2009-03-09newsvine.com

Roughly a decade ago, several companies decided that, since borrowers with FHA-insured loans were able to get down payment assistance from family, employers, government entities or charitable organizations, they would enter the down payment assistance market by becoming nonprofit “charitable” organizations.

The difference between these organizations and the rest, however, was that they had a plan to accept so-called “donations” from the seller of a property, and then turn around and provide a “grant” to the buyer of that property, who would use the funds to satisfy the down payment requirement on a FHA insured mortgage. For handling that transaction, these charitable organizations would receive a fee… roughly $400 -$800, according to various published sources.



Comments:

kuuner at 21:52 2009-03-10 said:
Apparently, it's not outrageous enough for anyone to care. Permalink
thetruthfromNC at 22:38 2009-03-10 said:
As with any debate your arguement must be true in all cases or it is not a valid agruement, case in point SFDPA FHA loans and the following agruements:

1) loans with "no skin in the game" are a bad idea (i.e. 100% loans). If you really believe this then why have I never seen any posting to stop USDA and VA loan programs? Don't tell me it's a bad idea for FHA but it's o.k. for USDA and VA.

2) The loses are too great. If you really believe this then you have to be in favor of only 20% down conf. loans, because 95% LTV have greater loses then 80% LTV (that's why the MI is higher).

The answer to the problem is to allow FHA to do 100% loans with the proper credit requirement (i.e. higher scores, lower ratios, limited payment shock, etc) to limit loses and increased MI for those loan to cover the losses. Permalink

add a comment | go to forum thread