define “speculator”

[ltokuda]

First, I would ask if the house is owner occupied. If not, then I would view the property as a business investment.

Next, I would ask if the owner had the income necessary to service the mortgage payments (after any teaser rates expire) when he purchased the house. If not, then the owner was either betting that the house would appreciate in value or that he would somehow earn more money in the future. Either way, its speculative.

[noone]

I would echo Itokuda’s answer. Of course the problem then becomes defining “the income necessary to service the mortgage payments.” Would this be PITI <= 25% gross income? 30%? 40%?

[noone]

I would echo Itokuda’s answer. Of course the problem then becomes defining “the income necessary to service the mortgage payments.” Would this be PITI <= 25% gross income? 30%? 40%?

[noone]

I would echo Itokuda’s answer. Of course the problem then becomes defining “the income necessary to service the mortgage payments.” Would this be PITI <= 25% gross income? 30%? 40%?

[noone]

I would echo Itokuda’s answer. Of course the problem then becomes defining “the income necessary to service the mortgage payments.” Would this be PITI <= 25% gross income? 30%? 40%?

[noone]

I would echo Itokuda’s answer. Of course the problem then becomes defining “the income necessary to service the mortgage payments.” Would this be PITI <= 25% gross income? 30%? 40%?

[h82rent]

Two sites that I found might help, but the whole thing is confusing to me, too…

http://realestate.msn.com/buying/article_busweek.aspx?cp-documentid=5840805

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/12/07/bushs-bailout-bait-and-switch.aspx

The MSN is more to the point, but the FOOL article provides a lot of other things to think about.

It would be interesting to read other pieces of literature that defines this term according to the actual bailout plan.

[h82rent]

Two sites that I found might help, but the whole thing is confusing to me, too…

http://realestate.msn.com/buying/article_busweek.aspx?cp-documentid=5840805

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/12/07/bushs-bailout-bait-and-switch.aspx

The MSN is more to the point, but the FOOL article provides a lot of other things to think about.

It would be interesting to read other pieces of literature that defines this term according to the actual bailout plan.

[h82rent]

Two sites that I found might help, but the whole thing is confusing to me, too…

http://realestate.msn.com/buying/article_busweek.aspx?cp-documentid=5840805

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/12/07/bushs-bailout-bait-and-switch.aspx

The MSN is more to the point, but the FOOL article provides a lot of other things to think about.

It would be interesting to read other pieces of literature that defines this term according to the actual bailout plan.

[h82rent]

Two sites that I found might help, but the whole thing is confusing to me, too…

http://realestate.msn.com/buying/article_busweek.aspx?cp-documentid=5840805

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/12/07/bushs-bailout-bait-and-switch.aspx

The MSN is more to the point, but the FOOL article provides a lot of other things to think about.

It would be interesting to read other pieces of literature that defines this term according to the actual bailout plan.

[h82rent]

Two sites that I found might help, but the whole thing is confusing to me, too…

http://realestate.msn.com/buying/article_busweek.aspx?cp-documentid=5840805

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/12/07/bushs-bailout-bait-and-switch.aspx

The MSN is more to the point, but the FOOL article provides a lot of other things to think about.

It would be interesting to read other pieces of literature that defines this term according to the actual bailout plan.

[EconProf]

BobS
This is a really good question, because the politicians pushing bailouts are all claiming they won’t help “speculators”. But that is a very squishy and ambiguous term, and defining it in any law will be tricky.

What about the homeowner who bought at the peak and put nothing down, stretched himself financially to the limit, and who bought largely for appreciation and also to live in the house? I’d call him a speculator who simply bet wrong. How can a law be written which will exclude him? Yet his neighbor who rents may have the same financials but decided to save for a decent down payment and for the time when house prices would become affordable? The prudent neighbor gets screwed; the undeserving homeowner gets rewarded by our government (and his taxpaying neighbor).

[EconProf]

BobS
This is a really good question, because the politicians pushing bailouts are all claiming they won’t help “speculators”. But that is a very squishy and ambiguous term, and defining it in any law will be tricky.

What about the homeowner who bought at the peak and put nothing down, stretched himself financially to the limit, and who bought largely for appreciation and also to live in the house? I’d call him a speculator who simply bet wrong. How can a law be written which will exclude him? Yet his neighbor who rents may have the same financials but decided to save for a decent down payment and for the time when house prices would become affordable? The prudent neighbor gets screwed; the undeserving homeowner gets rewarded by our government (and his taxpaying neighbor).

[EconProf]

BobS
This is a really good question, because the politicians pushing bailouts are all claiming they won’t help “speculators”. But that is a very squishy and ambiguous term, and defining it in any law will be tricky.

What about the homeowner who bought at the peak and put nothing down, stretched himself financially to the limit, and who bought largely for appreciation and also to live in the house? I’d call him a speculator who simply bet wrong. How can a law be written which will exclude him? Yet his neighbor who rents may have the same financials but decided to save for a decent down payment and for the time when house prices would become affordable? The prudent neighbor gets screwed; the undeserving homeowner gets rewarded by our government (and his taxpaying neighbor).

[EconProf]

BobS
This is a really good question, because the politicians pushing bailouts are all claiming they won’t help “speculators”. But that is a very squishy and ambiguous term, and defining it in any law will be tricky.

What about the homeowner who bought at the peak and put nothing down, stretched himself financially to the limit, and who bought largely for appreciation and also to live in the house? I’d call him a speculator who simply bet wrong. How can a law be written which will exclude him? Yet his neighbor who rents may have the same financials but decided to save for a decent down payment and for the time when house prices would become affordable? The prudent neighbor gets screwed; the undeserving homeowner gets rewarded by our government (and his taxpaying neighbor).

[Author]

Posts