Why can I not get a loan?

[cr]

As to why you can’t get a loan – I’m sure this was said, and in skimming the replies I didn’t notice if anyone said the secondary market for Jumbos is gone.

Lending was great when you could slice loans up to sell to some “investor” reaping all the profits up front before a single payment was made, but not anymore.

All I can say is be patient. If you’re 30 yrs old, debt free, and making $250+/yr you should be able to put more than 10% down. Heck, you should be able to buy the house outright in 5yrs or less.

[MadeInTaiwan]

[quote=jficquette][quote=4plexowner]I think this post shows why the top end will fall hard in the next year or two – the pool of potential buyers for houses requiring jumbo loans has shrunk dramatically

without cheap, fog-a-mirror jumbo loans the $700K+ market has a hard row to hoe[/quote]

I agree totally. There is no reason why houses should cost more then they did in 1995 which is the last time they were somewhat affordable.

John
[/quote]

I am firmly int he “high end will drop” camp but this is crazy talk. End of 95 beginning of 96 was the bottom of the last cycle.

If you argue that there is some seismic shift and we’re headed past historical lows (adjusted for inflation) then we can at least entertain your reasoning.

If 95 was the last time things were somewhat affordable, then I think it means you can’t afford to live where you like.

[MadeInTaiwan]

[quote=jficquette][quote=4plexowner]I think this post shows why the top end will fall hard in the next year or two – the pool of potential buyers for houses requiring jumbo loans has shrunk dramatically

without cheap, fog-a-mirror jumbo loans the $700K+ market has a hard row to hoe[/quote]

I agree totally. There is no reason why houses should cost more then they did in 1995 which is the last time they were somewhat affordable.

John
[/quote]

I am firmly int he “high end will drop” camp but this is crazy talk. End of 95 beginning of 96 was the bottom of the last cycle.

If you argue that there is some seismic shift and we’re headed past historical lows (adjusted for inflation) then we can at least entertain your reasoning.

If 95 was the last time things were somewhat affordable, then I think it means you can’t afford to live where you like.

[MadeInTaiwan]

[quote=jficquette][quote=4plexowner]I think this post shows why the top end will fall hard in the next year or two – the pool of potential buyers for houses requiring jumbo loans has shrunk dramatically

without cheap, fog-a-mirror jumbo loans the $700K+ market has a hard row to hoe[/quote]

I agree totally. There is no reason why houses should cost more then they did in 1995 which is the last time they were somewhat affordable.

John
[/quote]

I am firmly int he “high end will drop” camp but this is crazy talk. End of 95 beginning of 96 was the bottom of the last cycle.

If you argue that there is some seismic shift and we’re headed past historical lows (adjusted for inflation) then we can at least entertain your reasoning.

If 95 was the last time things were somewhat affordable, then I think it means you can’t afford to live where you like.

[MadeInTaiwan]

[quote=jficquette][quote=4plexowner]I think this post shows why the top end will fall hard in the next year or two – the pool of potential buyers for houses requiring jumbo loans has shrunk dramatically

without cheap, fog-a-mirror jumbo loans the $700K+ market has a hard row to hoe[/quote]

I agree totally. There is no reason why houses should cost more then they did in 1995 which is the last time they were somewhat affordable.

John
[/quote]

I am firmly int he “high end will drop” camp but this is crazy talk. End of 95 beginning of 96 was the bottom of the last cycle.

If you argue that there is some seismic shift and we’re headed past historical lows (adjusted for inflation) then we can at least entertain your reasoning.

If 95 was the last time things were somewhat affordable, then I think it means you can’t afford to live where you like.

[MadeInTaiwan]

[quote=jficquette][quote=4plexowner]I think this post shows why the top end will fall hard in the next year or two – the pool of potential buyers for houses requiring jumbo loans has shrunk dramatically

without cheap, fog-a-mirror jumbo loans the $700K+ market has a hard row to hoe[/quote]

I agree totally. There is no reason why houses should cost more then they did in 1995 which is the last time they were somewhat affordable.

John
[/quote]

I am firmly int he “high end will drop” camp but this is crazy talk. End of 95 beginning of 96 was the bottom of the last cycle.

If you argue that there is some seismic shift and we’re headed past historical lows (adjusted for inflation) then we can at least entertain your reasoning.

If 95 was the last time things were somewhat affordable, then I think it means you can’t afford to live where you like.

[jficquette]

MadeinTaiwan,

I do think its different this time. No reason to get into why. Its all been said by others.

Affordablity is based on relationship between median wage and house price.

Mid 90’s were the last time in SoCal they were even close to matching up.

Pendulum swings.

John

[jficquette]

MadeinTaiwan,

I do think its different this time. No reason to get into why. Its all been said by others.

Affordablity is based on relationship between median wage and house price.

Mid 90’s were the last time in SoCal they were even close to matching up.

Pendulum swings.

John

[jficquette]

MadeinTaiwan,

I do think its different this time. No reason to get into why. Its all been said by others.

Affordablity is based on relationship between median wage and house price.

Mid 90’s were the last time in SoCal they were even close to matching up.

Pendulum swings.

John

[jficquette]

MadeinTaiwan,

I do think its different this time. No reason to get into why. Its all been said by others.

Affordablity is based on relationship between median wage and house price.

Mid 90’s were the last time in SoCal they were even close to matching up.

Pendulum swings.

John

[jficquette]

MadeinTaiwan,

I do think its different this time. No reason to get into why. Its all been said by others.

Affordablity is based on relationship between median wage and house price.

Mid 90’s were the last time in SoCal they were even close to matching up.

Pendulum swings.

John

[MadeInTaiwan]

[quote=jficquette]MadeinTaiwan,

I do think its different this time. No reason to get into why. Its all been said by others.

Affordablity is based on relationship between median wage and house price.

Mid 90’s were the last time in SoCal they were even close to matching up.

Pendulum swings.

John[/quote]

I want to make it clear that I am not saying prices will not get down to 95 adjusted for inflation, or even lower.

If you go by historic means then 95/96 was the last bottom going back over 100 years. Note: these are prices adjusted for inflation and material/content, i.e. pricing of the same house with same features in 2005 and 1905. This is from a graph I saw on either the Atlantic or Economist website back in 04 I think. Of course this is a national average and not specific to San Diego.

Maybe San Diego did not always have a premium in terms of price/wage, but it’s been the case since I started attending UCSD in 86.

John, please at least give me a few links to the threads that discuss your reasoning. I don’t read all the thread and don’t remember this particular discussion.

Maybe the last 20+ years has been an anomaly and in 95/96 housing prices did not get back to the long term mean sufficiently, but that is not what I saw on that national graph.

Slightly OT but according to that inflation/content adjusted graph housing in the long term does not beat inflation.

MadeInTaiwan

[MadeInTaiwan]

[quote=jficquette]MadeinTaiwan,

I do think its different this time. No reason to get into why. Its all been said by others.

Affordablity is based on relationship between median wage and house price.

Mid 90’s were the last time in SoCal they were even close to matching up.

Pendulum swings.

John[/quote]

I want to make it clear that I am not saying prices will not get down to 95 adjusted for inflation, or even lower.

If you go by historic means then 95/96 was the last bottom going back over 100 years. Note: these are prices adjusted for inflation and material/content, i.e. pricing of the same house with same features in 2005 and 1905. This is from a graph I saw on either the Atlantic or Economist website back in 04 I think. Of course this is a national average and not specific to San Diego.

Maybe San Diego did not always have a premium in terms of price/wage, but it’s been the case since I started attending UCSD in 86.

John, please at least give me a few links to the threads that discuss your reasoning. I don’t read all the thread and don’t remember this particular discussion.

Maybe the last 20+ years has been an anomaly and in 95/96 housing prices did not get back to the long term mean sufficiently, but that is not what I saw on that national graph.

Slightly OT but according to that inflation/content adjusted graph housing in the long term does not beat inflation.

MadeInTaiwan

[MadeInTaiwan]

[quote=jficquette]MadeinTaiwan,

I do think its different this time. No reason to get into why. Its all been said by others.

Affordablity is based on relationship between median wage and house price.

Mid 90’s were the last time in SoCal they were even close to matching up.

Pendulum swings.

John[/quote]

I want to make it clear that I am not saying prices will not get down to 95 adjusted for inflation, or even lower.

If you go by historic means then 95/96 was the last bottom going back over 100 years. Note: these are prices adjusted for inflation and material/content, i.e. pricing of the same house with same features in 2005 and 1905. This is from a graph I saw on either the Atlantic or Economist website back in 04 I think. Of course this is a national average and not specific to San Diego.

Maybe San Diego did not always have a premium in terms of price/wage, but it’s been the case since I started attending UCSD in 86.

John, please at least give me a few links to the threads that discuss your reasoning. I don’t read all the thread and don’t remember this particular discussion.

Maybe the last 20+ years has been an anomaly and in 95/96 housing prices did not get back to the long term mean sufficiently, but that is not what I saw on that national graph.

Slightly OT but according to that inflation/content adjusted graph housing in the long term does not beat inflation.

MadeInTaiwan

[MadeInTaiwan]

[quote=jficquette]MadeinTaiwan,

I do think its different this time. No reason to get into why. Its all been said by others.

Affordablity is based on relationship between median wage and house price.

Mid 90’s were the last time in SoCal they were even close to matching up.

Pendulum swings.

John[/quote]

I want to make it clear that I am not saying prices will not get down to 95 adjusted for inflation, or even lower.

If you go by historic means then 95/96 was the last bottom going back over 100 years. Note: these are prices adjusted for inflation and material/content, i.e. pricing of the same house with same features in 2005 and 1905. This is from a graph I saw on either the Atlantic or Economist website back in 04 I think. Of course this is a national average and not specific to San Diego.

Maybe San Diego did not always have a premium in terms of price/wage, but it’s been the case since I started attending UCSD in 86.

John, please at least give me a few links to the threads that discuss your reasoning. I don’t read all the thread and don’t remember this particular discussion.

Maybe the last 20+ years has been an anomaly and in 95/96 housing prices did not get back to the long term mean sufficiently, but that is not what I saw on that national graph.

Slightly OT but according to that inflation/content adjusted graph housing in the long term does not beat inflation.

MadeInTaiwan

[Author]

Posts