Profile:
co80231

This is co80231's Profile page. Use it to view co80231's comments, other users' replies to these comments, and comments co80231 has endorsed.

What's Happening Now

August 19, 2012 10:43 am

Homeowner’s insurance should have a guaranteed re-issue policy in place for the mortgage servicer. The rate should be no more than the insurance cost in prior year. The mortgage servicer should be required to use this guaranteed re-issue policy. This simple and straightforward change would remove the potential for servicers and insurers to game the system.

August 19, 2012 10:52 am

The key to stopping foreclosures is to stop overpricing housing. The effects of a bubble economy are simply to onerous. The problem is that the real estate industry has resisted and whittled down all attempts to limit those mortgages containing a government guarantee. The underlying economic value of a home in the economy by the top 30% wage earners should be used as a basis for cutting off government mortgage subsidies (both passive and active) Part of this is the mortgage home deduction. There should be a maximum value this deduction based on the maximum earning capacity of the 70th percentile. this would be in many markets in the $200K to $300K size. Mortgages should not be guaranteed above this amount. So if a $700K mortgage was originated only $300K would be tax deductible and only $300k… more »

…mortgage would be government guaranteed, the other $400k would be guaranteed by the lending institution. This would also apply to tax free income from sales of homes. Those homes that sell over $300K would not be eligible above $300K for the gains. So if a home sold for $400K then the 100K would be taxable. What I mean by the 70th percentile is traditional formulaes say 1/3 of income to service debt. That means that when interest rates rise these values change also. No I recognize these values are arbitrary so 70th percentile could be 80th, but not 98th and 1/3 income could be .40 of income. And that increased interest rates could be averaged to minimize economic forces. However overall we need to discourage bubbles through our taxation and guarantee policies. « less
August 19, 2012 11:03 pm

Your misrepresentation in your signature line is amazingly bold. Clearly you are not researching you are a real estate industry stooge intent on confusing regulators.

You confuse valuations (recent sales price) with economic value. You equate equate lack of government subsidy a punishment.

In the plan proposed if Californians made more or had less other expenses such as transportation then there would be a greater house price to subsidize. However that is not the case in a bubble economy and a real estate market that confuses recent sals prices with economic value.

August 19, 2012 11:35 pm

Labeling one as a stooge or a dupe is not calling names. It is assessing the level of the comment. You are ignoring the point and throwing out a non-starter as a means to win a debate. It is your arguments that are as berift of substance as the Atacama desert is berift of water. Why is it that you believe all Americans regardless of economic stature and bubble economy position are entitled to the same government subsidies? Answer that with a reasonable degree of clarity and persuasive arguement then you will have others listen to you.

August 19, 2012 10:20 pm

I have to disagree with this thoery. Real Estate is very much local, and everyone needs housing. Your proposal does not take into account that the average single home in San Francisco is valued well over $300,000. So is NYC, Honolulu, LA, San Diego… I don’t know where you live, and perhaps a $300,000 home in your area is a benchmark for the well to do. But $300,000 is not even a starter home in some areas. Why punish the average citizen of those cities just because of where they live? Great plan for those in Ohio, not so great for those in California.

August 19, 2012 11:27 pm

So you resort to calling names when someone disagrees with you? For the record I am not in the real estate business, I’m in the military. So your rant is without merit. And the median home in your area of CO (80231) is only $192,000, how convenient of you to suggest imposing rules on others that would not affect you. I will not resort to calling you names, your actions say it all for you.

August 19, 2012 11:44 pm

It looks like you want a debate, but I’m not interested. Try a debate team or something.

August 20, 2012 2:27 pm

co80231, The purpose of Regulation Room is to provide an environment in
which people can learn about important proposed government regulations and and discuss them in ways that help the agency make a better final decisions. Everyone who comments on the site is expected to remain civil and respectful of each other. Please see the Terms & Conditions you agreed to when you registered. Comments should also address the regulation CFPB is proposing. Changes to the tax code or other forms of mortgage subsidies aren’t part of the proposal.

September 8, 2012 3:41 pm

Hi co80231, and thanks for commenting. It sounds like what you’re suggesting would require servicers to have insurance payment information for borrowers without escrow accounts. Other commenters (such as cu man, below) have discussed the costs this would impose on servicers. What are your thoughts on that discussion?


No comments