4% mortage Rate

[vizcaya]

I read this article on Cnn.com

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/01/news/economy/Senate_stimulus_housing/index.htm?cnn=yes

4% 30 yr fixed. Not sure if this would help those that are upside down on thier home. But I would like to see this happen. I would save about $300 from what I am paying now.

[thebazman]

I have a friend who is “upside down” on his mortgage by about $150K, and still paying 6.5% rate on 10-year interest-only loan! He would like to be able to refinance to the lower rate…it would help with payments, that’s for sure.

However, and I think most people who bought when prices were high would agree, a reduction in principal would help them more.

But how far do we carry this idea? Should someone who bought stocks at a high price on the market be reimbursed when the stock market crashes?

[thebazman]

I have a friend who is “upside down” on his mortgage by about $150K, and still paying 6.5% rate on 10-year interest-only loan! He would like to be able to refinance to the lower rate…it would help with payments, that’s for sure.

However, and I think most people who bought when prices were high would agree, a reduction in principal would help them more.

But how far do we carry this idea? Should someone who bought stocks at a high price on the market be reimbursed when the stock market crashes?

[thebazman]

I have a friend who is “upside down” on his mortgage by about $150K, and still paying 6.5% rate on 10-year interest-only loan! He would like to be able to refinance to the lower rate…it would help with payments, that’s for sure.

However, and I think most people who bought when prices were high would agree, a reduction in principal would help them more.

But how far do we carry this idea? Should someone who bought stocks at a high price on the market be reimbursed when the stock market crashes?

[thebazman]

I have a friend who is “upside down” on his mortgage by about $150K, and still paying 6.5% rate on 10-year interest-only loan! He would like to be able to refinance to the lower rate…it would help with payments, that’s for sure.

However, and I think most people who bought when prices were high would agree, a reduction in principal would help them more.

But how far do we carry this idea? Should someone who bought stocks at a high price on the market be reimbursed when the stock market crashes?

[thebazman]

I have a friend who is “upside down” on his mortgage by about $150K, and still paying 6.5% rate on 10-year interest-only loan! He would like to be able to refinance to the lower rate…it would help with payments, that’s for sure.

However, and I think most people who bought when prices were high would agree, a reduction in principal would help them more.

But how far do we carry this idea? Should someone who bought stocks at a high price on the market be reimbursed when the stock market crashes?

[AK]

It would be very nice indeed, at least for those who aren’t underwater and have a reasonable chance of refinancing.

I wouldn’t mind buying at 4% myself.

I’m just not sure where they’ll find investors willing to lend long at 4% secured by U.S. residential property. Unless, of course, those investors are us taxpayers … and I’m not sure they can squeeze that kind of money out of us.

[AK]

It would be very nice indeed, at least for those who aren’t underwater and have a reasonable chance of refinancing.

I wouldn’t mind buying at 4% myself.

I’m just not sure where they’ll find investors willing to lend long at 4% secured by U.S. residential property. Unless, of course, those investors are us taxpayers … and I’m not sure they can squeeze that kind of money out of us.

[AK]

It would be very nice indeed, at least for those who aren’t underwater and have a reasonable chance of refinancing.

I wouldn’t mind buying at 4% myself.

I’m just not sure where they’ll find investors willing to lend long at 4% secured by U.S. residential property. Unless, of course, those investors are us taxpayers … and I’m not sure they can squeeze that kind of money out of us.

[AK]

It would be very nice indeed, at least for those who aren’t underwater and have a reasonable chance of refinancing.

I wouldn’t mind buying at 4% myself.

I’m just not sure where they’ll find investors willing to lend long at 4% secured by U.S. residential property. Unless, of course, those investors are us taxpayers … and I’m not sure they can squeeze that kind of money out of us.

[AK]

It would be very nice indeed, at least for those who aren’t underwater and have a reasonable chance of refinancing.

I wouldn’t mind buying at 4% myself.

I’m just not sure where they’ll find investors willing to lend long at 4% secured by U.S. residential property. Unless, of course, those investors are us taxpayers … and I’m not sure they can squeeze that kind of money out of us.

[SD Realtor]

“I’m just not sure where they’ll find investors willing to lend long at 4% secured by U.S. residential property. Unless, of course, those investors are us taxpayers … and I’m not sure they can squeeze that kind of money out of us.”

The problem is your presuming we actually have a say in what our tax dollars, our childrens tax dollars, and our grandchildrens tax dollars are spent on. Clearly they are not. In fact the first failed bailout was a joke and this recent bailout is not much more then a spending spree by our government. Explain to me how over 300 million in std prevention is a bailout?

The bottom line is this will all be backstopped by the government.

It doesn’t matter if our leaders are democrats or republicans.

[SD Realtor]

“I’m just not sure where they’ll find investors willing to lend long at 4% secured by U.S. residential property. Unless, of course, those investors are us taxpayers … and I’m not sure they can squeeze that kind of money out of us.”

The problem is your presuming we actually have a say in what our tax dollars, our childrens tax dollars, and our grandchildrens tax dollars are spent on. Clearly they are not. In fact the first failed bailout was a joke and this recent bailout is not much more then a spending spree by our government. Explain to me how over 300 million in std prevention is a bailout?

The bottom line is this will all be backstopped by the government.

It doesn’t matter if our leaders are democrats or republicans.

[SD Realtor]

“I’m just not sure where they’ll find investors willing to lend long at 4% secured by U.S. residential property. Unless, of course, those investors are us taxpayers … and I’m not sure they can squeeze that kind of money out of us.”

The problem is your presuming we actually have a say in what our tax dollars, our childrens tax dollars, and our grandchildrens tax dollars are spent on. Clearly they are not. In fact the first failed bailout was a joke and this recent bailout is not much more then a spending spree by our government. Explain to me how over 300 million in std prevention is a bailout?

The bottom line is this will all be backstopped by the government.

It doesn’t matter if our leaders are democrats or republicans.

[SD Realtor]

“I’m just not sure where they’ll find investors willing to lend long at 4% secured by U.S. residential property. Unless, of course, those investors are us taxpayers … and I’m not sure they can squeeze that kind of money out of us.”

The problem is your presuming we actually have a say in what our tax dollars, our childrens tax dollars, and our grandchildrens tax dollars are spent on. Clearly they are not. In fact the first failed bailout was a joke and this recent bailout is not much more then a spending spree by our government. Explain to me how over 300 million in std prevention is a bailout?

The bottom line is this will all be backstopped by the government.

It doesn’t matter if our leaders are democrats or republicans.

[Author]

Posts