- This topic has 66 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 3 months ago by patientrenter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 19, 2007 at 6:17 PM #9946August 19, 2007 at 6:24 PM #78106barnaby33Participant
Not I, but then I prefer not to throw up on Sunday. It is the lards day!
Josh
August 19, 2007 at 6:24 PM #78253barnaby33ParticipantNot I, but then I prefer not to throw up on Sunday. It is the lards day!
Josh
August 19, 2007 at 6:24 PM #78230barnaby33ParticipantNot I, but then I prefer not to throw up on Sunday. It is the lards day!
Josh
August 19, 2007 at 6:27 PM #78256patientrenterParticipantNo, SD R. I’m mercifully out of range up here in OC. But why wouldn’t the limits be raised? It’s a democracy, and if a lot of voters want it enough, it will happen. Let’s see, the big gains are obvious and immediate and affect lots of voters, and the big losses come later and are diffuse and affect fewer voters. Hmm…. Hard to predict what Congress would want to do with that choice.
Patient renter in OC
August 19, 2007 at 6:27 PM #78233patientrenterParticipantNo, SD R. I’m mercifully out of range up here in OC. But why wouldn’t the limits be raised? It’s a democracy, and if a lot of voters want it enough, it will happen. Let’s see, the big gains are obvious and immediate and affect lots of voters, and the big losses come later and are diffuse and affect fewer voters. Hmm…. Hard to predict what Congress would want to do with that choice.
Patient renter in OC
August 19, 2007 at 6:27 PM #78109patientrenterParticipantNo, SD R. I’m mercifully out of range up here in OC. But why wouldn’t the limits be raised? It’s a democracy, and if a lot of voters want it enough, it will happen. Let’s see, the big gains are obvious and immediate and affect lots of voters, and the big losses come later and are diffuse and affect fewer voters. Hmm…. Hard to predict what Congress would want to do with that choice.
Patient renter in OC
August 19, 2007 at 6:41 PM #78265daveljParticipantLet’s see. $417K to $709K. A 70% increase in one fell swoop. Hmmmm. I don’t know but that seems like a pretty big stretch.
But let’s assume that he’s right (and he probably isn’t). Even then, that doesn’t help the non-Freddie/Fannie secondary market one bit. These folks don’t really care what the conforming limit is, per se, when pricing product; they care about how they think the loan is going to perform. Period. Some artificial distinction made between conforming and non-conforming is largely irrelevant.
Where raising the limit could help a little bit is that more product could be purchased by Fannie/Freddie. But both of these GSAs are really highly levered as it is. So there’s a limited amount of new product that they can hold on their balance sheets. At the end of the day, the real issue is with the secondary market away from Fannie/Freddie. If it doesn’t come back, then tinkering with the conforming loan amount, while marginally helpful to the housing market, is just rearranging the deck chairs.
Ultimately, people have to be able to afford their mortgages at a “true” market rate of interest. Tinkering around with the conforming limit doesn’t really address the issue.
August 19, 2007 at 6:41 PM #78242daveljParticipantLet’s see. $417K to $709K. A 70% increase in one fell swoop. Hmmmm. I don’t know but that seems like a pretty big stretch.
But let’s assume that he’s right (and he probably isn’t). Even then, that doesn’t help the non-Freddie/Fannie secondary market one bit. These folks don’t really care what the conforming limit is, per se, when pricing product; they care about how they think the loan is going to perform. Period. Some artificial distinction made between conforming and non-conforming is largely irrelevant.
Where raising the limit could help a little bit is that more product could be purchased by Fannie/Freddie. But both of these GSAs are really highly levered as it is. So there’s a limited amount of new product that they can hold on their balance sheets. At the end of the day, the real issue is with the secondary market away from Fannie/Freddie. If it doesn’t come back, then tinkering with the conforming loan amount, while marginally helpful to the housing market, is just rearranging the deck chairs.
Ultimately, people have to be able to afford their mortgages at a “true” market rate of interest. Tinkering around with the conforming limit doesn’t really address the issue.
August 19, 2007 at 6:41 PM #78118daveljParticipantLet’s see. $417K to $709K. A 70% increase in one fell swoop. Hmmmm. I don’t know but that seems like a pretty big stretch.
But let’s assume that he’s right (and he probably isn’t). Even then, that doesn’t help the non-Freddie/Fannie secondary market one bit. These folks don’t really care what the conforming limit is, per se, when pricing product; they care about how they think the loan is going to perform. Period. Some artificial distinction made between conforming and non-conforming is largely irrelevant.
Where raising the limit could help a little bit is that more product could be purchased by Fannie/Freddie. But both of these GSAs are really highly levered as it is. So there’s a limited amount of new product that they can hold on their balance sheets. At the end of the day, the real issue is with the secondary market away from Fannie/Freddie. If it doesn’t come back, then tinkering with the conforming loan amount, while marginally helpful to the housing market, is just rearranging the deck chairs.
Ultimately, people have to be able to afford their mortgages at a “true” market rate of interest. Tinkering around with the conforming limit doesn’t really address the issue.
August 19, 2007 at 6:48 PM #78124SD RealtorParticipantHey guys don’t shoot the messenger… the fact that they are allowed to even postulate about stuff like that is criminal but it is what it is…
I wonder if my man Mix heard it… he doses up with GC now and then…
Dave I pretty much agree with you… except I do think that this could prolong the slump and help it to drag on much longer then it should. I don’t see it causing a rally of any kind… Yet it “could” create a panacea that will slow down the much needed psychology of any strong decline. I am not saying it will… but it could. While Fannie and Freddie are highly leveraged they are not many steps away from the taxpayers pockets…you know what I am saying?
SD Realtor
August 19, 2007 at 6:48 PM #78271SD RealtorParticipantHey guys don’t shoot the messenger… the fact that they are allowed to even postulate about stuff like that is criminal but it is what it is…
I wonder if my man Mix heard it… he doses up with GC now and then…
Dave I pretty much agree with you… except I do think that this could prolong the slump and help it to drag on much longer then it should. I don’t see it causing a rally of any kind… Yet it “could” create a panacea that will slow down the much needed psychology of any strong decline. I am not saying it will… but it could. While Fannie and Freddie are highly leveraged they are not many steps away from the taxpayers pockets…you know what I am saying?
SD Realtor
August 19, 2007 at 6:48 PM #78248SD RealtorParticipantHey guys don’t shoot the messenger… the fact that they are allowed to even postulate about stuff like that is criminal but it is what it is…
I wonder if my man Mix heard it… he doses up with GC now and then…
Dave I pretty much agree with you… except I do think that this could prolong the slump and help it to drag on much longer then it should. I don’t see it causing a rally of any kind… Yet it “could” create a panacea that will slow down the much needed psychology of any strong decline. I am not saying it will… but it could. While Fannie and Freddie are highly leveraged they are not many steps away from the taxpayers pockets…you know what I am saying?
SD Realtor
August 19, 2007 at 8:25 PM #78269mixxalotParticipantNope I missed the segment with ole’ Chowderhead and his sick little bed buddy Mehram Retard. I did hear GC talk about how great things were in light of the market being not a big deal. What a knucklehead!
August 19, 2007 at 8:25 PM #78292mixxalotParticipantNope I missed the segment with ole’ Chowderhead and his sick little bed buddy Mehram Retard. I did hear GC talk about how great things were in light of the market being not a big deal. What a knucklehead!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.