Biden Admin Wants More 'Equitable' Home Ownership

[twenty02]

Their answer is to charge more in mortgage funding fees to borrowers with high credit scores and reduce the funding costs for sub-prime borrowers.

What could possibly go wrong?

High credit score borrowers penalized under new federal mortgage fee plan

Under the new matrix, borrowers with high credit scores will face higher mortgage fees than before and those with lower credit scores will face lower fees.

reason.com

 

[UncleMark]

This has been fueling the outrage machine for a couple days now. Higher risk borrowers will still pay more. This just closes the gap somewhat.

 

[twenty02]

This has been fueling the outrage machine for a couple days now. Higher risk borrowers will still pay more. This just closes the gap somewhat.

People are outraged as it's complete bullshit. It's a subsidy for high risk borrowers paid for by prime borrowers.

We've been down this road before.... how quickly we forget. If you've got a 620 credit score, you shouldn't be buying a house until you clean your mess up, anyway.

 

[UncleMark]

We've been down this road before.... how quickly we forget. If you've got a 620 credit score, you shouldn't be buying a house until you clean your mess up, anyway.

On this we are in agreement.

I can see more favorable interest rates being given to low risk borrowers, but can't justify there being any difference between borrowers when it comes to fees.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

There are no more Republicans only social issue voters on both sides.

 

[DANC]

Their answer is to charge more in mortgage funding fees to borrowers with high credit scores and reduce the funding costs for sub-prime borrowers.

What could possibly go wrong?

High credit score borrowers penalized under new federal mortgage fee plan

Under the new matrix, borrowers with high credit scores will face higher mortgage fees than before and those with lower credit scores will face lower fees.

reason.com

Of all the stupid-ass Marxist ideas, this one takes the cake.

Hey, financially responsible home buyers - you get to pay extra so the guy who's run up a huge credit card debt can get his house payment down.

That will sell well next election.

 

[DANC]

This has been fueling the outrage machine for a couple days now. Higher risk borrowers will still pay more. This just closes the gap somewhat.

How is it the government's job to 'close the gap' in any way?

 

[UncleMark]

How is it the government's job to 'close the gap' in any way?

How was it their job to open the gap to begin with?

 

[DANC]

How was it their job to open the gap to begin with?

It wasn't and they didn't.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Their answer is to charge more in mortgage funding fees to borrowers with high credit scores and reduce the funding costs for sub-prime borrowers.

What could possibly go wrong?

High credit score borrowers penalized under new federal mortgage fee plan

Under the new matrix, borrowers with high credit scores will face higher mortgage fees than before and those with lower credit scores will face lower fees.

reason.com

Biden is a total moron. Has to be a historically stupid president. But house prices are a huge problem. In many ways a foundational problem

 

[GiggityGoo]

This policy is legitimately evil.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Their answer is to charge more in mortgage funding fees to borrowers with high credit scores and reduce the funding costs for sub-prime borrowers.

What could possibly go wrong?

High credit score borrowers penalized under new federal mortgage fee plan

Under the new matrix, borrowers with high credit scores will face higher mortgage fees than before and those with lower credit scores will face lower fees.

reason.com

I'm no expert, but it sure looks to me like the low credit borrowers are still paying more in those tables. Am I reading it wrong?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

It wasn't and they didn't.

Then what does the "LLPA Matrix" represent, exactly? I see a bunch of tables with higher numbers assigned to lower credit scores.

 

[UncleMark]

I'm no expert, but it sure looks to me like the low credit borrowers are still paying more in those tables. Am I reading it wrong?

No. All these new rules do is tweak the tables and narrow the gap.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

No. All these new rules do is tweak the tables and narrow the gap.

So, if I understand this correctly, the system was designed so that lower credit borrowers were forced to pay higher fees, and now, they have tweaked it such that they still pay higher fees, but maybe not quite so much higher as they used to be, and that tweak is..."evil?" Is that the argument as we're getting it?

 

[UncleMark]

So, if I understand this correctly, the system was designed so that lower credit borrowers were forced to pay higher fees, and now, they have tweaked it such that they still pay higher fees, but maybe not quite so much higher as they used to be, and that tweak is..."evil?" Is that the argument as we're getting it?

Equity, bitch.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Equity, bitch.

This thread makes "Kill all the rich people" sound like sensible policy.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Robin Hood was a thief.

 

[UncleMark]

This thread makes "Kill all the rich people" sound like sensible policy.

They're victims.

 

[Crayfish57]

How was it their job to open the gap to begin with?

Please tell me you aren't really this stupid?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Please tell me you aren't really this stupid?

Perhaps you have it within you to explain why Mark's comment is stupid? Because I don't really know much about any of these, but even a cursory glance makes it look like Mark's comment is square on the money.

 

[Crayfish57]

Perhaps you have it within you to explain why Mark's comment is stupid? Because I don't really know much about any of these, but even a cursory glance makes it look like Mark's comment is square on the money.

So people with good credit should pay more to help people with bad credit and of course this initial problem was obvisouly a gap caused by republicans? That is he is trying to imply Are you that stupid as well? You guys just go out of your way to prove the point. So you are basically saying that you think it is alright to make people that worked and established good credit pay more to pay for people that haven't . That is the only take to have on it and a perfect example of liberals selling this country down the drain. It is always someone else's fault why you are down trodden so make someone else help pay for your own problems. That is basically what this is saying

 

[Circlejoe]

So people with good credit should pay more to help people with bad credit and of course this initial problem was obvisouly a gap caused by republicans? That is he is trying to imply Are you that stupid as well? You guys just go out of your way to prove the point. So you are basically saying that you think it is alright to make people that worked and established good credit pay more to pay for people that haven't . That is the only take to have on it and a perfect example of liberals selling this country down the drain. It is always someone else's fault why you are down trodden so make someone else help pay for your own problems. That is basically what this is saying

We’ll that seems to be a reasonable explanation. 🥺

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So people with good credit should pay more to help people with bad credit and of course this initial problem was obvisouly a gap caused by republicans? That is he is trying to imply Are you that stupid as well? You guys just go out of your way to prove the point. So you are basically saying that you think it is alright to make people that worked and established good credit pay more to pay for people that haven't . That is the only take to have on it and a perfect example of liberals selling this country down the drain. It is always someone else's fault why you are down trodden so make someone else help pay for your own problems. That is basically what this is saying

Well that doesn't sound remotely like anything Mark said, anything I said, or anything to be found in the link provided in the OP. So I suppose the answer is that no, you cannot explain why Mark is stupid.

 

[twenty02]

So, if I understand this correctly, the system was designed so that lower credit borrowers were forced to pay higher fees, and now, they have tweaked it such that they still pay higher fees, but maybe not quite so much higher as they used to be, and that tweak is..."evil?" Is that the argument as we're getting it?

I'll try to put this in terms even the simpletons understand.

You are running an auto insurance business and you have two customers.... one is 45, has never had as much as a traffic ticket, the other is 28 and has 2 DUIs and and recently caused a massive accident.

Would you charge them the same insurance premiums going forward?

But per Biden equality, we need to make sure we don't charge the 28yo too much, so we are going to overcharge the 45 year old, well beyond their own risk profile, so the 28YO can still afford to stay on the road.

You can flip the ages if you want, as there are a lot of 28YOs more responsible than the 45 year old. And they will be fkd just the same.

@JamieDimonsBalls can take the freshman level risk mgmt class from here

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I'll try to put this in terms even the simpletons understand.

You are running an auto insurance business and you have two customers.... one is 45, has never had as much as a traffic ticket, the other is 28 and has 2 DUIs and and recently caused a massive accident.

Would you charge them the same insurance premiums going forward?

But per Biden equality, we need to make sure we don't charge the 28yo too much, so we are going to overcharge the 45 year old, well beyond their own risk profile, so the 28YO can still afford to stay on the road.

You can flip the ages if you want, as there are a lot of 28YOs more responsible than the 45 year old. And they will be fkd just the same.

@JamieDimonsBalls can take the freshman level risk mgmt class from here

No I wouldn't, and as far as I can tell, neither would the feds.

 

[twenty02]

No I wouldn't, and as far as I can tell, neither would the feds.

This is without a doubt a surcharge that low risk borrowers are paying on their mortgage to subsidize high risk borrowers. For absolutely no reason, other than the thumb of the govt.

High risk borrowers pay a larger fee because they are high risk.

 

[TomEric4756]

Of all the stupid-ass Marxist ideas, this one takes the cake.

Hey, financially responsible home buyers - you get to pay extra so the guy who's run up a huge credit card debt can get his house payment down.

That will sell well next election.

Well … in a true Marxist workers paradise … the state would tell one what humble domicile one is fortunate to be permitted to live in. You wouldn’t be permitted to buy it, in the first place. Of course in the ‘company town‘ the politically connected will get real houses … while most everyone else will get a 4-room, 1-bath high rise flat.

This is a class warfare income redistribution scheme. If you can afford to pay cash … you won’t pay Fanny Mae any fees. Thus, this is an attack on the middle class first and foremost. They don’t have the dough to buy a house outright. It continues a pattern of patronage of poor financial choices.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

So, if I understand this correctly, the system was designed so that lower credit borrowers were forced to pay higher fees, and now, they have tweaked it such that they still pay higher fees, but maybe not quite so much higher as they used to be, and that tweak is..."evil?" Is that the argument as we're getting it?

You’re not this dumb, goat.

I don’t believe Twenty or anyone else claimed that high risk borrowers weren’t still paying more.

They’re just not paying as much more as they were before.

And that difference is being paid by people with better scores.

I’m not sure it qualifies as evil but it’s definitely horseshit.

Which makes it right up Bidens alley.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So, if I understand this correctly, the system was designed so that lower credit borrowers were forced to pay higher fees, and now, they have tweaked it such that they still pay higher fees, but maybe not quite so much higher as they used to be, and that tweak is..."evil?" Is that the argument as we're getting it?

You missed the part where high credit score buyers pay higher fees.

I don’t know what the fees are supposed to cover, or how they are calculated, but a government regulation that mandates a certain fee calculation isn’t why we have government. Why wouldn’t government simply subsidize fees like it does with other necessities?

 

[Courtsensetwo]

How was it their job to open the gap to begin with?

The free market did that

As it should.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

So, if I understand this correctly, the system was designed so that lower credit borrowers were forced to pay higher fees, and now, they have tweaked it such that they still pay higher fees, but maybe not quite so much higher as they used to be, and that tweak is..."evil?" Is that the argument as we're getting it?

Fees are being shifted not reduced.

Enormous difference and among the most disgusting moves since student loan forgiveness

The plan is to shift costs to more responsible citizens which simply rewards poor decisions and low effort.

This country is ****ed

 

[NPT]

No. All these new rules do is tweak the tables and narrow the gap.

To really know how to look at the tables you would have to know how they came up with the rates to start off with. I would assume (maybe incorrectly) that they are based on the risk that the lender takes and that they have some kind of algorithm to calculate the loan rate based on the risks. I would think that they would have all sorts of good data to look at to see what the rates should be.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

So we have dumbed down academics and grading.

We have dumbed down youth athletics

We have dumbed down college admissions

We have dumbed down repayment of loans

We have dumbed down hiring

We have dumbed down carrying a gun

We have dumbed down responsible parenting.

Now we dumb down responsible credit

Sounds like a winner

 

[GiggityGoo]

So we have dumbed down academics and grading.

We have dumbed down youth athletics

We have dumbed down college admissions

We have dumbed down repayment of loans

We have dumbed down hiring

We have dumbed down carrying a gun

We have dumbed down responsible parenting.

Now we dumb down responsible credit

Sounds like a winner

And who woulda thunk it. IQ scores are going down. How can this be happening?

 

[Univee2]

So we have dumbed down academics and grading.

We have dumbed down youth athletics

We have dumbed down college admissions

We have dumbed down repayment of loans

We have dumbed down hiring

We have dumbed down carrying a gun

We have dumbed down responsible parenting.

Now we dumb down responsible credit

Sounds like a winner

. . . And then your doctor kills you because it checked some intersectional box.

 

[mcmurtry66]

So we have dumbed down academics and grading.

We have dumbed down youth athletics

We have dumbed down college admissions

We have dumbed down repayment of loans

We have dumbed down hiring

We have dumbed down carrying a gun

We have dumbed down responsible parenting.

Now we dumb down responsible credit

Sounds like a winner

From Biden to Harris to stay at home Pete to the progressives just a totally worthless group who are actively trying to destroy the country from your local community to national regulations and all we have in response is trump. Still talking about election shit. We are indeed screwed

 

[Lucy01]

So we have dumbed down academics and grading.

We have dumbed down youth athletics

We have dumbed down college admissions

We have dumbed down repayment of loans

We have dumbed down hiring

We have dumbed down carrying a gun

We have dumbed down responsible parenting.

Now we dumb down responsible credit

Sounds like a winner

All for racial equality!!!

 

[larsIU]

You are running an auto insurance business and you have two customers.... one is 45, has never had as much as a traffic ticket, the other is 28 and has 2 DUIs and and recently caused a massive accident.

I believe this actually describes Massachusetts. I’m not even joking.

 

[UncleMark]

I'll try to put this in terms even the simpletons understand.

You are running an auto insurance business and you have two customers.... one is 45, has never had as much as a traffic ticket, the other is 28 and has 2 DUIs and and recently caused a massive accident.

Would you charge them the same insurance premiums going forward?

But per Biden equality, we need to make sure we don't charge the 28yo too much, so we are going to overcharge the 45 year old, well beyond their own risk profile, so the 28YO can still afford to stay on the road.

You can flip the ages if you want, as there are a lot of 28YOs more responsible than the 45 year old. And they will be fkd just the same.

@JamieDimonsBalls can take the freshman level risk mgmt class from here

Yeah, except that that's nothing at all like what is going on here.