Why can I not get a loan?

[davelj]

[quote=patientrenter]That’s a dumb question, davelj. You must be a dumb person:) “Original poster”[/quote]

Ah, many thanks. I feel slightly more internet literate. It hadn’t even occurred to me…

[Blissful Ignoramus]

Sorry. I do try not to be too jargony but I see that one used here all the time.

Anyway, I think that post on Jim Klinge’s site reflects what the “OP” is talking about.

[Blissful Ignoramus]

Sorry. I do try not to be too jargony but I see that one used here all the time.

Anyway, I think that post on Jim Klinge’s site reflects what the “OP” is talking about.

[Blissful Ignoramus]

Sorry. I do try not to be too jargony but I see that one used here all the time.

Anyway, I think that post on Jim Klinge’s site reflects what the “OP” is talking about.

[Blissful Ignoramus]

Sorry. I do try not to be too jargony but I see that one used here all the time.

Anyway, I think that post on Jim Klinge’s site reflects what the “OP” is talking about.

[Blissful Ignoramus]

Sorry. I do try not to be too jargony but I see that one used here all the time.

Anyway, I think that post on Jim Klinge’s site reflects what the “OP” is talking about.

[CA renter]

davelj wrote:

Umm… the value (presumably positive?) of the stock trading isn’t distributed to those who produced the goods because the latter group didn’t put any capital at risk, my friend. As soon as those who produce the goods put some capital at risk (and are thus willing to share in the losses), then we can have a rational discussion about what they “deserve” as owners. But until that time, it’s the old axiom: no risk, no reward (and recently, no huge losses). Again, c’mon.
——————

But, theoretically speaking, isn’t the price of the stock largely determined by dividend yield or expectation of capital gains?

Assuming the money used to pay dividends comes from profit, couldn’t one argue that some or all of that profit is really earned by those who produce what the profit is derived from?

Workers DO take on risk — the risk of losing their jobs if their company fails. Since most workers literally depend on their paychecks for survival, I’d say their risks are far greater than an investor’s, whose investment should only be a small portion of their portfolio, and should not be their main source of income.

And if risk is supposed to be commensurate with reward, how do you explain the taxpayers bailing out the uber-capitalists of the world? Shouldn’t they have ALL of their fraudulently-attained assets and future earnings seized so that they can compensate the taxpayers for all the losses they created?

[CA renter]

davelj wrote:

Umm… the value (presumably positive?) of the stock trading isn’t distributed to those who produced the goods because the latter group didn’t put any capital at risk, my friend. As soon as those who produce the goods put some capital at risk (and are thus willing to share in the losses), then we can have a rational discussion about what they “deserve” as owners. But until that time, it’s the old axiom: no risk, no reward (and recently, no huge losses). Again, c’mon.
——————

But, theoretically speaking, isn’t the price of the stock largely determined by dividend yield or expectation of capital gains?

Assuming the money used to pay dividends comes from profit, couldn’t one argue that some or all of that profit is really earned by those who produce what the profit is derived from?

Workers DO take on risk — the risk of losing their jobs if their company fails. Since most workers literally depend on their paychecks for survival, I’d say their risks are far greater than an investor’s, whose investment should only be a small portion of their portfolio, and should not be their main source of income.

And if risk is supposed to be commensurate with reward, how do you explain the taxpayers bailing out the uber-capitalists of the world? Shouldn’t they have ALL of their fraudulently-attained assets and future earnings seized so that they can compensate the taxpayers for all the losses they created?

[CA renter]

davelj wrote:

Umm… the value (presumably positive?) of the stock trading isn’t distributed to those who produced the goods because the latter group didn’t put any capital at risk, my friend. As soon as those who produce the goods put some capital at risk (and are thus willing to share in the losses), then we can have a rational discussion about what they “deserve” as owners. But until that time, it’s the old axiom: no risk, no reward (and recently, no huge losses). Again, c’mon.
——————

But, theoretically speaking, isn’t the price of the stock largely determined by dividend yield or expectation of capital gains?

Assuming the money used to pay dividends comes from profit, couldn’t one argue that some or all of that profit is really earned by those who produce what the profit is derived from?

Workers DO take on risk — the risk of losing their jobs if their company fails. Since most workers literally depend on their paychecks for survival, I’d say their risks are far greater than an investor’s, whose investment should only be a small portion of their portfolio, and should not be their main source of income.

And if risk is supposed to be commensurate with reward, how do you explain the taxpayers bailing out the uber-capitalists of the world? Shouldn’t they have ALL of their fraudulently-attained assets and future earnings seized so that they can compensate the taxpayers for all the losses they created?

[CA renter]

davelj wrote:

Umm… the value (presumably positive?) of the stock trading isn’t distributed to those who produced the goods because the latter group didn’t put any capital at risk, my friend. As soon as those who produce the goods put some capital at risk (and are thus willing to share in the losses), then we can have a rational discussion about what they “deserve” as owners. But until that time, it’s the old axiom: no risk, no reward (and recently, no huge losses). Again, c’mon.
——————

But, theoretically speaking, isn’t the price of the stock largely determined by dividend yield or expectation of capital gains?

Assuming the money used to pay dividends comes from profit, couldn’t one argue that some or all of that profit is really earned by those who produce what the profit is derived from?

Workers DO take on risk — the risk of losing their jobs if their company fails. Since most workers literally depend on their paychecks for survival, I’d say their risks are far greater than an investor’s, whose investment should only be a small portion of their portfolio, and should not be their main source of income.

And if risk is supposed to be commensurate with reward, how do you explain the taxpayers bailing out the uber-capitalists of the world? Shouldn’t they have ALL of their fraudulently-attained assets and future earnings seized so that they can compensate the taxpayers for all the losses they created?

[CA renter]

davelj wrote:

Umm… the value (presumably positive?) of the stock trading isn’t distributed to those who produced the goods because the latter group didn’t put any capital at risk, my friend. As soon as those who produce the goods put some capital at risk (and are thus willing to share in the losses), then we can have a rational discussion about what they “deserve” as owners. But until that time, it’s the old axiom: no risk, no reward (and recently, no huge losses). Again, c’mon.
——————

But, theoretically speaking, isn’t the price of the stock largely determined by dividend yield or expectation of capital gains?

Assuming the money used to pay dividends comes from profit, couldn’t one argue that some or all of that profit is really earned by those who produce what the profit is derived from?

Workers DO take on risk — the risk of losing their jobs if their company fails. Since most workers literally depend on their paychecks for survival, I’d say their risks are far greater than an investor’s, whose investment should only be a small portion of their portfolio, and should not be their main source of income.

And if risk is supposed to be commensurate with reward, how do you explain the taxpayers bailing out the uber-capitalists of the world? Shouldn’t they have ALL of their fraudulently-attained assets and future earnings seized so that they can compensate the taxpayers for all the losses they created?

[Effective Demand]

[quote=CA renter]sdnerd:

Here is snipped from an article about the anti “buy and bail” requirement. It mentions that Freddie Mac requires the 30% equity, but I’ve heard other lenders are also requiring it.

Under the new Fannie Mae guidelines, in most cases, a borrower now must have at least 30 percent equity in his house to buy another. Otherwise, he cannot use the rent he says he will get to prove he can support two homes. The deterrence is that no one would want to walk away from a house in which he had a large amount of equity.

Also, the rental income the borrower claims now must be fully documented.

http://www.pe.com/business/local/stories/PE_News_Local_S_cheaters31.45b183a.html
[/quote]

Fannie & Freddie have the “buy n bail” rule, so does FHA. The OP needs to realize that if their goal is to get a bigger house they must first sell, then rent, while saving for a bigger down payment. Even if the OP had 20% down payment they would still get denied because their current residence doesn’t have enough equity in it.

[Effective Demand]

[quote=CA renter]sdnerd:

Here is snipped from an article about the anti “buy and bail” requirement. It mentions that Freddie Mac requires the 30% equity, but I’ve heard other lenders are also requiring it.

Under the new Fannie Mae guidelines, in most cases, a borrower now must have at least 30 percent equity in his house to buy another. Otherwise, he cannot use the rent he says he will get to prove he can support two homes. The deterrence is that no one would want to walk away from a house in which he had a large amount of equity.

Also, the rental income the borrower claims now must be fully documented.

http://www.pe.com/business/local/stories/PE_News_Local_S_cheaters31.45b183a.html
[/quote]

Fannie & Freddie have the “buy n bail” rule, so does FHA. The OP needs to realize that if their goal is to get a bigger house they must first sell, then rent, while saving for a bigger down payment. Even if the OP had 20% down payment they would still get denied because their current residence doesn’t have enough equity in it.

[Effective Demand]

[quote=CA renter]sdnerd:

Here is snipped from an article about the anti “buy and bail” requirement. It mentions that Freddie Mac requires the 30% equity, but I’ve heard other lenders are also requiring it.

Under the new Fannie Mae guidelines, in most cases, a borrower now must have at least 30 percent equity in his house to buy another. Otherwise, he cannot use the rent he says he will get to prove he can support two homes. The deterrence is that no one would want to walk away from a house in which he had a large amount of equity.

Also, the rental income the borrower claims now must be fully documented.

http://www.pe.com/business/local/stories/PE_News_Local_S_cheaters31.45b183a.html
[/quote]

Fannie & Freddie have the “buy n bail” rule, so does FHA. The OP needs to realize that if their goal is to get a bigger house they must first sell, then rent, while saving for a bigger down payment. Even if the OP had 20% down payment they would still get denied because their current residence doesn’t have enough equity in it.

[Effective Demand]

[quote=CA renter]sdnerd:

Here is snipped from an article about the anti “buy and bail” requirement. It mentions that Freddie Mac requires the 30% equity, but I’ve heard other lenders are also requiring it.

Under the new Fannie Mae guidelines, in most cases, a borrower now must have at least 30 percent equity in his house to buy another. Otherwise, he cannot use the rent he says he will get to prove he can support two homes. The deterrence is that no one would want to walk away from a house in which he had a large amount of equity.

Also, the rental income the borrower claims now must be fully documented.

http://www.pe.com/business/local/stories/PE_News_Local_S_cheaters31.45b183a.html
[/quote]

Fannie & Freddie have the “buy n bail” rule, so does FHA. The OP needs to realize that if their goal is to get a bigger house they must first sell, then rent, while saving for a bigger down payment. Even if the OP had 20% down payment they would still get denied because their current residence doesn’t have enough equity in it.

[Author]

Posts