What does this mean?

http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg1059.aspx

The government will slowly get out of the mortgage business.

The pace will be glacial.

Fannie will put 1000s of Broker Manuals against all the doors of their palace and no one will be able to get in to see what they actually do all day.

understood . . . my thought is interest rates will go up as Fannie and Freddie go out

LOL

Interest rates going up as well as intentionally pushing potential buyers out of the market is the plan. From what I gathered from the quick skim of the statement, the Obamanation suggests raising the downpayment requirements, increase fees, and increase the PMI rate.

Yeah, that sounds like a great economic recovery plan to me. Killing the American Dream of homeownership and turning the US into a nation of renters. Who are we going to rent from? The foreign investors buying up all the property? The US Elite who preach environmentalism while flying across the country on their private jets?

One more step towards a "ruling party" and class warfare. They must be using Animal Farm as their playbook.

Yep . . . you got it BaddestCross . . . raising the down payment to 10% will cut a lot of buyers out of the market. This whole thing is because Fannie and Freddie were not making a profit for their stakeholders, at the same time; Fannie and Freddie were getting preferential treatment because they were government sponsored entities. They were GSE's who rested on the taxpayers back. We the taxpayers always wind up paying the bill for mismanagement by others while others fly across the country on their private jets.

It's amazing to me that everyone whines that the government is too involved in private enterprises such as home ownership and blame gov't for all the ill prepared now failing and defaulting home owners on the gov't financing subsidized loans..but .now the govt is purposing a slow wind down eliminating their involvement in the industry..whiners come out again and blame gov for not controlling the private industry of mortgage lending...
cant it have it both ways...get a grip..if you cant put down a 10% downpayment you probably shouldnt be buying a house..or maybe you should be buyer a smaller house that you can afford the 10% down payment on...
personal responibility is a function of the individual...

For many the "American Dream" of homeownership is a pipe dream. Some segments of our population cannot afford to buy or own a home. To encourage them into thinking that they can is cruel. And when they can't, they believe it's the result of some hidden plot or conspiracy against them, or some form of discrimination.

I doubt very much that anything will change. Politicians need to keep selling pipe dreams and legislating "social justice".

Raising interest rates now will definitely have a huge effect on recovery, probably not the one that the administration wants to achieve but spectacular anyway. I would not count much on foreign investors at this point or any time soon. The main reason they were investing so much in US real estate was market stability with US government guarantee in form of Fannie and Freddie involvement. Now with default rate not slowing down and government talking about exiting the market I do not see them picking up the tab.

I always laugh when I see the NAR rhetoric about the "American Dream". For some people, ownership of anything is wrong. That's why places like Aarons furniture and appliance rentals exist. That's why you can lease a car.
Home ownership gives a buyer certain rights but also gives them a list of responsibilities. Irresponsible people become defaulters which become REO's.

When I lived in Florida I had a friend-client that owned a lot of rental property. Whenever he would be complaining about something a tenant did (or didn't do) his wife would simply say to him "Andy, that's why their renters".

There's a big difference between enabling lower income buyers that can afford homeownership to obtain a mortgage with a lower downpayment and pushing homeownership on people that cannot afford it (along with all the additional costs involved).

When FNMA was independent and only insured mortgages for qualified buyers it was a good thing. Now that they are govt entities and are actually are buying the paper and holding the mortgages it is too much govt intervention.

In the early '90s when the Clinton regime along with ACORN and other such groups lobbied for the huge push of homeownership for everyone - whether they should or could afford it - FNMA rules began to change and the whole mess we're experiencing now began.

There's no whining here, just amazement that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

when you say everyone...I assume you mean "everyone"...no matter what...I am trying my best to adhear to the fair housing laws...because Ive been in some awfully nice..."messy" homes...

Along with Home Ownership comes a restriction on your freedom of movement.

Tenants are usually held to no more than a year's lease, and can often break a lease anyway.

Owners lose that freedom, and in an il-liquid market, often find that they are stuck, unable to pursue opportunities elsewhere.

Some of us rent the Real Estate; others of us rent the Money (via a Mortgage) in order to call ourselves "Owners".

In the end, none of us really "owns" the Real Estate . . . . we're just the temporary custodians of it.

Yes, I do mean everyone. However, there was a huge push by ACORN and the like to push ownership on a certain class of minorities because that group was "underrepresented" in the ownership stats.

The problem with pushing anything on anyone just because that group isn't "equal" with disregard to the individual circumstance of the member of that group is a problem waiting to happen. Especially when we're talking about putting someone under the burden of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt when that person cannot service that debt. A lot of folks were lied to and given loans they would never be able to afford in the long run in the name of equality.

All things considered, I'd rather be equal in happiness and security than in foreclosure and bankruptcy.