Reinflating the Housing Bubble: Department of Agriculture Edition


Established in 1949, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Housing Guaranteed Loan program is meant to provide home loans to folks of modest means in rural areas. But, according to a recent Reuters investigation, the USDA isn't hewing to either the rural or the modest part of its mandate.
Via Reuters:
Seattle-based mortgage broker Dan Keller says that since 2009, he has arranged 50 to 60 loans a year for people buying houses in the suburbs, near the corporate campuses of Boeing, Microsoft and Amazon.com.
Top homebuilders like DR Horton, Lennar and Pulte have pushed USDA-guaranteed loans hard, plastering advertisements for them on their websites and coaching first-time buyers who can't get conventional bank financing on how to qualify for the program.
Midsize Florida builder Southern Homes says that nearly 90 percent of its business is in USDA-backed loans, most of them for houses near freeways, shopping malls and multiplexes.
The rural housing program backed over 50,000 zero-down loans to borrowers in urban areas from 2003 and 2011. Another 300,000 such loans went to borrowers on city peripheries over that same period.
Reuters also found:
more than 180 loans to borrowers making more than $500,000, including dozens of millionaires, in apparent violation of the program's income guidelines. It found loans in Cape Cod's Hyannisport, home to the Kennedy family compound, and tony Healdsburg, in California's Sonoma County wine country. There were loans for second homes, and loans to people who could have obtained conventional financing—each a breach of the program's rules.
…[R]ecent audit reports from the USDA's inspector-general fault the program for laxity at the other end of the income scale, citing numerous instances of loans to borrowers with subpar credit scores or incomes that were too low. A February audit report said that in 2012, the program paid $496 million in loss claims, up from $295 million the previous year—mirroring what's happening on a much larger scale at the Federal Housing Administration, where defaults on billions of dollars in loans threaten the agency with insolvency.
The inspector-general found that more than 37 percent of the loans it examined were ineligible for one or more reasons, including borrowers whose incomes exceeded program limits, who didn't meet repayment guidelines or who already owned homes and could have gotten credit without the government guarantee. At one lender alone, 46 mortgages had been made to ineligible borrowers. Of those, 33 were in default, resulting in more than $1.75 million in claims.
Under current law, some 900 neighborhoods—that now account for 40 percent of the program's loans—would become ineligible for the program later this year. However, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Ne.) has introduced a bill to keep the money flowing until 2023.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What? There are those who would attempt to take advantage of a government program government loot?
So the government steals the money from the taxpayer and gives it to crooks?
I'm astounded.
I'm embarrassed to say that my first thought was, "Is my area eligible? How do I get my hands on that sweet, sweet loot?"
It was my second thought, too.
Yeah, it's always befuddled my that so many people that live in Columbus could have such large expensive homes. I always assummed that half of them had to be bilking some program ot another. This reaffirms my paranoia. I think what really pisses a lot of people off even non-libertarians is that not doing the right thing seems to be a better gig in this country than doing the right thing and that it's the government that creates that dynamic.
WE HAVE A WINNAH!
OT: Wha?
There's a Warty reference in there somewhere.
As I mentioned yesterday, people have strange sexual kinks.
Going to an Indonesian brothel to fuck a shaved Orangutan* goes beyond mere "kink" and is more akin to the massive warping of space-time fabric that occurs near a gravitational singularity.
*I cannot believe I can write that sentence not as metaphor.
I never understood this when there's a world of fatties out there that are already (usually) shaven. Rosie O'Donnell, for example, could be a human, if more obnoxious, option than fucking an orangutan.
US POlitics, best Politics money can buy lol.
http://www.AnonWeb.da.bz
OT.
CA city goes belly-up:
"Calif. city heading to bankruptcy court"
""We spent like the good times would go on forever," said Stockton spokeswoman Connie Cochrane."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/.....z2OTQy4B2r
The next domino falls.
I wonder how many more will file in CA this year? From the numbers I've seen, about half of the cities are currently insolvent and are playing a shell game to keep the auditors at bay.
Which, of course, is a felony when someone in the private sector does it.
But Obama told me that there was nothing left to cut!
my classmate's mom makes $66/hr on the laptop. She has been without work for seven months but last month her payment was $14354 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more
http;//JUMP30.COM
The inspector-general found that more than 37 percent of the loans it examined were ineligible for one or more reasons
That's close enough for government work.