Conforming limit to $700,000?

[TheBreeze]

Looks like our government is going to save us. Phew!

Both sides agreed to allow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — government-sponsored companies that are the two biggest U.S. financers and guarantors of home loans — to buy loans much larger than the current $417,000 limit, aides and lobbyists said. Frank said that lending cap might reach as high as $700,000 in areas with the highest home prices.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080124/economy_stimulus.html

Why would a legislator from North Dakota (or any state that isn’t New York or California) vote to raise the limit to $700K? There must be some massive, mutual pork barreling going on.

[Coronita]

From a selfish perspective…At this point. I only wish that were the case. I wouldn't mind taking refinancing my jumbo loan to something conforming which hopefully will settle at the below 5% after all said and done.

The more i look, the more i see conforming loan rates falling.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Alex_angel]

agreed, it is a thorn in the side knowing that you cannot get anything in SD for under $417k so you will probably pay 1% or more higher that a conforming loan. This would be welcome in my book

[ucodegen]

To anyone who will think that increasing conforming loan limits would be good… think again!

Think of it this way. It makes it easier to get financing at low rates.. which just like the low interest rates and funky financing that got us into this problem in the first place, will drive up the price of houses. Normally you get a lot more house per dollar when you get over about $500K in most markets. This change would move that breakpoint up to about $800K. Basically what is happening here is an attempt to re-inflate the bubble as well as the banks/money managers trying to shove off their bad loans onto Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac (no one wants to pick them up at the price that the banks want to sell them at, and the banks don’t want to write the value down to sell it. Remember Warren Buffets comment that they should mark to market not mark to model.).

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/index.php?a=12869

It seems that many people have an obsession with thinking lower interest rates make a house more affordable. It doesn’t. It is actually makes it more expensive because it increases realizable demand at that price level thereby driving up the price not to mention property taxes and insurance costs. Imagine what house prices would be if interest rates were 15%? A higher interest rate means your down payment goes a lot further. The way to profit from RE is to buy when rates are high, sell or refi to a lower fixed when rates are low.

There is another problem here too. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae already have a problem on loan loss reserves. Allowing them to pick up loans with a higher face value will not make this better.. it makes it a lot worse. If either of these institutions fails, guess who picks up the tab? The taxpayer. Both of these institutions are guaranteed by the US gov and thereby the taxpayer.

[blahblahblah]

Exactly, ucodegen. These banks don’t want houses to become more affordable, they want you to borrow as much money as possible and become a long term revenue stream to them. I think what we’re seeing is that homeowning is becoming sort of a lifetime renting arrangement from the bank. You never pay it off before you die, but you get the benefits of not having rent increases (if you don’t have an ARM that is), and you can paint the walls and stuff. Even the “homeowners” are all renters now.

[sd_bear]

What kind of income and down payment requirements are there to get one of these conforming loans?

If you still need X down and a yearly income of Y to afford house at price Z then prices will still fall to those levels, and to me it seems like we are still a bit away from that.

[drunkle]

does this affect refinancing? can jumbo holders now refinance significantly lower due to banks unloading on fna/fre?

would this save those banks from having to mark down their holdings by simply getting rid of them altogether?

does this save indy mac?

[drunkle]

does this affect refinancing? can jumbo holders now refinance significantly lower due to banks unloading on fna/fre?

would this save those banks from having to mark down their holdings by simply getting rid of them altogether?

does this save indy mac?

[drunkle]

does this affect refinancing? can jumbo holders now refinance significantly lower due to banks unloading on fna/fre?

would this save those banks from having to mark down their holdings by simply getting rid of them altogether?

does this save indy mac?

[drunkle]

does this affect refinancing? can jumbo holders now refinance significantly lower due to banks unloading on fna/fre?

would this save those banks from having to mark down their holdings by simply getting rid of them altogether?

does this save indy mac?

[drunkle]

does this affect refinancing? can jumbo holders now refinance significantly lower due to banks unloading on fna/fre?

would this save those banks from having to mark down their holdings by simply getting rid of them altogether?

does this save indy mac?

[sd_bear]

What kind of income and down payment requirements are there to get one of these conforming loans?

If you still need X down and a yearly income of Y to afford house at price Z then prices will still fall to those levels, and to me it seems like we are still a bit away from that.

[sd_bear]

What kind of income and down payment requirements are there to get one of these conforming loans?

If you still need X down and a yearly income of Y to afford house at price Z then prices will still fall to those levels, and to me it seems like we are still a bit away from that.

[sd_bear]

What kind of income and down payment requirements are there to get one of these conforming loans?

If you still need X down and a yearly income of Y to afford house at price Z then prices will still fall to those levels, and to me it seems like we are still a bit away from that.

[sd_bear]

What kind of income and down payment requirements are there to get one of these conforming loans?

If you still need X down and a yearly income of Y to afford house at price Z then prices will still fall to those levels, and to me it seems like we are still a bit away from that.

[ucodegen]

@CONCHO

These banks don’t want houses to become more affordable, they want you to borrow as much money as possible and become a long term revenue stream to them. I think what we’re seeing is that homeowning is becoming sort of a lifetime renting arrangement from the bank.

Ironic you should mention this.. because Japan was looking at lifetime ‘mortgages’ before their RE bubble crashed.

@sd_bear

If you still need X down and a yearly income of Y to afford house at price Z then prices will still fall to those levels, and to me it seems like we are still a bit away from that.

Yes, but allowing Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae to pick them up, drops the interest rate for those loans, changing the relationship between X,Y and Z above.

@drunkle

would this save those banks from having to mark down their holdings by simply getting rid of them altogether?

Kind of. I would have to see the specific language and how Freddie Mac is going to select the criteria for the mortgages.

does this save indy mac?

See above. I suspect not though. Right now the requirement of Freddie Mac is doc’d mortgages w/ a minimum equity ratio (though this part might get fudged). See implode-o-meter

http://ml-implode.com/ailing/lender_IndyMacBancorp_2008-01-09.html

@XBoxBoy

Specifically, Frank said Fannie and Freddie would be able to buy mortgages worth up to 125 pct of the median value of a home in any given region, up to a new limit of 730,000 usd.

Humm.. and why would 125% financing in a downward real estate market with insufficient loan loss reserves be a problem?… I agree. Hopefully it won’t go through.

@fat_lazy_union

Really rich people don’t get hit with taxes.

Actually they do. In fact they get reamed. I already posted the tax schedule for single in another thread. That the rich are not paying their share of taxes is a common theme that politicians like to play out when looking at more taxes. They either have to fight 80 to 90% of the population on raising taxes or they fight 20 – 10% of the population(so called rich) to raise taxes.

This is from a 2005 tax table for single.

0 – 7299 10% marginal rate, 10% total.
7300 – 29699 15% marginal rate (additional dollars over 7300 taxed at 15% on top of the 10% on under 7300)
29700 – 71949 25% marginal rate.
71950 – 150149 28% marginal rate.
150150 – 326449 33% marginal rate
326450+ 35% marginal rate.

Add in the fact that deductions start being eliminated for incomes over 146,000(single) due to AMT. So where is it that the rich are not paying taxes? 35% of your income gone to fed taxes? Add in CA state and you are looking at 44% of your income gone to taxes. Looks like it is almost better to sit around and let the gov take care of you..

[Coronita]

Really rich people don't get hit with taxes.

Actually they do. In fact they get reamed. I already posted the tax schedule for single in another thread. That the rich are not paying their share of taxes is a common theme that politicians like to play out when looking at more taxes. They either have to fight 80 to 90% of the population on raising taxes or they fight 20 – 10% of the population(so called rich) to raise taxes.

This is from a 2005 tax table for single.

0 – 7299 10% marginal rate, 10% total.
7300 – 29699 15% marginal rate (additional dollars over 7300 taxed at 15% on top of the 10% on under 7300)
29700 – 71949 25% marginal rate.
71950 – 150149 28% marginal rate.
150150 – 326449 33% marginal rate
326450+ 35% marginal rate.

Add in the fact that deductions start being eliminated for incomes over 146,000(single) due to AMT. So where is it that the rich are not paying taxes? 35% of your income gone to fed taxes? Add in CA state and you are looking at 44% of your income gone to taxes. Looks like it is almost better to sit around and let the gov take care of you..

 

just imho…You're equating taxable earnings to the definition rich. I don't….In fact, in my mind, really rich people don't actively depend on a income that the IRS can tax at 35% (typically salaries,wages,etc)…..A $300k,$400k,or even $500k salaried income might sound all sweet. But if that's all you are depending on, imho you're not really "rich".

Take a CEO like Steve Jobs with that $1 annual salary. He doesn't make money off of a salary, he's rich off of all the assets and passive income that generates from it. And assets/passive income have so many more variables to play with. I seriously doubt someone like him pays the 35% tax rate, or sweats on which direction the government's tax rules blows any given day.

Also, take true RE investors with real RE portfolios, with multi-million dollar assets yielding passive income. I once worked with my financial advisor, who was sort of comparing my family situation to one of his other clients. Our family gross income was 1/2 the size of his other client (according to him). BUT, taxwise, we paid about the same amount of taxes. The other client (which the advisor maintained their anonymity obviously) had paid one of the lowest % tax per "income", through accounting trickery and asset shelters that are apparently available to a select few wealthy people.

Bottom line, really rich people have plenty of smart accountants, cpa, advisors, to figure ways around the system (legally, and sometimes illegally). Doesn't matter which political party is in office, what new IRS rules there are. IRS defined middle class and below don't pay the majority of the taxes either. It's everyone in between. Always has and always will be.

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

FLU you didn't have to qualify your statement and I could not agree with you more. My analogy to your statement would be if I am gonna take in in the -ss with my taxes at least uncle sam can give me a reach around right? We are in the same boat my friend so a program that will help me is at least more palatable then all those that do not.

 

Exactly. Except, they'll probably come up with some clever way to disqualify people like me. For example, you will qualify under the conforming loan of $700k only IF the IRS considers you to have an AGI of X separate or Y joint, with those levels being artificially low….LOL that would make my day.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

FLU you didn't have to qualify your statement and I could not agree with you more. My analogy to your statement would be if I am gonna take in in the -ss with my taxes at least uncle sam can give me a reach around right? We are in the same boat my friend so a program that will help me is at least more palatable then all those that do not.

 

Exactly. Except, they'll probably come up with some clever way to disqualify people like me. For example, you will qualify under the conforming loan of $700k only IF the IRS considers you to have an AGI of X separate or Y joint, with those levels being artificially low….LOL that would make my day.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

FLU you didn't have to qualify your statement and I could not agree with you more. My analogy to your statement would be if I am gonna take in in the -ss with my taxes at least uncle sam can give me a reach around right? We are in the same boat my friend so a program that will help me is at least more palatable then all those that do not.

 

Exactly. Except, they'll probably come up with some clever way to disqualify people like me. For example, you will qualify under the conforming loan of $700k only IF the IRS considers you to have an AGI of X separate or Y joint, with those levels being artificially low….LOL that would make my day.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

FLU you didn't have to qualify your statement and I could not agree with you more. My analogy to your statement would be if I am gonna take in in the -ss with my taxes at least uncle sam can give me a reach around right? We are in the same boat my friend so a program that will help me is at least more palatable then all those that do not.

 

Exactly. Except, they'll probably come up with some clever way to disqualify people like me. For example, you will qualify under the conforming loan of $700k only IF the IRS considers you to have an AGI of X separate or Y joint, with those levels being artificially low….LOL that would make my day.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

FLU you didn't have to qualify your statement and I could not agree with you more. My analogy to your statement would be if I am gonna take in in the -ss with my taxes at least uncle sam can give me a reach around right? We are in the same boat my friend so a program that will help me is at least more palatable then all those that do not.

 

Exactly. Except, they'll probably come up with some clever way to disqualify people like me. For example, you will qualify under the conforming loan of $700k only IF the IRS considers you to have an AGI of X separate or Y joint, with those levels being artificially low….LOL that would make my day.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[ucodegen]

@fat_lazy_union_…

Take a CEO like Steve Jobs with that $1 annual salary. He doesn’t make money off of a salary, he’s rich off of all the assets and passive income that generates from it. And assets/passive income have so many more variables to play with. I seriously doubt someone like him pays the 35% tax rate, or sweats on which direction the government’s tax rules blows any given day.

You haven’t been paying attention…
LTCG tax is 15%.. BUT!!! if you are making over the AMT override minimum.. it don’t matter. You pay 26% fed. It overrides your LTCG rate. LTCG are taxed as income in CA, which is 9% top bracket. Best options is that you get skinned to 35% if all your income is LTCG.. even if you bring in $0 salary and $100mil LTCG. I know because I got skinned on some nice LTCG profit this way.

You know.. with your constant ‘passive income’ statements, you sound like Casey Serin.

There are ways to use businesses to shelter income.. but you have to be real real careful. The IRS is clamping down on the abuses. The business has to be real and documented receipts.

Bottom line, really rich people have plenty of smart accountants, cpa, advisors, to figure ways around the system (legally, and sometimes illegally).

This is what is sold to the public.. but it is not completely true. I said “not completely” because the ways that some do it are illegal.

IRS defined middle class and below don’t pay the majority of the taxes either. It’s everyone in between. Always has and always will be.

Umm.. not correct. When Ronald Regan was governor, he was paying over $200k in taxes (fed) yearly. Back then, that was some real money too..

[Aecetia]

Time for a flat tax.

[Aecetia]

Time for a flat tax.

[Aecetia]

Time for a flat tax.

[Aecetia]

Time for a flat tax.

[Aecetia]

Time for a flat tax.

[ucodegen]

@fat_lazy_union_…

Take a CEO like Steve Jobs with that $1 annual salary. He doesn’t make money off of a salary, he’s rich off of all the assets and passive income that generates from it. And assets/passive income have so many more variables to play with. I seriously doubt someone like him pays the 35% tax rate, or sweats on which direction the government’s tax rules blows any given day.

You haven’t been paying attention…
LTCG tax is 15%.. BUT!!! if you are making over the AMT override minimum.. it don’t matter. You pay 26% fed. It overrides your LTCG rate. LTCG are taxed as income in CA, which is 9% top bracket. Best options is that you get skinned to 35% if all your income is LTCG.. even if you bring in $0 salary and $100mil LTCG. I know because I got skinned on some nice LTCG profit this way.

You know.. with your constant ‘passive income’ statements, you sound like Casey Serin.

There are ways to use businesses to shelter income.. but you have to be real real careful. The IRS is clamping down on the abuses. The business has to be real and documented receipts.

Bottom line, really rich people have plenty of smart accountants, cpa, advisors, to figure ways around the system (legally, and sometimes illegally).

This is what is sold to the public.. but it is not completely true. I said “not completely” because the ways that some do it are illegal.

IRS defined middle class and below don’t pay the majority of the taxes either. It’s everyone in between. Always has and always will be.

Umm.. not correct. When Ronald Regan was governor, he was paying over $200k in taxes (fed) yearly. Back then, that was some real money too..

[ucodegen]

@fat_lazy_union_…

Take a CEO like Steve Jobs with that $1 annual salary. He doesn’t make money off of a salary, he’s rich off of all the assets and passive income that generates from it. And assets/passive income have so many more variables to play with. I seriously doubt someone like him pays the 35% tax rate, or sweats on which direction the government’s tax rules blows any given day.

You haven’t been paying attention…
LTCG tax is 15%.. BUT!!! if you are making over the AMT override minimum.. it don’t matter. You pay 26% fed. It overrides your LTCG rate. LTCG are taxed as income in CA, which is 9% top bracket. Best options is that you get skinned to 35% if all your income is LTCG.. even if you bring in $0 salary and $100mil LTCG. I know because I got skinned on some nice LTCG profit this way.

You know.. with your constant ‘passive income’ statements, you sound like Casey Serin.

There are ways to use businesses to shelter income.. but you have to be real real careful. The IRS is clamping down on the abuses. The business has to be real and documented receipts.

Bottom line, really rich people have plenty of smart accountants, cpa, advisors, to figure ways around the system (legally, and sometimes illegally).

This is what is sold to the public.. but it is not completely true. I said “not completely” because the ways that some do it are illegal.

IRS defined middle class and below don’t pay the majority of the taxes either. It’s everyone in between. Always has and always will be.

Umm.. not correct. When Ronald Regan was governor, he was paying over $200k in taxes (fed) yearly. Back then, that was some real money too..

[ucodegen]

@fat_lazy_union_…

Take a CEO like Steve Jobs with that $1 annual salary. He doesn’t make money off of a salary, he’s rich off of all the assets and passive income that generates from it. And assets/passive income have so many more variables to play with. I seriously doubt someone like him pays the 35% tax rate, or sweats on which direction the government’s tax rules blows any given day.

You haven’t been paying attention…
LTCG tax is 15%.. BUT!!! if you are making over the AMT override minimum.. it don’t matter. You pay 26% fed. It overrides your LTCG rate. LTCG are taxed as income in CA, which is 9% top bracket. Best options is that you get skinned to 35% if all your income is LTCG.. even if you bring in $0 salary and $100mil LTCG. I know because I got skinned on some nice LTCG profit this way.

You know.. with your constant ‘passive income’ statements, you sound like Casey Serin.

There are ways to use businesses to shelter income.. but you have to be real real careful. The IRS is clamping down on the abuses. The business has to be real and documented receipts.

Bottom line, really rich people have plenty of smart accountants, cpa, advisors, to figure ways around the system (legally, and sometimes illegally).

This is what is sold to the public.. but it is not completely true. I said “not completely” because the ways that some do it are illegal.

IRS defined middle class and below don’t pay the majority of the taxes either. It’s everyone in between. Always has and always will be.

Umm.. not correct. When Ronald Regan was governor, he was paying over $200k in taxes (fed) yearly. Back then, that was some real money too..

[ucodegen]

@fat_lazy_union_…

Take a CEO like Steve Jobs with that $1 annual salary. He doesn’t make money off of a salary, he’s rich off of all the assets and passive income that generates from it. And assets/passive income have so many more variables to play with. I seriously doubt someone like him pays the 35% tax rate, or sweats on which direction the government’s tax rules blows any given day.

You haven’t been paying attention…
LTCG tax is 15%.. BUT!!! if you are making over the AMT override minimum.. it don’t matter. You pay 26% fed. It overrides your LTCG rate. LTCG are taxed as income in CA, which is 9% top bracket. Best options is that you get skinned to 35% if all your income is LTCG.. even if you bring in $0 salary and $100mil LTCG. I know because I got skinned on some nice LTCG profit this way.

You know.. with your constant ‘passive income’ statements, you sound like Casey Serin.

There are ways to use businesses to shelter income.. but you have to be real real careful. The IRS is clamping down on the abuses. The business has to be real and documented receipts.

Bottom line, really rich people have plenty of smart accountants, cpa, advisors, to figure ways around the system (legally, and sometimes illegally).

This is what is sold to the public.. but it is not completely true. I said “not completely” because the ways that some do it are illegal.

IRS defined middle class and below don’t pay the majority of the taxes either. It’s everyone in between. Always has and always will be.

Umm.. not correct. When Ronald Regan was governor, he was paying over $200k in taxes (fed) yearly. Back then, that was some real money too..

[Coronita]

Really rich people don't get hit with taxes.

Actually they do. In fact they get reamed. I already posted the tax schedule for single in another thread. That the rich are not paying their share of taxes is a common theme that politicians like to play out when looking at more taxes. They either have to fight 80 to 90% of the population on raising taxes or they fight 20 – 10% of the population(so called rich) to raise taxes.

This is from a 2005 tax table for single.

0 – 7299 10% marginal rate, 10% total.
7300 – 29699 15% marginal rate (additional dollars over 7300 taxed at 15% on top of the 10% on under 7300)
29700 – 71949 25% marginal rate.
71950 – 150149 28% marginal rate.
150150 – 326449 33% marginal rate
326450+ 35% marginal rate.

Add in the fact that deductions start being eliminated for incomes over 146,000(single) due to AMT. So where is it that the rich are not paying taxes? 35% of your income gone to fed taxes? Add in CA state and you are looking at 44% of your income gone to taxes. Looks like it is almost better to sit around and let the gov take care of you..

 

just imho…You're equating taxable earnings to the definition rich. I don't….In fact, in my mind, really rich people don't actively depend on a income that the IRS can tax at 35% (typically salaries,wages,etc)…..A $300k,$400k,or even $500k salaried income might sound all sweet. But if that's all you are depending on, imho you're not really "rich".

Take a CEO like Steve Jobs with that $1 annual salary. He doesn't make money off of a salary, he's rich off of all the assets and passive income that generates from it. And assets/passive income have so many more variables to play with. I seriously doubt someone like him pays the 35% tax rate, or sweats on which direction the government's tax rules blows any given day.

Also, take true RE investors with real RE portfolios, with multi-million dollar assets yielding passive income. I once worked with my financial advisor, who was sort of comparing my family situation to one of his other clients. Our family gross income was 1/2 the size of his other client (according to him). BUT, taxwise, we paid about the same amount of taxes. The other client (which the advisor maintained their anonymity obviously) had paid one of the lowest % tax per "income", through accounting trickery and asset shelters that are apparently available to a select few wealthy people.

Bottom line, really rich people have plenty of smart accountants, cpa, advisors, to figure ways around the system (legally, and sometimes illegally). Doesn't matter which political party is in office, what new IRS rules there are. IRS defined middle class and below don't pay the majority of the taxes either. It's everyone in between. Always has and always will be.

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Really rich people don't get hit with taxes.

Actually they do. In fact they get reamed. I already posted the tax schedule for single in another thread. That the rich are not paying their share of taxes is a common theme that politicians like to play out when looking at more taxes. They either have to fight 80 to 90% of the population on raising taxes or they fight 20 – 10% of the population(so called rich) to raise taxes.

This is from a 2005 tax table for single.

0 – 7299 10% marginal rate, 10% total.
7300 – 29699 15% marginal rate (additional dollars over 7300 taxed at 15% on top of the 10% on under 7300)
29700 – 71949 25% marginal rate.
71950 – 150149 28% marginal rate.
150150 – 326449 33% marginal rate
326450+ 35% marginal rate.

Add in the fact that deductions start being eliminated for incomes over 146,000(single) due to AMT. So where is it that the rich are not paying taxes? 35% of your income gone to fed taxes? Add in CA state and you are looking at 44% of your income gone to taxes. Looks like it is almost better to sit around and let the gov take care of you..

 

just imho…You're equating taxable earnings to the definition rich. I don't….In fact, in my mind, really rich people don't actively depend on a income that the IRS can tax at 35% (typically salaries,wages,etc)…..A $300k,$400k,or even $500k salaried income might sound all sweet. But if that's all you are depending on, imho you're not really "rich".

Take a CEO like Steve Jobs with that $1 annual salary. He doesn't make money off of a salary, he's rich off of all the assets and passive income that generates from it. And assets/passive income have so many more variables to play with. I seriously doubt someone like him pays the 35% tax rate, or sweats on which direction the government's tax rules blows any given day.

Also, take true RE investors with real RE portfolios, with multi-million dollar assets yielding passive income. I once worked with my financial advisor, who was sort of comparing my family situation to one of his other clients. Our family gross income was 1/2 the size of his other client (according to him). BUT, taxwise, we paid about the same amount of taxes. The other client (which the advisor maintained their anonymity obviously) had paid one of the lowest % tax per "income", through accounting trickery and asset shelters that are apparently available to a select few wealthy people.

Bottom line, really rich people have plenty of smart accountants, cpa, advisors, to figure ways around the system (legally, and sometimes illegally). Doesn't matter which political party is in office, what new IRS rules there are. IRS defined middle class and below don't pay the majority of the taxes either. It's everyone in between. Always has and always will be.

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Really rich people don't get hit with taxes.

Actually they do. In fact they get reamed. I already posted the tax schedule for single in another thread. That the rich are not paying their share of taxes is a common theme that politicians like to play out when looking at more taxes. They either have to fight 80 to 90% of the population on raising taxes or they fight 20 – 10% of the population(so called rich) to raise taxes.

This is from a 2005 tax table for single.

0 – 7299 10% marginal rate, 10% total.
7300 – 29699 15% marginal rate (additional dollars over 7300 taxed at 15% on top of the 10% on under 7300)
29700 – 71949 25% marginal rate.
71950 – 150149 28% marginal rate.
150150 – 326449 33% marginal rate
326450+ 35% marginal rate.

Add in the fact that deductions start being eliminated for incomes over 146,000(single) due to AMT. So where is it that the rich are not paying taxes? 35% of your income gone to fed taxes? Add in CA state and you are looking at 44% of your income gone to taxes. Looks like it is almost better to sit around and let the gov take care of you..

 

just imho…You're equating taxable earnings to the definition rich. I don't….In fact, in my mind, really rich people don't actively depend on a income that the IRS can tax at 35% (typically salaries,wages,etc)…..A $300k,$400k,or even $500k salaried income might sound all sweet. But if that's all you are depending on, imho you're not really "rich".

Take a CEO like Steve Jobs with that $1 annual salary. He doesn't make money off of a salary, he's rich off of all the assets and passive income that generates from it. And assets/passive income have so many more variables to play with. I seriously doubt someone like him pays the 35% tax rate, or sweats on which direction the government's tax rules blows any given day.

Also, take true RE investors with real RE portfolios, with multi-million dollar assets yielding passive income. I once worked with my financial advisor, who was sort of comparing my family situation to one of his other clients. Our family gross income was 1/2 the size of his other client (according to him). BUT, taxwise, we paid about the same amount of taxes. The other client (which the advisor maintained their anonymity obviously) had paid one of the lowest % tax per "income", through accounting trickery and asset shelters that are apparently available to a select few wealthy people.

Bottom line, really rich people have plenty of smart accountants, cpa, advisors, to figure ways around the system (legally, and sometimes illegally). Doesn't matter which political party is in office, what new IRS rules there are. IRS defined middle class and below don't pay the majority of the taxes either. It's everyone in between. Always has and always will be.

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Really rich people don't get hit with taxes.

Actually they do. In fact they get reamed. I already posted the tax schedule for single in another thread. That the rich are not paying their share of taxes is a common theme that politicians like to play out when looking at more taxes. They either have to fight 80 to 90% of the population on raising taxes or they fight 20 – 10% of the population(so called rich) to raise taxes.

This is from a 2005 tax table for single.

0 – 7299 10% marginal rate, 10% total.
7300 – 29699 15% marginal rate (additional dollars over 7300 taxed at 15% on top of the 10% on under 7300)
29700 – 71949 25% marginal rate.
71950 – 150149 28% marginal rate.
150150 – 326449 33% marginal rate
326450+ 35% marginal rate.

Add in the fact that deductions start being eliminated for incomes over 146,000(single) due to AMT. So where is it that the rich are not paying taxes? 35% of your income gone to fed taxes? Add in CA state and you are looking at 44% of your income gone to taxes. Looks like it is almost better to sit around and let the gov take care of you..

 

just imho…You're equating taxable earnings to the definition rich. I don't….In fact, in my mind, really rich people don't actively depend on a income that the IRS can tax at 35% (typically salaries,wages,etc)…..A $300k,$400k,or even $500k salaried income might sound all sweet. But if that's all you are depending on, imho you're not really "rich".

Take a CEO like Steve Jobs with that $1 annual salary. He doesn't make money off of a salary, he's rich off of all the assets and passive income that generates from it. And assets/passive income have so many more variables to play with. I seriously doubt someone like him pays the 35% tax rate, or sweats on which direction the government's tax rules blows any given day.

Also, take true RE investors with real RE portfolios, with multi-million dollar assets yielding passive income. I once worked with my financial advisor, who was sort of comparing my family situation to one of his other clients. Our family gross income was 1/2 the size of his other client (according to him). BUT, taxwise, we paid about the same amount of taxes. The other client (which the advisor maintained their anonymity obviously) had paid one of the lowest % tax per "income", through accounting trickery and asset shelters that are apparently available to a select few wealthy people.

Bottom line, really rich people have plenty of smart accountants, cpa, advisors, to figure ways around the system (legally, and sometimes illegally). Doesn't matter which political party is in office, what new IRS rules there are. IRS defined middle class and below don't pay the majority of the taxes either. It's everyone in between. Always has and always will be.

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[ucodegen]

@CONCHO

These banks don’t want houses to become more affordable, they want you to borrow as much money as possible and become a long term revenue stream to them. I think what we’re seeing is that homeowning is becoming sort of a lifetime renting arrangement from the bank.

Ironic you should mention this.. because Japan was looking at lifetime ‘mortgages’ before their RE bubble crashed.

@sd_bear

If you still need X down and a yearly income of Y to afford house at price Z then prices will still fall to those levels, and to me it seems like we are still a bit away from that.

Yes, but allowing Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae to pick them up, drops the interest rate for those loans, changing the relationship between X,Y and Z above.

@drunkle

would this save those banks from having to mark down their holdings by simply getting rid of them altogether?

Kind of. I would have to see the specific language and how Freddie Mac is going to select the criteria for the mortgages.

does this save indy mac?

See above. I suspect not though. Right now the requirement of Freddie Mac is doc’d mortgages w/ a minimum equity ratio (though this part might get fudged). See implode-o-meter

http://ml-implode.com/ailing/lender_IndyMacBancorp_2008-01-09.html

@XBoxBoy

Specifically, Frank said Fannie and Freddie would be able to buy mortgages worth up to 125 pct of the median value of a home in any given region, up to a new limit of 730,000 usd.

Humm.. and why would 125% financing in a downward real estate market with insufficient loan loss reserves be a problem?… I agree. Hopefully it won’t go through.

@fat_lazy_union

Really rich people don’t get hit with taxes.

Actually they do. In fact they get reamed. I already posted the tax schedule for single in another thread. That the rich are not paying their share of taxes is a common theme that politicians like to play out when looking at more taxes. They either have to fight 80 to 90% of the population on raising taxes or they fight 20 – 10% of the population(so called rich) to raise taxes.

This is from a 2005 tax table for single.

0 – 7299 10% marginal rate, 10% total.
7300 – 29699 15% marginal rate (additional dollars over 7300 taxed at 15% on top of the 10% on under 7300)
29700 – 71949 25% marginal rate.
71950 – 150149 28% marginal rate.
150150 – 326449 33% marginal rate
326450+ 35% marginal rate.

Add in the fact that deductions start being eliminated for incomes over 146,000(single) due to AMT. So where is it that the rich are not paying taxes? 35% of your income gone to fed taxes? Add in CA state and you are looking at 44% of your income gone to taxes. Looks like it is almost better to sit around and let the gov take care of you..

[ucodegen]

@CONCHO

These banks don’t want houses to become more affordable, they want you to borrow as much money as possible and become a long term revenue stream to them. I think what we’re seeing is that homeowning is becoming sort of a lifetime renting arrangement from the bank.

Ironic you should mention this.. because Japan was looking at lifetime ‘mortgages’ before their RE bubble crashed.

@sd_bear

If you still need X down and a yearly income of Y to afford house at price Z then prices will still fall to those levels, and to me it seems like we are still a bit away from that.

Yes, but allowing Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae to pick them up, drops the interest rate for those loans, changing the relationship between X,Y and Z above.

@drunkle

would this save those banks from having to mark down their holdings by simply getting rid of them altogether?

Kind of. I would have to see the specific language and how Freddie Mac is going to select the criteria for the mortgages.

does this save indy mac?

See above. I suspect not though. Right now the requirement of Freddie Mac is doc’d mortgages w/ a minimum equity ratio (though this part might get fudged). See implode-o-meter

http://ml-implode.com/ailing/lender_IndyMacBancorp_2008-01-09.html

@XBoxBoy

Specifically, Frank said Fannie and Freddie would be able to buy mortgages worth up to 125 pct of the median value of a home in any given region, up to a new limit of 730,000 usd.

Humm.. and why would 125% financing in a downward real estate market with insufficient loan loss reserves be a problem?… I agree. Hopefully it won’t go through.

@fat_lazy_union

Really rich people don’t get hit with taxes.

Actually they do. In fact they get reamed. I already posted the tax schedule for single in another thread. That the rich are not paying their share of taxes is a common theme that politicians like to play out when looking at more taxes. They either have to fight 80 to 90% of the population on raising taxes or they fight 20 – 10% of the population(so called rich) to raise taxes.

This is from a 2005 tax table for single.

0 – 7299 10% marginal rate, 10% total.
7300 – 29699 15% marginal rate (additional dollars over 7300 taxed at 15% on top of the 10% on under 7300)
29700 – 71949 25% marginal rate.
71950 – 150149 28% marginal rate.
150150 – 326449 33% marginal rate
326450+ 35% marginal rate.

Add in the fact that deductions start being eliminated for incomes over 146,000(single) due to AMT. So where is it that the rich are not paying taxes? 35% of your income gone to fed taxes? Add in CA state and you are looking at 44% of your income gone to taxes. Looks like it is almost better to sit around and let the gov take care of you..

[ucodegen]

@CONCHO

These banks don’t want houses to become more affordable, they want you to borrow as much money as possible and become a long term revenue stream to them. I think what we’re seeing is that homeowning is becoming sort of a lifetime renting arrangement from the bank.

Ironic you should mention this.. because Japan was looking at lifetime ‘mortgages’ before their RE bubble crashed.

@sd_bear

If you still need X down and a yearly income of Y to afford house at price Z then prices will still fall to those levels, and to me it seems like we are still a bit away from that.

Yes, but allowing Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae to pick them up, drops the interest rate for those loans, changing the relationship between X,Y and Z above.

@drunkle

would this save those banks from having to mark down their holdings by simply getting rid of them altogether?

Kind of. I would have to see the specific language and how Freddie Mac is going to select the criteria for the mortgages.

does this save indy mac?

See above. I suspect not though. Right now the requirement of Freddie Mac is doc’d mortgages w/ a minimum equity ratio (though this part might get fudged). See implode-o-meter

http://ml-implode.com/ailing/lender_IndyMacBancorp_2008-01-09.html

@XBoxBoy

Specifically, Frank said Fannie and Freddie would be able to buy mortgages worth up to 125 pct of the median value of a home in any given region, up to a new limit of 730,000 usd.

Humm.. and why would 125% financing in a downward real estate market with insufficient loan loss reserves be a problem?… I agree. Hopefully it won’t go through.

@fat_lazy_union

Really rich people don’t get hit with taxes.

Actually they do. In fact they get reamed. I already posted the tax schedule for single in another thread. That the rich are not paying their share of taxes is a common theme that politicians like to play out when looking at more taxes. They either have to fight 80 to 90% of the population on raising taxes or they fight 20 – 10% of the population(so called rich) to raise taxes.

This is from a 2005 tax table for single.

0 – 7299 10% marginal rate, 10% total.
7300 – 29699 15% marginal rate (additional dollars over 7300 taxed at 15% on top of the 10% on under 7300)
29700 – 71949 25% marginal rate.
71950 – 150149 28% marginal rate.
150150 – 326449 33% marginal rate
326450+ 35% marginal rate.

Add in the fact that deductions start being eliminated for incomes over 146,000(single) due to AMT. So where is it that the rich are not paying taxes? 35% of your income gone to fed taxes? Add in CA state and you are looking at 44% of your income gone to taxes. Looks like it is almost better to sit around and let the gov take care of you..

[ucodegen]

@CONCHO

These banks don’t want houses to become more affordable, they want you to borrow as much money as possible and become a long term revenue stream to them. I think what we’re seeing is that homeowning is becoming sort of a lifetime renting arrangement from the bank.

Ironic you should mention this.. because Japan was looking at lifetime ‘mortgages’ before their RE bubble crashed.

@sd_bear

If you still need X down and a yearly income of Y to afford house at price Z then prices will still fall to those levels, and to me it seems like we are still a bit away from that.

Yes, but allowing Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae to pick them up, drops the interest rate for those loans, changing the relationship between X,Y and Z above.

@drunkle

would this save those banks from having to mark down their holdings by simply getting rid of them altogether?

Kind of. I would have to see the specific language and how Freddie Mac is going to select the criteria for the mortgages.

does this save indy mac?

See above. I suspect not though. Right now the requirement of Freddie Mac is doc’d mortgages w/ a minimum equity ratio (though this part might get fudged). See implode-o-meter

http://ml-implode.com/ailing/lender_IndyMacBancorp_2008-01-09.html

@XBoxBoy

Specifically, Frank said Fannie and Freddie would be able to buy mortgages worth up to 125 pct of the median value of a home in any given region, up to a new limit of 730,000 usd.

Humm.. and why would 125% financing in a downward real estate market with insufficient loan loss reserves be a problem?… I agree. Hopefully it won’t go through.

@fat_lazy_union

Really rich people don’t get hit with taxes.

Actually they do. In fact they get reamed. I already posted the tax schedule for single in another thread. That the rich are not paying their share of taxes is a common theme that politicians like to play out when looking at more taxes. They either have to fight 80 to 90% of the population on raising taxes or they fight 20 – 10% of the population(so called rich) to raise taxes.

This is from a 2005 tax table for single.

0 – 7299 10% marginal rate, 10% total.
7300 – 29699 15% marginal rate (additional dollars over 7300 taxed at 15% on top of the 10% on under 7300)
29700 – 71949 25% marginal rate.
71950 – 150149 28% marginal rate.
150150 – 326449 33% marginal rate
326450+ 35% marginal rate.

Add in the fact that deductions start being eliminated for incomes over 146,000(single) due to AMT. So where is it that the rich are not paying taxes? 35% of your income gone to fed taxes? Add in CA state and you are looking at 44% of your income gone to taxes. Looks like it is almost better to sit around and let the gov take care of you..

[blahblahblah]

Exactly, ucodegen. These banks don’t want houses to become more affordable, they want you to borrow as much money as possible and become a long term revenue stream to them. I think what we’re seeing is that homeowning is becoming sort of a lifetime renting arrangement from the bank. You never pay it off before you die, but you get the benefits of not having rent increases (if you don’t have an ARM that is), and you can paint the walls and stuff. Even the “homeowners” are all renters now.

[blahblahblah]

Exactly, ucodegen. These banks don’t want houses to become more affordable, they want you to borrow as much money as possible and become a long term revenue stream to them. I think what we’re seeing is that homeowning is becoming sort of a lifetime renting arrangement from the bank. You never pay it off before you die, but you get the benefits of not having rent increases (if you don’t have an ARM that is), and you can paint the walls and stuff. Even the “homeowners” are all renters now.

[blahblahblah]

Exactly, ucodegen. These banks don’t want houses to become more affordable, they want you to borrow as much money as possible and become a long term revenue stream to them. I think what we’re seeing is that homeowning is becoming sort of a lifetime renting arrangement from the bank. You never pay it off before you die, but you get the benefits of not having rent increases (if you don’t have an ARM that is), and you can paint the walls and stuff. Even the “homeowners” are all renters now.

[blahblahblah]

Exactly, ucodegen. These banks don’t want houses to become more affordable, they want you to borrow as much money as possible and become a long term revenue stream to them. I think what we’re seeing is that homeowning is becoming sort of a lifetime renting arrangement from the bank. You never pay it off before you die, but you get the benefits of not having rent increases (if you don’t have an ARM that is), and you can paint the walls and stuff. Even the “homeowners” are all renters now.

[ucodegen]

To anyone who will think that increasing conforming loan limits would be good… think again!

Think of it this way. It makes it easier to get financing at low rates.. which just like the low interest rates and funky financing that got us into this problem in the first place, will drive up the price of houses. Normally you get a lot more house per dollar when you get over about $500K in most markets. This change would move that breakpoint up to about $800K. Basically what is happening here is an attempt to re-inflate the bubble as well as the banks/money managers trying to shove off their bad loans onto Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac (no one wants to pick them up at the price that the banks want to sell them at, and the banks don’t want to write the value down to sell it. Remember Warren Buffets comment that they should mark to market not mark to model.).

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/index.php?a=12869

It seems that many people have an obsession with thinking lower interest rates make a house more affordable. It doesn’t. It is actually makes it more expensive because it increases realizable demand at that price level thereby driving up the price not to mention property taxes and insurance costs. Imagine what house prices would be if interest rates were 15%? A higher interest rate means your down payment goes a lot further. The way to profit from RE is to buy when rates are high, sell or refi to a lower fixed when rates are low.

There is another problem here too. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae already have a problem on loan loss reserves. Allowing them to pick up loans with a higher face value will not make this better.. it makes it a lot worse. If either of these institutions fails, guess who picks up the tab? The taxpayer. Both of these institutions are guaranteed by the US gov and thereby the taxpayer.

[ucodegen]

To anyone who will think that increasing conforming loan limits would be good… think again!

Think of it this way. It makes it easier to get financing at low rates.. which just like the low interest rates and funky financing that got us into this problem in the first place, will drive up the price of houses. Normally you get a lot more house per dollar when you get over about $500K in most markets. This change would move that breakpoint up to about $800K. Basically what is happening here is an attempt to re-inflate the bubble as well as the banks/money managers trying to shove off their bad loans onto Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac (no one wants to pick them up at the price that the banks want to sell them at, and the banks don’t want to write the value down to sell it. Remember Warren Buffets comment that they should mark to market not mark to model.).

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/index.php?a=12869

It seems that many people have an obsession with thinking lower interest rates make a house more affordable. It doesn’t. It is actually makes it more expensive because it increases realizable demand at that price level thereby driving up the price not to mention property taxes and insurance costs. Imagine what house prices would be if interest rates were 15%? A higher interest rate means your down payment goes a lot further. The way to profit from RE is to buy when rates are high, sell or refi to a lower fixed when rates are low.

There is another problem here too. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae already have a problem on loan loss reserves. Allowing them to pick up loans with a higher face value will not make this better.. it makes it a lot worse. If either of these institutions fails, guess who picks up the tab? The taxpayer. Both of these institutions are guaranteed by the US gov and thereby the taxpayer.

[ucodegen]

To anyone who will think that increasing conforming loan limits would be good… think again!

Think of it this way. It makes it easier to get financing at low rates.. which just like the low interest rates and funky financing that got us into this problem in the first place, will drive up the price of houses. Normally you get a lot more house per dollar when you get over about $500K in most markets. This change would move that breakpoint up to about $800K. Basically what is happening here is an attempt to re-inflate the bubble as well as the banks/money managers trying to shove off their bad loans onto Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac (no one wants to pick them up at the price that the banks want to sell them at, and the banks don’t want to write the value down to sell it. Remember Warren Buffets comment that they should mark to market not mark to model.).

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/index.php?a=12869

It seems that many people have an obsession with thinking lower interest rates make a house more affordable. It doesn’t. It is actually makes it more expensive because it increases realizable demand at that price level thereby driving up the price not to mention property taxes and insurance costs. Imagine what house prices would be if interest rates were 15%? A higher interest rate means your down payment goes a lot further. The way to profit from RE is to buy when rates are high, sell or refi to a lower fixed when rates are low.

There is another problem here too. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae already have a problem on loan loss reserves. Allowing them to pick up loans with a higher face value will not make this better.. it makes it a lot worse. If either of these institutions fails, guess who picks up the tab? The taxpayer. Both of these institutions are guaranteed by the US gov and thereby the taxpayer.

[ucodegen]

To anyone who will think that increasing conforming loan limits would be good… think again!

Think of it this way. It makes it easier to get financing at low rates.. which just like the low interest rates and funky financing that got us into this problem in the first place, will drive up the price of houses. Normally you get a lot more house per dollar when you get over about $500K in most markets. This change would move that breakpoint up to about $800K. Basically what is happening here is an attempt to re-inflate the bubble as well as the banks/money managers trying to shove off their bad loans onto Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac (no one wants to pick them up at the price that the banks want to sell them at, and the banks don’t want to write the value down to sell it. Remember Warren Buffets comment that they should mark to market not mark to model.).

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/index.php?a=12869

It seems that many people have an obsession with thinking lower interest rates make a house more affordable. It doesn’t. It is actually makes it more expensive because it increases realizable demand at that price level thereby driving up the price not to mention property taxes and insurance costs. Imagine what house prices would be if interest rates were 15%? A higher interest rate means your down payment goes a lot further. The way to profit from RE is to buy when rates are high, sell or refi to a lower fixed when rates are low.

There is another problem here too. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae already have a problem on loan loss reserves. Allowing them to pick up loans with a higher face value will not make this better.. it makes it a lot worse. If either of these institutions fails, guess who picks up the tab? The taxpayer. Both of these institutions are guaranteed by the US gov and thereby the taxpayer.

[Alex_angel]

agreed, it is a thorn in the side knowing that you cannot get anything in SD for under $417k so you will probably pay 1% or more higher that a conforming loan. This would be welcome in my book

[Alex_angel]

agreed, it is a thorn in the side knowing that you cannot get anything in SD for under $417k so you will probably pay 1% or more higher that a conforming loan. This would be welcome in my book

[Alex_angel]

agreed, it is a thorn in the side knowing that you cannot get anything in SD for under $417k so you will probably pay 1% or more higher that a conforming loan. This would be welcome in my book

[Alex_angel]

agreed, it is a thorn in the side knowing that you cannot get anything in SD for under $417k so you will probably pay 1% or more higher that a conforming loan. This would be welcome in my book

[Coronita]

From a selfish perspective…At this point. I only wish that were the case. I wouldn't mind taking refinancing my jumbo loan to something conforming which hopefully will settle at the below 5% after all said and done.

The more i look, the more i see conforming loan rates falling.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

From a selfish perspective…At this point. I only wish that were the case. I wouldn't mind taking refinancing my jumbo loan to something conforming which hopefully will settle at the below 5% after all said and done.

The more i look, the more i see conforming loan rates falling.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

From a selfish perspective…At this point. I only wish that were the case. I wouldn't mind taking refinancing my jumbo loan to something conforming which hopefully will settle at the below 5% after all said and done.

The more i look, the more i see conforming loan rates falling.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

From a selfish perspective…At this point. I only wish that were the case. I wouldn't mind taking refinancing my jumbo loan to something conforming which hopefully will settle at the below 5% after all said and done.

The more i look, the more i see conforming loan rates falling.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[asragov]

That’s Massachusetts, not North Dakota – Barney Frank (one of the House leaders on Financial Services) is from MA.

In Boston, housing is extraordinarily expensive, often more so than in Southern California.

[Alex_angel]

Boston is a real metropolitan area unlike suburbiaville San Diego.

[kaycee]

That would be awesome for me too. Never quite understood why I was a higher risk because I could afford more house. I would refi in a NY minute. (Another place where conforming loans are a joke)

[HereWeGo]

On the flip side, you probably don’t want to own FNMA paper if this goes through.

[yooklid]

Well, now we know the floor will be set at 700K.

I guess I’m renter for life now.

[yooklid]

Well, now we know the floor will be set at 700K.

I guess I’m renter for life now.

[yooklid]

Well, now we know the floor will be set at 700K.

I guess I’m renter for life now.

[yooklid]

Well, now we know the floor will be set at 700K.

I guess I’m renter for life now.

[yooklid]

Well, now we know the floor will be set at 700K.

I guess I’m renter for life now.

[HereWeGo]

On the flip side, you probably don’t want to own FNMA paper if this goes through.

[HereWeGo]

On the flip side, you probably don’t want to own FNMA paper if this goes through.

[HereWeGo]

On the flip side, you probably don’t want to own FNMA paper if this goes through.

[HereWeGo]

On the flip side, you probably don’t want to own FNMA paper if this goes through.

[kaycee]

That would be awesome for me too. Never quite understood why I was a higher risk because I could afford more house. I would refi in a NY minute. (Another place where conforming loans are a joke)

[kaycee]

That would be awesome for me too. Never quite understood why I was a higher risk because I could afford more house. I would refi in a NY minute. (Another place where conforming loans are a joke)

[kaycee]

That would be awesome for me too. Never quite understood why I was a higher risk because I could afford more house. I would refi in a NY minute. (Another place where conforming loans are a joke)

[kaycee]

That would be awesome for me too. Never quite understood why I was a higher risk because I could afford more house. I would refi in a NY minute. (Another place where conforming loans are a joke)

[Alex_angel]

Boston is a real metropolitan area unlike suburbiaville San Diego.

[Alex_angel]

Boston is a real metropolitan area unlike suburbiaville San Diego.

[Alex_angel]

Boston is a real metropolitan area unlike suburbiaville San Diego.

[Alex_angel]

Boston is a real metropolitan area unlike suburbiaville San Diego.

[asragov]

That’s Massachusetts, not North Dakota – Barney Frank (one of the House leaders on Financial Services) is from MA.

In Boston, housing is extraordinarily expensive, often more so than in Southern California.

[asragov]

That’s Massachusetts, not North Dakota – Barney Frank (one of the House leaders on Financial Services) is from MA.

In Boston, housing is extraordinarily expensive, often more so than in Southern California.

[asragov]

That’s Massachusetts, not North Dakota – Barney Frank (one of the House leaders on Financial Services) is from MA.

In Boston, housing is extraordinarily expensive, often more so than in Southern California.

[asragov]

That’s Massachusetts, not North Dakota – Barney Frank (one of the House leaders on Financial Services) is from MA.

In Boston, housing is extraordinarily expensive, often more so than in Southern California.

[DWCAP]

I dont know about the whole renter=owner thing, atleast in theory you are building equity when paying a morgage, you never will as a renter. It is kinda like paying the max deductions on your paychecks (as most americans do) and then getting a rebate at the end of the year. The Gov. is just giving you your own money, making it a form of inforced savings. If you own your home you pay more than rent (normally) but you get that money back in equity at the end of the loan. Plus you can paint and decorate as you wish. YAH!
My real problem with all this is that inflation is already well outa the comfort zone, so the Fed should be raising rates as it was at the beginning of last year. Problem is the economy cant survive raising rates, so we are going in the opposite direction. Housing is cured, its ill’s not spreading to the greater economy. Resets are not bad, as many have noted prime +2% = ~6%. Not bad. People stop defaulting and all is well.
Problem is that then the fed has to do something about inflation eventually. So rates go back up. Suddenly we are right back where we were as people cant afford the increases in their morgages as we fight inflation. Sure, people make more, but inflation is a bitch and is eating any of those increases in wages. People make more now than they did in 2004, but it isnt helping much is it? Outsourcing and increased competion keep a lid on wages, meaning that people are actually getting behind and savings are not what they once were. We become addicted to low rates and tolerant of increased inflation. This cycle holds for a few years, and eventually breaks as it always does. Instead of suffering our pain over 2007-2010 and getting on with our lives, we suffer the same pain, just spread out over 2007-2017 and over the entire population, renters and owners alike. To those born before 1977 (ie 30+) they already have alot of skin in the game and this is preferable. To the younger generations, with little to loose, this sucks.

Or maybe Housing is saved as thousands of Pigg’s and their 500000/yr salaries with 849 credit rush the multigenerational oppertunity of low interest rates and decreasing housing prices becoming landlords. Retiring on fat rents coming in from houses that need no repair, no upkeep, and are rented 365.26 days a year with 5-10% rent increases every year.

[mixxalot]

I wish

Or maybe Housing is saved as thousands of Pigg’s and their 500000/yr salaries with 849 credit rush the multigenerational oppertunity of low interest rates and decreasing housing prices becoming landlords.

I am trying to crack 150k this year as my financial goal and raise my FICO score to 750 and down payment to 100k.

[drunkle]

uco:

short term, finger on the trigger, yes… might even place the dump order now so it executes ftitm…

that massive spike is what interested me… what the heck was that…

[waitingpatiently]

I am not an economics guru…just lucked out and sold my house at the right time. So what does this mean to people that are waiting to buy? Will it just drag this longer? Is there a website that explains any of the fundamentals of this?
Thank you!!!

[waitingpatiently]

I am not an economics guru…just lucked out and sold my house at the right time. So what does this mean to people that are waiting to buy? Will it just drag this longer? Is there a website that explains any of the fundamentals of this?
Thank you!!!

[waitingpatiently]

I am not an economics guru…just lucked out and sold my house at the right time. So what does this mean to people that are waiting to buy? Will it just drag this longer? Is there a website that explains any of the fundamentals of this?
Thank you!!!

[waitingpatiently]

I am not an economics guru…just lucked out and sold my house at the right time. So what does this mean to people that are waiting to buy? Will it just drag this longer? Is there a website that explains any of the fundamentals of this?
Thank you!!!

[waitingpatiently]

I am not an economics guru…just lucked out and sold my house at the right time. So what does this mean to people that are waiting to buy? Will it just drag this longer? Is there a website that explains any of the fundamentals of this?
Thank you!!!

[ucodegen]

@drunkle

that massive spike is what interested me… what the heck was that…

I have no idea. The only thing I can think of is some people thinking that the removal of Moody’s ratings on them would make things better..

[ucodegen]

@drunkle

that massive spike is what interested me… what the heck was that…

I have no idea. The only thing I can think of is some people thinking that the removal of Moody’s ratings on them would make things better..

[ucodegen]

@drunkle

that massive spike is what interested me… what the heck was that…

I have no idea. The only thing I can think of is some people thinking that the removal of Moody’s ratings on them would make things better..

[ucodegen]

@drunkle

that massive spike is what interested me… what the heck was that…

I have no idea. The only thing I can think of is some people thinking that the removal of Moody’s ratings on them would make things better..

[ucodegen]

@drunkle

that massive spike is what interested me… what the heck was that…

I have no idea. The only thing I can think of is some people thinking that the removal of Moody’s ratings on them would make things better..

[drunkle]

“Speaker Nancy Pelosi said a federal stimulus package for the economy may include a provision for a one-year increase to $729,750 from $417,000 in the size of mortgages that government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae (FNM.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Freddie Mac (FRE.N: Quote, Profile, Research) may buy.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/coMktNews/idUSN2427517220080124?rpc=11

key words, “may include” and “one-year”… i wonder if these people are actively stoking market volatility for personal gains…

[Ash Housewares]

provision for a one-year increase…

Maybe I’m too cynical, but I don’t believe this “one year” patch will go away. Next year it’ll be “we’ve decided to extend the new conforming loan limits indefinately”.

Is there a market to place bets on future legislation?

[raptorduck]

fat_lazy and ucodogen. I will put in my 2 cent to the rich paying no taxes side thread.

I don’t claim to be rich by any means, but I have been an AMT taxpayer for a decade and I have a very very good accountant. I have no deductions/exemptions (via either AMT exclusion or regular tax rate phase out), no loopholes, and pay way too much tax as a percentage of my income. 35% is only the begining, since you don’t have the write offs you would have with a lower tax bracket.

Indeed, I bought into the whole “rich” don’t pay taxes thing my whole life until I made enough money to not only realize that is a bunch of crap, but to conclude that the rich pay way to much of the tax liablility in this country.

I am not crying publically here, but that notion is simply not ture. The opposite is. Seeing how many $$ I inject into our government bank account makes me that much more sensitive about what the government does with it.

I heard our governor say at his state of the state address that we should not rely so much on wealthy Californian’s paying so much of our state budget through their high taxes. His point was that, if the rich have a bad year, so does California and California’s health should not depend on a few wealthy Californians.

Again I don’t consider myself rich my any means, but I would not want to stick it further to those I do consider rich. Those are the folks who own the companies that employ us. Their contributions to the economy provide job opportunities for others and inject lots of $$ into our economy through a free market system, which improves the standard of living. Taking from them and giving it to an inefficiently run government will not make things better for us.

Ok. I was preaching. Apologies. Preaching always involves ad hominum generalizations to make a point, which begs rhetorical response. I will stop now.

[Coronita]

Ok ucodogen and raptorduck ,

I guess I have to take both of your words, because frankly I can't relate :)…I don't think I meant to say rich people pay NO taxes. I just felt talking to advisors and whatnot that the conversations usually resulted in "sorry, your assets and current employment predicament being on a w-2, though a sizeable w-2 doesn't allow me to play with much to avoid taxes, unlike client XYZ which does most of their business in RE and recognizes very little income"

I suppose my advisor(s) was b.s.ing me. For the record, I do know what getting hit with AMT is about, because I've been hit pretty much every year for the past couple of years, both married and single…Though I i really don't feel rich. Though the ironic part is the larger the mortgage interest deduction on my primary, the less AMT I would have ended up paying (not that much, a few thousand), even with the itemized deduction phase out.

I just thought executives had access to things like deferred compensation plans, zero interest loans from companies, etc that somehow allowed them to skew income, etc though I'm not an accountant or really smart enough to know.

And by no means do I think rich people should get hit with a bigger tax. Quite contrary, I believe for better or worse that most people who are rich probably got there through some merit, and do keep the rest of the economy going. I'm just peeved the government keeps classify me and my family as rich when we aren't. I hate government that acts like robin hood. Pelosi, with all due respect, scares thecrap out of me.

Anyway, end vent. Time to get off my lazy union -ss.

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[KIBU]

Welcome all to the Socialist Republic of USA. We are heading toward communism soon. Those who save money and have no assets will be robbed off soon by inflation and taxes.

I am believing more and more that people on this site including me are the ones who will be left behind renting for a while more.

[KIBU]

Welcome all to the Socialist Republic of USA. We are heading toward communism soon. Those who save money and have no assets will be robbed off soon by inflation and taxes.

I am believing more and more that people on this site including me are the ones who will be left behind renting for a while more.

[KIBU]

Welcome all to the Socialist Republic of USA. We are heading toward communism soon. Those who save money and have no assets will be robbed off soon by inflation and taxes.

I am believing more and more that people on this site including me are the ones who will be left behind renting for a while more.

[KIBU]

Welcome all to the Socialist Republic of USA. We are heading toward communism soon. Those who save money and have no assets will be robbed off soon by inflation and taxes.

I am believing more and more that people on this site including me are the ones who will be left behind renting for a while more.

[KIBU]

Welcome all to the Socialist Republic of USA. We are heading toward communism soon. Those who save money and have no assets will be robbed off soon by inflation and taxes.

I am believing more and more that people on this site including me are the ones who will be left behind renting for a while more.

[raptorduck]

Fat_lazy. I will admit that 9 years ago, when I worked in SD, I benefited from one of those 0% interest loans. In fact, it was a forgivable loan.

Unfortunatley, the IRS and SEC have phased those out. As a Section 16 executive or otherwise, you can no longer borrow from your company interest free and the loan can not be forgiven without being treated as taxable income. Companies just don’t do that any more.

Also, new laws now force you to price options closer to the actual FMV of the stock based on a fair and reasonable third party valuation. In the old days, you could almost pick out of thin air the price of your options, which could have signifiant financial benifits. Thanks to rule 405, those days are long gone too.

[andymajumder]

Looks like the mdeia is already covering it as a big boost for the housing market in California. http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/25/real_estate/stimulus_plan_targets_pricy_housing/index.htm

"This will have a big, immediate impact, especially in California where sales have been down most significantly," said Lawrence Yun, chief economist for the National Association of Realtors. The 1 percent drop is a huge factor," said Yun. "In California, it could create a mini-boom."

More coverage,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22826663/

Does this mean its the end of price drops as of now?

They really are playing it as though prices might start going up again and this may cause a lot of potential buyers to jump back in. 

 

[XBoxBoy]

Does this mean its the end of price drops as of now?

A couple things to keep in mind.

1) The areas that have been hit the hardest with dropping home prices have been the less expensive areas. Places where 20% down and a conformimg loan at $417k would get you a house. So, for these areas, the increase is not going to matter one iota.

2) This will make it so that some areas will now be “purchasable” with a conforming loans. For these areas that might indeed be a slight boost helping to hold up prices a bit. But only a bit. To qualify for a conforming loan you need to document income, have a down payment, etc.

3) Because interest rates are down, this might make it so that some small percentage of people who need to refi out of their adjustable will manage to do so. That will mean fewer foreclosures. Which of course means home prices not falling so fast.

4) The biggest impact will probably be psychological. This will give plenty of realtors ammunition to tell sellers to NOT lower their prices. That as soon as these loans are available, the buyers will come back and the market will pick up. Sellers will want to believe this, and will suddenly have a ray of hope to grab onto. I expect this to make sellers all the less likely to cut deals in the next month or two.

When you put all this together, I think what will happen is that this will slow the falling. Maybe hardly at all, maybe significantly. However, the problems that caused SoCal housing to start collapsing are still there and no government plan is going to take that away. It’s just a matter of how fast it falls.

And oh yeah… Right now the mood in punditland is that things aren’t so bad. Why we were just all overreacting, and that nasty down we just had in the world markets was caused by a rogue trader. But I have my doubts that all the Dorothy’s can keep us on this yellow brick road by clicking their heels so smartly. But then again, I’m sorta like Rich. I see the glass as empty and broken, not half full or half empty…

[kev374]

Without stated income, Interest only and NegAm products this increase in the cap is totally meaningless.

The only reason people could afford these houses was because of the exotic financing and FHA doesn’t do that.

This deck of cards is coming down and no matter what anyone does it WILL come down.

[sd_bear]

This raises the limits 125% from the median price in an area. If San Diego’s median price is only 430k now this means that the new cap is going to be 537.5k here. Not as bad as the 730k we keep seeing in the news, but still not a good thing.

[XBoxBoy]

This raises the limits 125% from the median price in an area.

So if San Diego’s median price drops, does that mean the max conforming loan will drop too? I can hear the real estate agents now, “Better buy now before prices drop, and you can’t get a conforming loan!”

XBoxBoy

[Sandi Egan]

So if San Diego’s median price drops, does that mean the max conforming loan will drop too? I can hear the real estate agents now, “Better buy now before prices drop, and you can’t get a conforming loan!”

XBoxBoy
That’s too funny! I can see it actually happening.

If the conforming limit goes up to 550K instead of 730K and then follows the median down, it actually might be a good thing. Right now there is no incentive to 700K+ sellers to lower asking prices, but with the new limits lowering the price a bit and reaching conforming territory they could substantially extend the number of prospective buyers.
Lower comps will lead to lower median, which will lead to lower conforming limit, which will pull the already lowered prices further down.
*sigh*
Probably I’ve got something wrong.

[patientlywaiting]

Quite frankly this is just another case of the rich getting richer. Who will it help?

I quite agree with this but it's the price to pay to help out the banks which is what all the gov't intervention is designed to do.  The middle class stimulus is all talk.  The gov't is trying to do what is in our national interest — save our financial system.

Realistically, this is only going to help the people are barely affording their houses stay in houses.  

But for the plentiful people who were novice "investors" in real estate and were counting on appreciation, the gov't action will be little consolation.  They are already way underwater and nothing can save them.   If someone is already $100,000 underwater and lost all his equity, reducing the cost of borrowing 2% won't do him any good.   Those people will end up in foreclosure no matter what. 

 

 

 

[patientlywaiting]

Quite frankly this is just another case of the rich getting richer. Who will it help?

I quite agree with this but it's the price to pay to help out the banks which is what all the gov't intervention is designed to do.  The middle class stimulus is all talk.  The gov't is trying to do what is in our national interest — save our financial system.

Realistically, this is only going to help the people are barely affording their houses stay in houses.  

But for the plentiful people who were novice "investors" in real estate and were counting on appreciation, the gov't action will be little consolation.  They are already way underwater and nothing can save them.   If someone is already $100,000 underwater and lost all his equity, reducing the cost of borrowing 2% won't do him any good.   Those people will end up in foreclosure no matter what. 

 

 

 

[patientlywaiting]

Quite frankly this is just another case of the rich getting richer. Who will it help?

I quite agree with this but it's the price to pay to help out the banks which is what all the gov't intervention is designed to do.  The middle class stimulus is all talk.  The gov't is trying to do what is in our national interest — save our financial system.

Realistically, this is only going to help the people are barely affording their houses stay in houses.  

But for the plentiful people who were novice "investors" in real estate and were counting on appreciation, the gov't action will be little consolation.  They are already way underwater and nothing can save them.   If someone is already $100,000 underwater and lost all his equity, reducing the cost of borrowing 2% won't do him any good.   Those people will end up in foreclosure no matter what. 

 

 

 

[patientlywaiting]

Quite frankly this is just another case of the rich getting richer. Who will it help?

I quite agree with this but it's the price to pay to help out the banks which is what all the gov't intervention is designed to do.  The middle class stimulus is all talk.  The gov't is trying to do what is in our national interest — save our financial system.

Realistically, this is only going to help the people are barely affording their houses stay in houses.  

But for the plentiful people who were novice "investors" in real estate and were counting on appreciation, the gov't action will be little consolation.  They are already way underwater and nothing can save them.   If someone is already $100,000 underwater and lost all his equity, reducing the cost of borrowing 2% won't do him any good.   Those people will end up in foreclosure no matter what. 

 

 

 

[patientlywaiting]

Quite frankly this is just another case of the rich getting richer. Who will it help?

I quite agree with this but it's the price to pay to help out the banks which is what all the gov't intervention is designed to do.  The middle class stimulus is all talk.  The gov't is trying to do what is in our national interest — save our financial system.

Realistically, this is only going to help the people are barely affording their houses stay in houses.  

But for the plentiful people who were novice "investors" in real estate and were counting on appreciation, the gov't action will be little consolation.  They are already way underwater and nothing can save them.   If someone is already $100,000 underwater and lost all his equity, reducing the cost of borrowing 2% won't do him any good.   Those people will end up in foreclosure no matter what. 

 

 

 

[SD Realtor]

Unfortunately Sandi Egan you have it upside down. I cannot think of a single case in history where more aggressive lending rates incentivizes any sellers to lower asking prices. If anything this incentivizes people who were pricing near the conforming 417k limit to ask for more.

I think more and more that a common misconception on Piggington is that people here project their prevailing thought processes on joe buyer out there in the world. The fact is that most posters here are more introspective then the average buyer. While the savy buyer measures value of a home with regards to market conditions, pricing, etc… many a buyer, dare I say a majority simply look at the mortgage payment. This is especially true in the 750k range of housing.

sdrealtor pegged it right non. This measure will simply help those who have money get more property. To think this will not help the dinc family on the fence about buying that 4S ranch or carmel valley home jump into the fray is wishful. How big of a dent will it make? Not sure but you cannot argue about the fact that it saves a couple hundred a month off a payment.

SD Realtor

[Sandi Egan]

I knew it 🙁

[SD Realtor]

Sandi the whole thing bums me out as well…

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

Sandi the whole thing bums me out as well…

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

Sandi the whole thing bums me out as well…

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

Sandi the whole thing bums me out as well…

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

Sandi the whole thing bums me out as well…

SD Realtor

[Sandi Egan]

I knew it 🙁

[Sandi Egan]

I knew it 🙁

[Sandi Egan]

I knew it 🙁

[Sandi Egan]

I knew it 🙁

[drunkle]

can banks that are holding jumbos that are not selling in the cdo market now unload them onto fre/fna? no refi activity necessary, no catalyst, just… unload them?

[drunkle]

can banks that are holding jumbos that are not selling in the cdo market now unload them onto fre/fna? no refi activity necessary, no catalyst, just… unload them?

[drunkle]

can banks that are holding jumbos that are not selling in the cdo market now unload them onto fre/fna? no refi activity necessary, no catalyst, just… unload them?

[drunkle]

can banks that are holding jumbos that are not selling in the cdo market now unload them onto fre/fna? no refi activity necessary, no catalyst, just… unload them?

[drunkle]

can banks that are holding jumbos that are not selling in the cdo market now unload them onto fre/fna? no refi activity necessary, no catalyst, just… unload them?

[ucodegen]

@SD Realtor

This measure will simply help those who have money get more property.

I would have to disagree with you here. It will cause an jump in prices on houses in the 500k to 800k region because of the reason you stated earlier:

While the savy buyer measures value of a home with regards to market conditions, pricing, etc… many a buyer, dare I say a majority simply look at the mortgage payment.

Most of the savy buyers know the value of money and will notice the price getting a bit more unreasonable in the 500K to 800K region. What the measure will do is ‘sink the hook’ in the mouths of any green investors or green potential buyers that only look at the house payment and believe that a full turnaround is imminent. The people with money will wait until these people get hit too. The have the money in the first place because they were patent enough to not get sucked into the previous hype-up of prices.

My opinion on the increase on loan limits is that it is a suckers play. It pulls people out of original purchase jumbo loans into a refi, which makes the loans recourse. It gets the fence sitters that are on the edge of their seats and don’t have the experience to see the sucker play into the market to try to prop up house prices.

The second part of it is that it is a suckers play on all taxpayers because Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac are backed by US taxpayers should the loans default sufficiently to cause either of the institutions to have liquidity problems. It allows banks to that have loans that would qualify, sell them off to either of the institutions, potentially at a profit because of the present interest rate drops. Banks walk away with the money, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac (aka US taxpayers) take the risk.

As for liquidity problem, there is more than enough liquidity. The problem is that the banks know their own investment portfolio (SIVs) look like crap and suspect another bank’s are just as bad or worse.. so they will not lend to each other without significant risk premium.. but the banks want cheap money for high risk just like they have been getting in the past. The second part of the problem is that the banks etc with the CDOs/MBSs or mortgage paper do not want to mark to market because it will really hurt their bottom line (they will have resolve the drop in assets to net income.. -100Bil anyone?). We are seeing a few billion here and there. The total amount is involved is estimated to be close to $500Billion or more. What the rapid drop in interest rates does is inflate the ‘asset value’ of the CDOs/MBSs until the holders can find another sucker to hold the bag. Rough example following:

Lets say we are a bank and have $1Mil in MBSs yielding 6% ($60,000/yr). Now we discover 50% of the loans are bad ($500K) and the recovery rate is 50% of assets on bad loans. This means you have $750K of real assets(MBS) returning $30K/yr (50% went bad so they don’t yield a return). Effectively we now have a $750K asset yielding 4%. Be we are greedy.. we want our $1Mil back.. how do we do this? Well if the risk free rate of return (Treasury) is reduced to 3% or below, $1Mil returns $30K @ 3%.. which looks just like our crap! If we can achieve good ratings after allowing for bad loans.. we (the bank) can hot potato the MBS to someone else at our original cost. We the bank don’t lose. The dodgy debt is someone else’s problem.

Looking at the above, you might be able to estimate where the fed rates will drop to before stabilizing. What is needed is the % of loans going bad, recovery rate as a percentage of original loan value and what the MBSs/CDOs were originally yielding. The real formula to use is an amortization formula.. but thats harder to follow. The above paragraph is easier to follow and reflecting on all of this is making me cranky again (And the Friday beer is wearing off.. needed one for this week).. so I am going to hit the hay.

NOTE: The above applies to the sub-prime, Alt-A paper. Many of these were refi’d into NegAms.. which are projected to start resetting late 2009 and hit full swing 2010. I can’t project what will happen here because these loans start out underwater. Some were refi’s which makes them recourse. I call this period the ‘all Hell breaks loose’ period.

[sdrealtor]

FLU,
What I was referring to were all attached housing in North County with low or no HOA fees purchased with 20% down at 30 yr fixed rates. 2Br’s at 200k or lower. 3+BR’s at 300K and lower.perties in question.

[patientlywaiting]

ucodegen, good write up.

The sucker homeowners are the people who are barely making it now. They will re-fi and make their loans recourse. They’ll pay their ownership premiums for a few more years; they then default anyway when the recession is in full swing. They’ll have nothing to show for their resilience and would be better off walking right now. That goes to show that people who work hard don’t always make it.

The Fed’s job is to take care of it’s member banks which is what they are doing as we speak.

[patientlywaiting]

ucodegen, good write up.

The sucker homeowners are the people who are barely making it now. They will re-fi and make their loans recourse. They’ll pay their ownership premiums for a few more years; they then default anyway when the recession is in full swing. They’ll have nothing to show for their resilience and would be better off walking right now. That goes to show that people who work hard don’t always make it.

The Fed’s job is to take care of it’s member banks which is what they are doing as we speak.

[patientlywaiting]

ucodegen, good write up.

The sucker homeowners are the people who are barely making it now. They will re-fi and make their loans recourse. They’ll pay their ownership premiums for a few more years; they then default anyway when the recession is in full swing. They’ll have nothing to show for their resilience and would be better off walking right now. That goes to show that people who work hard don’t always make it.

The Fed’s job is to take care of it’s member banks which is what they are doing as we speak.

[patientlywaiting]

ucodegen, good write up.

The sucker homeowners are the people who are barely making it now. They will re-fi and make their loans recourse. They’ll pay their ownership premiums for a few more years; they then default anyway when the recession is in full swing. They’ll have nothing to show for their resilience and would be better off walking right now. That goes to show that people who work hard don’t always make it.

The Fed’s job is to take care of it’s member banks which is what they are doing as we speak.

[patientlywaiting]

ucodegen, good write up.

The sucker homeowners are the people who are barely making it now. They will re-fi and make their loans recourse. They’ll pay their ownership premiums for a few more years; they then default anyway when the recession is in full swing. They’ll have nothing to show for their resilience and would be better off walking right now. That goes to show that people who work hard don’t always make it.

The Fed’s job is to take care of it’s member banks which is what they are doing as we speak.

[sdrealtor]

FLU,
What I was referring to were all attached housing in North County with low or no HOA fees purchased with 20% down at 30 yr fixed rates. 2Br’s at 200k or lower. 3+BR’s at 300K and lower.perties in question.

[sdrealtor]

FLU,
What I was referring to were all attached housing in North County with low or no HOA fees purchased with 20% down at 30 yr fixed rates. 2Br’s at 200k or lower. 3+BR’s at 300K and lower.perties in question.

[sdrealtor]

FLU,
What I was referring to were all attached housing in North County with low or no HOA fees purchased with 20% down at 30 yr fixed rates. 2Br’s at 200k or lower. 3+BR’s at 300K and lower.perties in question.

[sdrealtor]

FLU,
What I was referring to were all attached housing in North County with low or no HOA fees purchased with 20% down at 30 yr fixed rates. 2Br’s at 200k or lower. 3+BR’s at 300K and lower.perties in question.

[SD Realtor]

uco you response is well written but flawed…

Would you consider ANYBODY buying in the market today a “savy” buyer? The facts just show that most buyers are indeed not savy.

How many buyers do you work with? How many buyers do you show properties to?

Once more, the arguments that you raise make sense. They make perfect sense.

So why do young families keep buying in 4S Ranch?

********

Look, Davelj made a post in this thread about appearances. This is all an appearance, a knee jerk reaction, a ploy to try to walk a tight rope and delay the inevitable. I know that, you know that, heck even many joe buyers know that. My post is not to convince people to buy or anything like that. My post is based on observations of buyers. I work with them every day, or night when I am not working on engineering…

Try to see what I am saying. Your argument is like a college professor giving a lecture. You use facts, you point out cause and expected affects. It all makes perfect sense.

However the world is not working like that. At least not yet. Hey I will be the first one to admit it if I have no business at all but that is not how it is working. Your premise doesn’t take into account intangible and emotional reasons people buy. Giving them some incentive cannot hurt those intangibles only help them. I cannot wrap my arms around it all and tell you why people buy in depreciating markets… I wish I could explain it better. Maybe sdr can.

What you said above should happen and I believe it WILL happen. When? Don’t know. If employment starts to fall apart then the whole thing will crash and burn pretty damn fast. I think that is a major component that is kind of rescuing everything right now.

Anyways again, no argument with your post, except that I am a heck of alot busier then I should be given the market conditions.

SD Realtor

[patientlywaiting]

SD Realtor, your market observation is correct. What ucodegen said also makes perfect sense.

Markets are based on the greater fool theory. Like Roubini said, people start dancing when the music begins to play. People have short memories (or no experience at all) and emotions will cause then to buy no matter what.

Investors who have long memories or who can learn from their own past mistakes and mistakes of others will thrive over the long term. The rest will experience boom and bust cycles.

[NotCranky]

Just in case anyone participating in this thread doesn’t a background on where these limits stood a month ago I am posting a paragraph from an article(and not crediting it properly).The paragraph also hs some info on how the limits are typically derived when not part of a supper bubble damage control plan(sham).

“Conforming Loan Limit Unchanged In 2008

The conforming loan limit, currently $417,000, will remain unchanged in 2008, announced OFHEO director James B. Lockhart. OFHEO is the entity that regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-chartered guarantors of home mortgages. Any loans above the $417,000 limit are considered “jumbo” and cannot be guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so lenders usually charge higher interest on them. This limit only applies to one-unit properties; multiple-unit properties have higher limits. Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands have higher upper limits than other states. The maximum conforming loan limit is determined by analyzing October-to-October change in the average house price, which has declined more than 3% this year. The maximum limit hasn’t changed for the last 2 years, and it probably won’t get revised upwards anytime soon. The latest NAR report says the inventory of single-family homes on the market is at the highest level in 22 years (10.8 months’ supply), which can only drive home
prices down.”

Has anyone seen how the changes will affect multiple 2-4 unit properties? Other than some advantage coming from that I can see little use for more than the old limits for the investment properties some people are talking about or that Iwoudl be concerned with unless it has to do with a big old cash out?
I am happy about the interests rate trends as a whole. But if I take any of this cheap money it won’t be to prop up the market. I’ll protect it until this manipulation has run its course and prices crash further. If they don’t I’ll consider giving it back.

[NotCranky]

Just in case anyone participating in this thread doesn’t a background on where these limits stood a month ago I am posting a paragraph from an article(and not crediting it properly).The paragraph also hs some info on how the limits are typically derived when not part of a supper bubble damage control plan(sham).

“Conforming Loan Limit Unchanged In 2008

The conforming loan limit, currently $417,000, will remain unchanged in 2008, announced OFHEO director James B. Lockhart. OFHEO is the entity that regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-chartered guarantors of home mortgages. Any loans above the $417,000 limit are considered “jumbo” and cannot be guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so lenders usually charge higher interest on them. This limit only applies to one-unit properties; multiple-unit properties have higher limits. Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands have higher upper limits than other states. The maximum conforming loan limit is determined by analyzing October-to-October change in the average house price, which has declined more than 3% this year. The maximum limit hasn’t changed for the last 2 years, and it probably won’t get revised upwards anytime soon. The latest NAR report says the inventory of single-family homes on the market is at the highest level in 22 years (10.8 months’ supply), which can only drive home
prices down.”

Has anyone seen how the changes will affect multiple 2-4 unit properties? Other than some advantage coming from that I can see little use for more than the old limits for the investment properties some people are talking about or that Iwoudl be concerned with unless it has to do with a big old cash out?
I am happy about the interests rate trends as a whole. But if I take any of this cheap money it won’t be to prop up the market. I’ll protect it until this manipulation has run its course and prices crash further. If they don’t I’ll consider giving it back.

[NotCranky]

Just in case anyone participating in this thread doesn’t a background on where these limits stood a month ago I am posting a paragraph from an article(and not crediting it properly).The paragraph also hs some info on how the limits are typically derived when not part of a supper bubble damage control plan(sham).

“Conforming Loan Limit Unchanged In 2008

The conforming loan limit, currently $417,000, will remain unchanged in 2008, announced OFHEO director James B. Lockhart. OFHEO is the entity that regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-chartered guarantors of home mortgages. Any loans above the $417,000 limit are considered “jumbo” and cannot be guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so lenders usually charge higher interest on them. This limit only applies to one-unit properties; multiple-unit properties have higher limits. Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands have higher upper limits than other states. The maximum conforming loan limit is determined by analyzing October-to-October change in the average house price, which has declined more than 3% this year. The maximum limit hasn’t changed for the last 2 years, and it probably won’t get revised upwards anytime soon. The latest NAR report says the inventory of single-family homes on the market is at the highest level in 22 years (10.8 months’ supply), which can only drive home
prices down.”

Has anyone seen how the changes will affect multiple 2-4 unit properties? Other than some advantage coming from that I can see little use for more than the old limits for the investment properties some people are talking about or that Iwoudl be concerned with unless it has to do with a big old cash out?
I am happy about the interests rate trends as a whole. But if I take any of this cheap money it won’t be to prop up the market. I’ll protect it until this manipulation has run its course and prices crash further. If they don’t I’ll consider giving it back.

[NotCranky]

Just in case anyone participating in this thread doesn’t a background on where these limits stood a month ago I am posting a paragraph from an article(and not crediting it properly).The paragraph also hs some info on how the limits are typically derived when not part of a supper bubble damage control plan(sham).

“Conforming Loan Limit Unchanged In 2008

The conforming loan limit, currently $417,000, will remain unchanged in 2008, announced OFHEO director James B. Lockhart. OFHEO is the entity that regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-chartered guarantors of home mortgages. Any loans above the $417,000 limit are considered “jumbo” and cannot be guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so lenders usually charge higher interest on them. This limit only applies to one-unit properties; multiple-unit properties have higher limits. Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands have higher upper limits than other states. The maximum conforming loan limit is determined by analyzing October-to-October change in the average house price, which has declined more than 3% this year. The maximum limit hasn’t changed for the last 2 years, and it probably won’t get revised upwards anytime soon. The latest NAR report says the inventory of single-family homes on the market is at the highest level in 22 years (10.8 months’ supply), which can only drive home
prices down.”

Has anyone seen how the changes will affect multiple 2-4 unit properties? Other than some advantage coming from that I can see little use for more than the old limits for the investment properties some people are talking about or that Iwoudl be concerned with unless it has to do with a big old cash out?
I am happy about the interests rate trends as a whole. But if I take any of this cheap money it won’t be to prop up the market. I’ll protect it until this manipulation has run its course and prices crash further. If they don’t I’ll consider giving it back.

[NotCranky]

Just in case anyone participating in this thread doesn’t a background on where these limits stood a month ago I am posting a paragraph from an article(and not crediting it properly).The paragraph also hs some info on how the limits are typically derived when not part of a supper bubble damage control plan(sham).

“Conforming Loan Limit Unchanged In 2008

The conforming loan limit, currently $417,000, will remain unchanged in 2008, announced OFHEO director James B. Lockhart. OFHEO is the entity that regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-chartered guarantors of home mortgages. Any loans above the $417,000 limit are considered “jumbo” and cannot be guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so lenders usually charge higher interest on them. This limit only applies to one-unit properties; multiple-unit properties have higher limits. Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands have higher upper limits than other states. The maximum conforming loan limit is determined by analyzing October-to-October change in the average house price, which has declined more than 3% this year. The maximum limit hasn’t changed for the last 2 years, and it probably won’t get revised upwards anytime soon. The latest NAR report says the inventory of single-family homes on the market is at the highest level in 22 years (10.8 months’ supply), which can only drive home
prices down.”

Has anyone seen how the changes will affect multiple 2-4 unit properties? Other than some advantage coming from that I can see little use for more than the old limits for the investment properties some people are talking about or that Iwoudl be concerned with unless it has to do with a big old cash out?
I am happy about the interests rate trends as a whole. But if I take any of this cheap money it won’t be to prop up the market. I’ll protect it until this manipulation has run its course and prices crash further. If they don’t I’ll consider giving it back.

[patientlywaiting]

SD Realtor, your market observation is correct. What ucodegen said also makes perfect sense.

Markets are based on the greater fool theory. Like Roubini said, people start dancing when the music begins to play. People have short memories (or no experience at all) and emotions will cause then to buy no matter what.

Investors who have long memories or who can learn from their own past mistakes and mistakes of others will thrive over the long term. The rest will experience boom and bust cycles.

[patientlywaiting]

SD Realtor, your market observation is correct. What ucodegen said also makes perfect sense.

Markets are based on the greater fool theory. Like Roubini said, people start dancing when the music begins to play. People have short memories (or no experience at all) and emotions will cause then to buy no matter what.

Investors who have long memories or who can learn from their own past mistakes and mistakes of others will thrive over the long term. The rest will experience boom and bust cycles.

[patientlywaiting]

SD Realtor, your market observation is correct. What ucodegen said also makes perfect sense.

Markets are based on the greater fool theory. Like Roubini said, people start dancing when the music begins to play. People have short memories (or no experience at all) and emotions will cause then to buy no matter what.

Investors who have long memories or who can learn from their own past mistakes and mistakes of others will thrive over the long term. The rest will experience boom and bust cycles.

[patientlywaiting]

SD Realtor, your market observation is correct. What ucodegen said also makes perfect sense.

Markets are based on the greater fool theory. Like Roubini said, people start dancing when the music begins to play. People have short memories (or no experience at all) and emotions will cause then to buy no matter what.

Investors who have long memories or who can learn from their own past mistakes and mistakes of others will thrive over the long term. The rest will experience boom and bust cycles.

[ucodegen]

@SD Realtor

Would you consider ANYBODY buying in the market today a “savy” buyer? The facts just show that most buyers are indeed not savy.

I never said I considered them savy. That is why I am disagreeing with your statement earlier:

“This measure will simply help those who have money get more property”.

I was using the second quoted statement:

“While the savy buyer measures value of a home with regards to market conditions, pricing, etc… many a buyer, dare I say a majority simply look at the mortgage payment.”

to counter the first quoted statement. I don’t agree with the first quoted statement but agree with the second. I felt you were making slightly contradictory statements. I was also bringing in the fact that many of the non-savy buyers have already shot their wad… of cash to coin a phrase. They don’t have money to buy in now. The ones that have money to buy in are the savy buyers (who probably haven’t contacted a Realtor yet because they know this thing has legs in the downward direction) and wannabe savy who are fence sitters sitting on the edge of their seat. The change in conforming will probably pull the wannabe savies off the fence. Instead of “wannabe savy”, I was calling them green investors or green potential buyers. The green/inexperienced label is a bit nicer than wannabe. My two last sentences in the paragraph referring to green investor/buyers could have been clearer. I consider having money and the wisdom to use it properly going hand in hand because those with money currently but lacking wisdom are soon separated from their money.

Your argument is like a college professor giving a lecture. You use facts, you point out cause and expected affects. It all makes perfect sense.

However the world is not working like that. At least not yet.

I use facts because I know they are the only real counter argument to things that the NAR have been saying as well as other individuals/groups. I know the market is not working rationally and won’t until this thing has spent itself out. That is why I was doing a rational explanation of the liquidity, where the problems are, what is expected to happen and why the fed move and who is it really helping. Somehow people were getting the feeling that the fed dropping the rates was to help them with houses.. and I was trying to pull off the rose colored glasses.. if only for a second. I am not saying that you, SD Realtor, have rose colored glasses on. I do think there are viewers on this board who do.

Anyways again, no argument with your post, except that I am a heck of alot busier then I should be given the market conditions.

I know you are quite busy.. and that is what really scares the crap out of me. I bet the houses are not going for that much of a discount from ’05 prices. There have been several statements on the media that the turn around will occur in ’08 or ’09. I think the flattening that we will see in ’09 will be another suckers play. Neg Ams start resetting afterwards (and therefore the “All hell breaks loose.” statement).

I generally use my facts and analysis on this board because I feel the “quality of clientèle” is better. If I try the logic approach to a member of the general public, it is often too much for them to handle and their eyes glaze over. They then grasp a one of the statements the RE hypers have used to counter. Sorry if I sound like Tanta or Calculated Risk…

[SD Realtor]

uco –

“I generally use my facts and analysis on this board because I feel the “quality of clientèle” is better. If I try the logic approach to a member of the general public, it is often too much for them to handle and their eyes glaze over. They then grasp a one of the statements the RE hypers have used to counter. Sorry if I sound like Tanta or Calculated Risk…”

Which is a good thing. I am not in stark disagreement with your argument as I said before. In theory it makes perfect sense.

“I was also bringing in the fact that many of the non-savy buyers have already shot their wad… of cash to coin a phrase. They don’t have money to buy in now. The ones that have money to buy in are the savy buyers (who probably haven’t contacted a Realtor yet because they know this thing has legs in the downward direction) and wannabe savy who are fence sitters sitting on the edge of their seat.”

Which makes great sense to me… Uco I wish I could tell you where they come from (the buyers) but I don’t think we will ever see a disruption in the demand until we have a an event… what are they called? Black swan moments? Until we see engineers, biotech people, and the likes of the 150k salaries getting seriously disrupted, the supply lines for the 750k homes will stay pretty much intact. In fact I would say that to be regardless of this non conforming nonsense unless somehow the rates skyrocketed up. In my opinion we need a more substantial event then we have had to push 4S down to 470k or other wishful pricings like people have posted about. I think that in lieu of something like that we will have a very measured ride down over several years. Now contrary moves to subsidize the market, (I lump this move and other political bs in the same basket) are like you said, not even close to being intended to help anyone. They are intended to mask or delay the inevitable.

The fluff that NAR puts out, is to me, no different then the smell I deal with when I change the kids. I hold my nose, wipe em up, and throw the waste in the trash. Your explanation makes perfect sense and in no way do I disagree with the facts. Eventually one thinks, (at least I think) that it all catches up… it has to catch up doesn’t it? Yet I know to many people where this cut will make a difference. Will it push them into the market? Perhaps. Yet when has NAR ever said RE sucks? In a hot market they say buy now before you get priced out and in a p.o.s market they say buy now cuz it is a good deal.

Anyways no need for saying sorry if you sound link Tanta or Calculated Risk at all because I agree. Besides I lurk over there all the time and it all makes sense to me. Believe me what you and they say makes perfect sense to me. I used to not understand buyers psyche but I do now, I am just not good at explaining it.

SD Realtor

[Anonymous]

Believe me what you and they say makes perfect sense to me. I used to not understand buyers psyche but I do now, I am just not good at explaining it.

SD Realtor

A lot of it is a “keeping up with the Joneses” mentality: My family/neighbor/friend has a house, so I want a house. I deserve a house. I want it now .

[Anonymous]

Believe me what you and they say makes perfect sense to me. I used to not understand buyers psyche but I do now, I am just not good at explaining it.

SD Realtor

A lot of it is a “keeping up with the Joneses” mentality: My family/neighbor/friend has a house, so I want a house. I deserve a house. I want it now .

[Anonymous]

Believe me what you and they say makes perfect sense to me. I used to not understand buyers psyche but I do now, I am just not good at explaining it.

SD Realtor

A lot of it is a “keeping up with the Joneses” mentality: My family/neighbor/friend has a house, so I want a house. I deserve a house. I want it now .

[Anonymous]

Believe me what you and they say makes perfect sense to me. I used to not understand buyers psyche but I do now, I am just not good at explaining it.

SD Realtor

A lot of it is a “keeping up with the Joneses” mentality: My family/neighbor/friend has a house, so I want a house. I deserve a house. I want it now .

[Anonymous]

Believe me what you and they say makes perfect sense to me. I used to not understand buyers psyche but I do now, I am just not good at explaining it.

SD Realtor

A lot of it is a “keeping up with the Joneses” mentality: My family/neighbor/friend has a house, so I want a house. I deserve a house. I want it now .

[SD Realtor]

uco –

“I generally use my facts and analysis on this board because I feel the “quality of clientèle” is better. If I try the logic approach to a member of the general public, it is often too much for them to handle and their eyes glaze over. They then grasp a one of the statements the RE hypers have used to counter. Sorry if I sound like Tanta or Calculated Risk…”

Which is a good thing. I am not in stark disagreement with your argument as I said before. In theory it makes perfect sense.

“I was also bringing in the fact that many of the non-savy buyers have already shot their wad… of cash to coin a phrase. They don’t have money to buy in now. The ones that have money to buy in are the savy buyers (who probably haven’t contacted a Realtor yet because they know this thing has legs in the downward direction) and wannabe savy who are fence sitters sitting on the edge of their seat.”

Which makes great sense to me… Uco I wish I could tell you where they come from (the buyers) but I don’t think we will ever see a disruption in the demand until we have a an event… what are they called? Black swan moments? Until we see engineers, biotech people, and the likes of the 150k salaries getting seriously disrupted, the supply lines for the 750k homes will stay pretty much intact. In fact I would say that to be regardless of this non conforming nonsense unless somehow the rates skyrocketed up. In my opinion we need a more substantial event then we have had to push 4S down to 470k or other wishful pricings like people have posted about. I think that in lieu of something like that we will have a very measured ride down over several years. Now contrary moves to subsidize the market, (I lump this move and other political bs in the same basket) are like you said, not even close to being intended to help anyone. They are intended to mask or delay the inevitable.

The fluff that NAR puts out, is to me, no different then the smell I deal with when I change the kids. I hold my nose, wipe em up, and throw the waste in the trash. Your explanation makes perfect sense and in no way do I disagree with the facts. Eventually one thinks, (at least I think) that it all catches up… it has to catch up doesn’t it? Yet I know to many people where this cut will make a difference. Will it push them into the market? Perhaps. Yet when has NAR ever said RE sucks? In a hot market they say buy now before you get priced out and in a p.o.s market they say buy now cuz it is a good deal.

Anyways no need for saying sorry if you sound link Tanta or Calculated Risk at all because I agree. Besides I lurk over there all the time and it all makes sense to me. Believe me what you and they say makes perfect sense to me. I used to not understand buyers psyche but I do now, I am just not good at explaining it.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

uco –

“I generally use my facts and analysis on this board because I feel the “quality of clientèle” is better. If I try the logic approach to a member of the general public, it is often too much for them to handle and their eyes glaze over. They then grasp a one of the statements the RE hypers have used to counter. Sorry if I sound like Tanta or Calculated Risk…”

Which is a good thing. I am not in stark disagreement with your argument as I said before. In theory it makes perfect sense.

“I was also bringing in the fact that many of the non-savy buyers have already shot their wad… of cash to coin a phrase. They don’t have money to buy in now. The ones that have money to buy in are the savy buyers (who probably haven’t contacted a Realtor yet because they know this thing has legs in the downward direction) and wannabe savy who are fence sitters sitting on the edge of their seat.”

Which makes great sense to me… Uco I wish I could tell you where they come from (the buyers) but I don’t think we will ever see a disruption in the demand until we have a an event… what are they called? Black swan moments? Until we see engineers, biotech people, and the likes of the 150k salaries getting seriously disrupted, the supply lines for the 750k homes will stay pretty much intact. In fact I would say that to be regardless of this non conforming nonsense unless somehow the rates skyrocketed up. In my opinion we need a more substantial event then we have had to push 4S down to 470k or other wishful pricings like people have posted about. I think that in lieu of something like that we will have a very measured ride down over several years. Now contrary moves to subsidize the market, (I lump this move and other political bs in the same basket) are like you said, not even close to being intended to help anyone. They are intended to mask or delay the inevitable.

The fluff that NAR puts out, is to me, no different then the smell I deal with when I change the kids. I hold my nose, wipe em up, and throw the waste in the trash. Your explanation makes perfect sense and in no way do I disagree with the facts. Eventually one thinks, (at least I think) that it all catches up… it has to catch up doesn’t it? Yet I know to many people where this cut will make a difference. Will it push them into the market? Perhaps. Yet when has NAR ever said RE sucks? In a hot market they say buy now before you get priced out and in a p.o.s market they say buy now cuz it is a good deal.

Anyways no need for saying sorry if you sound link Tanta or Calculated Risk at all because I agree. Besides I lurk over there all the time and it all makes sense to me. Believe me what you and they say makes perfect sense to me. I used to not understand buyers psyche but I do now, I am just not good at explaining it.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

uco –

“I generally use my facts and analysis on this board because I feel the “quality of clientèle” is better. If I try the logic approach to a member of the general public, it is often too much for them to handle and their eyes glaze over. They then grasp a one of the statements the RE hypers have used to counter. Sorry if I sound like Tanta or Calculated Risk…”

Which is a good thing. I am not in stark disagreement with your argument as I said before. In theory it makes perfect sense.

“I was also bringing in the fact that many of the non-savy buyers have already shot their wad… of cash to coin a phrase. They don’t have money to buy in now. The ones that have money to buy in are the savy buyers (who probably haven’t contacted a Realtor yet because they know this thing has legs in the downward direction) and wannabe savy who are fence sitters sitting on the edge of their seat.”

Which makes great sense to me… Uco I wish I could tell you where they come from (the buyers) but I don’t think we will ever see a disruption in the demand until we have a an event… what are they called? Black swan moments? Until we see engineers, biotech people, and the likes of the 150k salaries getting seriously disrupted, the supply lines for the 750k homes will stay pretty much intact. In fact I would say that to be regardless of this non conforming nonsense unless somehow the rates skyrocketed up. In my opinion we need a more substantial event then we have had to push 4S down to 470k or other wishful pricings like people have posted about. I think that in lieu of something like that we will have a very measured ride down over several years. Now contrary moves to subsidize the market, (I lump this move and other political bs in the same basket) are like you said, not even close to being intended to help anyone. They are intended to mask or delay the inevitable.

The fluff that NAR puts out, is to me, no different then the smell I deal with when I change the kids. I hold my nose, wipe em up, and throw the waste in the trash. Your explanation makes perfect sense and in no way do I disagree with the facts. Eventually one thinks, (at least I think) that it all catches up… it has to catch up doesn’t it? Yet I know to many people where this cut will make a difference. Will it push them into the market? Perhaps. Yet when has NAR ever said RE sucks? In a hot market they say buy now before you get priced out and in a p.o.s market they say buy now cuz it is a good deal.

Anyways no need for saying sorry if you sound link Tanta or Calculated Risk at all because I agree. Besides I lurk over there all the time and it all makes sense to me. Believe me what you and they say makes perfect sense to me. I used to not understand buyers psyche but I do now, I am just not good at explaining it.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

uco –

“I generally use my facts and analysis on this board because I feel the “quality of clientèle” is better. If I try the logic approach to a member of the general public, it is often too much for them to handle and their eyes glaze over. They then grasp a one of the statements the RE hypers have used to counter. Sorry if I sound like Tanta or Calculated Risk…”

Which is a good thing. I am not in stark disagreement with your argument as I said before. In theory it makes perfect sense.

“I was also bringing in the fact that many of the non-savy buyers have already shot their wad… of cash to coin a phrase. They don’t have money to buy in now. The ones that have money to buy in are the savy buyers (who probably haven’t contacted a Realtor yet because they know this thing has legs in the downward direction) and wannabe savy who are fence sitters sitting on the edge of their seat.”

Which makes great sense to me… Uco I wish I could tell you where they come from (the buyers) but I don’t think we will ever see a disruption in the demand until we have a an event… what are they called? Black swan moments? Until we see engineers, biotech people, and the likes of the 150k salaries getting seriously disrupted, the supply lines for the 750k homes will stay pretty much intact. In fact I would say that to be regardless of this non conforming nonsense unless somehow the rates skyrocketed up. In my opinion we need a more substantial event then we have had to push 4S down to 470k or other wishful pricings like people have posted about. I think that in lieu of something like that we will have a very measured ride down over several years. Now contrary moves to subsidize the market, (I lump this move and other political bs in the same basket) are like you said, not even close to being intended to help anyone. They are intended to mask or delay the inevitable.

The fluff that NAR puts out, is to me, no different then the smell I deal with when I change the kids. I hold my nose, wipe em up, and throw the waste in the trash. Your explanation makes perfect sense and in no way do I disagree with the facts. Eventually one thinks, (at least I think) that it all catches up… it has to catch up doesn’t it? Yet I know to many people where this cut will make a difference. Will it push them into the market? Perhaps. Yet when has NAR ever said RE sucks? In a hot market they say buy now before you get priced out and in a p.o.s market they say buy now cuz it is a good deal.

Anyways no need for saying sorry if you sound link Tanta or Calculated Risk at all because I agree. Besides I lurk over there all the time and it all makes sense to me. Believe me what you and they say makes perfect sense to me. I used to not understand buyers psyche but I do now, I am just not good at explaining it.

SD Realtor

[ucodegen]

@SD Realtor

Would you consider ANYBODY buying in the market today a “savy” buyer? The facts just show that most buyers are indeed not savy.

I never said I considered them savy. That is why I am disagreeing with your statement earlier:

“This measure will simply help those who have money get more property”.

I was using the second quoted statement:

“While the savy buyer measures value of a home with regards to market conditions, pricing, etc… many a buyer, dare I say a majority simply look at the mortgage payment.”

to counter the first quoted statement. I don’t agree with the first quoted statement but agree with the second. I felt you were making slightly contradictory statements. I was also bringing in the fact that many of the non-savy buyers have already shot their wad… of cash to coin a phrase. They don’t have money to buy in now. The ones that have money to buy in are the savy buyers (who probably haven’t contacted a Realtor yet because they know this thing has legs in the downward direction) and wannabe savy who are fence sitters sitting on the edge of their seat. The change in conforming will probably pull the wannabe savies off the fence. Instead of “wannabe savy”, I was calling them green investors or green potential buyers. The green/inexperienced label is a bit nicer than wannabe. My two last sentences in the paragraph referring to green investor/buyers could have been clearer. I consider having money and the wisdom to use it properly going hand in hand because those with money currently but lacking wisdom are soon separated from their money.

Your argument is like a college professor giving a lecture. You use facts, you point out cause and expected affects. It all makes perfect sense.

However the world is not working like that. At least not yet.

I use facts because I know they are the only real counter argument to things that the NAR have been saying as well as other individuals/groups. I know the market is not working rationally and won’t until this thing has spent itself out. That is why I was doing a rational explanation of the liquidity, where the problems are, what is expected to happen and why the fed move and who is it really helping. Somehow people were getting the feeling that the fed dropping the rates was to help them with houses.. and I was trying to pull off the rose colored glasses.. if only for a second. I am not saying that you, SD Realtor, have rose colored glasses on. I do think there are viewers on this board who do.

Anyways again, no argument with your post, except that I am a heck of alot busier then I should be given the market conditions.

I know you are quite busy.. and that is what really scares the crap out of me. I bet the houses are not going for that much of a discount from ’05 prices. There have been several statements on the media that the turn around will occur in ’08 or ’09. I think the flattening that we will see in ’09 will be another suckers play. Neg Ams start resetting afterwards (and therefore the “All hell breaks loose.” statement).

I generally use my facts and analysis on this board because I feel the “quality of clientèle” is better. If I try the logic approach to a member of the general public, it is often too much for them to handle and their eyes glaze over. They then grasp a one of the statements the RE hypers have used to counter. Sorry if I sound like Tanta or Calculated Risk…

[ucodegen]

@SD Realtor

Would you consider ANYBODY buying in the market today a “savy” buyer? The facts just show that most buyers are indeed not savy.

I never said I considered them savy. That is why I am disagreeing with your statement earlier:

“This measure will simply help those who have money get more property”.

I was using the second quoted statement:

“While the savy buyer measures value of a home with regards to market conditions, pricing, etc… many a buyer, dare I say a majority simply look at the mortgage payment.”

to counter the first quoted statement. I don’t agree with the first quoted statement but agree with the second. I felt you were making slightly contradictory statements. I was also bringing in the fact that many of the non-savy buyers have already shot their wad… of cash to coin a phrase. They don’t have money to buy in now. The ones that have money to buy in are the savy buyers (who probably haven’t contacted a Realtor yet because they know this thing has legs in the downward direction) and wannabe savy who are fence sitters sitting on the edge of their seat. The change in conforming will probably pull the wannabe savies off the fence. Instead of “wannabe savy”, I was calling them green investors or green potential buyers. The green/inexperienced label is a bit nicer than wannabe. My two last sentences in the paragraph referring to green investor/buyers could have been clearer. I consider having money and the wisdom to use it properly going hand in hand because those with money currently but lacking wisdom are soon separated from their money.

Your argument is like a college professor giving a lecture. You use facts, you point out cause and expected affects. It all makes perfect sense.

However the world is not working like that. At least not yet.

I use facts because I know they are the only real counter argument to things that the NAR have been saying as well as other individuals/groups. I know the market is not working rationally and won’t until this thing has spent itself out. That is why I was doing a rational explanation of the liquidity, where the problems are, what is expected to happen and why the fed move and who is it really helping. Somehow people were getting the feeling that the fed dropping the rates was to help them with houses.. and I was trying to pull off the rose colored glasses.. if only for a second. I am not saying that you, SD Realtor, have rose colored glasses on. I do think there are viewers on this board who do.

Anyways again, no argument with your post, except that I am a heck of alot busier then I should be given the market conditions.

I know you are quite busy.. and that is what really scares the crap out of me. I bet the houses are not going for that much of a discount from ’05 prices. There have been several statements on the media that the turn around will occur in ’08 or ’09. I think the flattening that we will see in ’09 will be another suckers play. Neg Ams start resetting afterwards (and therefore the “All hell breaks loose.” statement).

I generally use my facts and analysis on this board because I feel the “quality of clientèle” is better. If I try the logic approach to a member of the general public, it is often too much for them to handle and their eyes glaze over. They then grasp a one of the statements the RE hypers have used to counter. Sorry if I sound like Tanta or Calculated Risk…

[ucodegen]

@SD Realtor

Would you consider ANYBODY buying in the market today a “savy” buyer? The facts just show that most buyers are indeed not savy.

I never said I considered them savy. That is why I am disagreeing with your statement earlier:

“This measure will simply help those who have money get more property”.

I was using the second quoted statement:

“While the savy buyer measures value of a home with regards to market conditions, pricing, etc… many a buyer, dare I say a majority simply look at the mortgage payment.”

to counter the first quoted statement. I don’t agree with the first quoted statement but agree with the second. I felt you were making slightly contradictory statements. I was also bringing in the fact that many of the non-savy buyers have already shot their wad… of cash to coin a phrase. They don’t have money to buy in now. The ones that have money to buy in are the savy buyers (who probably haven’t contacted a Realtor yet because they know this thing has legs in the downward direction) and wannabe savy who are fence sitters sitting on the edge of their seat. The change in conforming will probably pull the wannabe savies off the fence. Instead of “wannabe savy”, I was calling them green investors or green potential buyers. The green/inexperienced label is a bit nicer than wannabe. My two last sentences in the paragraph referring to green investor/buyers could have been clearer. I consider having money and the wisdom to use it properly going hand in hand because those with money currently but lacking wisdom are soon separated from their money.

Your argument is like a college professor giving a lecture. You use facts, you point out cause and expected affects. It all makes perfect sense.

However the world is not working like that. At least not yet.

I use facts because I know they are the only real counter argument to things that the NAR have been saying as well as other individuals/groups. I know the market is not working rationally and won’t until this thing has spent itself out. That is why I was doing a rational explanation of the liquidity, where the problems are, what is expected to happen and why the fed move and who is it really helping. Somehow people were getting the feeling that the fed dropping the rates was to help them with houses.. and I was trying to pull off the rose colored glasses.. if only for a second. I am not saying that you, SD Realtor, have rose colored glasses on. I do think there are viewers on this board who do.

Anyways again, no argument with your post, except that I am a heck of alot busier then I should be given the market conditions.

I know you are quite busy.. and that is what really scares the crap out of me. I bet the houses are not going for that much of a discount from ’05 prices. There have been several statements on the media that the turn around will occur in ’08 or ’09. I think the flattening that we will see in ’09 will be another suckers play. Neg Ams start resetting afterwards (and therefore the “All hell breaks loose.” statement).

I generally use my facts and analysis on this board because I feel the “quality of clientèle” is better. If I try the logic approach to a member of the general public, it is often too much for them to handle and their eyes glaze over. They then grasp a one of the statements the RE hypers have used to counter. Sorry if I sound like Tanta or Calculated Risk…

[ucodegen]

@SD Realtor

Would you consider ANYBODY buying in the market today a “savy” buyer? The facts just show that most buyers are indeed not savy.

I never said I considered them savy. That is why I am disagreeing with your statement earlier:

“This measure will simply help those who have money get more property”.

I was using the second quoted statement:

“While the savy buyer measures value of a home with regards to market conditions, pricing, etc… many a buyer, dare I say a majority simply look at the mortgage payment.”

to counter the first quoted statement. I don’t agree with the first quoted statement but agree with the second. I felt you were making slightly contradictory statements. I was also bringing in the fact that many of the non-savy buyers have already shot their wad… of cash to coin a phrase. They don’t have money to buy in now. The ones that have money to buy in are the savy buyers (who probably haven’t contacted a Realtor yet because they know this thing has legs in the downward direction) and wannabe savy who are fence sitters sitting on the edge of their seat. The change in conforming will probably pull the wannabe savies off the fence. Instead of “wannabe savy”, I was calling them green investors or green potential buyers. The green/inexperienced label is a bit nicer than wannabe. My two last sentences in the paragraph referring to green investor/buyers could have been clearer. I consider having money and the wisdom to use it properly going hand in hand because those with money currently but lacking wisdom are soon separated from their money.

Your argument is like a college professor giving a lecture. You use facts, you point out cause and expected affects. It all makes perfect sense.

However the world is not working like that. At least not yet.

I use facts because I know they are the only real counter argument to things that the NAR have been saying as well as other individuals/groups. I know the market is not working rationally and won’t until this thing has spent itself out. That is why I was doing a rational explanation of the liquidity, where the problems are, what is expected to happen and why the fed move and who is it really helping. Somehow people were getting the feeling that the fed dropping the rates was to help them with houses.. and I was trying to pull off the rose colored glasses.. if only for a second. I am not saying that you, SD Realtor, have rose colored glasses on. I do think there are viewers on this board who do.

Anyways again, no argument with your post, except that I am a heck of alot busier then I should be given the market conditions.

I know you are quite busy.. and that is what really scares the crap out of me. I bet the houses are not going for that much of a discount from ’05 prices. There have been several statements on the media that the turn around will occur in ’08 or ’09. I think the flattening that we will see in ’09 will be another suckers play. Neg Ams start resetting afterwards (and therefore the “All hell breaks loose.” statement).

I generally use my facts and analysis on this board because I feel the “quality of clientèle” is better. If I try the logic approach to a member of the general public, it is often too much for them to handle and their eyes glaze over. They then grasp a one of the statements the RE hypers have used to counter. Sorry if I sound like Tanta or Calculated Risk…

[SD Realtor]

uco you response is well written but flawed…

Would you consider ANYBODY buying in the market today a “savy” buyer? The facts just show that most buyers are indeed not savy.

How many buyers do you work with? How many buyers do you show properties to?

Once more, the arguments that you raise make sense. They make perfect sense.

So why do young families keep buying in 4S Ranch?

********

Look, Davelj made a post in this thread about appearances. This is all an appearance, a knee jerk reaction, a ploy to try to walk a tight rope and delay the inevitable. I know that, you know that, heck even many joe buyers know that. My post is not to convince people to buy or anything like that. My post is based on observations of buyers. I work with them every day, or night when I am not working on engineering…

Try to see what I am saying. Your argument is like a college professor giving a lecture. You use facts, you point out cause and expected affects. It all makes perfect sense.

However the world is not working like that. At least not yet. Hey I will be the first one to admit it if I have no business at all but that is not how it is working. Your premise doesn’t take into account intangible and emotional reasons people buy. Giving them some incentive cannot hurt those intangibles only help them. I cannot wrap my arms around it all and tell you why people buy in depreciating markets… I wish I could explain it better. Maybe sdr can.

What you said above should happen and I believe it WILL happen. When? Don’t know. If employment starts to fall apart then the whole thing will crash and burn pretty damn fast. I think that is a major component that is kind of rescuing everything right now.

Anyways again, no argument with your post, except that I am a heck of alot busier then I should be given the market conditions.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

uco you response is well written but flawed…

Would you consider ANYBODY buying in the market today a “savy” buyer? The facts just show that most buyers are indeed not savy.

How many buyers do you work with? How many buyers do you show properties to?

Once more, the arguments that you raise make sense. They make perfect sense.

So why do young families keep buying in 4S Ranch?

********

Look, Davelj made a post in this thread about appearances. This is all an appearance, a knee jerk reaction, a ploy to try to walk a tight rope and delay the inevitable. I know that, you know that, heck even many joe buyers know that. My post is not to convince people to buy or anything like that. My post is based on observations of buyers. I work with them every day, or night when I am not working on engineering…

Try to see what I am saying. Your argument is like a college professor giving a lecture. You use facts, you point out cause and expected affects. It all makes perfect sense.

However the world is not working like that. At least not yet. Hey I will be the first one to admit it if I have no business at all but that is not how it is working. Your premise doesn’t take into account intangible and emotional reasons people buy. Giving them some incentive cannot hurt those intangibles only help them. I cannot wrap my arms around it all and tell you why people buy in depreciating markets… I wish I could explain it better. Maybe sdr can.

What you said above should happen and I believe it WILL happen. When? Don’t know. If employment starts to fall apart then the whole thing will crash and burn pretty damn fast. I think that is a major component that is kind of rescuing everything right now.

Anyways again, no argument with your post, except that I am a heck of alot busier then I should be given the market conditions.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

uco you response is well written but flawed…

Would you consider ANYBODY buying in the market today a “savy” buyer? The facts just show that most buyers are indeed not savy.

How many buyers do you work with? How many buyers do you show properties to?

Once more, the arguments that you raise make sense. They make perfect sense.

So why do young families keep buying in 4S Ranch?

********

Look, Davelj made a post in this thread about appearances. This is all an appearance, a knee jerk reaction, a ploy to try to walk a tight rope and delay the inevitable. I know that, you know that, heck even many joe buyers know that. My post is not to convince people to buy or anything like that. My post is based on observations of buyers. I work with them every day, or night when I am not working on engineering…

Try to see what I am saying. Your argument is like a college professor giving a lecture. You use facts, you point out cause and expected affects. It all makes perfect sense.

However the world is not working like that. At least not yet. Hey I will be the first one to admit it if I have no business at all but that is not how it is working. Your premise doesn’t take into account intangible and emotional reasons people buy. Giving them some incentive cannot hurt those intangibles only help them. I cannot wrap my arms around it all and tell you why people buy in depreciating markets… I wish I could explain it better. Maybe sdr can.

What you said above should happen and I believe it WILL happen. When? Don’t know. If employment starts to fall apart then the whole thing will crash and burn pretty damn fast. I think that is a major component that is kind of rescuing everything right now.

Anyways again, no argument with your post, except that I am a heck of alot busier then I should be given the market conditions.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

uco you response is well written but flawed…

Would you consider ANYBODY buying in the market today a “savy” buyer? The facts just show that most buyers are indeed not savy.

How many buyers do you work with? How many buyers do you show properties to?

Once more, the arguments that you raise make sense. They make perfect sense.

So why do young families keep buying in 4S Ranch?

********

Look, Davelj made a post in this thread about appearances. This is all an appearance, a knee jerk reaction, a ploy to try to walk a tight rope and delay the inevitable. I know that, you know that, heck even many joe buyers know that. My post is not to convince people to buy or anything like that. My post is based on observations of buyers. I work with them every day, or night when I am not working on engineering…

Try to see what I am saying. Your argument is like a college professor giving a lecture. You use facts, you point out cause and expected affects. It all makes perfect sense.

However the world is not working like that. At least not yet. Hey I will be the first one to admit it if I have no business at all but that is not how it is working. Your premise doesn’t take into account intangible and emotional reasons people buy. Giving them some incentive cannot hurt those intangibles only help them. I cannot wrap my arms around it all and tell you why people buy in depreciating markets… I wish I could explain it better. Maybe sdr can.

What you said above should happen and I believe it WILL happen. When? Don’t know. If employment starts to fall apart then the whole thing will crash and burn pretty damn fast. I think that is a major component that is kind of rescuing everything right now.

Anyways again, no argument with your post, except that I am a heck of alot busier then I should be given the market conditions.

SD Realtor

[ucodegen]

@SD Realtor

This measure will simply help those who have money get more property.

I would have to disagree with you here. It will cause an jump in prices on houses in the 500k to 800k region because of the reason you stated earlier:

While the savy buyer measures value of a home with regards to market conditions, pricing, etc… many a buyer, dare I say a majority simply look at the mortgage payment.

Most of the savy buyers know the value of money and will notice the price getting a bit more unreasonable in the 500K to 800K region. What the measure will do is ‘sink the hook’ in the mouths of any green investors or green potential buyers that only look at the house payment and believe that a full turnaround is imminent. The people with money will wait until these people get hit too. The have the money in the first place because they were patent enough to not get sucked into the previous hype-up of prices.

My opinion on the increase on loan limits is that it is a suckers play. It pulls people out of original purchase jumbo loans into a refi, which makes the loans recourse. It gets the fence sitters that are on the edge of their seats and don’t have the experience to see the sucker play into the market to try to prop up house prices.

The second part of it is that it is a suckers play on all taxpayers because Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac are backed by US taxpayers should the loans default sufficiently to cause either of the institutions to have liquidity problems. It allows banks to that have loans that would qualify, sell them off to either of the institutions, potentially at a profit because of the present interest rate drops. Banks walk away with the money, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac (aka US taxpayers) take the risk.

As for liquidity problem, there is more than enough liquidity. The problem is that the banks know their own investment portfolio (SIVs) look like crap and suspect another bank’s are just as bad or worse.. so they will not lend to each other without significant risk premium.. but the banks want cheap money for high risk just like they have been getting in the past. The second part of the problem is that the banks etc with the CDOs/MBSs or mortgage paper do not want to mark to market because it will really hurt their bottom line (they will have resolve the drop in assets to net income.. -100Bil anyone?). We are seeing a few billion here and there. The total amount is involved is estimated to be close to $500Billion or more. What the rapid drop in interest rates does is inflate the ‘asset value’ of the CDOs/MBSs until the holders can find another sucker to hold the bag. Rough example following:

Lets say we are a bank and have $1Mil in MBSs yielding 6% ($60,000/yr). Now we discover 50% of the loans are bad ($500K) and the recovery rate is 50% of assets on bad loans. This means you have $750K of real assets(MBS) returning $30K/yr (50% went bad so they don’t yield a return). Effectively we now have a $750K asset yielding 4%. Be we are greedy.. we want our $1Mil back.. how do we do this? Well if the risk free rate of return (Treasury) is reduced to 3% or below, $1Mil returns $30K @ 3%.. which looks just like our crap! If we can achieve good ratings after allowing for bad loans.. we (the bank) can hot potato the MBS to someone else at our original cost. We the bank don’t lose. The dodgy debt is someone else’s problem.

Looking at the above, you might be able to estimate where the fed rates will drop to before stabilizing. What is needed is the % of loans going bad, recovery rate as a percentage of original loan value and what the MBSs/CDOs were originally yielding. The real formula to use is an amortization formula.. but thats harder to follow. The above paragraph is easier to follow and reflecting on all of this is making me cranky again (And the Friday beer is wearing off.. needed one for this week).. so I am going to hit the hay.

NOTE: The above applies to the sub-prime, Alt-A paper. Many of these were refi’d into NegAms.. which are projected to start resetting late 2009 and hit full swing 2010. I can’t project what will happen here because these loans start out underwater. Some were refi’s which makes them recourse. I call this period the ‘all Hell breaks loose’ period.

[ucodegen]

@SD Realtor

This measure will simply help those who have money get more property.

I would have to disagree with you here. It will cause an jump in prices on houses in the 500k to 800k region because of the reason you stated earlier:

While the savy buyer measures value of a home with regards to market conditions, pricing, etc… many a buyer, dare I say a majority simply look at the mortgage payment.

Most of the savy buyers know the value of money and will notice the price getting a bit more unreasonable in the 500K to 800K region. What the measure will do is ‘sink the hook’ in the mouths of any green investors or green potential buyers that only look at the house payment and believe that a full turnaround is imminent. The people with money will wait until these people get hit too. The have the money in the first place because they were patent enough to not get sucked into the previous hype-up of prices.

My opinion on the increase on loan limits is that it is a suckers play. It pulls people out of original purchase jumbo loans into a refi, which makes the loans recourse. It gets the fence sitters that are on the edge of their seats and don’t have the experience to see the sucker play into the market to try to prop up house prices.

The second part of it is that it is a suckers play on all taxpayers because Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac are backed by US taxpayers should the loans default sufficiently to cause either of the institutions to have liquidity problems. It allows banks to that have loans that would qualify, sell them off to either of the institutions, potentially at a profit because of the present interest rate drops. Banks walk away with the money, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac (aka US taxpayers) take the risk.

As for liquidity problem, there is more than enough liquidity. The problem is that the banks know their own investment portfolio (SIVs) look like crap and suspect another bank’s are just as bad or worse.. so they will not lend to each other without significant risk premium.. but the banks want cheap money for high risk just like they have been getting in the past. The second part of the problem is that the banks etc with the CDOs/MBSs or mortgage paper do not want to mark to market because it will really hurt their bottom line (they will have resolve the drop in assets to net income.. -100Bil anyone?). We are seeing a few billion here and there. The total amount is involved is estimated to be close to $500Billion or more. What the rapid drop in interest rates does is inflate the ‘asset value’ of the CDOs/MBSs until the holders can find another sucker to hold the bag. Rough example following:

Lets say we are a bank and have $1Mil in MBSs yielding 6% ($60,000/yr). Now we discover 50% of the loans are bad ($500K) and the recovery rate is 50% of assets on bad loans. This means you have $750K of real assets(MBS) returning $30K/yr (50% went bad so they don’t yield a return). Effectively we now have a $750K asset yielding 4%. Be we are greedy.. we want our $1Mil back.. how do we do this? Well if the risk free rate of return (Treasury) is reduced to 3% or below, $1Mil returns $30K @ 3%.. which looks just like our crap! If we can achieve good ratings after allowing for bad loans.. we (the bank) can hot potato the MBS to someone else at our original cost. We the bank don’t lose. The dodgy debt is someone else’s problem.

Looking at the above, you might be able to estimate where the fed rates will drop to before stabilizing. What is needed is the % of loans going bad, recovery rate as a percentage of original loan value and what the MBSs/CDOs were originally yielding. The real formula to use is an amortization formula.. but thats harder to follow. The above paragraph is easier to follow and reflecting on all of this is making me cranky again (And the Friday beer is wearing off.. needed one for this week).. so I am going to hit the hay.

NOTE: The above applies to the sub-prime, Alt-A paper. Many of these were refi’d into NegAms.. which are projected to start resetting late 2009 and hit full swing 2010. I can’t project what will happen here because these loans start out underwater. Some were refi’s which makes them recourse. I call this period the ‘all Hell breaks loose’ period.

[ucodegen]

@SD Realtor

This measure will simply help those who have money get more property.

I would have to disagree with you here. It will cause an jump in prices on houses in the 500k to 800k region because of the reason you stated earlier:

While the savy buyer measures value of a home with regards to market conditions, pricing, etc… many a buyer, dare I say a majority simply look at the mortgage payment.

Most of the savy buyers know the value of money and will notice the price getting a bit more unreasonable in the 500K to 800K region. What the measure will do is ‘sink the hook’ in the mouths of any green investors or green potential buyers that only look at the house payment and believe that a full turnaround is imminent. The people with money will wait until these people get hit too. The have the money in the first place because they were patent enough to not get sucked into the previous hype-up of prices.

My opinion on the increase on loan limits is that it is a suckers play. It pulls people out of original purchase jumbo loans into a refi, which makes the loans recourse. It gets the fence sitters that are on the edge of their seats and don’t have the experience to see the sucker play into the market to try to prop up house prices.

The second part of it is that it is a suckers play on all taxpayers because Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac are backed by US taxpayers should the loans default sufficiently to cause either of the institutions to have liquidity problems. It allows banks to that have loans that would qualify, sell them off to either of the institutions, potentially at a profit because of the present interest rate drops. Banks walk away with the money, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac (aka US taxpayers) take the risk.

As for liquidity problem, there is more than enough liquidity. The problem is that the banks know their own investment portfolio (SIVs) look like crap and suspect another bank’s are just as bad or worse.. so they will not lend to each other without significant risk premium.. but the banks want cheap money for high risk just like they have been getting in the past. The second part of the problem is that the banks etc with the CDOs/MBSs or mortgage paper do not want to mark to market because it will really hurt their bottom line (they will have resolve the drop in assets to net income.. -100Bil anyone?). We are seeing a few billion here and there. The total amount is involved is estimated to be close to $500Billion or more. What the rapid drop in interest rates does is inflate the ‘asset value’ of the CDOs/MBSs until the holders can find another sucker to hold the bag. Rough example following:

Lets say we are a bank and have $1Mil in MBSs yielding 6% ($60,000/yr). Now we discover 50% of the loans are bad ($500K) and the recovery rate is 50% of assets on bad loans. This means you have $750K of real assets(MBS) returning $30K/yr (50% went bad so they don’t yield a return). Effectively we now have a $750K asset yielding 4%. Be we are greedy.. we want our $1Mil back.. how do we do this? Well if the risk free rate of return (Treasury) is reduced to 3% or below, $1Mil returns $30K @ 3%.. which looks just like our crap! If we can achieve good ratings after allowing for bad loans.. we (the bank) can hot potato the MBS to someone else at our original cost. We the bank don’t lose. The dodgy debt is someone else’s problem.

Looking at the above, you might be able to estimate where the fed rates will drop to before stabilizing. What is needed is the % of loans going bad, recovery rate as a percentage of original loan value and what the MBSs/CDOs were originally yielding. The real formula to use is an amortization formula.. but thats harder to follow. The above paragraph is easier to follow and reflecting on all of this is making me cranky again (And the Friday beer is wearing off.. needed one for this week).. so I am going to hit the hay.

NOTE: The above applies to the sub-prime, Alt-A paper. Many of these were refi’d into NegAms.. which are projected to start resetting late 2009 and hit full swing 2010. I can’t project what will happen here because these loans start out underwater. Some were refi’s which makes them recourse. I call this period the ‘all Hell breaks loose’ period.

[ucodegen]

@SD Realtor

This measure will simply help those who have money get more property.

I would have to disagree with you here. It will cause an jump in prices on houses in the 500k to 800k region because of the reason you stated earlier:

While the savy buyer measures value of a home with regards to market conditions, pricing, etc… many a buyer, dare I say a majority simply look at the mortgage payment.

Most of the savy buyers know the value of money and will notice the price getting a bit more unreasonable in the 500K to 800K region. What the measure will do is ‘sink the hook’ in the mouths of any green investors or green potential buyers that only look at the house payment and believe that a full turnaround is imminent. The people with money will wait until these people get hit too. The have the money in the first place because they were patent enough to not get sucked into the previous hype-up of prices.

My opinion on the increase on loan limits is that it is a suckers play. It pulls people out of original purchase jumbo loans into a refi, which makes the loans recourse. It gets the fence sitters that are on the edge of their seats and don’t have the experience to see the sucker play into the market to try to prop up house prices.

The second part of it is that it is a suckers play on all taxpayers because Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac are backed by US taxpayers should the loans default sufficiently to cause either of the institutions to have liquidity problems. It allows banks to that have loans that would qualify, sell them off to either of the institutions, potentially at a profit because of the present interest rate drops. Banks walk away with the money, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac (aka US taxpayers) take the risk.

As for liquidity problem, there is more than enough liquidity. The problem is that the banks know their own investment portfolio (SIVs) look like crap and suspect another bank’s are just as bad or worse.. so they will not lend to each other without significant risk premium.. but the banks want cheap money for high risk just like they have been getting in the past. The second part of the problem is that the banks etc with the CDOs/MBSs or mortgage paper do not want to mark to market because it will really hurt their bottom line (they will have resolve the drop in assets to net income.. -100Bil anyone?). We are seeing a few billion here and there. The total amount is involved is estimated to be close to $500Billion or more. What the rapid drop in interest rates does is inflate the ‘asset value’ of the CDOs/MBSs until the holders can find another sucker to hold the bag. Rough example following:

Lets say we are a bank and have $1Mil in MBSs yielding 6% ($60,000/yr). Now we discover 50% of the loans are bad ($500K) and the recovery rate is 50% of assets on bad loans. This means you have $750K of real assets(MBS) returning $30K/yr (50% went bad so they don’t yield a return). Effectively we now have a $750K asset yielding 4%. Be we are greedy.. we want our $1Mil back.. how do we do this? Well if the risk free rate of return (Treasury) is reduced to 3% or below, $1Mil returns $30K @ 3%.. which looks just like our crap! If we can achieve good ratings after allowing for bad loans.. we (the bank) can hot potato the MBS to someone else at our original cost. We the bank don’t lose. The dodgy debt is someone else’s problem.

Looking at the above, you might be able to estimate where the fed rates will drop to before stabilizing. What is needed is the % of loans going bad, recovery rate as a percentage of original loan value and what the MBSs/CDOs were originally yielding. The real formula to use is an amortization formula.. but thats harder to follow. The above paragraph is easier to follow and reflecting on all of this is making me cranky again (And the Friday beer is wearing off.. needed one for this week).. so I am going to hit the hay.

NOTE: The above applies to the sub-prime, Alt-A paper. Many of these were refi’d into NegAms.. which are projected to start resetting late 2009 and hit full swing 2010. I can’t project what will happen here because these loans start out underwater. Some were refi’s which makes them recourse. I call this period the ‘all Hell breaks loose’ period.

[SD Realtor]

Unfortunately Sandi Egan you have it upside down. I cannot think of a single case in history where more aggressive lending rates incentivizes any sellers to lower asking prices. If anything this incentivizes people who were pricing near the conforming 417k limit to ask for more.

I think more and more that a common misconception on Piggington is that people here project their prevailing thought processes on joe buyer out there in the world. The fact is that most posters here are more introspective then the average buyer. While the savy buyer measures value of a home with regards to market conditions, pricing, etc… many a buyer, dare I say a majority simply look at the mortgage payment. This is especially true in the 750k range of housing.

sdrealtor pegged it right non. This measure will simply help those who have money get more property. To think this will not help the dinc family on the fence about buying that 4S ranch or carmel valley home jump into the fray is wishful. How big of a dent will it make? Not sure but you cannot argue about the fact that it saves a couple hundred a month off a payment.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

Unfortunately Sandi Egan you have it upside down. I cannot think of a single case in history where more aggressive lending rates incentivizes any sellers to lower asking prices. If anything this incentivizes people who were pricing near the conforming 417k limit to ask for more.

I think more and more that a common misconception on Piggington is that people here project their prevailing thought processes on joe buyer out there in the world. The fact is that most posters here are more introspective then the average buyer. While the savy buyer measures value of a home with regards to market conditions, pricing, etc… many a buyer, dare I say a majority simply look at the mortgage payment. This is especially true in the 750k range of housing.

sdrealtor pegged it right non. This measure will simply help those who have money get more property. To think this will not help the dinc family on the fence about buying that 4S ranch or carmel valley home jump into the fray is wishful. How big of a dent will it make? Not sure but you cannot argue about the fact that it saves a couple hundred a month off a payment.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

Unfortunately Sandi Egan you have it upside down. I cannot think of a single case in history where more aggressive lending rates incentivizes any sellers to lower asking prices. If anything this incentivizes people who were pricing near the conforming 417k limit to ask for more.

I think more and more that a common misconception on Piggington is that people here project their prevailing thought processes on joe buyer out there in the world. The fact is that most posters here are more introspective then the average buyer. While the savy buyer measures value of a home with regards to market conditions, pricing, etc… many a buyer, dare I say a majority simply look at the mortgage payment. This is especially true in the 750k range of housing.

sdrealtor pegged it right non. This measure will simply help those who have money get more property. To think this will not help the dinc family on the fence about buying that 4S ranch or carmel valley home jump into the fray is wishful. How big of a dent will it make? Not sure but you cannot argue about the fact that it saves a couple hundred a month off a payment.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

Unfortunately Sandi Egan you have it upside down. I cannot think of a single case in history where more aggressive lending rates incentivizes any sellers to lower asking prices. If anything this incentivizes people who were pricing near the conforming 417k limit to ask for more.

I think more and more that a common misconception on Piggington is that people here project their prevailing thought processes on joe buyer out there in the world. The fact is that most posters here are more introspective then the average buyer. While the savy buyer measures value of a home with regards to market conditions, pricing, etc… many a buyer, dare I say a majority simply look at the mortgage payment. This is especially true in the 750k range of housing.

sdrealtor pegged it right non. This measure will simply help those who have money get more property. To think this will not help the dinc family on the fence about buying that 4S ranch or carmel valley home jump into the fray is wishful. How big of a dent will it make? Not sure but you cannot argue about the fact that it saves a couple hundred a month off a payment.

SD Realtor

[Sandi Egan]

So if San Diego’s median price drops, does that mean the max conforming loan will drop too? I can hear the real estate agents now, “Better buy now before prices drop, and you can’t get a conforming loan!”

XBoxBoy
That’s too funny! I can see it actually happening.

If the conforming limit goes up to 550K instead of 730K and then follows the median down, it actually might be a good thing. Right now there is no incentive to 700K+ sellers to lower asking prices, but with the new limits lowering the price a bit and reaching conforming territory they could substantially extend the number of prospective buyers.
Lower comps will lead to lower median, which will lead to lower conforming limit, which will pull the already lowered prices further down.
*sigh*
Probably I’ve got something wrong.

[Sandi Egan]

So if San Diego’s median price drops, does that mean the max conforming loan will drop too? I can hear the real estate agents now, “Better buy now before prices drop, and you can’t get a conforming loan!”

XBoxBoy
That’s too funny! I can see it actually happening.

If the conforming limit goes up to 550K instead of 730K and then follows the median down, it actually might be a good thing. Right now there is no incentive to 700K+ sellers to lower asking prices, but with the new limits lowering the price a bit and reaching conforming territory they could substantially extend the number of prospective buyers.
Lower comps will lead to lower median, which will lead to lower conforming limit, which will pull the already lowered prices further down.
*sigh*
Probably I’ve got something wrong.

[Sandi Egan]

So if San Diego’s median price drops, does that mean the max conforming loan will drop too? I can hear the real estate agents now, “Better buy now before prices drop, and you can’t get a conforming loan!”

XBoxBoy
That’s too funny! I can see it actually happening.

If the conforming limit goes up to 550K instead of 730K and then follows the median down, it actually might be a good thing. Right now there is no incentive to 700K+ sellers to lower asking prices, but with the new limits lowering the price a bit and reaching conforming territory they could substantially extend the number of prospective buyers.
Lower comps will lead to lower median, which will lead to lower conforming limit, which will pull the already lowered prices further down.
*sigh*
Probably I’ve got something wrong.

[Sandi Egan]

So if San Diego’s median price drops, does that mean the max conforming loan will drop too? I can hear the real estate agents now, “Better buy now before prices drop, and you can’t get a conforming loan!”

XBoxBoy
That’s too funny! I can see it actually happening.

If the conforming limit goes up to 550K instead of 730K and then follows the median down, it actually might be a good thing. Right now there is no incentive to 700K+ sellers to lower asking prices, but with the new limits lowering the price a bit and reaching conforming territory they could substantially extend the number of prospective buyers.
Lower comps will lead to lower median, which will lead to lower conforming limit, which will pull the already lowered prices further down.
*sigh*
Probably I’ve got something wrong.

[XBoxBoy]

This raises the limits 125% from the median price in an area.

So if San Diego’s median price drops, does that mean the max conforming loan will drop too? I can hear the real estate agents now, “Better buy now before prices drop, and you can’t get a conforming loan!”

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

This raises the limits 125% from the median price in an area.

So if San Diego’s median price drops, does that mean the max conforming loan will drop too? I can hear the real estate agents now, “Better buy now before prices drop, and you can’t get a conforming loan!”

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

This raises the limits 125% from the median price in an area.

So if San Diego’s median price drops, does that mean the max conforming loan will drop too? I can hear the real estate agents now, “Better buy now before prices drop, and you can’t get a conforming loan!”

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

This raises the limits 125% from the median price in an area.

So if San Diego’s median price drops, does that mean the max conforming loan will drop too? I can hear the real estate agents now, “Better buy now before prices drop, and you can’t get a conforming loan!”

XBoxBoy

[Ex-SD]

Buyers will still have to get an appraisal, cough up a down payment and they can’t use a liar loan to qualify for what is still over-priced housing when compared to most markets in the country. Add to this, San Diego has been designated as a “declining market” which means the buyer has to cough up more money and jump through more hoops before the loan can close.

Frankly, the only people that I see who are going to be helped by this are people with decent credit who are current on their payments and who need to re-finance if the loan is under the new limits (provided the home hasn’t already dropped too much in value from when they bought it)……..or a buyer who buys into all the hype that NAR and CAR will start slinging and goes shopping for a home with his wallet in his mouth for the scabs to steal.

It’s not going to make a dent in the myriad of problems that plague the housing market in the bubble markets. Prices will continue to fall as more and more sellers give up and phase out of the denial stage and move into acceptance.

[Ex-SD]

Buyers will still have to get an appraisal, cough up a down payment and they can’t use a liar loan to qualify for what is still over-priced housing when compared to most markets in the country. Add to this, San Diego has been designated as a “declining market” which means the buyer has to cough up more money and jump through more hoops before the loan can close.

Frankly, the only people that I see who are going to be helped by this are people with decent credit who are current on their payments and who need to re-finance if the loan is under the new limits (provided the home hasn’t already dropped too much in value from when they bought it)……..or a buyer who buys into all the hype that NAR and CAR will start slinging and goes shopping for a home with his wallet in his mouth for the scabs to steal.

It’s not going to make a dent in the myriad of problems that plague the housing market in the bubble markets. Prices will continue to fall as more and more sellers give up and phase out of the denial stage and move into acceptance.

[Ex-SD]

Buyers will still have to get an appraisal, cough up a down payment and they can’t use a liar loan to qualify for what is still over-priced housing when compared to most markets in the country. Add to this, San Diego has been designated as a “declining market” which means the buyer has to cough up more money and jump through more hoops before the loan can close.

Frankly, the only people that I see who are going to be helped by this are people with decent credit who are current on their payments and who need to re-finance if the loan is under the new limits (provided the home hasn’t already dropped too much in value from when they bought it)……..or a buyer who buys into all the hype that NAR and CAR will start slinging and goes shopping for a home with his wallet in his mouth for the scabs to steal.

It’s not going to make a dent in the myriad of problems that plague the housing market in the bubble markets. Prices will continue to fall as more and more sellers give up and phase out of the denial stage and move into acceptance.

[Ex-SD]

Buyers will still have to get an appraisal, cough up a down payment and they can’t use a liar loan to qualify for what is still over-priced housing when compared to most markets in the country. Add to this, San Diego has been designated as a “declining market” which means the buyer has to cough up more money and jump through more hoops before the loan can close.

Frankly, the only people that I see who are going to be helped by this are people with decent credit who are current on their payments and who need to re-finance if the loan is under the new limits (provided the home hasn’t already dropped too much in value from when they bought it)……..or a buyer who buys into all the hype that NAR and CAR will start slinging and goes shopping for a home with his wallet in his mouth for the scabs to steal.

It’s not going to make a dent in the myriad of problems that plague the housing market in the bubble markets. Prices will continue to fall as more and more sellers give up and phase out of the denial stage and move into acceptance.

[Ex-SD]

Buyers will still have to get an appraisal, cough up a down payment and they can’t use a liar loan to qualify for what is still over-priced housing when compared to most markets in the country. Add to this, San Diego has been designated as a “declining market” which means the buyer has to cough up more money and jump through more hoops before the loan can close.

Frankly, the only people that I see who are going to be helped by this are people with decent credit who are current on their payments and who need to re-finance if the loan is under the new limits (provided the home hasn’t already dropped too much in value from when they bought it)……..or a buyer who buys into all the hype that NAR and CAR will start slinging and goes shopping for a home with his wallet in his mouth for the scabs to steal.

It’s not going to make a dent in the myriad of problems that plague the housing market in the bubble markets. Prices will continue to fall as more and more sellers give up and phase out of the denial stage and move into acceptance.

[sd_bear]

This raises the limits 125% from the median price in an area. If San Diego’s median price is only 430k now this means that the new cap is going to be 537.5k here. Not as bad as the 730k we keep seeing in the news, but still not a good thing.

[sd_bear]

This raises the limits 125% from the median price in an area. If San Diego’s median price is only 430k now this means that the new cap is going to be 537.5k here. Not as bad as the 730k we keep seeing in the news, but still not a good thing.

[sd_bear]

This raises the limits 125% from the median price in an area. If San Diego’s median price is only 430k now this means that the new cap is going to be 537.5k here. Not as bad as the 730k we keep seeing in the news, but still not a good thing.

[sd_bear]

This raises the limits 125% from the median price in an area. If San Diego’s median price is only 430k now this means that the new cap is going to be 537.5k here. Not as bad as the 730k we keep seeing in the news, but still not a good thing.

[kev374]

Without stated income, Interest only and NegAm products this increase in the cap is totally meaningless.

The only reason people could afford these houses was because of the exotic financing and FHA doesn’t do that.

This deck of cards is coming down and no matter what anyone does it WILL come down.

[kev374]

Without stated income, Interest only and NegAm products this increase in the cap is totally meaningless.

The only reason people could afford these houses was because of the exotic financing and FHA doesn’t do that.

This deck of cards is coming down and no matter what anyone does it WILL come down.

[kev374]

Without stated income, Interest only and NegAm products this increase in the cap is totally meaningless.

The only reason people could afford these houses was because of the exotic financing and FHA doesn’t do that.

This deck of cards is coming down and no matter what anyone does it WILL come down.

[kev374]

Without stated income, Interest only and NegAm products this increase in the cap is totally meaningless.

The only reason people could afford these houses was because of the exotic financing and FHA doesn’t do that.

This deck of cards is coming down and no matter what anyone does it WILL come down.

[XBoxBoy]

Does this mean its the end of price drops as of now?

A couple things to keep in mind.

1) The areas that have been hit the hardest with dropping home prices have been the less expensive areas. Places where 20% down and a conformimg loan at $417k would get you a house. So, for these areas, the increase is not going to matter one iota.

2) This will make it so that some areas will now be “purchasable” with a conforming loans. For these areas that might indeed be a slight boost helping to hold up prices a bit. But only a bit. To qualify for a conforming loan you need to document income, have a down payment, etc.

3) Because interest rates are down, this might make it so that some small percentage of people who need to refi out of their adjustable will manage to do so. That will mean fewer foreclosures. Which of course means home prices not falling so fast.

4) The biggest impact will probably be psychological. This will give plenty of realtors ammunition to tell sellers to NOT lower their prices. That as soon as these loans are available, the buyers will come back and the market will pick up. Sellers will want to believe this, and will suddenly have a ray of hope to grab onto. I expect this to make sellers all the less likely to cut deals in the next month or two.

When you put all this together, I think what will happen is that this will slow the falling. Maybe hardly at all, maybe significantly. However, the problems that caused SoCal housing to start collapsing are still there and no government plan is going to take that away. It’s just a matter of how fast it falls.

And oh yeah… Right now the mood in punditland is that things aren’t so bad. Why we were just all overreacting, and that nasty down we just had in the world markets was caused by a rogue trader. But I have my doubts that all the Dorothy’s can keep us on this yellow brick road by clicking their heels so smartly. But then again, I’m sorta like Rich. I see the glass as empty and broken, not half full or half empty…

[XBoxBoy]

Does this mean its the end of price drops as of now?

A couple things to keep in mind.

1) The areas that have been hit the hardest with dropping home prices have been the less expensive areas. Places where 20% down and a conformimg loan at $417k would get you a house. So, for these areas, the increase is not going to matter one iota.

2) This will make it so that some areas will now be “purchasable” with a conforming loans. For these areas that might indeed be a slight boost helping to hold up prices a bit. But only a bit. To qualify for a conforming loan you need to document income, have a down payment, etc.

3) Because interest rates are down, this might make it so that some small percentage of people who need to refi out of their adjustable will manage to do so. That will mean fewer foreclosures. Which of course means home prices not falling so fast.

4) The biggest impact will probably be psychological. This will give plenty of realtors ammunition to tell sellers to NOT lower their prices. That as soon as these loans are available, the buyers will come back and the market will pick up. Sellers will want to believe this, and will suddenly have a ray of hope to grab onto. I expect this to make sellers all the less likely to cut deals in the next month or two.

When you put all this together, I think what will happen is that this will slow the falling. Maybe hardly at all, maybe significantly. However, the problems that caused SoCal housing to start collapsing are still there and no government plan is going to take that away. It’s just a matter of how fast it falls.

And oh yeah… Right now the mood in punditland is that things aren’t so bad. Why we were just all overreacting, and that nasty down we just had in the world markets was caused by a rogue trader. But I have my doubts that all the Dorothy’s can keep us on this yellow brick road by clicking their heels so smartly. But then again, I’m sorta like Rich. I see the glass as empty and broken, not half full or half empty…

[XBoxBoy]

Does this mean its the end of price drops as of now?

A couple things to keep in mind.

1) The areas that have been hit the hardest with dropping home prices have been the less expensive areas. Places where 20% down and a conformimg loan at $417k would get you a house. So, for these areas, the increase is not going to matter one iota.

2) This will make it so that some areas will now be “purchasable” with a conforming loans. For these areas that might indeed be a slight boost helping to hold up prices a bit. But only a bit. To qualify for a conforming loan you need to document income, have a down payment, etc.

3) Because interest rates are down, this might make it so that some small percentage of people who need to refi out of their adjustable will manage to do so. That will mean fewer foreclosures. Which of course means home prices not falling so fast.

4) The biggest impact will probably be psychological. This will give plenty of realtors ammunition to tell sellers to NOT lower their prices. That as soon as these loans are available, the buyers will come back and the market will pick up. Sellers will want to believe this, and will suddenly have a ray of hope to grab onto. I expect this to make sellers all the less likely to cut deals in the next month or two.

When you put all this together, I think what will happen is that this will slow the falling. Maybe hardly at all, maybe significantly. However, the problems that caused SoCal housing to start collapsing are still there and no government plan is going to take that away. It’s just a matter of how fast it falls.

And oh yeah… Right now the mood in punditland is that things aren’t so bad. Why we were just all overreacting, and that nasty down we just had in the world markets was caused by a rogue trader. But I have my doubts that all the Dorothy’s can keep us on this yellow brick road by clicking their heels so smartly. But then again, I’m sorta like Rich. I see the glass as empty and broken, not half full or half empty…

[XBoxBoy]

Does this mean its the end of price drops as of now?

A couple things to keep in mind.

1) The areas that have been hit the hardest with dropping home prices have been the less expensive areas. Places where 20% down and a conformimg loan at $417k would get you a house. So, for these areas, the increase is not going to matter one iota.

2) This will make it so that some areas will now be “purchasable” with a conforming loans. For these areas that might indeed be a slight boost helping to hold up prices a bit. But only a bit. To qualify for a conforming loan you need to document income, have a down payment, etc.

3) Because interest rates are down, this might make it so that some small percentage of people who need to refi out of their adjustable will manage to do so. That will mean fewer foreclosures. Which of course means home prices not falling so fast.

4) The biggest impact will probably be psychological. This will give plenty of realtors ammunition to tell sellers to NOT lower their prices. That as soon as these loans are available, the buyers will come back and the market will pick up. Sellers will want to believe this, and will suddenly have a ray of hope to grab onto. I expect this to make sellers all the less likely to cut deals in the next month or two.

When you put all this together, I think what will happen is that this will slow the falling. Maybe hardly at all, maybe significantly. However, the problems that caused SoCal housing to start collapsing are still there and no government plan is going to take that away. It’s just a matter of how fast it falls.

And oh yeah… Right now the mood in punditland is that things aren’t so bad. Why we were just all overreacting, and that nasty down we just had in the world markets was caused by a rogue trader. But I have my doubts that all the Dorothy’s can keep us on this yellow brick road by clicking their heels so smartly. But then again, I’m sorta like Rich. I see the glass as empty and broken, not half full or half empty…

[ucodegen]

@andymajumder
They really are playing it as though prices might start going up again and this may cause a lot of potential buyers to jump back in.

Maybe many knife catchers will jump in.. It may mean that I stay out for longer. With the real estate market the way it is, any down payment is dead money. Besides, with running into AMT, I can’t deduct mortgage interest when I have even a moderate LTCG (long term capital gain).

[ucodegen]

@andymajumder
They really are playing it as though prices might start going up again and this may cause a lot of potential buyers to jump back in.

Maybe many knife catchers will jump in.. It may mean that I stay out for longer. With the real estate market the way it is, any down payment is dead money. Besides, with running into AMT, I can’t deduct mortgage interest when I have even a moderate LTCG (long term capital gain).

[ucodegen]

@andymajumder
They really are playing it as though prices might start going up again and this may cause a lot of potential buyers to jump back in.

Maybe many knife catchers will jump in.. It may mean that I stay out for longer. With the real estate market the way it is, any down payment is dead money. Besides, with running into AMT, I can’t deduct mortgage interest when I have even a moderate LTCG (long term capital gain).

[ucodegen]

@andymajumder
They really are playing it as though prices might start going up again and this may cause a lot of potential buyers to jump back in.

Maybe many knife catchers will jump in.. It may mean that I stay out for longer. With the real estate market the way it is, any down payment is dead money. Besides, with running into AMT, I can’t deduct mortgage interest when I have even a moderate LTCG (long term capital gain).

[ucodegen]

@andymajumder
They really are playing it as though prices might start going up again and this may cause a lot of potential buyers to jump back in.

Maybe many knife catchers will jump in.. It may mean that I stay out for longer. With the real estate market the way it is, any down payment is dead money. Besides, with running into AMT, I can’t deduct mortgage interest when I have even a moderate LTCG (long term capital gain).

[andymajumder]

Looks like the mdeia is already covering it as a big boost for the housing market in California. http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/25/real_estate/stimulus_plan_targets_pricy_housing/index.htm

"This will have a big, immediate impact, especially in California where sales have been down most significantly," said Lawrence Yun, chief economist for the National Association of Realtors. The 1 percent drop is a huge factor," said Yun. "In California, it could create a mini-boom."

More coverage,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22826663/

Does this mean its the end of price drops as of now?

They really are playing it as though prices might start going up again and this may cause a lot of potential buyers to jump back in. 

 

[andymajumder]

Looks like the mdeia is already covering it as a big boost for the housing market in California. http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/25/real_estate/stimulus_plan_targets_pricy_housing/index.htm

"This will have a big, immediate impact, especially in California where sales have been down most significantly," said Lawrence Yun, chief economist for the National Association of Realtors. The 1 percent drop is a huge factor," said Yun. "In California, it could create a mini-boom."

More coverage,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22826663/

Does this mean its the end of price drops as of now?

They really are playing it as though prices might start going up again and this may cause a lot of potential buyers to jump back in. 

 

[andymajumder]

Looks like the mdeia is already covering it as a big boost for the housing market in California. http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/25/real_estate/stimulus_plan_targets_pricy_housing/index.htm

"This will have a big, immediate impact, especially in California where sales have been down most significantly," said Lawrence Yun, chief economist for the National Association of Realtors. The 1 percent drop is a huge factor," said Yun. "In California, it could create a mini-boom."

More coverage,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22826663/

Does this mean its the end of price drops as of now?

They really are playing it as though prices might start going up again and this may cause a lot of potential buyers to jump back in. 

 

[andymajumder]

Looks like the mdeia is already covering it as a big boost for the housing market in California. http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/25/real_estate/stimulus_plan_targets_pricy_housing/index.htm

"This will have a big, immediate impact, especially in California where sales have been down most significantly," said Lawrence Yun, chief economist for the National Association of Realtors. The 1 percent drop is a huge factor," said Yun. "In California, it could create a mini-boom."

More coverage,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22826663/

Does this mean its the end of price drops as of now?

They really are playing it as though prices might start going up again and this may cause a lot of potential buyers to jump back in. 

 

[raptorduck]

Fat_lazy. I will admit that 9 years ago, when I worked in SD, I benefited from one of those 0% interest loans. In fact, it was a forgivable loan.

Unfortunatley, the IRS and SEC have phased those out. As a Section 16 executive or otherwise, you can no longer borrow from your company interest free and the loan can not be forgiven without being treated as taxable income. Companies just don’t do that any more.

Also, new laws now force you to price options closer to the actual FMV of the stock based on a fair and reasonable third party valuation. In the old days, you could almost pick out of thin air the price of your options, which could have signifiant financial benifits. Thanks to rule 405, those days are long gone too.

[raptorduck]

Fat_lazy. I will admit that 9 years ago, when I worked in SD, I benefited from one of those 0% interest loans. In fact, it was a forgivable loan.

Unfortunatley, the IRS and SEC have phased those out. As a Section 16 executive or otherwise, you can no longer borrow from your company interest free and the loan can not be forgiven without being treated as taxable income. Companies just don’t do that any more.

Also, new laws now force you to price options closer to the actual FMV of the stock based on a fair and reasonable third party valuation. In the old days, you could almost pick out of thin air the price of your options, which could have signifiant financial benifits. Thanks to rule 405, those days are long gone too.

[raptorduck]

Fat_lazy. I will admit that 9 years ago, when I worked in SD, I benefited from one of those 0% interest loans. In fact, it was a forgivable loan.

Unfortunatley, the IRS and SEC have phased those out. As a Section 16 executive or otherwise, you can no longer borrow from your company interest free and the loan can not be forgiven without being treated as taxable income. Companies just don’t do that any more.

Also, new laws now force you to price options closer to the actual FMV of the stock based on a fair and reasonable third party valuation. In the old days, you could almost pick out of thin air the price of your options, which could have signifiant financial benifits. Thanks to rule 405, those days are long gone too.

[raptorduck]

Fat_lazy. I will admit that 9 years ago, when I worked in SD, I benefited from one of those 0% interest loans. In fact, it was a forgivable loan.

Unfortunatley, the IRS and SEC have phased those out. As a Section 16 executive or otherwise, you can no longer borrow from your company interest free and the loan can not be forgiven without being treated as taxable income. Companies just don’t do that any more.

Also, new laws now force you to price options closer to the actual FMV of the stock based on a fair and reasonable third party valuation. In the old days, you could almost pick out of thin air the price of your options, which could have signifiant financial benifits. Thanks to rule 405, those days are long gone too.

[Coronita]

Ok ucodogen and raptorduck ,

I guess I have to take both of your words, because frankly I can't relate :)…I don't think I meant to say rich people pay NO taxes. I just felt talking to advisors and whatnot that the conversations usually resulted in "sorry, your assets and current employment predicament being on a w-2, though a sizeable w-2 doesn't allow me to play with much to avoid taxes, unlike client XYZ which does most of their business in RE and recognizes very little income"

I suppose my advisor(s) was b.s.ing me. For the record, I do know what getting hit with AMT is about, because I've been hit pretty much every year for the past couple of years, both married and single…Though I i really don't feel rich. Though the ironic part is the larger the mortgage interest deduction on my primary, the less AMT I would have ended up paying (not that much, a few thousand), even with the itemized deduction phase out.

I just thought executives had access to things like deferred compensation plans, zero interest loans from companies, etc that somehow allowed them to skew income, etc though I'm not an accountant or really smart enough to know.

And by no means do I think rich people should get hit with a bigger tax. Quite contrary, I believe for better or worse that most people who are rich probably got there through some merit, and do keep the rest of the economy going. I'm just peeved the government keeps classify me and my family as rich when we aren't. I hate government that acts like robin hood. Pelosi, with all due respect, scares thecrap out of me.

Anyway, end vent. Time to get off my lazy union -ss.

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Ok ucodogen and raptorduck ,

I guess I have to take both of your words, because frankly I can't relate :)…I don't think I meant to say rich people pay NO taxes. I just felt talking to advisors and whatnot that the conversations usually resulted in "sorry, your assets and current employment predicament being on a w-2, though a sizeable w-2 doesn't allow me to play with much to avoid taxes, unlike client XYZ which does most of their business in RE and recognizes very little income"

I suppose my advisor(s) was b.s.ing me. For the record, I do know what getting hit with AMT is about, because I've been hit pretty much every year for the past couple of years, both married and single…Though I i really don't feel rich. Though the ironic part is the larger the mortgage interest deduction on my primary, the less AMT I would have ended up paying (not that much, a few thousand), even with the itemized deduction phase out.

I just thought executives had access to things like deferred compensation plans, zero interest loans from companies, etc that somehow allowed them to skew income, etc though I'm not an accountant or really smart enough to know.

And by no means do I think rich people should get hit with a bigger tax. Quite contrary, I believe for better or worse that most people who are rich probably got there through some merit, and do keep the rest of the economy going. I'm just peeved the government keeps classify me and my family as rich when we aren't. I hate government that acts like robin hood. Pelosi, with all due respect, scares thecrap out of me.

Anyway, end vent. Time to get off my lazy union -ss.

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Ok ucodogen and raptorduck ,

I guess I have to take both of your words, because frankly I can't relate :)…I don't think I meant to say rich people pay NO taxes. I just felt talking to advisors and whatnot that the conversations usually resulted in "sorry, your assets and current employment predicament being on a w-2, though a sizeable w-2 doesn't allow me to play with much to avoid taxes, unlike client XYZ which does most of their business in RE and recognizes very little income"

I suppose my advisor(s) was b.s.ing me. For the record, I do know what getting hit with AMT is about, because I've been hit pretty much every year for the past couple of years, both married and single…Though I i really don't feel rich. Though the ironic part is the larger the mortgage interest deduction on my primary, the less AMT I would have ended up paying (not that much, a few thousand), even with the itemized deduction phase out.

I just thought executives had access to things like deferred compensation plans, zero interest loans from companies, etc that somehow allowed them to skew income, etc though I'm not an accountant or really smart enough to know.

And by no means do I think rich people should get hit with a bigger tax. Quite contrary, I believe for better or worse that most people who are rich probably got there through some merit, and do keep the rest of the economy going. I'm just peeved the government keeps classify me and my family as rich when we aren't. I hate government that acts like robin hood. Pelosi, with all due respect, scares thecrap out of me.

Anyway, end vent. Time to get off my lazy union -ss.

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Ok ucodogen and raptorduck ,

I guess I have to take both of your words, because frankly I can't relate :)…I don't think I meant to say rich people pay NO taxes. I just felt talking to advisors and whatnot that the conversations usually resulted in "sorry, your assets and current employment predicament being on a w-2, though a sizeable w-2 doesn't allow me to play with much to avoid taxes, unlike client XYZ which does most of their business in RE and recognizes very little income"

I suppose my advisor(s) was b.s.ing me. For the record, I do know what getting hit with AMT is about, because I've been hit pretty much every year for the past couple of years, both married and single…Though I i really don't feel rich. Though the ironic part is the larger the mortgage interest deduction on my primary, the less AMT I would have ended up paying (not that much, a few thousand), even with the itemized deduction phase out.

I just thought executives had access to things like deferred compensation plans, zero interest loans from companies, etc that somehow allowed them to skew income, etc though I'm not an accountant or really smart enough to know.

And by no means do I think rich people should get hit with a bigger tax. Quite contrary, I believe for better or worse that most people who are rich probably got there through some merit, and do keep the rest of the economy going. I'm just peeved the government keeps classify me and my family as rich when we aren't. I hate government that acts like robin hood. Pelosi, with all due respect, scares thecrap out of me.

Anyway, end vent. Time to get off my lazy union -ss.

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[kev374]

Amen raptorduck! The incentive to work hard, be productive and innovative has always been the monetary rewards. Taking away that incentive by more taxation and pursuing socialist redistribution of wealth policies will be extremely detrimental to the future of this country. Infact, doesn’t the Laffer curve demonstrate this, that higher taxes actually result in lower tax revenue due to lower productivity?

If you look at countries like Belgium which have socialist policies you will find very high unemployment and low productivity. People simply will not work that hard or not work at all and collect government assistance, and why would they work? For what incentive?

[kev374]

Amen raptorduck! The incentive to work hard, be productive and innovative has always been the monetary rewards. Taking away that incentive by more taxation and pursuing socialist redistribution of wealth policies will be extremely detrimental to the future of this country. Infact, doesn’t the Laffer curve demonstrate this, that higher taxes actually result in lower tax revenue due to lower productivity?

If you look at countries like Belgium which have socialist policies you will find very high unemployment and low productivity. People simply will not work that hard or not work at all and collect government assistance, and why would they work? For what incentive?

[kev374]

Amen raptorduck! The incentive to work hard, be productive and innovative has always been the monetary rewards. Taking away that incentive by more taxation and pursuing socialist redistribution of wealth policies will be extremely detrimental to the future of this country. Infact, doesn’t the Laffer curve demonstrate this, that higher taxes actually result in lower tax revenue due to lower productivity?

If you look at countries like Belgium which have socialist policies you will find very high unemployment and low productivity. People simply will not work that hard or not work at all and collect government assistance, and why would they work? For what incentive?

[kev374]

Amen raptorduck! The incentive to work hard, be productive and innovative has always been the monetary rewards. Taking away that incentive by more taxation and pursuing socialist redistribution of wealth policies will be extremely detrimental to the future of this country. Infact, doesn’t the Laffer curve demonstrate this, that higher taxes actually result in lower tax revenue due to lower productivity?

If you look at countries like Belgium which have socialist policies you will find very high unemployment and low productivity. People simply will not work that hard or not work at all and collect government assistance, and why would they work? For what incentive?

[kev374]

Amen raptorduck! The incentive to work hard, be productive and innovative has always been the monetary rewards. Taking away that incentive by more taxation and pursuing socialist redistribution of wealth policies will be extremely detrimental to the future of this country. Infact, doesn’t the Laffer curve demonstrate this, that higher taxes actually result in lower tax revenue due to lower productivity?

If you look at countries like Belgium which have socialist policies you will find very high unemployment and low productivity. People simply will not work that hard or not work at all and collect government assistance, and why would they work? For what incentive?

[Raybyrnes]

With respect to taxes.

The complaint I have on taxes is that SS tax cuts off at 97500 meaning that guy making 97500 is paying out 6.2% of his income yet if I make 195000 I am only paying out 3.1% as a percentage of my income. Seems that the guy making 97500 is getting screwed when you look at this as a % of income.

[ucodegen]

Raybyrnes

The complaint I have on taxes is that SS tax cuts off at 97500 meaning that guy making 97500 is paying out 6.2% of his income yet if I make 195000 I am only paying out 3.1% as a percentage of my income. Seems that the guy making 97500 is getting screwed when you look at this as a % of income.

Social security is not a standard tax. What you put in is related to what you can take out later. SS taxes are put into the Social Security Trust Fund. The person making 97,500 and the person making 195,000 will only be able to draw down social security at the same rate. This ignores any income based phase out of social security. The Social Security Administration should be sending you a sheet every year containing the taxed social security income. The amount you can withdraw depends upon the sum of the social security taxes adjusted for the time within the social security trust fund and amortized over your projected retirement lifetime.

What this also means, is that a person making 195,000 will need to make other arrangements (ie. investing in retirement funds, 401ks etc) if they want to live near the income they have lived at when they were working.

[Raybyrnes]

I’m familiar with this fact, but from a time value consideration it is coming out today for something I am getting back tomorrow. Additionally, who is to say it is going to be there when I look for it.

[sdrealtor]

Quite frankly this is just another case of the rich getting richer. Who will it help? It will help people like me (I’m not rich but certainly well above average) reduce their debt service and free up capital for other investments. I already see properties I could cash flow on and expect even better deals soon. The insolvent and underwater will still be crushed but the financially conservative, well invested folks living well within their means will enjoy a bonanza!

[Coronita]

Quite frankly this is just another case of the rich getting richer. Who will it help? It will help people like me (I'm not rich but certainly well above average) reduce their debt service and free up capital for other investments. I already see properties I could cash flow on and expect even better deals soon. The insolvent and underwater will still be crushed but the financially conservative, well invested folks living well within their means will enjoy a bonanza!

 

Thread hijack.

sdrealtor,

If you don't mind, would you care to share some insight into where your starting to see properties that you could possibly cash flow on? Without specifics, mind if you share the type of property and general location? I'm curious because I've been checking around, and while things are getting better, I haven't been too lucky in finding that many places that would cash flow without still a hefty downp. I'm sure you're much more experienced at this, so perhaps I'm not looking in the right neighborhoods. Or perhaps you just have much more financial capital at your disposal.

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[surveyor]

investment properties

I’m curious because I’ve been checking around, and while things are getting better, I haven’t been too lucky in finding that many places that would cash flow without still a hefty downp.

Dude, go to bed!

But seriously, I had the same problem as you a couple of years ago, which is why I had to go out of state.

(but once you do, you can starting lowering your taxes…).

[surveyor]

investment properties

I’m curious because I’ve been checking around, and while things are getting better, I haven’t been too lucky in finding that many places that would cash flow without still a hefty downp.

Dude, go to bed!

But seriously, I had the same problem as you a couple of years ago, which is why I had to go out of state.

(but once you do, you can starting lowering your taxes…).

[surveyor]

investment properties

I’m curious because I’ve been checking around, and while things are getting better, I haven’t been too lucky in finding that many places that would cash flow without still a hefty downp.

Dude, go to bed!

But seriously, I had the same problem as you a couple of years ago, which is why I had to go out of state.

(but once you do, you can starting lowering your taxes…).

[surveyor]

investment properties

I’m curious because I’ve been checking around, and while things are getting better, I haven’t been too lucky in finding that many places that would cash flow without still a hefty downp.

Dude, go to bed!

But seriously, I had the same problem as you a couple of years ago, which is why I had to go out of state.

(but once you do, you can starting lowering your taxes…).

[surveyor]

investment properties

I’m curious because I’ve been checking around, and while things are getting better, I haven’t been too lucky in finding that many places that would cash flow without still a hefty downp.

Dude, go to bed!

But seriously, I had the same problem as you a couple of years ago, which is why I had to go out of state.

(but once you do, you can starting lowering your taxes…).

[Coronita]

Quite frankly this is just another case of the rich getting richer. Who will it help? It will help people like me (I'm not rich but certainly well above average) reduce their debt service and free up capital for other investments. I already see properties I could cash flow on and expect even better deals soon. The insolvent and underwater will still be crushed but the financially conservative, well invested folks living well within their means will enjoy a bonanza!

 

Thread hijack.

sdrealtor,

If you don't mind, would you care to share some insight into where your starting to see properties that you could possibly cash flow on? Without specifics, mind if you share the type of property and general location? I'm curious because I've been checking around, and while things are getting better, I haven't been too lucky in finding that many places that would cash flow without still a hefty downp. I'm sure you're much more experienced at this, so perhaps I'm not looking in the right neighborhoods. Or perhaps you just have much more financial capital at your disposal.

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Quite frankly this is just another case of the rich getting richer. Who will it help? It will help people like me (I'm not rich but certainly well above average) reduce their debt service and free up capital for other investments. I already see properties I could cash flow on and expect even better deals soon. The insolvent and underwater will still be crushed but the financially conservative, well invested folks living well within their means will enjoy a bonanza!

 

Thread hijack.

sdrealtor,

If you don't mind, would you care to share some insight into where your starting to see properties that you could possibly cash flow on? Without specifics, mind if you share the type of property and general location? I'm curious because I've been checking around, and while things are getting better, I haven't been too lucky in finding that many places that would cash flow without still a hefty downp. I'm sure you're much more experienced at this, so perhaps I'm not looking in the right neighborhoods. Or perhaps you just have much more financial capital at your disposal.

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Quite frankly this is just another case of the rich getting richer. Who will it help? It will help people like me (I'm not rich but certainly well above average) reduce their debt service and free up capital for other investments. I already see properties I could cash flow on and expect even better deals soon. The insolvent and underwater will still be crushed but the financially conservative, well invested folks living well within their means will enjoy a bonanza!

 

Thread hijack.

sdrealtor,

If you don't mind, would you care to share some insight into where your starting to see properties that you could possibly cash flow on? Without specifics, mind if you share the type of property and general location? I'm curious because I've been checking around, and while things are getting better, I haven't been too lucky in finding that many places that would cash flow without still a hefty downp. I'm sure you're much more experienced at this, so perhaps I'm not looking in the right neighborhoods. Or perhaps you just have much more financial capital at your disposal.

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Quite frankly this is just another case of the rich getting richer. Who will it help? It will help people like me (I'm not rich but certainly well above average) reduce their debt service and free up capital for other investments. I already see properties I could cash flow on and expect even better deals soon. The insolvent and underwater will still be crushed but the financially conservative, well invested folks living well within their means will enjoy a bonanza!

 

Thread hijack.

sdrealtor,

If you don't mind, would you care to share some insight into where your starting to see properties that you could possibly cash flow on? Without specifics, mind if you share the type of property and general location? I'm curious because I've been checking around, and while things are getting better, I haven't been too lucky in finding that many places that would cash flow without still a hefty downp. I'm sure you're much more experienced at this, so perhaps I'm not looking in the right neighborhoods. Or perhaps you just have much more financial capital at your disposal.

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[sdrealtor]

Quite frankly this is just another case of the rich getting richer. Who will it help? It will help people like me (I’m not rich but certainly well above average) reduce their debt service and free up capital for other investments. I already see properties I could cash flow on and expect even better deals soon. The insolvent and underwater will still be crushed but the financially conservative, well invested folks living well within their means will enjoy a bonanza!

[sdrealtor]

Quite frankly this is just another case of the rich getting richer. Who will it help? It will help people like me (I’m not rich but certainly well above average) reduce their debt service and free up capital for other investments. I already see properties I could cash flow on and expect even better deals soon. The insolvent and underwater will still be crushed but the financially conservative, well invested folks living well within their means will enjoy a bonanza!

[sdrealtor]

Quite frankly this is just another case of the rich getting richer. Who will it help? It will help people like me (I’m not rich but certainly well above average) reduce their debt service and free up capital for other investments. I already see properties I could cash flow on and expect even better deals soon. The insolvent and underwater will still be crushed but the financially conservative, well invested folks living well within their means will enjoy a bonanza!

[sdrealtor]

Quite frankly this is just another case of the rich getting richer. Who will it help? It will help people like me (I’m not rich but certainly well above average) reduce their debt service and free up capital for other investments. I already see properties I could cash flow on and expect even better deals soon. The insolvent and underwater will still be crushed but the financially conservative, well invested folks living well within their means will enjoy a bonanza!

[Raybyrnes]

I’m familiar with this fact, but from a time value consideration it is coming out today for something I am getting back tomorrow. Additionally, who is to say it is going to be there when I look for it.

[Raybyrnes]

I’m familiar with this fact, but from a time value consideration it is coming out today for something I am getting back tomorrow. Additionally, who is to say it is going to be there when I look for it.

[Raybyrnes]

I’m familiar with this fact, but from a time value consideration it is coming out today for something I am getting back tomorrow. Additionally, who is to say it is going to be there when I look for it.

[Raybyrnes]

I’m familiar with this fact, but from a time value consideration it is coming out today for something I am getting back tomorrow. Additionally, who is to say it is going to be there when I look for it.

[ucodegen]

Raybyrnes

The complaint I have on taxes is that SS tax cuts off at 97500 meaning that guy making 97500 is paying out 6.2% of his income yet if I make 195000 I am only paying out 3.1% as a percentage of my income. Seems that the guy making 97500 is getting screwed when you look at this as a % of income.

Social security is not a standard tax. What you put in is related to what you can take out later. SS taxes are put into the Social Security Trust Fund. The person making 97,500 and the person making 195,000 will only be able to draw down social security at the same rate. This ignores any income based phase out of social security. The Social Security Administration should be sending you a sheet every year containing the taxed social security income. The amount you can withdraw depends upon the sum of the social security taxes adjusted for the time within the social security trust fund and amortized over your projected retirement lifetime.

What this also means, is that a person making 195,000 will need to make other arrangements (ie. investing in retirement funds, 401ks etc) if they want to live near the income they have lived at when they were working.

[ucodegen]

Raybyrnes

The complaint I have on taxes is that SS tax cuts off at 97500 meaning that guy making 97500 is paying out 6.2% of his income yet if I make 195000 I am only paying out 3.1% as a percentage of my income. Seems that the guy making 97500 is getting screwed when you look at this as a % of income.

Social security is not a standard tax. What you put in is related to what you can take out later. SS taxes are put into the Social Security Trust Fund. The person making 97,500 and the person making 195,000 will only be able to draw down social security at the same rate. This ignores any income based phase out of social security. The Social Security Administration should be sending you a sheet every year containing the taxed social security income. The amount you can withdraw depends upon the sum of the social security taxes adjusted for the time within the social security trust fund and amortized over your projected retirement lifetime.

What this also means, is that a person making 195,000 will need to make other arrangements (ie. investing in retirement funds, 401ks etc) if they want to live near the income they have lived at when they were working.

[ucodegen]

Raybyrnes

The complaint I have on taxes is that SS tax cuts off at 97500 meaning that guy making 97500 is paying out 6.2% of his income yet if I make 195000 I am only paying out 3.1% as a percentage of my income. Seems that the guy making 97500 is getting screwed when you look at this as a % of income.

Social security is not a standard tax. What you put in is related to what you can take out later. SS taxes are put into the Social Security Trust Fund. The person making 97,500 and the person making 195,000 will only be able to draw down social security at the same rate. This ignores any income based phase out of social security. The Social Security Administration should be sending you a sheet every year containing the taxed social security income. The amount you can withdraw depends upon the sum of the social security taxes adjusted for the time within the social security trust fund and amortized over your projected retirement lifetime.

What this also means, is that a person making 195,000 will need to make other arrangements (ie. investing in retirement funds, 401ks etc) if they want to live near the income they have lived at when they were working.

[ucodegen]

Raybyrnes

The complaint I have on taxes is that SS tax cuts off at 97500 meaning that guy making 97500 is paying out 6.2% of his income yet if I make 195000 I am only paying out 3.1% as a percentage of my income. Seems that the guy making 97500 is getting screwed when you look at this as a % of income.

Social security is not a standard tax. What you put in is related to what you can take out later. SS taxes are put into the Social Security Trust Fund. The person making 97,500 and the person making 195,000 will only be able to draw down social security at the same rate. This ignores any income based phase out of social security. The Social Security Administration should be sending you a sheet every year containing the taxed social security income. The amount you can withdraw depends upon the sum of the social security taxes adjusted for the time within the social security trust fund and amortized over your projected retirement lifetime.

What this also means, is that a person making 195,000 will need to make other arrangements (ie. investing in retirement funds, 401ks etc) if they want to live near the income they have lived at when they were working.

[Raybyrnes]

With respect to taxes.

The complaint I have on taxes is that SS tax cuts off at 97500 meaning that guy making 97500 is paying out 6.2% of his income yet if I make 195000 I am only paying out 3.1% as a percentage of my income. Seems that the guy making 97500 is getting screwed when you look at this as a % of income.

[Raybyrnes]

With respect to taxes.

The complaint I have on taxes is that SS tax cuts off at 97500 meaning that guy making 97500 is paying out 6.2% of his income yet if I make 195000 I am only paying out 3.1% as a percentage of my income. Seems that the guy making 97500 is getting screwed when you look at this as a % of income.

[Raybyrnes]

With respect to taxes.

The complaint I have on taxes is that SS tax cuts off at 97500 meaning that guy making 97500 is paying out 6.2% of his income yet if I make 195000 I am only paying out 3.1% as a percentage of my income. Seems that the guy making 97500 is getting screwed when you look at this as a % of income.

[Raybyrnes]

With respect to taxes.

The complaint I have on taxes is that SS tax cuts off at 97500 meaning that guy making 97500 is paying out 6.2% of his income yet if I make 195000 I am only paying out 3.1% as a percentage of my income. Seems that the guy making 97500 is getting screwed when you look at this as a % of income.

[raptorduck]

fat_lazy and ucodogen. I will put in my 2 cent to the rich paying no taxes side thread.

I don’t claim to be rich by any means, but I have been an AMT taxpayer for a decade and I have a very very good accountant. I have no deductions/exemptions (via either AMT exclusion or regular tax rate phase out), no loopholes, and pay way too much tax as a percentage of my income. 35% is only the begining, since you don’t have the write offs you would have with a lower tax bracket.

Indeed, I bought into the whole “rich” don’t pay taxes thing my whole life until I made enough money to not only realize that is a bunch of crap, but to conclude that the rich pay way to much of the tax liablility in this country.

I am not crying publically here, but that notion is simply not ture. The opposite is. Seeing how many $$ I inject into our government bank account makes me that much more sensitive about what the government does with it.

I heard our governor say at his state of the state address that we should not rely so much on wealthy Californian’s paying so much of our state budget through their high taxes. His point was that, if the rich have a bad year, so does California and California’s health should not depend on a few wealthy Californians.

Again I don’t consider myself rich my any means, but I would not want to stick it further to those I do consider rich. Those are the folks who own the companies that employ us. Their contributions to the economy provide job opportunities for others and inject lots of $$ into our economy through a free market system, which improves the standard of living. Taking from them and giving it to an inefficiently run government will not make things better for us.

Ok. I was preaching. Apologies. Preaching always involves ad hominum generalizations to make a point, which begs rhetorical response. I will stop now.

[raptorduck]

fat_lazy and ucodogen. I will put in my 2 cent to the rich paying no taxes side thread.

I don’t claim to be rich by any means, but I have been an AMT taxpayer for a decade and I have a very very good accountant. I have no deductions/exemptions (via either AMT exclusion or regular tax rate phase out), no loopholes, and pay way too much tax as a percentage of my income. 35% is only the begining, since you don’t have the write offs you would have with a lower tax bracket.

Indeed, I bought into the whole “rich” don’t pay taxes thing my whole life until I made enough money to not only realize that is a bunch of crap, but to conclude that the rich pay way to much of the tax liablility in this country.

I am not crying publically here, but that notion is simply not ture. The opposite is. Seeing how many $$ I inject into our government bank account makes me that much more sensitive about what the government does with it.

I heard our governor say at his state of the state address that we should not rely so much on wealthy Californian’s paying so much of our state budget through their high taxes. His point was that, if the rich have a bad year, so does California and California’s health should not depend on a few wealthy Californians.

Again I don’t consider myself rich my any means, but I would not want to stick it further to those I do consider rich. Those are the folks who own the companies that employ us. Their contributions to the economy provide job opportunities for others and inject lots of $$ into our economy through a free market system, which improves the standard of living. Taking from them and giving it to an inefficiently run government will not make things better for us.

Ok. I was preaching. Apologies. Preaching always involves ad hominum generalizations to make a point, which begs rhetorical response. I will stop now.

[raptorduck]

fat_lazy and ucodogen. I will put in my 2 cent to the rich paying no taxes side thread.

I don’t claim to be rich by any means, but I have been an AMT taxpayer for a decade and I have a very very good accountant. I have no deductions/exemptions (via either AMT exclusion or regular tax rate phase out), no loopholes, and pay way too much tax as a percentage of my income. 35% is only the begining, since you don’t have the write offs you would have with a lower tax bracket.

Indeed, I bought into the whole “rich” don’t pay taxes thing my whole life until I made enough money to not only realize that is a bunch of crap, but to conclude that the rich pay way to much of the tax liablility in this country.

I am not crying publically here, but that notion is simply not ture. The opposite is. Seeing how many $$ I inject into our government bank account makes me that much more sensitive about what the government does with it.

I heard our governor say at his state of the state address that we should not rely so much on wealthy Californian’s paying so much of our state budget through their high taxes. His point was that, if the rich have a bad year, so does California and California’s health should not depend on a few wealthy Californians.

Again I don’t consider myself rich my any means, but I would not want to stick it further to those I do consider rich. Those are the folks who own the companies that employ us. Their contributions to the economy provide job opportunities for others and inject lots of $$ into our economy through a free market system, which improves the standard of living. Taking from them and giving it to an inefficiently run government will not make things better for us.

Ok. I was preaching. Apologies. Preaching always involves ad hominum generalizations to make a point, which begs rhetorical response. I will stop now.

[raptorduck]

fat_lazy and ucodogen. I will put in my 2 cent to the rich paying no taxes side thread.

I don’t claim to be rich by any means, but I have been an AMT taxpayer for a decade and I have a very very good accountant. I have no deductions/exemptions (via either AMT exclusion or regular tax rate phase out), no loopholes, and pay way too much tax as a percentage of my income. 35% is only the begining, since you don’t have the write offs you would have with a lower tax bracket.

Indeed, I bought into the whole “rich” don’t pay taxes thing my whole life until I made enough money to not only realize that is a bunch of crap, but to conclude that the rich pay way to much of the tax liablility in this country.

I am not crying publically here, but that notion is simply not ture. The opposite is. Seeing how many $$ I inject into our government bank account makes me that much more sensitive about what the government does with it.

I heard our governor say at his state of the state address that we should not rely so much on wealthy Californian’s paying so much of our state budget through their high taxes. His point was that, if the rich have a bad year, so does California and California’s health should not depend on a few wealthy Californians.

Again I don’t consider myself rich my any means, but I would not want to stick it further to those I do consider rich. Those are the folks who own the companies that employ us. Their contributions to the economy provide job opportunities for others and inject lots of $$ into our economy through a free market system, which improves the standard of living. Taking from them and giving it to an inefficiently run government will not make things better for us.

Ok. I was preaching. Apologies. Preaching always involves ad hominum generalizations to make a point, which begs rhetorical response. I will stop now.

[Ash Housewares]

provision for a one-year increase…

Maybe I’m too cynical, but I don’t believe this “one year” patch will go away. Next year it’ll be “we’ve decided to extend the new conforming loan limits indefinately”.

Is there a market to place bets on future legislation?

[Ash Housewares]

provision for a one-year increase…

Maybe I’m too cynical, but I don’t believe this “one year” patch will go away. Next year it’ll be “we’ve decided to extend the new conforming loan limits indefinately”.

Is there a market to place bets on future legislation?

[Ash Housewares]

provision for a one-year increase…

Maybe I’m too cynical, but I don’t believe this “one year” patch will go away. Next year it’ll be “we’ve decided to extend the new conforming loan limits indefinately”.

Is there a market to place bets on future legislation?

[Ash Housewares]

provision for a one-year increase…

Maybe I’m too cynical, but I don’t believe this “one year” patch will go away. Next year it’ll be “we’ve decided to extend the new conforming loan limits indefinately”.

Is there a market to place bets on future legislation?

[drunkle]

“Speaker Nancy Pelosi said a federal stimulus package for the economy may include a provision for a one-year increase to $729,750 from $417,000 in the size of mortgages that government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae (FNM.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Freddie Mac (FRE.N: Quote, Profile, Research) may buy.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/coMktNews/idUSN2427517220080124?rpc=11

key words, “may include” and “one-year”… i wonder if these people are actively stoking market volatility for personal gains…

[drunkle]

“Speaker Nancy Pelosi said a federal stimulus package for the economy may include a provision for a one-year increase to $729,750 from $417,000 in the size of mortgages that government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae (FNM.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Freddie Mac (FRE.N: Quote, Profile, Research) may buy.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/coMktNews/idUSN2427517220080124?rpc=11

key words, “may include” and “one-year”… i wonder if these people are actively stoking market volatility for personal gains…

[drunkle]

“Speaker Nancy Pelosi said a federal stimulus package for the economy may include a provision for a one-year increase to $729,750 from $417,000 in the size of mortgages that government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae (FNM.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Freddie Mac (FRE.N: Quote, Profile, Research) may buy.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/coMktNews/idUSN2427517220080124?rpc=11

key words, “may include” and “one-year”… i wonder if these people are actively stoking market volatility for personal gains…

[drunkle]

“Speaker Nancy Pelosi said a federal stimulus package for the economy may include a provision for a one-year increase to $729,750 from $417,000 in the size of mortgages that government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae (FNM.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Freddie Mac (FRE.N: Quote, Profile, Research) may buy.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/coMktNews/idUSN2427517220080124?rpc=11

key words, “may include” and “one-year”… i wonder if these people are actively stoking market volatility for personal gains…

[drunkle]

uco:

short term, finger on the trigger, yes… might even place the dump order now so it executes ftitm…

that massive spike is what interested me… what the heck was that…

[drunkle]

uco:

short term, finger on the trigger, yes… might even place the dump order now so it executes ftitm…

that massive spike is what interested me… what the heck was that…

[drunkle]

uco:

short term, finger on the trigger, yes… might even place the dump order now so it executes ftitm…

that massive spike is what interested me… what the heck was that…

[drunkle]

uco:

short term, finger on the trigger, yes… might even place the dump order now so it executes ftitm…

that massive spike is what interested me… what the heck was that…

[mixxalot]

I wish

Or maybe Housing is saved as thousands of Pigg’s and their 500000/yr salaries with 849 credit rush the multigenerational oppertunity of low interest rates and decreasing housing prices becoming landlords.

I am trying to crack 150k this year as my financial goal and raise my FICO score to 750 and down payment to 100k.

[mixxalot]

I wish

Or maybe Housing is saved as thousands of Pigg’s and their 500000/yr salaries with 849 credit rush the multigenerational oppertunity of low interest rates and decreasing housing prices becoming landlords.

I am trying to crack 150k this year as my financial goal and raise my FICO score to 750 and down payment to 100k.

[mixxalot]

I wish

Or maybe Housing is saved as thousands of Pigg’s and their 500000/yr salaries with 849 credit rush the multigenerational oppertunity of low interest rates and decreasing housing prices becoming landlords.

I am trying to crack 150k this year as my financial goal and raise my FICO score to 750 and down payment to 100k.

[mixxalot]

I wish

Or maybe Housing is saved as thousands of Pigg’s and their 500000/yr salaries with 849 credit rush the multigenerational oppertunity of low interest rates and decreasing housing prices becoming landlords.

I am trying to crack 150k this year as my financial goal and raise my FICO score to 750 and down payment to 100k.

[DWCAP]

I dont know about the whole renter=owner thing, atleast in theory you are building equity when paying a morgage, you never will as a renter. It is kinda like paying the max deductions on your paychecks (as most americans do) and then getting a rebate at the end of the year. The Gov. is just giving you your own money, making it a form of inforced savings. If you own your home you pay more than rent (normally) but you get that money back in equity at the end of the loan. Plus you can paint and decorate as you wish. YAH!
My real problem with all this is that inflation is already well outa the comfort zone, so the Fed should be raising rates as it was at the beginning of last year. Problem is the economy cant survive raising rates, so we are going in the opposite direction. Housing is cured, its ill’s not spreading to the greater economy. Resets are not bad, as many have noted prime +2% = ~6%. Not bad. People stop defaulting and all is well.
Problem is that then the fed has to do something about inflation eventually. So rates go back up. Suddenly we are right back where we were as people cant afford the increases in their morgages as we fight inflation. Sure, people make more, but inflation is a bitch and is eating any of those increases in wages. People make more now than they did in 2004, but it isnt helping much is it? Outsourcing and increased competion keep a lid on wages, meaning that people are actually getting behind and savings are not what they once were. We become addicted to low rates and tolerant of increased inflation. This cycle holds for a few years, and eventually breaks as it always does. Instead of suffering our pain over 2007-2010 and getting on with our lives, we suffer the same pain, just spread out over 2007-2017 and over the entire population, renters and owners alike. To those born before 1977 (ie 30+) they already have alot of skin in the game and this is preferable. To the younger generations, with little to loose, this sucks.

Or maybe Housing is saved as thousands of Pigg’s and their 500000/yr salaries with 849 credit rush the multigenerational oppertunity of low interest rates and decreasing housing prices becoming landlords. Retiring on fat rents coming in from houses that need no repair, no upkeep, and are rented 365.26 days a year with 5-10% rent increases every year.

[DWCAP]

I dont know about the whole renter=owner thing, atleast in theory you are building equity when paying a morgage, you never will as a renter. It is kinda like paying the max deductions on your paychecks (as most americans do) and then getting a rebate at the end of the year. The Gov. is just giving you your own money, making it a form of inforced savings. If you own your home you pay more than rent (normally) but you get that money back in equity at the end of the loan. Plus you can paint and decorate as you wish. YAH!
My real problem with all this is that inflation is already well outa the comfort zone, so the Fed should be raising rates as it was at the beginning of last year. Problem is the economy cant survive raising rates, so we are going in the opposite direction. Housing is cured, its ill’s not spreading to the greater economy. Resets are not bad, as many have noted prime +2% = ~6%. Not bad. People stop defaulting and all is well.
Problem is that then the fed has to do something about inflation eventually. So rates go back up. Suddenly we are right back where we were as people cant afford the increases in their morgages as we fight inflation. Sure, people make more, but inflation is a bitch and is eating any of those increases in wages. People make more now than they did in 2004, but it isnt helping much is it? Outsourcing and increased competion keep a lid on wages, meaning that people are actually getting behind and savings are not what they once were. We become addicted to low rates and tolerant of increased inflation. This cycle holds for a few years, and eventually breaks as it always does. Instead of suffering our pain over 2007-2010 and getting on with our lives, we suffer the same pain, just spread out over 2007-2017 and over the entire population, renters and owners alike. To those born before 1977 (ie 30+) they already have alot of skin in the game and this is preferable. To the younger generations, with little to loose, this sucks.

Or maybe Housing is saved as thousands of Pigg’s and their 500000/yr salaries with 849 credit rush the multigenerational oppertunity of low interest rates and decreasing housing prices becoming landlords. Retiring on fat rents coming in from houses that need no repair, no upkeep, and are rented 365.26 days a year with 5-10% rent increases every year.

[DWCAP]

I dont know about the whole renter=owner thing, atleast in theory you are building equity when paying a morgage, you never will as a renter. It is kinda like paying the max deductions on your paychecks (as most americans do) and then getting a rebate at the end of the year. The Gov. is just giving you your own money, making it a form of inforced savings. If you own your home you pay more than rent (normally) but you get that money back in equity at the end of the loan. Plus you can paint and decorate as you wish. YAH!
My real problem with all this is that inflation is already well outa the comfort zone, so the Fed should be raising rates as it was at the beginning of last year. Problem is the economy cant survive raising rates, so we are going in the opposite direction. Housing is cured, its ill’s not spreading to the greater economy. Resets are not bad, as many have noted prime +2% = ~6%. Not bad. People stop defaulting and all is well.
Problem is that then the fed has to do something about inflation eventually. So rates go back up. Suddenly we are right back where we were as people cant afford the increases in their morgages as we fight inflation. Sure, people make more, but inflation is a bitch and is eating any of those increases in wages. People make more now than they did in 2004, but it isnt helping much is it? Outsourcing and increased competion keep a lid on wages, meaning that people are actually getting behind and savings are not what they once were. We become addicted to low rates and tolerant of increased inflation. This cycle holds for a few years, and eventually breaks as it always does. Instead of suffering our pain over 2007-2010 and getting on with our lives, we suffer the same pain, just spread out over 2007-2017 and over the entire population, renters and owners alike. To those born before 1977 (ie 30+) they already have alot of skin in the game and this is preferable. To the younger generations, with little to loose, this sucks.

Or maybe Housing is saved as thousands of Pigg’s and their 500000/yr salaries with 849 credit rush the multigenerational oppertunity of low interest rates and decreasing housing prices becoming landlords. Retiring on fat rents coming in from houses that need no repair, no upkeep, and are rented 365.26 days a year with 5-10% rent increases every year.

[DWCAP]

I dont know about the whole renter=owner thing, atleast in theory you are building equity when paying a morgage, you never will as a renter. It is kinda like paying the max deductions on your paychecks (as most americans do) and then getting a rebate at the end of the year. The Gov. is just giving you your own money, making it a form of inforced savings. If you own your home you pay more than rent (normally) but you get that money back in equity at the end of the loan. Plus you can paint and decorate as you wish. YAH!
My real problem with all this is that inflation is already well outa the comfort zone, so the Fed should be raising rates as it was at the beginning of last year. Problem is the economy cant survive raising rates, so we are going in the opposite direction. Housing is cured, its ill’s not spreading to the greater economy. Resets are not bad, as many have noted prime +2% = ~6%. Not bad. People stop defaulting and all is well.
Problem is that then the fed has to do something about inflation eventually. So rates go back up. Suddenly we are right back where we were as people cant afford the increases in their morgages as we fight inflation. Sure, people make more, but inflation is a bitch and is eating any of those increases in wages. People make more now than they did in 2004, but it isnt helping much is it? Outsourcing and increased competion keep a lid on wages, meaning that people are actually getting behind and savings are not what they once were. We become addicted to low rates and tolerant of increased inflation. This cycle holds for a few years, and eventually breaks as it always does. Instead of suffering our pain over 2007-2010 and getting on with our lives, we suffer the same pain, just spread out over 2007-2017 and over the entire population, renters and owners alike. To those born before 1977 (ie 30+) they already have alot of skin in the game and this is preferable. To the younger generations, with little to loose, this sucks.

Or maybe Housing is saved as thousands of Pigg’s and their 500000/yr salaries with 849 credit rush the multigenerational oppertunity of low interest rates and decreasing housing prices becoming landlords. Retiring on fat rents coming in from houses that need no repair, no upkeep, and are rented 365.26 days a year with 5-10% rent increases every year.

[SD Realtor]

Let’s see….

Didn’t someone recently make a comment about nationalization of housing?

If anyone thinks this is a good thing then I would heartily disagree. Those who keep thinking that nothing can be done to stop the depreciation cycle may be correct. Yet moves like this, political incentivization programs and the likes will indeed drag the cycle out a heck of alot longer.

Death by a thousand arrows guys.

*******

Like others, this would help me bigtime. The better rate I can get and lower payment I can get, all the better. I would take it in a minute. Yet to think that this is not anything but further subsidization of the market by our government is foolish. So basically in a roundabout manner, your taxes insure more and more crap and higher limits! Hooray!

[nostradamus]

The article mentions tax rebates for individuals and breaks for businesses. Does this mean I get a rebate check plus extra write-offs for my businesses? Where can I find more info about the business breaks?

[sd_bear]

I just re-read the article and can no longer find where it says anything about conforming limits being raised. Did they scrap this? I’m having trouble finding anything about it now from current articles.

Please please please please please don’t raise those limits. They should be dropped to 300k.

[cr]

That would be directly inline with how the limits are set. I believe roughly double the national median price which has fallen for the fist time in recorded history and will continue to do so.

Eventually, pyobably once the “prime” smortgage-bourg dwarfs the sub-prime spilt milk, the foolish powers that be will realize making more money available isn’t the answer.

[cr]

That would be directly inline with how the limits are set. I believe roughly double the national median price which has fallen for the fist time in recorded history and will continue to do so.

Eventually, pyobably once the “prime” smortgage-bourg dwarfs the sub-prime spilt milk, the foolish powers that be will realize making more money available isn’t the answer.

[cr]

That would be directly inline with how the limits are set. I believe roughly double the national median price which has fallen for the fist time in recorded history and will continue to do so.

Eventually, pyobably once the “prime” smortgage-bourg dwarfs the sub-prime spilt milk, the foolish powers that be will realize making more money available isn’t the answer.

[cr]

That would be directly inline with how the limits are set. I believe roughly double the national median price which has fallen for the fist time in recorded history and will continue to do so.

Eventually, pyobably once the “prime” smortgage-bourg dwarfs the sub-prime spilt milk, the foolish powers that be will realize making more money available isn’t the answer.

[cr]

That would be directly inline with how the limits are set. I believe roughly double the national median price which has fallen for the fist time in recorded history and will continue to do so.

Eventually, pyobably once the “prime” smortgage-bourg dwarfs the sub-prime spilt milk, the foolish powers that be will realize making more money available isn’t the answer.

[XBoxBoy]

I can’t find the reference to raising the conforming limits in the above article either. Does look like it got removed. However searching news with google for conforming does get many hits, including this one:
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/01/24/afx4570780.html

Which includes this bit of info:

House Financial Service Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he expects the measure would increase the value of mortgages that mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can buy.

Specifically, Frank said Fannie and Freddie would be able to buy mortgages worth up to 125 pct of the median value of a home in any given region, up to a new limit of 730,000 usd. The current limit on so-called conforming loans is 417,000 usd.

The Bush administration has said previously that it opposes this expansion unless it comes with a strengthening of the federal regulator of Fannie and Freddie. However, Frank said he hopes it can still be included based on two assurances from Congress.

So it looks like Frank said that he’s hoping for this. Hopefully it won’t go through.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

I can’t find the reference to raising the conforming limits in the above article either. Does look like it got removed. However searching news with google for conforming does get many hits, including this one:
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/01/24/afx4570780.html

Which includes this bit of info:

House Financial Service Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he expects the measure would increase the value of mortgages that mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can buy.

Specifically, Frank said Fannie and Freddie would be able to buy mortgages worth up to 125 pct of the median value of a home in any given region, up to a new limit of 730,000 usd. The current limit on so-called conforming loans is 417,000 usd.

The Bush administration has said previously that it opposes this expansion unless it comes with a strengthening of the federal regulator of Fannie and Freddie. However, Frank said he hopes it can still be included based on two assurances from Congress.

So it looks like Frank said that he’s hoping for this. Hopefully it won’t go through.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

I can’t find the reference to raising the conforming limits in the above article either. Does look like it got removed. However searching news with google for conforming does get many hits, including this one:
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/01/24/afx4570780.html

Which includes this bit of info:

House Financial Service Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he expects the measure would increase the value of mortgages that mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can buy.

Specifically, Frank said Fannie and Freddie would be able to buy mortgages worth up to 125 pct of the median value of a home in any given region, up to a new limit of 730,000 usd. The current limit on so-called conforming loans is 417,000 usd.

The Bush administration has said previously that it opposes this expansion unless it comes with a strengthening of the federal regulator of Fannie and Freddie. However, Frank said he hopes it can still be included based on two assurances from Congress.

So it looks like Frank said that he’s hoping for this. Hopefully it won’t go through.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

I can’t find the reference to raising the conforming limits in the above article either. Does look like it got removed. However searching news with google for conforming does get many hits, including this one:
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/01/24/afx4570780.html

Which includes this bit of info:

House Financial Service Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he expects the measure would increase the value of mortgages that mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can buy.

Specifically, Frank said Fannie and Freddie would be able to buy mortgages worth up to 125 pct of the median value of a home in any given region, up to a new limit of 730,000 usd. The current limit on so-called conforming loans is 417,000 usd.

The Bush administration has said previously that it opposes this expansion unless it comes with a strengthening of the federal regulator of Fannie and Freddie. However, Frank said he hopes it can still be included based on two assurances from Congress.

So it looks like Frank said that he’s hoping for this. Hopefully it won’t go through.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

I can’t find the reference to raising the conforming limits in the above article either. Does look like it got removed. However searching news with google for conforming does get many hits, including this one:
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/01/24/afx4570780.html

Which includes this bit of info:

House Financial Service Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he expects the measure would increase the value of mortgages that mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can buy.

Specifically, Frank said Fannie and Freddie would be able to buy mortgages worth up to 125 pct of the median value of a home in any given region, up to a new limit of 730,000 usd. The current limit on so-called conforming loans is 417,000 usd.

The Bush administration has said previously that it opposes this expansion unless it comes with a strengthening of the federal regulator of Fannie and Freddie. However, Frank said he hopes it can still be included based on two assurances from Congress.

So it looks like Frank said that he’s hoping for this. Hopefully it won’t go through.

XBoxBoy

[sd_bear]

I just re-read the article and can no longer find where it says anything about conforming limits being raised. Did they scrap this? I’m having trouble finding anything about it now from current articles.

Please please please please please don’t raise those limits. They should be dropped to 300k.

[sd_bear]

I just re-read the article and can no longer find where it says anything about conforming limits being raised. Did they scrap this? I’m having trouble finding anything about it now from current articles.

Please please please please please don’t raise those limits. They should be dropped to 300k.

[sd_bear]

I just re-read the article and can no longer find where it says anything about conforming limits being raised. Did they scrap this? I’m having trouble finding anything about it now from current articles.

Please please please please please don’t raise those limits. They should be dropped to 300k.

[sd_bear]

I just re-read the article and can no longer find where it says anything about conforming limits being raised. Did they scrap this? I’m having trouble finding anything about it now from current articles.

Please please please please please don’t raise those limits. They should be dropped to 300k.

[nostradamus]

The article mentions tax rebates for individuals and breaks for businesses. Does this mean I get a rebate check plus extra write-offs for my businesses? Where can I find more info about the business breaks?

[nostradamus]

The article mentions tax rebates for individuals and breaks for businesses. Does this mean I get a rebate check plus extra write-offs for my businesses? Where can I find more info about the business breaks?

[nostradamus]

The article mentions tax rebates for individuals and breaks for businesses. Does this mean I get a rebate check plus extra write-offs for my businesses? Where can I find more info about the business breaks?

[nostradamus]

The article mentions tax rebates for individuals and breaks for businesses. Does this mean I get a rebate check plus extra write-offs for my businesses? Where can I find more info about the business breaks?

[Coronita]

Let's see….

Didn't someone recently make a comment about nationalization of housing?

If anyone thinks this is a good thing then I would heartily disagree. Those who keep thinking that nothing can be done to stop the depreciation cycle may be correct. Yet moves like this, political incentivization programs and the likes will indeed drag the cycle out a heck of alot longer.

Death by a thousand arrows guys.

*******

Like others, this would help me bigtime. The better rate I can get and lower payment I can get, all the better. I would take it in a minute. Yet to think that this is not anything but further subsidization of the market by our government is foolish. So basically in a roundabout manner, your taxes insure more and more crap and higher limits! Hooray!

 

I might have come across the wrong way on my previous post…..Frankly, I don't think this would be the "right" thing do or a "good" thing to do on a global scale. But frankly, seeing how things are going, I don't foresee our government doing the right thing on anything for a long long time… So  to reiterate, from a selfish perspective, it would be a "good/welcome" thing for my particular situation, as anything that helps me would be welcome. Yes, it's stinks for younger generations, and one can only hope that one day we(the nation) will wake up and realize we're a nation in deep debt.

The most frustrating aspect is I see handouts left and right…possibly for irresponsible people….. at my expense. Government encouraging arm holding arm rests, this rebate check refund, increased war spending, and so on so on. And now folks like Pelosi want to add even "more taxes" for "rich". Really rich people don't get hit with taxes. Wage slaves that make slightly above what government thinks as "middle class" but nevertheless actually have to work, pay the most taxes. So at this point, any break would be well received from a selfish perspective.  I know our tax bills are going to go up significantly post 2008. Not that I even mind paying higher taxes if it was actually going towards productive solutions…But I'm sick of the government playing robin hood.

 

 

 

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[pencilneck]

The Pandora’s Box of the housing correction has been opened, and once released I don’t think it will be easy to stuff the very rapidly expanding negative sentiment back in.

If they had raised the conforming limit 2 years ago they could have kept the bubble alive a bit longer (and the eventual outcome even worse).

[HereWeGo]

Fannie and Freddie can only lend so much. How much additional paper will the debt markets absorb, especially given that the mix just added mortgages that were difficult to move in the non-GSE market? Will debt buyers pull back on purchases, demanding a higher premium?

This move could actually exacerbate the mortgage crisis.

[SD Realtor]

Herewego –

How much money can the Fed print? GSE is the key word here man… you know what I am saying? The problem is that you are applying logic and free market behavior to something that is increasingly becoming subsidized in a somewhat occlusive manner. At some point, maybe long ago, maybe not long ago, I would surmise that many people realized that we were at a point of no return and then the thought processes changed. Rather then worrying about personal liability on the ledger sheets of institutions, I believe the thought processes realized that federal intervention will essentially occur because there was simply to much to lose. The complexities of this bubble were so over and above previous bubbles that it really did not matter anymore. What we are seeing is something that everyone knew would have to occur, yet nobody knew how it would manifest itself.

Again, I doubt that it will stave off the process but actually make it worse, cost alot more to the taxpayers in the long run, and convolute everything. However it will also help to provide stimulus and slow things down depending on where the market is that is being discussed. Hard to say how it will affect our market in SD… in some ways I do agree with you but in others I am not sure. I mean it is crazy for me right now. I have no clue why I should be as busy as I am but it is true. If these people had another 300k of GSE backed limits to work with for the financing which could mean an extra point or half point that would help them. My main strategy is how to keep my wife from putting me through the lets buy now ringer round 7.

FLU you didn’t have to qualify your statement and I could not agree with you more. My analogy to your statement would be if I am gonna take in in the -ss with my taxes at least uncle sam can give me a reach around right? We are in the same boat my friend so a program that will help me is at least more palatable then all those that do not.

SD Realtor

[drunkle]

prof uco:

take a look at imb… after posting my query, i went ahead and placed a bet for apr 7.5 call…

stoked!?!

[ucodegen]

@drunkle

take a look at imb… after posting my query, i went ahead and placed a bet for apr 7.5 call…

Betting on a rise in stock prices.. going for a short time ‘pop’ before selling the option before its date?

[ucodegen]

@drunkle

take a look at imb… after posting my query, i went ahead and placed a bet for apr 7.5 call…

Betting on a rise in stock prices.. going for a short time ‘pop’ before selling the option before its date?

[ucodegen]

@drunkle

take a look at imb… after posting my query, i went ahead and placed a bet for apr 7.5 call…

Betting on a rise in stock prices.. going for a short time ‘pop’ before selling the option before its date?

[ucodegen]

@drunkle

take a look at imb… after posting my query, i went ahead and placed a bet for apr 7.5 call…

Betting on a rise in stock prices.. going for a short time ‘pop’ before selling the option before its date?

[ucodegen]

@drunkle

take a look at imb… after posting my query, i went ahead and placed a bet for apr 7.5 call…

Betting on a rise in stock prices.. going for a short time ‘pop’ before selling the option before its date?

[ucodegen]

@drunkle

The following is not good, despite the positive spin. I would need to dig more.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idCAN2444964620080124?rpc=44

Any time a company asks for ratings to be pulled, brings into question the quality of the underlying assets. They are happy about a savings of $350,000 while they are a $6B institution?

Suggestion on the option: Ride it with a finger ready on the trigger… if you know what I mean

[ucodegen]

@drunkle

The following is not good, despite the positive spin. I would need to dig more.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idCAN2444964620080124?rpc=44

Any time a company asks for ratings to be pulled, brings into question the quality of the underlying assets. They are happy about a savings of $350,000 while they are a $6B institution?

Suggestion on the option: Ride it with a finger ready on the trigger… if you know what I mean

[ucodegen]

@drunkle

The following is not good, despite the positive spin. I would need to dig more.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idCAN2444964620080124?rpc=44

Any time a company asks for ratings to be pulled, brings into question the quality of the underlying assets. They are happy about a savings of $350,000 while they are a $6B institution?

Suggestion on the option: Ride it with a finger ready on the trigger… if you know what I mean

[ucodegen]

@drunkle

The following is not good, despite the positive spin. I would need to dig more.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idCAN2444964620080124?rpc=44

Any time a company asks for ratings to be pulled, brings into question the quality of the underlying assets. They are happy about a savings of $350,000 while they are a $6B institution?

Suggestion on the option: Ride it with a finger ready on the trigger… if you know what I mean

[ucodegen]

@drunkle

The following is not good, despite the positive spin. I would need to dig more.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idCAN2444964620080124?rpc=44

Any time a company asks for ratings to be pulled, brings into question the quality of the underlying assets. They are happy about a savings of $350,000 while they are a $6B institution?

Suggestion on the option: Ride it with a finger ready on the trigger… if you know what I mean

[drunkle]

prof uco:

take a look at imb… after posting my query, i went ahead and placed a bet for apr 7.5 call…

stoked!?!

[drunkle]

prof uco:

take a look at imb… after posting my query, i went ahead and placed a bet for apr 7.5 call…

stoked!?!

[drunkle]

prof uco:

take a look at imb… after posting my query, i went ahead and placed a bet for apr 7.5 call…

stoked!?!

[drunkle]

prof uco:

take a look at imb… after posting my query, i went ahead and placed a bet for apr 7.5 call…

stoked!?!

[SD Realtor]

Herewego –

How much money can the Fed print? GSE is the key word here man… you know what I am saying? The problem is that you are applying logic and free market behavior to something that is increasingly becoming subsidized in a somewhat occlusive manner. At some point, maybe long ago, maybe not long ago, I would surmise that many people realized that we were at a point of no return and then the thought processes changed. Rather then worrying about personal liability on the ledger sheets of institutions, I believe the thought processes realized that federal intervention will essentially occur because there was simply to much to lose. The complexities of this bubble were so over and above previous bubbles that it really did not matter anymore. What we are seeing is something that everyone knew would have to occur, yet nobody knew how it would manifest itself.

Again, I doubt that it will stave off the process but actually make it worse, cost alot more to the taxpayers in the long run, and convolute everything. However it will also help to provide stimulus and slow things down depending on where the market is that is being discussed. Hard to say how it will affect our market in SD… in some ways I do agree with you but in others I am not sure. I mean it is crazy for me right now. I have no clue why I should be as busy as I am but it is true. If these people had another 300k of GSE backed limits to work with for the financing which could mean an extra point or half point that would help them. My main strategy is how to keep my wife from putting me through the lets buy now ringer round 7.

FLU you didn’t have to qualify your statement and I could not agree with you more. My analogy to your statement would be if I am gonna take in in the -ss with my taxes at least uncle sam can give me a reach around right? We are in the same boat my friend so a program that will help me is at least more palatable then all those that do not.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

Herewego –

How much money can the Fed print? GSE is the key word here man… you know what I am saying? The problem is that you are applying logic and free market behavior to something that is increasingly becoming subsidized in a somewhat occlusive manner. At some point, maybe long ago, maybe not long ago, I would surmise that many people realized that we were at a point of no return and then the thought processes changed. Rather then worrying about personal liability on the ledger sheets of institutions, I believe the thought processes realized that federal intervention will essentially occur because there was simply to much to lose. The complexities of this bubble were so over and above previous bubbles that it really did not matter anymore. What we are seeing is something that everyone knew would have to occur, yet nobody knew how it would manifest itself.

Again, I doubt that it will stave off the process but actually make it worse, cost alot more to the taxpayers in the long run, and convolute everything. However it will also help to provide stimulus and slow things down depending on where the market is that is being discussed. Hard to say how it will affect our market in SD… in some ways I do agree with you but in others I am not sure. I mean it is crazy for me right now. I have no clue why I should be as busy as I am but it is true. If these people had another 300k of GSE backed limits to work with for the financing which could mean an extra point or half point that would help them. My main strategy is how to keep my wife from putting me through the lets buy now ringer round 7.

FLU you didn’t have to qualify your statement and I could not agree with you more. My analogy to your statement would be if I am gonna take in in the -ss with my taxes at least uncle sam can give me a reach around right? We are in the same boat my friend so a program that will help me is at least more palatable then all those that do not.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

Herewego –

How much money can the Fed print? GSE is the key word here man… you know what I am saying? The problem is that you are applying logic and free market behavior to something that is increasingly becoming subsidized in a somewhat occlusive manner. At some point, maybe long ago, maybe not long ago, I would surmise that many people realized that we were at a point of no return and then the thought processes changed. Rather then worrying about personal liability on the ledger sheets of institutions, I believe the thought processes realized that federal intervention will essentially occur because there was simply to much to lose. The complexities of this bubble were so over and above previous bubbles that it really did not matter anymore. What we are seeing is something that everyone knew would have to occur, yet nobody knew how it would manifest itself.

Again, I doubt that it will stave off the process but actually make it worse, cost alot more to the taxpayers in the long run, and convolute everything. However it will also help to provide stimulus and slow things down depending on where the market is that is being discussed. Hard to say how it will affect our market in SD… in some ways I do agree with you but in others I am not sure. I mean it is crazy for me right now. I have no clue why I should be as busy as I am but it is true. If these people had another 300k of GSE backed limits to work with for the financing which could mean an extra point or half point that would help them. My main strategy is how to keep my wife from putting me through the lets buy now ringer round 7.

FLU you didn’t have to qualify your statement and I could not agree with you more. My analogy to your statement would be if I am gonna take in in the -ss with my taxes at least uncle sam can give me a reach around right? We are in the same boat my friend so a program that will help me is at least more palatable then all those that do not.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

Herewego –

How much money can the Fed print? GSE is the key word here man… you know what I am saying? The problem is that you are applying logic and free market behavior to something that is increasingly becoming subsidized in a somewhat occlusive manner. At some point, maybe long ago, maybe not long ago, I would surmise that many people realized that we were at a point of no return and then the thought processes changed. Rather then worrying about personal liability on the ledger sheets of institutions, I believe the thought processes realized that federal intervention will essentially occur because there was simply to much to lose. The complexities of this bubble were so over and above previous bubbles that it really did not matter anymore. What we are seeing is something that everyone knew would have to occur, yet nobody knew how it would manifest itself.

Again, I doubt that it will stave off the process but actually make it worse, cost alot more to the taxpayers in the long run, and convolute everything. However it will also help to provide stimulus and slow things down depending on where the market is that is being discussed. Hard to say how it will affect our market in SD… in some ways I do agree with you but in others I am not sure. I mean it is crazy for me right now. I have no clue why I should be as busy as I am but it is true. If these people had another 300k of GSE backed limits to work with for the financing which could mean an extra point or half point that would help them. My main strategy is how to keep my wife from putting me through the lets buy now ringer round 7.

FLU you didn’t have to qualify your statement and I could not agree with you more. My analogy to your statement would be if I am gonna take in in the -ss with my taxes at least uncle sam can give me a reach around right? We are in the same boat my friend so a program that will help me is at least more palatable then all those that do not.

SD Realtor

[HereWeGo]

Fannie and Freddie can only lend so much. How much additional paper will the debt markets absorb, especially given that the mix just added mortgages that were difficult to move in the non-GSE market? Will debt buyers pull back on purchases, demanding a higher premium?

This move could actually exacerbate the mortgage crisis.

[HereWeGo]

Fannie and Freddie can only lend so much. How much additional paper will the debt markets absorb, especially given that the mix just added mortgages that were difficult to move in the non-GSE market? Will debt buyers pull back on purchases, demanding a higher premium?

This move could actually exacerbate the mortgage crisis.

[HereWeGo]

Fannie and Freddie can only lend so much. How much additional paper will the debt markets absorb, especially given that the mix just added mortgages that were difficult to move in the non-GSE market? Will debt buyers pull back on purchases, demanding a higher premium?

This move could actually exacerbate the mortgage crisis.

[HereWeGo]

Fannie and Freddie can only lend so much. How much additional paper will the debt markets absorb, especially given that the mix just added mortgages that were difficult to move in the non-GSE market? Will debt buyers pull back on purchases, demanding a higher premium?

This move could actually exacerbate the mortgage crisis.

[kev374]

I believe stated income is not allowed with Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae. In which case, what percentage of new buyers actually have the $150,000+/yr income to buy these $600,000 jumbo loans?

[kev374]

I believe stated income is not allowed with Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae. In which case, what percentage of new buyers actually have the $150,000+/yr income to buy these $600,000 jumbo loans?

[kev374]

I believe stated income is not allowed with Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae. In which case, what percentage of new buyers actually have the $150,000+/yr income to buy these $600,000 jumbo loans?

[kev374]

I believe stated income is not allowed with Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae. In which case, what percentage of new buyers actually have the $150,000+/yr income to buy these $600,000 jumbo loans?

[kev374]

I believe stated income is not allowed with Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae. In which case, what percentage of new buyers actually have the $150,000+/yr income to buy these $600,000 jumbo loans?

[pencilneck]

The Pandora’s Box of the housing correction has been opened, and once released I don’t think it will be easy to stuff the very rapidly expanding negative sentiment back in.

If they had raised the conforming limit 2 years ago they could have kept the bubble alive a bit longer (and the eventual outcome even worse).

[pencilneck]

The Pandora’s Box of the housing correction has been opened, and once released I don’t think it will be easy to stuff the very rapidly expanding negative sentiment back in.

If they had raised the conforming limit 2 years ago they could have kept the bubble alive a bit longer (and the eventual outcome even worse).

[pencilneck]

The Pandora’s Box of the housing correction has been opened, and once released I don’t think it will be easy to stuff the very rapidly expanding negative sentiment back in.

If they had raised the conforming limit 2 years ago they could have kept the bubble alive a bit longer (and the eventual outcome even worse).

[pencilneck]

The Pandora’s Box of the housing correction has been opened, and once released I don’t think it will be easy to stuff the very rapidly expanding negative sentiment back in.

If they had raised the conforming limit 2 years ago they could have kept the bubble alive a bit longer (and the eventual outcome even worse).

[Coronita]

Let's see….

Didn't someone recently make a comment about nationalization of housing?

If anyone thinks this is a good thing then I would heartily disagree. Those who keep thinking that nothing can be done to stop the depreciation cycle may be correct. Yet moves like this, political incentivization programs and the likes will indeed drag the cycle out a heck of alot longer.

Death by a thousand arrows guys.

*******

Like others, this would help me bigtime. The better rate I can get and lower payment I can get, all the better. I would take it in a minute. Yet to think that this is not anything but further subsidization of the market by our government is foolish. So basically in a roundabout manner, your taxes insure more and more crap and higher limits! Hooray!

 

I might have come across the wrong way on my previous post…..Frankly, I don't think this would be the "right" thing do or a "good" thing to do on a global scale. But frankly, seeing how things are going, I don't foresee our government doing the right thing on anything for a long long time… So  to reiterate, from a selfish perspective, it would be a "good/welcome" thing for my particular situation, as anything that helps me would be welcome. Yes, it's stinks for younger generations, and one can only hope that one day we(the nation) will wake up and realize we're a nation in deep debt.

The most frustrating aspect is I see handouts left and right…possibly for irresponsible people….. at my expense. Government encouraging arm holding arm rests, this rebate check refund, increased war spending, and so on so on. And now folks like Pelosi want to add even "more taxes" for "rich". Really rich people don't get hit with taxes. Wage slaves that make slightly above what government thinks as "middle class" but nevertheless actually have to work, pay the most taxes. So at this point, any break would be well received from a selfish perspective.  I know our tax bills are going to go up significantly post 2008. Not that I even mind paying higher taxes if it was actually going towards productive solutions…But I'm sick of the government playing robin hood.

 

 

 

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Let's see….

Didn't someone recently make a comment about nationalization of housing?

If anyone thinks this is a good thing then I would heartily disagree. Those who keep thinking that nothing can be done to stop the depreciation cycle may be correct. Yet moves like this, political incentivization programs and the likes will indeed drag the cycle out a heck of alot longer.

Death by a thousand arrows guys.

*******

Like others, this would help me bigtime. The better rate I can get and lower payment I can get, all the better. I would take it in a minute. Yet to think that this is not anything but further subsidization of the market by our government is foolish. So basically in a roundabout manner, your taxes insure more and more crap and higher limits! Hooray!

 

I might have come across the wrong way on my previous post…..Frankly, I don't think this would be the "right" thing do or a "good" thing to do on a global scale. But frankly, seeing how things are going, I don't foresee our government doing the right thing on anything for a long long time… So  to reiterate, from a selfish perspective, it would be a "good/welcome" thing for my particular situation, as anything that helps me would be welcome. Yes, it's stinks for younger generations, and one can only hope that one day we(the nation) will wake up and realize we're a nation in deep debt.

The most frustrating aspect is I see handouts left and right…possibly for irresponsible people….. at my expense. Government encouraging arm holding arm rests, this rebate check refund, increased war spending, and so on so on. And now folks like Pelosi want to add even "more taxes" for "rich". Really rich people don't get hit with taxes. Wage slaves that make slightly above what government thinks as "middle class" but nevertheless actually have to work, pay the most taxes. So at this point, any break would be well received from a selfish perspective.  I know our tax bills are going to go up significantly post 2008. Not that I even mind paying higher taxes if it was actually going towards productive solutions…But I'm sick of the government playing robin hood.

 

 

 

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Let's see….

Didn't someone recently make a comment about nationalization of housing?

If anyone thinks this is a good thing then I would heartily disagree. Those who keep thinking that nothing can be done to stop the depreciation cycle may be correct. Yet moves like this, political incentivization programs and the likes will indeed drag the cycle out a heck of alot longer.

Death by a thousand arrows guys.

*******

Like others, this would help me bigtime. The better rate I can get and lower payment I can get, all the better. I would take it in a minute. Yet to think that this is not anything but further subsidization of the market by our government is foolish. So basically in a roundabout manner, your taxes insure more and more crap and higher limits! Hooray!

 

I might have come across the wrong way on my previous post…..Frankly, I don't think this would be the "right" thing do or a "good" thing to do on a global scale. But frankly, seeing how things are going, I don't foresee our government doing the right thing on anything for a long long time… So  to reiterate, from a selfish perspective, it would be a "good/welcome" thing for my particular situation, as anything that helps me would be welcome. Yes, it's stinks for younger generations, and one can only hope that one day we(the nation) will wake up and realize we're a nation in deep debt.

The most frustrating aspect is I see handouts left and right…possibly for irresponsible people….. at my expense. Government encouraging arm holding arm rests, this rebate check refund, increased war spending, and so on so on. And now folks like Pelosi want to add even "more taxes" for "rich". Really rich people don't get hit with taxes. Wage slaves that make slightly above what government thinks as "middle class" but nevertheless actually have to work, pay the most taxes. So at this point, any break would be well received from a selfish perspective.  I know our tax bills are going to go up significantly post 2008. Not that I even mind paying higher taxes if it was actually going towards productive solutions…But I'm sick of the government playing robin hood.

 

 

 

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Let's see….

Didn't someone recently make a comment about nationalization of housing?

If anyone thinks this is a good thing then I would heartily disagree. Those who keep thinking that nothing can be done to stop the depreciation cycle may be correct. Yet moves like this, political incentivization programs and the likes will indeed drag the cycle out a heck of alot longer.

Death by a thousand arrows guys.

*******

Like others, this would help me bigtime. The better rate I can get and lower payment I can get, all the better. I would take it in a minute. Yet to think that this is not anything but further subsidization of the market by our government is foolish. So basically in a roundabout manner, your taxes insure more and more crap and higher limits! Hooray!

 

I might have come across the wrong way on my previous post…..Frankly, I don't think this would be the "right" thing do or a "good" thing to do on a global scale. But frankly, seeing how things are going, I don't foresee our government doing the right thing on anything for a long long time… So  to reiterate, from a selfish perspective, it would be a "good/welcome" thing for my particular situation, as anything that helps me would be welcome. Yes, it's stinks for younger generations, and one can only hope that one day we(the nation) will wake up and realize we're a nation in deep debt.

The most frustrating aspect is I see handouts left and right…possibly for irresponsible people….. at my expense. Government encouraging arm holding arm rests, this rebate check refund, increased war spending, and so on so on. And now folks like Pelosi want to add even "more taxes" for "rich". Really rich people don't get hit with taxes. Wage slaves that make slightly above what government thinks as "middle class" but nevertheless actually have to work, pay the most taxes. So at this point, any break would be well received from a selfish perspective.  I know our tax bills are going to go up significantly post 2008. Not that I even mind paying higher taxes if it was actually going towards productive solutions…But I'm sick of the government playing robin hood.

 

 

 

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[SD Realtor]

Let’s see….

Didn’t someone recently make a comment about nationalization of housing?

If anyone thinks this is a good thing then I would heartily disagree. Those who keep thinking that nothing can be done to stop the depreciation cycle may be correct. Yet moves like this, political incentivization programs and the likes will indeed drag the cycle out a heck of alot longer.

Death by a thousand arrows guys.

*******

Like others, this would help me bigtime. The better rate I can get and lower payment I can get, all the better. I would take it in a minute. Yet to think that this is not anything but further subsidization of the market by our government is foolish. So basically in a roundabout manner, your taxes insure more and more crap and higher limits! Hooray!