H.R. 1752 would modernize and update the National Housing Act and enable the Federal Housing Administration to use risk-based pricing to more effectively reach underserved borrowers.
Detailed Summary
Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007 - Amends the National Housing Act to: (1) modify guidelines governing the maximum principal loan obligation; (2) extend the mortgage term; and (3) revise requirements for cash payment by the mortgagor in the eligibility criteria for mortgage insurance.
Directs the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to reinstate the current downpayment requirement in the event of increased defaults.
Authorizes the Secretary to establish a mortgage insurance premium structure involving a single premium payment collected prior to the insurance of the mortgage that may vary during the mortgage term as long as the basis for determining the variable rate is established before the execution of the mortgage. Sets forth maximum up-front premium amounts.
Permits the Secretary to insure any mortgage covering a one-family unit in a condominium project if the project has a certain HUD-insured blanket mortgage.
Revises requirements for the Mutual Mortgage Insurance (MMI) Fund. Limits the authority of the Secretary to enter into commitments for loan guarantees.
Makes insurance of a Native Hawaiian or Indian reservation mortgage the obligation of the MMI Fund (instead of the General Insurance Fund).
Eliminates the limitation placed upon the aggregate number of home equity conversion mortgages insured under the Act.
Authorizes the Secretary to insure a home equity conversion mortgage when its primary purpose is to enable an elderly mortgagor to purchase a one- to four-family dwelling in which the mortgagor will occupy one of the units.
Authorizes the Secretary to enter into agreements to insure temporarily certain mortgages for a single family residence located within a presidentially declared major disaster area.
Redefines mortgagee to allow participation in the federal mortgage insurance program by state-licensed mortgage brokers and correspondent lenders who make, underwrite, or service mortgage loans.
Status of the Legislation
Latest Major Action: 4/18/2007: Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.
Points in Favor
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)
Points Against
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)
Visitor Comments
JimG5000
September 13, 2007, 3:42pm (report abuse)It's about time someone thought about revising the upper limits of FHA loans. Workers in states like California and New York have been frozen out by high prices in those states. Move away you say? Don't forget these big, dense states also contribute hugely to national GDP!
Andrea in New Jersey
September 15, 2007, 10:06am (report abuse)Jim's comment is good one and I support it. He says it's about time that someone thought about revising the upper limits of the FHA loans. I live in New Jersey and I want my state to survivie and thrive.
ElaineKramer
September 17, 2007, 5:22pm (report abuse)I think if you folks in CA and NY would allow your residential properties to come to a level that more people could purchase them is a more realistic idea than going for higher limits of FHA loans.
After all these programs were never for folks to get $400,000 loans. They are for people who actually need help with purchasing a modest first home.
I don't think any of this is a good idea. After all, hotel maids in NYC get $22 an hour and in California, Walmart has to pay $18 per hour to their employees. Now we are supposed to get "welfare" to the rich????????
I think the government again is trying to make sweetheart deals for the truly wealthy. Sorry folks, this has got to be a joke.
Jarred
September 25, 2007, 10:58am (report abuse)The govt put America in this mess with sub-prime lending!!! They made it so easy for everyone to get a mortgage, even those who couldnt afford it
Kim in California
September 26, 2007, 6:13pm (report abuse)Citizen taxpayers should not be responsible for bailing out those who CHOOSE to live beyond their means. Period.
in WA state
September 30, 2007, 5:38am (report abuse)Is this a bailout of sorts? I hope so, because our market in Seattle is starting to show signs of fatigue...we need a boost.
R.C.Henderson
October 1, 2007, 12:58pm (report abuse)Elain, the rich have ALWAYS got the majority of welfare.
Kim, we pay congress, don't we ?
Jim, in my fathers childhood, California population was smaller then Iowa. Are you saying it contributes more tax money then it takes? Check your math!