- This topic has 615 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 3 months ago by
saiine.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 16, 2011 at 7:54 AM #678585March 16, 2011 at 9:02 AM #677472
ctr70
ParticipantI may not be totally against 20% down across the board as well. We just have to be OK with the economic consequences of that. Unemployment rates would stay higher longer, construction jobs would not come back for a much longer time, home owner % would go way down, and the bottom for prices would be much further off. That would be a very bitter pill for most. Maybe better off long term, but are we ready for that bitter pill?
Obviously we have to get the private label lending back and drastically reduce the Governments lending footprint. Not sure how that will be done though w/out much higher rates.
March 16, 2011 at 9:02 AM #677529ParticipantI may not be totally against 20% down across the board as well. We just have to be OK with the economic consequences of that. Unemployment rates would stay higher longer, construction jobs would not come back for a much longer time, home owner % would go way down, and the bottom for prices would be much further off. That would be a very bitter pill for most. Maybe better off long term, but are we ready for that bitter pill?
Obviously we have to get the private label lending back and drastically reduce the Governments lending footprint. Not sure how that will be done though w/out much higher rates.
March 16, 2011 at 9:02 AM #678133ParticipantI may not be totally against 20% down across the board as well. We just have to be OK with the economic consequences of that. Unemployment rates would stay higher longer, construction jobs would not come back for a much longer time, home owner % would go way down, and the bottom for prices would be much further off. That would be a very bitter pill for most. Maybe better off long term, but are we ready for that bitter pill?
Obviously we have to get the private label lending back and drastically reduce the Governments lending footprint. Not sure how that will be done though w/out much higher rates.
March 16, 2011 at 9:02 AM #678268ParticipantI may not be totally against 20% down across the board as well. We just have to be OK with the economic consequences of that. Unemployment rates would stay higher longer, construction jobs would not come back for a much longer time, home owner % would go way down, and the bottom for prices would be much further off. That would be a very bitter pill for most. Maybe better off long term, but are we ready for that bitter pill?
Obviously we have to get the private label lending back and drastically reduce the Governments lending footprint. Not sure how that will be done though w/out much higher rates.
March 16, 2011 at 9:02 AM #678610ParticipantI may not be totally against 20% down across the board as well. We just have to be OK with the economic consequences of that. Unemployment rates would stay higher longer, construction jobs would not come back for a much longer time, home owner % would go way down, and the bottom for prices would be much further off. That would be a very bitter pill for most. Maybe better off long term, but are we ready for that bitter pill?
Obviously we have to get the private label lending back and drastically reduce the Governments lending footprint. Not sure how that will be done though w/out much higher rates.
March 16, 2011 at 11:31 AM #677527bearishgurl
Participant[quote=ctr70]. . . Fannie/Freddie NEVER did ONE option ARM ever…those were 100% Wall Street products securitized by Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs (GS who also made huge bets with credit default swaps that their OWN LOANS they securitized & sold off would go bad… AND paid a half a billion settlement with the SEC b/c of that!).
. . . Obviously we have to get the private label lending back and drastically reduce the Governments lending footprint. Not sure how that will be done though w/out much higher rates.[/quote]
ctr70, totally agree we need to get the “private label” lending back and but disagree that F/F did not guarantee “Option Arms.” Up until about 2002, F/F DID guarantee some fully underwritten (prime and Alt-A) option arms (some with neg-am features). These loans had much more stable terms than the exotic variety of “exploding mortgages” we saw originated in the bubble years. They had indexes tied to the COFI (11th Dist of the FHLBB in CA) and the 1-yr T-Bill. Many of these mortgages (all 30 yr) stayed within the portfolio of the (local or “Big” bank lender) and were never sold off. Some are still performing today. I have one which has fully amortized from its origination date and is currently at 4.234%. How, you say?? I consciously CHOSE to pay Option 3 every month (the fully-amortized rate). Prior to this Option ARM, I have had a few others since the late 80’s and have known others (even high earners) who also chose them. They are a good and fair product if used correctly by the borrower. It was actually the borrower who abused a mainstream (not sub-prime or exotic) Option ARM and thereby caused it to go neg am and explode on them by the choices they made each and every month when they sent in their mortgage payments.
March 16, 2011 at 11:31 AM #677584Participant[quote=ctr70]. . . Fannie/Freddie NEVER did ONE option ARM ever…those were 100% Wall Street products securitized by Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs (GS who also made huge bets with credit default swaps that their OWN LOANS they securitized & sold off would go bad… AND paid a half a billion settlement with the SEC b/c of that!).
. . . Obviously we have to get the private label lending back and drastically reduce the Governments lending footprint. Not sure how that will be done though w/out much higher rates.[/quote]
ctr70, totally agree we need to get the “private label” lending back and but disagree that F/F did not guarantee “Option Arms.” Up until about 2002, F/F DID guarantee some fully underwritten (prime and Alt-A) option arms (some with neg-am features). These loans had much more stable terms than the exotic variety of “exploding mortgages” we saw originated in the bubble years. They had indexes tied to the COFI (11th Dist of the FHLBB in CA) and the 1-yr T-Bill. Many of these mortgages (all 30 yr) stayed within the portfolio of the (local or “Big” bank lender) and were never sold off. Some are still performing today. I have one which has fully amortized from its origination date and is currently at 4.234%. How, you say?? I consciously CHOSE to pay Option 3 every month (the fully-amortized rate). Prior to this Option ARM, I have had a few others since the late 80’s and have known others (even high earners) who also chose them. They are a good and fair product if used correctly by the borrower. It was actually the borrower who abused a mainstream (not sub-prime or exotic) Option ARM and thereby caused it to go neg am and explode on them by the choices they made each and every month when they sent in their mortgage payments.
March 16, 2011 at 11:31 AM #678188Participant[quote=ctr70]. . . Fannie/Freddie NEVER did ONE option ARM ever…those were 100% Wall Street products securitized by Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs (GS who also made huge bets with credit default swaps that their OWN LOANS they securitized & sold off would go bad… AND paid a half a billion settlement with the SEC b/c of that!).
. . . Obviously we have to get the private label lending back and drastically reduce the Governments lending footprint. Not sure how that will be done though w/out much higher rates.[/quote]
ctr70, totally agree we need to get the “private label” lending back and but disagree that F/F did not guarantee “Option Arms.” Up until about 2002, F/F DID guarantee some fully underwritten (prime and Alt-A) option arms (some with neg-am features). These loans had much more stable terms than the exotic variety of “exploding mortgages” we saw originated in the bubble years. They had indexes tied to the COFI (11th Dist of the FHLBB in CA) and the 1-yr T-Bill. Many of these mortgages (all 30 yr) stayed within the portfolio of the (local or “Big” bank lender) and were never sold off. Some are still performing today. I have one which has fully amortized from its origination date and is currently at 4.234%. How, you say?? I consciously CHOSE to pay Option 3 every month (the fully-amortized rate). Prior to this Option ARM, I have had a few others since the late 80’s and have known others (even high earners) who also chose them. They are a good and fair product if used correctly by the borrower. It was actually the borrower who abused a mainstream (not sub-prime or exotic) Option ARM and thereby caused it to go neg am and explode on them by the choices they made each and every month when they sent in their mortgage payments.
March 16, 2011 at 11:31 AM #678323Participant[quote=ctr70]. . . Fannie/Freddie NEVER did ONE option ARM ever…those were 100% Wall Street products securitized by Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs (GS who also made huge bets with credit default swaps that their OWN LOANS they securitized & sold off would go bad… AND paid a half a billion settlement with the SEC b/c of that!).
. . . Obviously we have to get the private label lending back and drastically reduce the Governments lending footprint. Not sure how that will be done though w/out much higher rates.[/quote]
ctr70, totally agree we need to get the “private label” lending back and but disagree that F/F did not guarantee “Option Arms.” Up until about 2002, F/F DID guarantee some fully underwritten (prime and Alt-A) option arms (some with neg-am features). These loans had much more stable terms than the exotic variety of “exploding mortgages” we saw originated in the bubble years. They had indexes tied to the COFI (11th Dist of the FHLBB in CA) and the 1-yr T-Bill. Many of these mortgages (all 30 yr) stayed within the portfolio of the (local or “Big” bank lender) and were never sold off. Some are still performing today. I have one which has fully amortized from its origination date and is currently at 4.234%. How, you say?? I consciously CHOSE to pay Option 3 every month (the fully-amortized rate). Prior to this Option ARM, I have had a few others since the late 80’s and have known others (even high earners) who also chose them. They are a good and fair product if used correctly by the borrower. It was actually the borrower who abused a mainstream (not sub-prime or exotic) Option ARM and thereby caused it to go neg am and explode on them by the choices they made each and every month when they sent in their mortgage payments.
March 16, 2011 at 11:31 AM #678665Participant[quote=ctr70]. . . Fannie/Freddie NEVER did ONE option ARM ever…those were 100% Wall Street products securitized by Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs (GS who also made huge bets with credit default swaps that their OWN LOANS they securitized & sold off would go bad… AND paid a half a billion settlement with the SEC b/c of that!).
. . . Obviously we have to get the private label lending back and drastically reduce the Governments lending footprint. Not sure how that will be done though w/out much higher rates.[/quote]
ctr70, totally agree we need to get the “private label” lending back and but disagree that F/F did not guarantee “Option Arms.” Up until about 2002, F/F DID guarantee some fully underwritten (prime and Alt-A) option arms (some with neg-am features). These loans had much more stable terms than the exotic variety of “exploding mortgages” we saw originated in the bubble years. They had indexes tied to the COFI (11th Dist of the FHLBB in CA) and the 1-yr T-Bill. Many of these mortgages (all 30 yr) stayed within the portfolio of the (local or “Big” bank lender) and were never sold off. Some are still performing today. I have one which has fully amortized from its origination date and is currently at 4.234%. How, you say?? I consciously CHOSE to pay Option 3 every month (the fully-amortized rate). Prior to this Option ARM, I have had a few others since the late 80’s and have known others (even high earners) who also chose them. They are a good and fair product if used correctly by the borrower. It was actually the borrower who abused a mainstream (not sub-prime or exotic) Option ARM and thereby caused it to go neg am and explode on them by the choices they made each and every month when they sent in their mortgage payments.
March 16, 2011 at 2:58 PM #677572saiine
Participant[quote=walterwhite]what age are those numbers for? seems kind of low for 16-21. i would guess it’s more like 25-35 a week for 16-21, tapering down sharply by decade. probably an average is misleading here, just the way median house prices can be misleading.
i did read somewhere that number of ejaculations a week by any cause is an indicator of health, so if you’re way below average, you might want to start working out a little.
that’s louis c.k. on the saddest handjob in the world from his wife. he has another bit on his hiding his masturbation in the basement from his wife that is even more hilarious and a propos to this thread
man louis c.k. is funny.[/quote]
Caught him when he was in SD.. Fav comedian ever.
March 16, 2011 at 2:58 PM #677629Participant[quote=walterwhite]what age are those numbers for? seems kind of low for 16-21. i would guess it’s more like 25-35 a week for 16-21, tapering down sharply by decade. probably an average is misleading here, just the way median house prices can be misleading.
i did read somewhere that number of ejaculations a week by any cause is an indicator of health, so if you’re way below average, you might want to start working out a little.
that’s louis c.k. on the saddest handjob in the world from his wife. he has another bit on his hiding his masturbation in the basement from his wife that is even more hilarious and a propos to this thread
man louis c.k. is funny.[/quote]
Caught him when he was in SD.. Fav comedian ever.
March 16, 2011 at 2:58 PM #678233Participant[quote=walterwhite]what age are those numbers for? seems kind of low for 16-21. i would guess it’s more like 25-35 a week for 16-21, tapering down sharply by decade. probably an average is misleading here, just the way median house prices can be misleading.
i did read somewhere that number of ejaculations a week by any cause is an indicator of health, so if you’re way below average, you might want to start working out a little.
that’s louis c.k. on the saddest handjob in the world from his wife. he has another bit on his hiding his masturbation in the basement from his wife that is even more hilarious and a propos to this thread
man louis c.k. is funny.[/quote]
Caught him when he was in SD.. Fav comedian ever.
March 16, 2011 at 2:58 PM #678367Participant[quote=walterwhite]what age are those numbers for? seems kind of low for 16-21. i would guess it’s more like 25-35 a week for 16-21, tapering down sharply by decade. probably an average is misleading here, just the way median house prices can be misleading.
i did read somewhere that number of ejaculations a week by any cause is an indicator of health, so if you’re way below average, you might want to start working out a little.
that’s louis c.k. on the saddest handjob in the world from his wife. he has another bit on his hiding his masturbation in the basement from his wife that is even more hilarious and a propos to this thread
man louis c.k. is funny.[/quote]
Caught him when he was in SD.. Fav comedian ever.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.