H. R. 6694 Passes Out Of Committee

8 Comments

1. firsttimehomebuyer says:

   September 18, 2008 at 7:40 PM

   I called my Senators and my HRep today. Hopefully this will pass quick. We don’t have enough time to really get our paperwork done and we need a downpayment!
2. paidmyown says:

   October 10, 2008 at 8:01 PM

   What happened to the days where people actually SAVED enough to make their own down payments? Let’s ask these people if they drive an SUV and have 5 flat panel TVs. That’s how Americans live now. They live on credit…
3. Carl Pruitt says:

   October 10, 2008 at 8:40 PM

   I’m absolutely not opposed to people putting money down. For most of my career in the mortgage business, buyers had to put down essentially 5%.

   FHA is a self supporting program where the borrowers as a general rule carry their own weight by paying mortgage insurance premiums. They have to prove their ability to make the payments along with whatever payment they may be making on that SUV and those TVs. In addition, every lender and broker who offers FHA loans is held accountable for their default rates. FHA programs aren’t the problem bringing down the credit industry.

   With seller assisted DAPs, the borrowers lose some of their ability to negotiate with the seller and end up in the long run funding their own down payment. Unlike the government programs which are being forced as replacements, this down payment assistance doesn’t come directly out of the taxpayers’ pockets.
4. Krista Railey says:

   October 16, 2008 at 11:43 AM

   I agree with you Carl. These programs create housing inflation and lead to higher default rates. Every single SFDPA program that I look at is ran as a for profit venture without regard for borrowers. I invite you to take a close look at the programs and the individuals behind the programs, and you will likely find a convoluted mess of multiple entities brokering programs. As to providers that do not obfuscate their identity and file IRS 990 returns, the flow of cash from the non profits to for profit entities involving the Officers says it all.

   Currently Christopher Russell, Ryan Hill and the Penobscot Indian Nation is suing the ML Implode and myself to remove my documented article regarding their program from my blog and stifle free speech. Needless to say, its a sad day when bloggers get sued to silence criticism- especially on such a controversial issue as seller-funded down payment grants.

   FHA Seller-Funded Down-payment Outfit Sues ML-Implode In Effort To Silence Criticism

   If H.R. 6694 passes, it will be a travesty against FHA and the Taxpayers and will create higher home prices, higher defaults, and higher mortgage insurance costs for borrowers that save their down payment.

   In fact, some buyers who save their down payment and are ready for homeownership will be displaced entirely just so some buyers can purchase before they are ready.

   Representatives Maxine Waters (D-CA), Al Green (D-TX), and Gary Miller (R-CA) are selling out to trade groups and special interest while ignoring the fact that housing inflation and inflation overall is a greater threat to the housing market than whether buyers without down payments can purchase homes.
5. Christopher Russell says:

   October 17, 2008 at 7:03 PM

   I do not believe DPA’s are bad for FHA. THe default and foreclosure numbers are nearly identical to those of other down payment gift sources. FHA should have increased it upfront MIP 1/4% over a year ago to protect against higher defaults across the board.

   As to why Ms. Railey is being sued, its because she fabricated chunks of her story and appears to have conspired with her coworker to solicit us for advertising and when we refused, she made up a story about us. If anyone else has been victimized by Ms. Railey and her cronies, please contact us, as we are putting a class action suit together. We are gathering affadvits from the other mortgage and DPA victims of the ML Implode site.

   We don’t care if you criticize us, just don’t make up quotes and claim you “verified” facts that never took place. We fully support a spirited dicussion surrounding DPA but to represent that I defrauded a non-profit which I had built from nothing, to having over $20M in assets when I left it four years later, is a bald faced lie and is unconscionable that anyone would represent it as being true. Ms. Railey created a story in her mind about us and wrote it. She still doesn’t understand nor care that she didn’t verify the facts or even take the time to even ask ANYONE if the lies she published were true.

   She is now telling everyone that she published the story by “accident” because she now knows she printed a totally fabricated story. The only problem with that is she moderates her site and I have a screen shot showing three comments from people the day after she intentionally published her expose of lies.

   Oops!! I guess that she and Krowne will have to come up with a new lie as to why the published their work of fiction about us. I have the easiest job here, all I have to do is tell the truth. Ms Railey and Krowne have to keep their lies straight and they are already crumbling on that one because they admit in their filing that they intentionally published the story! All they had to do was remove a story that they fabricated about me, instead they continue to publish the lies and don’t think they should be held accountable for it.
6. Carl Pruitt says:

   October 17, 2008 at 7:41 PM

   I won’t take sides in this argument as I have no knowledge of the facts. I wouldn’t have been aware of the original article except for this comment. My policy is not to censor comments unless I absolutely have to, so I will let each party’s statements speak for themselves.

   As I have stated in a later post on this site, after spending many months vociferously defending seller assisted down payment programs, I have personally come to the conclusion that a higher loan to value FHA loan program combined with stricter adherence to standard underwriting guidelines would be a better solution for FHA.

   However, let me make sure that readers understand – If we cannot get a higher LTV FHA loan, I would rather have down seller assisted down payment programs than the rules as they exist today.
7. Krista Railey says:

   October 24, 2008 at 3:06 AM

   Mr. Russell, as you know from my Affidavit that is filed with the Maryland Court, I am an independent blogger and not an employee of ML. I have no connection with their business and do not have “co-workers”. To state otherwise with full knowledge of my affidavit is disingenuous at best.

   While you state that my documented article is full of fabrications, you fail to provide specific information/documentation as to why public information and third party statements which I relied upon is incorrect.

   The fact that I revised the verbiage in my article is not an admission of being wrong, but moreover the exercise of manners and a modicum of restraint. While I removed much of the personal commentary from the story, there wasn’t a material change in facts.

   Instead of accepting the fact that as a public figure (at the center of a national controversy) you are subject to seething criticism and possible scorn, you instead result to legal (aka financial) bullying as a means of silencing opposition.

   You go ahead and put together a “class action” as an attempt to squelch my voice against H.R. 6694 and the abuse from some of the so-called “non-profits” and I will continue to write and document my articles. In the end, both the courts and the public will decide.

   FHASellerFundedDownpaymentOutfitSuesMLImplode
   InEffortToSilenceCr.html

   http://whistleblower.ml-implode.com/?page_id=122

   And:

   http://whistleblower.ml-implode.com/?p=184
8. Aaron Krowne says:

   October 24, 2008 at 6:30 PM

   Russell you might want to go back and take a look at the filing. As we clearly state, the initial version of the story was intentionally posted only for INTERNAL circulation; the public status was indeed unintentional. Your insistence on intentionality is completely baseless and since that is the case, you have manufactured a ridiculous claim about extortion (As if we would want YOUR money… Don’t flatter yourself. I’d rather eat depleted nuclear waste, in fact.).

   For those following along at home, all the substantive points of the original post still stand; we simply scaled back some opinion and wording to meet Russell’s initial shrill complaints. This leaves nothing left by way of defamation, which is why Russell must continually conflate the initial and final posting, and make up fantasies about extortion.

   If we really cared that much about the money, why would we leave the article up and go through an expensive court battle?