Got good credit? It'll cost ya

8th line of the first post body, notice that the lower borrower still pays much more as you would expect and that this will help Fannie and Freddie with their balance sheet-

https://nypost.com/2023/04/16/how-the-us-is-subsidizing-high-risk-homebuyers-at-the-cost-of-those-with-good-credit/

So, again, where does it say what you say.  Or how did you extrapolate that from what he said if you cannot find that exact quote anywhere?

Yes, credit is less available to the more risky -- true.

The higher credit person is now 'punished' in a sense with higher fees than they normally would have been -- true.

It was Biden's appointee that did this -- true.

What exactly do you have issue with what he stated in all of that?  You have to be able to show where it is true that they have do NOT have less credit available -- you cannot, because this is common sense and data-evident.

You have to show where the higher credit person would NOT pay more in fees -- you cannot, because even the Director admits this.

You have to show GOP support for this -- you have not done this yet.  Even though I have repeatedly asked for this.

I have asked what part of this, exactly, did the GOP control.  You still have not answered this.

Just simply say you misspoke on this part of it.  We all jump the gun from time to time.

The only out here is to say Biden, himself, did NOT intimate this.  But he doesn't do anything, period; just does what he is told to do.

But he did appoint her and is in charge.  So, by default or not, he is to blame.

I bet if he did not approve he would replace her, right?

 NPR, August 1, 2019; The bipartisan legislation, which was approved in a 67-28 vote, raises the debt ceiling past the 2020 elections and allows $1.3 trillion for defense and domestic programs over the next two years.

- In all, 23 of the 52 Senate Republican who voted on Thursday opposed the plan.

-Last week, the House of Representatives approved the plan in a 284-149 vote. The legislation was largely carried through by Democrats who control the chamber, with a majority of Republicans opposing the plan.

REMEMBER, TRUMP DID IT!!! 

Obama era yearly deficits;

• 2012 - $1.1 trillion budget deficit
• 2011 - $1.3 trillion budget deficit
• 2010 - $1.3 trillion budget deficit
• 2009 - $1.4 trillion budget deficit

I do not think anyone is disputing that? 

The point is the reason they adjusted it.  Why does the higher rated person NOW pay more than he would have? 

Those are the issues.  

"The link was not from the OP rather what Mugg posted in the thread as a reply."

So, no link to quote.  What did you mean by implying you read the entire article and saw it there?  So, you really just were replying to his post and nothing in the article?

@Raiders22

The link I posted was from line 8 of his thread body, a link from there.

I also said it was to bolster the balance sheet which that link stated and which is true. Good credit borrowers are not being punished, they are changing their policies to likely offset an imbalance that existed before, I say that because the fee for the higher credit borrower vs lower before was absurdly abusive, but it is their call as a corporate entity to adjust their fees as they decide to. Just as big banks tightened their requirements after 2008 and upped fees, it is their decision to be more equitable to the lower credit borrower. If the higher rated borrower is unhappy then they have choices this is not the only option and in fact if I were to give the closing cost estimate from 20 borrowers I would get likely 10-15 variances due to the fee decisions from those companies. 

The great thing about living in the US is you have choices, this is not a liberal attack on conservative high credit rating borrowers, this is a decision made to be more equitable to lower score borrowers and balance the fee burden and bolster their balance sheet as a lender. Most everything is not lib vs conservative, not them vs you and reality is usually somewhere far from your extreme position and more towards the middle.

I really think Bank of America is a horrible bank, I dont have to bank there. I think PNC is ripping off their savings accounts with their rates, I can find rates somewhere else. Choices are what makes the US great, not every single angle is partisan, not every headline is some horror story political attack.

"I also said it was to bolster the balance sheet which that link stated and which is true."

Where?

"Good credit borrowers are not being punished, they are changing their policies to likely offset an imbalance that existed before"

Where does it SAY this?  I do not see it.

Why not address the REASONS that they do say?

"I say that because the fee for the higher credit borrower vs lower before was absurdly abusive"

To whom?  No one else has said that?  They say it is to GIVE more credit to lower-rated folks.

There is a reason riskier lendees are charge more -- how is that abusive?

Sheesh its like you have to be led to draw a reasonable conclusion, why else do you think they are shifting the fee structure?

The agency asserts the LLPA changes will help maintain financial health at Fannie and Freddie — a key element of its responsibility as conservator.

“These changes to upfront fees will strengthen the safety and soundness of the Enterprises by enhancing their ability to improve their capital position over time,” FHFA Director Sandra Thompson said in a statement earlier this year.

"The great thing about living in the US is you have choices, this is not a liberal attack on conservative high credit rating borrowers, this is a decision made to be more equitable to lower score borrowers and balance the fee burden and bolster their balance sheet as a lender. Most everything is not lib vs conservative, not them vs you and reality is usually somewhere far from your extreme position and more towards the middle."

No one has said they are 'attacking conservative high-credit borrowers'. They can be Liberal high-credit borrowers. 

Yes, Liberals are more than ones that want loans forgiven and by-and-large the ones that want 'supposedly under-privileged' folks to have houses they cannot afford.

Again, to disprove this simply show the Right-leaning supporters.

Yes  -- you live in USA.  So, there, you can work and get good credit and buy a house you truly CAN afford.  Do not need to change the rules to benefit irresponsible folks.

Again, and again, I keep asking -- WHAT PART OF THIS DID THE GOP CONTROL?

Under the revised LLPA pricing structure, a home buyer with a 740 FICO credit score and a 15% to 20% down payment will face a 1% surcharge – an increase of 0.750% compared to the old fee of just 0.250%.

Meanwhile, buyers with credit scores of 679 or lower will have their fees slashed, resulting in more favorable mortgage rates. For example, a buyer with a 620 FICO credit score with a down payment of 5% or less gets a 1.75% fee discount – a decrease from the old fee rate of 3.50% for that bracket.

Yes I do think the discrepancy of .25 percent vs 3.5% to be absurd, it is abusive and extreme. BUT the great thing about the USA is if I dont like a 1% fee from Fannie then I can waddle my butt over to Provident Funding or another high credit score lender, or call my mortgage broker friend and find out what is a better option. Or I could shake my fist in the sky and bemoan how LIBERALS are wrecking the world.

@Raiders22

LOL

So pillar of your rant wrecked move onto another non-pillar...you crack me up.

I never said the GOP controlled anything, it was YOU that said LIBSSSSS did and that is why. My partisan mind thinks that pretty much little to nothing is partisan as you are claiming.

Good thing we have choices and minds to make good choices if we decide to.

@wallstreetcappers

THIS IS THE REASON LISTED IN THE ARTICLE:

The fee structure changes are the latest of several moves by the FHFA aimed at boosting affordability for what the agency calls “mission borrowers” – defined as first-time buyers, low-income borrowers and applicants from underserved communities.

NOT the part about charging MORE to better-credited folks to offset the LESS better-credit folks!

HUH??????

I guess that is why you are not a lender and do not understand the risks involved.  

@Raiders22

 My GOP comment was that nothing is partisan, both parties have part control in the process. Point being that nothing is blanket partisan, can I say that a few more times?

So, basically this is just your opinion, and that is fine.  But many experts in the field say you are wrong.  That is all I am saying.  These are well-informed folks that deal with this on a daily basis.

Instead of jumping to conclusions and thinking every critique is political -- try to study up on issues in the future.  This will help you to understand it better.

Obviously, economically, risk-management wise, and financially it is wrong to do folks like this.

Now they are sticking them with houses they cannot afford longterm.  This is not to even mention the effect it may have on the whole industry and market.

No sir-- you CAN back up your statement with evidence.  Or you can retract it.  Obviously, you were wrong about that and thinking the 'previous guy' appointed the folks that made the decision.

WHAT part did the GOP have in THIS process and decision?

No problem -- we are all wrong from time to time and jump the gun.  

So my quote from the same article is invalid even though it is from the same article. Got it...they are balancing the fee structure, they are not attacking anyone rather again..balancing their fee structure.

Good thing this is the US and I am not forced to borrow directly from Fannie, even if my loan is sold to them from a diff lender, this is a CLOSING COST item, unless you roll the fee into the loan it has no impact past closing. I also hate origination fees, MANY banks charge them, I avoid those banks and I wont pay an origination fee, what a great concept.

Correct-- that is NOT the reason stated.  That is the adjustment part they are referencing NOT the decisions to DO IT.

This is not hard to get.

"Good thing this is the US and I am not forced to borrow directly from Fannie, even if my loan is sold to them from a diff lender, this is a CLOSING COST item, unless you roll the fee into the loan it has no impact past closing. I also hate origination fees, MANY banks charge them, I avoid those banks and I wont pay an origination fee, what a great concept."

Who cares?  This has nothing to do with their decision.  

It is the USA.  You can avoid nearly all of that by saving up and paying cash for a house you can afford.  Whatever...

Oh I stand by my comment, the point as I keep making it is nothing is partisan completely, that is a concept which is proven every single time parties shift control and still wonderfully things still happen. It isnt like one party wrecks the world and when the other is in all the world is wonderful, to me the partisan issue is lobbyists and money not which party is in control. 

Unless every single person in the agency, every single person at Fannie and Freddie were fired when Biden came in and EVERY single person is a flaming liberal hire, then it does not matter...the agency, those entities its all a fluid motion of ideas, minds, people, events its all in motion and you cant blanket blame one person, one party...THAT is the conclusion you seem unable to comprehend.

@Raiders22

I never mentioned a cash purchase but yes in concept you are correct that a lender based fee is contingent on borrowing for the purchase..lol