Comments on: House Appropriations Bill Could Extend Higher Reverse Mortgage Limit

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:13:00 +0000

dduck12,rnrnI do have one correction I would like to make on my discussion of the statement by Representative Latham. The fiscal year ending for the projected loss is 9/30/2010, not 9/30/2009 as stated.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:59:00 +0000

dduck12 and Mr. Smith,rnrnAs of Friday evening, the House Democrats (almost on party lines) passed HR 3288. In that bill there is a mandate for the HUD Secretary to ” adjust the factors used to calculate the principal limit (as such term is defined in HUD Handbook 4235.1) that were assumed in the Presidentu2019s Budget Request for 2010 for such loans, as necessary to ensure that the program operates at a net zero subsidy rate”. The Senate may pass this bill before the August Congressional recess leaving only the President to sign it; however, if the Senate amends any part of it or creates its own bill, differences will have to resolved and the revised or new bill approved by both the House and the Senate before going to the President for his signature.rnrnThis is the fastest I have ever seen a bill introduced into committee (July 22nd) and passed by the entire House (July 23rd). You can see this bill and its history at the Thomas Library website.

By: James_E_Veale_CPA_MBT

James_E_Veale_CPA_MBT — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:13:32 +0000

dduck12,

I do have one correction I would like to make on my discussion of the statement by Representative Latham. The fiscal year ending for the projected loss is 9/30/2010, not 9/30/2009 as stated.

By: James_E_Veale_CPA_MBT

James_E_Veale_CPA_MBT — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:59:33 +0000

dduck12 and Mr. Smith,

As of Friday evening, the House Democrats (almost on party lines) passed HR 3288. In that bill there is a mandate for the HUD Secretary to " adjust the factors used to calculate the principal limit (as such term is defined in HUD Handbook 4235.1) that were assumed in the President’s Budget Request for 2010 for such loans, as necessary to ensure that the program operates at a net zero subsidy rate". The Senate may pass this bill before the August Congressional recess leaving only the President to sign it; however, if the Senate amends any part of it or creates its own bill, differences will have to resolved and the revised or new bill approved by both the House and the Senate before going to the President for his signature.

This is the fastest I have ever seen a bill introduced into committee (July 22nd) and passed by the entire House (July 23rd). You can see this bill and its history at the Thomas Library website.

By: John Smith

John Smith — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:01:00 +0000

We are going to be hurting if they do reduce the funds available (change in the formula). I already thought we would be hurting when inflation kicks in and our rates go up. The amount of funds available to seniors when rates go up is greatly reduced. Most of us have now noticed the difference rates make because of the margin hike. Although, that was only .75% or so…how about when rates are 3%-4% higher? Hopefully, they will make it so that the interest rate does not effect the amount of funds as much as it does now. Otherwise, in a few years we will all be looking for a new job because it won’t make sense for seniors.

By: John Smith

John Smith — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:01:04 +0000

By: KidReverse

KidReverse — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 21:37:08 +0000

Wow James! Thank you for the explanation.

I have always been a mathematical person. I wanted a clear explanation and I got crystal!

Once again, thank you.

By: dduck12

dduck12 — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 21:27:46 +0000

Mr. Veale

Thanks for all your work on that response, it is appreciated and hopefully useful by your colleagues in the RM industry.

My original post was meant to provoke some in he RM business that are constituents of Rep. Latham, to contact him and educate him to the social benefits that the RM can provide. It is not a drain on tax payers when a possible foreclosure on a senior is avoided.
The taxpayer could wind up paying more through welfare and medicaid costs if someone is thrown out of their home.
In general, not just on RM matters, I believe we should always contact these representatives on issues we disagree with them on.
BTW: I understand that there is a new program to prevent foreclosures for people up to 25% underwater. What about saving some seniors, or is it just union members the administration is worried about?