- This topic has 75 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 4 months ago by SHILOH.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 19, 2007 at 12:22 PM #78099August 19, 2007 at 12:25 PM #77960JWM in SDParticipant
“Shouldn’t take longer than 8 years, 4 if you’re really disciplined”
How many times do I have to remind people that there a negative savings rate in the US??
Posters here are an exception to this and generally have good financial management skills. That is not the norm right now. It is a mistake to extrapolate that characterisitc to population in general.
August 19, 2007 at 12:25 PM #78083JWM in SDParticipant“Shouldn’t take longer than 8 years, 4 if you’re really disciplined”
How many times do I have to remind people that there a negative savings rate in the US??
Posters here are an exception to this and generally have good financial management skills. That is not the norm right now. It is a mistake to extrapolate that characterisitc to population in general.
August 19, 2007 at 12:25 PM #78105JWM in SDParticipant“Shouldn’t take longer than 8 years, 4 if you’re really disciplined”
How many times do I have to remind people that there a negative savings rate in the US??
Posters here are an exception to this and generally have good financial management skills. That is not the norm right now. It is a mistake to extrapolate that characterisitc to population in general.
August 19, 2007 at 12:27 PM #77963CostaMesaParticipantI have a question for the experts – admittedly, I’m not a finance guy.
Using the above example, I was under the impression that the $417K limit was for purchase price, not loan amount. Thus, the 20% down would shift exposure to downside price risk from the lender to the buyer.
I guess that it could go either way, but could someone who knows confirm this? Is it $417k loan value or purchase price for a conforming loan?
If it’s loan value, does that predicate a 20% down – thus setting the max purchase price at ~$521K with a $104K down? If so, I think that half-million will be the new magic number…
August 19, 2007 at 12:27 PM #78108CostaMesaParticipantI have a question for the experts – admittedly, I’m not a finance guy.
Using the above example, I was under the impression that the $417K limit was for purchase price, not loan amount. Thus, the 20% down would shift exposure to downside price risk from the lender to the buyer.
I guess that it could go either way, but could someone who knows confirm this? Is it $417k loan value or purchase price for a conforming loan?
If it’s loan value, does that predicate a 20% down – thus setting the max purchase price at ~$521K with a $104K down? If so, I think that half-million will be the new magic number…
August 19, 2007 at 12:27 PM #78086CostaMesaParticipantI have a question for the experts – admittedly, I’m not a finance guy.
Using the above example, I was under the impression that the $417K limit was for purchase price, not loan amount. Thus, the 20% down would shift exposure to downside price risk from the lender to the buyer.
I guess that it could go either way, but could someone who knows confirm this? Is it $417k loan value or purchase price for a conforming loan?
If it’s loan value, does that predicate a 20% down – thus setting the max purchase price at ~$521K with a $104K down? If so, I think that half-million will be the new magic number…
August 19, 2007 at 12:29 PM #77966CoronitaParticipantHow many times do I have to remind people that there a negative savings rate in the US?? Posters here are an exception to this and generally have good financial management skills. That is not the norm right now. It is a mistake to extrapolate that characterisitc to population in general.
No kidding, americans are bad savers?ย Really? ๐
but how many people who are "serious" buyers don't have some financial plan or financially capable? Haven't we already eliminated all the normal 100% financing people from the prospective buyer list?
August 19, 2007 at 12:29 PM #78111CoronitaParticipantHow many times do I have to remind people that there a negative savings rate in the US?? Posters here are an exception to this and generally have good financial management skills. That is not the norm right now. It is a mistake to extrapolate that characterisitc to population in general.
No kidding, americans are bad savers?ย Really? ๐
but how many people who are "serious" buyers don't have some financial plan or financially capable? Haven't we already eliminated all the normal 100% financing people from the prospective buyer list?
August 19, 2007 at 12:29 PM #78089CoronitaParticipantHow many times do I have to remind people that there a negative savings rate in the US?? Posters here are an exception to this and generally have good financial management skills. That is not the norm right now. It is a mistake to extrapolate that characterisitc to population in general.
No kidding, americans are bad savers?ย Really? ๐
but how many people who are "serious" buyers don't have some financial plan or financially capable? Haven't we already eliminated all the normal 100% financing people from the prospective buyer list?
August 19, 2007 at 12:37 PM #77974NavydocParticipantWow, didn’t think this post would attract this much attention!
Temeculaguy, I know their knowledge didn’t come from housing blogs. My point was to say that you are right, the major news media stories are actually sinking in, as evidenced by my observation in an arena as diametrically opposed to the financial markets as a Sunday morning post-call breakfast.
And yes, to those who question it, I do have $183,000 down, and if I found a property I was happy with I would accept the possible depreciation if I can afford the monthlys. I am a military physician, and am starting to tire of moving around. Hopefully I will get to settle in SD in 2009, and I WILL be looking to buy then. If It still looks like a long way to the bottom then, I may change my mind. It is nice to be in this position, and I’m not going to lock myself into any position considering how volatile the economy appears to be.
August 19, 2007 at 12:37 PM #78120NavydocParticipantWow, didn’t think this post would attract this much attention!
Temeculaguy, I know their knowledge didn’t come from housing blogs. My point was to say that you are right, the major news media stories are actually sinking in, as evidenced by my observation in an arena as diametrically opposed to the financial markets as a Sunday morning post-call breakfast.
And yes, to those who question it, I do have $183,000 down, and if I found a property I was happy with I would accept the possible depreciation if I can afford the monthlys. I am a military physician, and am starting to tire of moving around. Hopefully I will get to settle in SD in 2009, and I WILL be looking to buy then. If It still looks like a long way to the bottom then, I may change my mind. It is nice to be in this position, and I’m not going to lock myself into any position considering how volatile the economy appears to be.
August 19, 2007 at 12:37 PM #78098NavydocParticipantWow, didn’t think this post would attract this much attention!
Temeculaguy, I know their knowledge didn’t come from housing blogs. My point was to say that you are right, the major news media stories are actually sinking in, as evidenced by my observation in an arena as diametrically opposed to the financial markets as a Sunday morning post-call breakfast.
And yes, to those who question it, I do have $183,000 down, and if I found a property I was happy with I would accept the possible depreciation if I can afford the monthlys. I am a military physician, and am starting to tire of moving around. Hopefully I will get to settle in SD in 2009, and I WILL be looking to buy then. If It still looks like a long way to the bottom then, I may change my mind. It is nice to be in this position, and I’m not going to lock myself into any position considering how volatile the economy appears to be.
August 19, 2007 at 12:39 PM #78101HLSParticipant$417K is LOAN AMOUNT, has nothing to do with property value.
GSE’s don’t buy loans above this amount, except if the property is in Hawaii or Alaska, then the limit is $625,500.
Go figure.Loans that are above 80% of the appraised value (but still under $417K) will require mortgage insurance.
I had a borrower sign docs on Friday, 95% loan. 30 YR Fixed, 6.25% PLUS MI payment.
He didn’t qualify for 6.74% without separate MI payment because he went stated.
August 19, 2007 at 12:39 PM #77977HLSParticipant$417K is LOAN AMOUNT, has nothing to do with property value.
GSE’s don’t buy loans above this amount, except if the property is in Hawaii or Alaska, then the limit is $625,500.
Go figure.Loans that are above 80% of the appraised value (but still under $417K) will require mortgage insurance.
I had a borrower sign docs on Friday, 95% loan. 30 YR Fixed, 6.25% PLUS MI payment.
He didn’t qualify for 6.74% without separate MI payment because he went stated.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.