Quantcast

Comments about ‘A. Scott Anderson: New lending rules will suppress homebuying’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, May 1 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Updated: Friday, Aug. 8 2014 12:36 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Shaun
Sandy, UT

How is requiring better income verification and lower debt to income ratios a bad thing?

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

Written by the CEO and president of a bank. What else can he say?

"Obviously, banks are not interested in providing mortgages to people who won’t be able to pay them. Everyone loses when a mortgage goes delinquent."

Right. So how do we explain the subprime mortgage crisis? Seems to me that Mr. CEO has already forgotten what happened a mere six years ago. Businesses have such short-term memories. There is a reason, Mr. Anderson, that we have tighter regulations on mortgage lending. From the tone of this editorial, it appears Zions Bancorp is pushing for a rerun of 2008.

Also relevant here: on March 20, the Fed announced that of the 30 big banks to undergo the Dodd-Frank stress test, only Zions failed. Hmm. Sounds like Zions actually needs to lend less and acquire more capital reserves.

Dragline
Orem, UT

Let's check some of these banker's arguments:

"Over the last five years, amid poor economic conditions,"

Who was it again who caused the crash and caused these poor economic conditions?

"The qualified mortgage rules make verification of income harder and reduce the debt-to-income limits, among other things."

In contrast to bankers approving mortgages with their eyes closed before the crash.

"This drag on mortgage lending is occurring at a time when people are being more responsible about debt."

People are more responsible because of Dodd-Frank.

"Obviously, banks are not interested in providing mortgages to people who won't be able to pay them. "

And yet banks bought off on NINJA (no income, jobs, assets) loans before the new rules.

It was not the bankers who were hurt in the Great Recession. The banks and insurers were bailed out by the government at 100 cents on the dollar (think AIG). And still today they get access to government money at 0 percent interest. In the words of Neil Young, "There's a bailout comin', but not for you." Banks would love to see the whole thing in replay.

Brer Rabbit
Spanish Fork, UT

More solid proof that the borrower will pay the mortgage doesn't seem unreasonable after what happened in 2008

cmsense
Kaysville, UT

We absolutly need tighter lending standards. This article failed to mention what the actual standards will be. Bankers were making tons of money originating loans then selling off 100% of the risk to Uncle Sam (Fannie Mae etc). Yea, those perverse incentives worked out great. I think we could trust banks to regulate themselves if they had even 50% skin in the game and weren't too big to fail. The myth that housing markets never go down was shattered.
Yes, people should have skin in the game as well. Why do realaters and bankers balk at even requiring a 3% down payments. The percentage should go up the bigger the mortgage, say 5% a 100k, 10% up to 300k, 15% 500K and 20% above that. I think the banks should have to keep about the same amount on their books so marvelous self interest factor makes sure only good loans are made.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments