- This topic has 405 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 3 months ago by CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 27, 2010 at 10:51 AM #584186July 27, 2010 at 11:06 AM #583157(former)FormerSanDieganParticipant
bearishgirl – I guess I have been using the word “reset” loosely, to mean the rate adjustment (recast), not a reset triggered by negative amortization.
As far as I can tell the only difference between the COFI loan you have and the ARM I used to have is the index used and tha margin. Both had rate adjustments after 60 months and adjust annually.
I purchased my rental in 2002 and I’m actually pretty happy with my current fixed rate. but yes I wish I hadn;t refied multiple times. I’m at about 40% equity today and would be closer to 50% if not for refinancing. Live and learn.
July 27, 2010 at 11:06 AM #583249(former)FormerSanDieganParticipantbearishgirl – I guess I have been using the word “reset” loosely, to mean the rate adjustment (recast), not a reset triggered by negative amortization.
As far as I can tell the only difference between the COFI loan you have and the ARM I used to have is the index used and tha margin. Both had rate adjustments after 60 months and adjust annually.
I purchased my rental in 2002 and I’m actually pretty happy with my current fixed rate. but yes I wish I hadn;t refied multiple times. I’m at about 40% equity today and would be closer to 50% if not for refinancing. Live and learn.
July 27, 2010 at 11:06 AM #583784(former)FormerSanDieganParticipantbearishgirl – I guess I have been using the word “reset” loosely, to mean the rate adjustment (recast), not a reset triggered by negative amortization.
As far as I can tell the only difference between the COFI loan you have and the ARM I used to have is the index used and tha margin. Both had rate adjustments after 60 months and adjust annually.
I purchased my rental in 2002 and I’m actually pretty happy with my current fixed rate. but yes I wish I hadn;t refied multiple times. I’m at about 40% equity today and would be closer to 50% if not for refinancing. Live and learn.
July 27, 2010 at 11:06 AM #583891(former)FormerSanDieganParticipantbearishgirl – I guess I have been using the word “reset” loosely, to mean the rate adjustment (recast), not a reset triggered by negative amortization.
As far as I can tell the only difference between the COFI loan you have and the ARM I used to have is the index used and tha margin. Both had rate adjustments after 60 months and adjust annually.
I purchased my rental in 2002 and I’m actually pretty happy with my current fixed rate. but yes I wish I hadn;t refied multiple times. I’m at about 40% equity today and would be closer to 50% if not for refinancing. Live and learn.
July 27, 2010 at 11:06 AM #584196(former)FormerSanDieganParticipantbearishgirl – I guess I have been using the word “reset” loosely, to mean the rate adjustment (recast), not a reset triggered by negative amortization.
As far as I can tell the only difference between the COFI loan you have and the ARM I used to have is the index used and tha margin. Both had rate adjustments after 60 months and adjust annually.
I purchased my rental in 2002 and I’m actually pretty happy with my current fixed rate. but yes I wish I hadn;t refied multiple times. I’m at about 40% equity today and would be closer to 50% if not for refinancing. Live and learn.
July 27, 2010 at 11:37 AM #583172Nor-LA-SD-guyParticipantThe housing Bubble would never have happen had they not changed the CPI to owner equivalent rent in 1981 i think.
July 27, 2010 at 11:37 AM #583264Nor-LA-SD-guyParticipantThe housing Bubble would never have happen had they not changed the CPI to owner equivalent rent in 1981 i think.
July 27, 2010 at 11:37 AM #583800Nor-LA-SD-guyParticipantThe housing Bubble would never have happen had they not changed the CPI to owner equivalent rent in 1981 i think.
July 27, 2010 at 11:37 AM #583906Nor-LA-SD-guyParticipantThe housing Bubble would never have happen had they not changed the CPI to owner equivalent rent in 1981 i think.
July 27, 2010 at 11:37 AM #584211Nor-LA-SD-guyParticipantThe housing Bubble would never have happen had they not changed the CPI to owner equivalent rent in 1981 i think.
July 27, 2010 at 11:48 AM #583177UCGalParticipant[quote=Arraya]It’s not an option under our economy. Over consumption and little to no savings is a policy for a reason.
Less consumerism and saving would collapse employment and require massive government intervention to spur demand and keep it from falling into a deflationary spiral.
One family saves, good for the family. All families save, the economy collapses.[/quote]
Is it good for the economy long term if we continue to spend more than we make. If we continue to consume with no plan for paying for our consumables?
mass consumption based on debt is kicking the can down the road… it may work in the short term -but at some point the debt becomes unweildy. It will be painful either way.
July 27, 2010 at 11:48 AM #583269UCGalParticipant[quote=Arraya]It’s not an option under our economy. Over consumption and little to no savings is a policy for a reason.
Less consumerism and saving would collapse employment and require massive government intervention to spur demand and keep it from falling into a deflationary spiral.
One family saves, good for the family. All families save, the economy collapses.[/quote]
Is it good for the economy long term if we continue to spend more than we make. If we continue to consume with no plan for paying for our consumables?
mass consumption based on debt is kicking the can down the road… it may work in the short term -but at some point the debt becomes unweildy. It will be painful either way.
July 27, 2010 at 11:48 AM #583805UCGalParticipant[quote=Arraya]It’s not an option under our economy. Over consumption and little to no savings is a policy for a reason.
Less consumerism and saving would collapse employment and require massive government intervention to spur demand and keep it from falling into a deflationary spiral.
One family saves, good for the family. All families save, the economy collapses.[/quote]
Is it good for the economy long term if we continue to spend more than we make. If we continue to consume with no plan for paying for our consumables?
mass consumption based on debt is kicking the can down the road… it may work in the short term -but at some point the debt becomes unweildy. It will be painful either way.
July 27, 2010 at 11:48 AM #583911UCGalParticipant[quote=Arraya]It’s not an option under our economy. Over consumption and little to no savings is a policy for a reason.
Less consumerism and saving would collapse employment and require massive government intervention to spur demand and keep it from falling into a deflationary spiral.
One family saves, good for the family. All families save, the economy collapses.[/quote]
Is it good for the economy long term if we continue to spend more than we make. If we continue to consume with no plan for paying for our consumables?
mass consumption based on debt is kicking the can down the road… it may work in the short term -but at some point the debt becomes unweildy. It will be painful either way.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.