actually able to come down (it's more complicated than that, but they help). Third, if home prices were seeing that drastic of a decline you better believe our entire economy would go into free fall and something major like TARP would be done to stabilize things.
 
I think the market hasn't dropped as drastically is because of the Quantitative Easing. Now that they have raised rates the effects are bound to be revealed.
 
Yeah only a fool would believe that chart. Housing prices dropping back down to 1920s levels? :lol:

Not sure if you have noticed that the real estate market has reached pre market crash pricing again. Some areas have surpassed pre market crash pricing.
 
Yeah only a fool would believe that chart. Housing prices dropping back down to 1920s levels? :lol:

Not sure if you have noticed that the real estate market has reached pre market crash pricing again. Some areas have surpassed pre market crash pricing.

Need that to happen in la so I scoop up some more properties
 
Anyone familiar with a non-profit called NACA? My credit is pretty solid but my agent recommended them because he said I can save closing costs and avoid PMI which would be huge for me.

I bought my house through NACA 3 years ago and have nothing but good things to say about the program. I think peoples experiences differ depending on what office they work with. I am in DC and the counseling and perks of the program far exceed any of the negative aspects.

When I bought my house I had no closing costs, no PMI and was able to buy down the interest rate to 2%.
 
laugh.gif
That is not happening, prices are very similar to "pre-crash". Don't know where people are getting these loans to buy these bloated properties.

Rent market is rough too.
roach apt across the street is "leasing" a 2 bedroom for $1500.

I hate these type of owners cause they'll rent to families of 10 and they take up all the street parking.

I have a duplex and make sure that only those on the lease can live there.

I need advance notice if guests are staying longer than a month.

can't wait for Rams games...bout to clean the backyard and stack cars up for $20 a pop 
laugh.gif
 
Back
Top Bottom