- This topic has 60 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 6 months ago by
SD Realtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 19, 2007 at 11:00 AM #101158November 19, 2007 at 1:15 PM #101253
patientlywaiting
ParticipantThat’s exactly what I was thinking, flu. If people can start mini revolutions in Burma and Pakistan, mortgagees should band together, withhold payments and ask for an across the board rate reduction. How about that for a collapse?
November 19, 2007 at 1:15 PM #101395ParticipantThat’s exactly what I was thinking, flu. If people can start mini revolutions in Burma and Pakistan, mortgagees should band together, withhold payments and ask for an across the board rate reduction. How about that for a collapse?
November 19, 2007 at 1:15 PM #101339ParticipantThat’s exactly what I was thinking, flu. If people can start mini revolutions in Burma and Pakistan, mortgagees should band together, withhold payments and ask for an across the board rate reduction. How about that for a collapse?
November 19, 2007 at 1:15 PM #101351ParticipantThat’s exactly what I was thinking, flu. If people can start mini revolutions in Burma and Pakistan, mortgagees should band together, withhold payments and ask for an across the board rate reduction. How about that for a collapse?
November 19, 2007 at 1:15 PM #101367ParticipantThat’s exactly what I was thinking, flu. If people can start mini revolutions in Burma and Pakistan, mortgagees should band together, withhold payments and ask for an across the board rate reduction. How about that for a collapse?
November 19, 2007 at 1:52 PM #101416asragov
ParticipantSorry to doubt the story, but it sounds unlikely.
BofA like most banks funds its loans in a number of ways, including deposits (0% checking accounts), so the cost of funds should be less than Fed Funds.
In any event, even though BAC’s cost of funds is 3.76% (YTD to 9/30), if you include their operating costs, they won’t make much money at 5.00% fixed for 30 years.
To get an idea of other rates, the 30-year treasury today is at 4.48%, and the 30 year fixed jumbo at 6.58% (if you can get one).
Banks don’t like owning property, but they like subsidizing borrwers even less. If it’s not a loan that they can sell (securitization), which seems impossible at such below-market rates, it seems unlikely unless there are some other seriously mitigating factors (other property, collateral, etc.).
In the event that banks are actually doing this, then their profitability will be shot, and future in greater doubt than previously thought.
November 19, 2007 at 1:52 PM #101387ParticipantSorry to doubt the story, but it sounds unlikely.
BofA like most banks funds its loans in a number of ways, including deposits (0% checking accounts), so the cost of funds should be less than Fed Funds.
In any event, even though BAC’s cost of funds is 3.76% (YTD to 9/30), if you include their operating costs, they won’t make much money at 5.00% fixed for 30 years.
To get an idea of other rates, the 30-year treasury today is at 4.48%, and the 30 year fixed jumbo at 6.58% (if you can get one).
Banks don’t like owning property, but they like subsidizing borrwers even less. If it’s not a loan that they can sell (securitization), which seems impossible at such below-market rates, it seems unlikely unless there are some other seriously mitigating factors (other property, collateral, etc.).
In the event that banks are actually doing this, then their profitability will be shot, and future in greater doubt than previously thought.
November 19, 2007 at 1:52 PM #101371ParticipantSorry to doubt the story, but it sounds unlikely.
BofA like most banks funds its loans in a number of ways, including deposits (0% checking accounts), so the cost of funds should be less than Fed Funds.
In any event, even though BAC’s cost of funds is 3.76% (YTD to 9/30), if you include their operating costs, they won’t make much money at 5.00% fixed for 30 years.
To get an idea of other rates, the 30-year treasury today is at 4.48%, and the 30 year fixed jumbo at 6.58% (if you can get one).
Banks don’t like owning property, but they like subsidizing borrwers even less. If it’s not a loan that they can sell (securitization), which seems impossible at such below-market rates, it seems unlikely unless there are some other seriously mitigating factors (other property, collateral, etc.).
In the event that banks are actually doing this, then their profitability will be shot, and future in greater doubt than previously thought.
November 19, 2007 at 1:52 PM #101359ParticipantSorry to doubt the story, but it sounds unlikely.
BofA like most banks funds its loans in a number of ways, including deposits (0% checking accounts), so the cost of funds should be less than Fed Funds.
In any event, even though BAC’s cost of funds is 3.76% (YTD to 9/30), if you include their operating costs, they won’t make much money at 5.00% fixed for 30 years.
To get an idea of other rates, the 30-year treasury today is at 4.48%, and the 30 year fixed jumbo at 6.58% (if you can get one).
Banks don’t like owning property, but they like subsidizing borrwers even less. If it’s not a loan that they can sell (securitization), which seems impossible at such below-market rates, it seems unlikely unless there are some other seriously mitigating factors (other property, collateral, etc.).
In the event that banks are actually doing this, then their profitability will be shot, and future in greater doubt than previously thought.
November 19, 2007 at 1:52 PM #101272ParticipantSorry to doubt the story, but it sounds unlikely.
BofA like most banks funds its loans in a number of ways, including deposits (0% checking accounts), so the cost of funds should be less than Fed Funds.
In any event, even though BAC’s cost of funds is 3.76% (YTD to 9/30), if you include their operating costs, they won’t make much money at 5.00% fixed for 30 years.
To get an idea of other rates, the 30-year treasury today is at 4.48%, and the 30 year fixed jumbo at 6.58% (if you can get one).
Banks don’t like owning property, but they like subsidizing borrwers even less. If it’s not a loan that they can sell (securitization), which seems impossible at such below-market rates, it seems unlikely unless there are some other seriously mitigating factors (other property, collateral, etc.).
In the event that banks are actually doing this, then their profitability will be shot, and future in greater doubt than previously thought.
November 19, 2007 at 2:03 PM #101381citydweller
Participantkev374, I think one point you’re missing is that most of these loans are for more than the house is currently worth. Also, even a 5% 30 year fixed monthly payment is probably higher than the original teaser rate payments that a lot of these people started out with.
November 19, 2007 at 2:03 PM #101281Participantkev374, I think one point you’re missing is that most of these loans are for more than the house is currently worth. Also, even a 5% 30 year fixed monthly payment is probably higher than the original teaser rate payments that a lot of these people started out with.
November 19, 2007 at 2:03 PM #101397Participantkev374, I think one point you’re missing is that most of these loans are for more than the house is currently worth. Also, even a 5% 30 year fixed monthly payment is probably higher than the original teaser rate payments that a lot of these people started out with.
November 19, 2007 at 2:03 PM #101426Participantkev374, I think one point you’re missing is that most of these loans are for more than the house is currently worth. Also, even a 5% 30 year fixed monthly payment is probably higher than the original teaser rate payments that a lot of these people started out with.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.