[an]

[quote=CA renter]In other words, if you could have borrowed from the last note holder, you would have been paying less in interest/fees.[/quote]
That’s the problem with your assumption. I can’t borrow directly from the party who’s currently holding my loan (Fannie May). I hope you’re aware of the difference between retail and wholesale. Borrower can’t get access to those money. We can only borrow at retail. I already stated that I looked into refi when my loan changed hands and would have to pay HIGHER rate than the rate I have.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]In other words, if you could have borrowed from the last note holder, you would have been paying less in interest/fees.[/quote]
That’s the problem with your assumption. I can’t borrow directly from the party who’s currently holding my loan (Fannie May). I hope you’re aware of the difference between retail and wholesale. Borrower can’t get access to those money. We can only borrow at retail. I already stated that I looked into refi when my loan changed hands and would have to pay HIGHER rate than the rate I have.

[an]

[quote=ucodegen]
My point is not that you will be paying more, but that you are not paying what would have been the lowest interest rate possible for your risk category. The difference is what the originating bank pocketed before hot-potato-ing the loan to someone else.[/quote]
How can you say I’m not paying what would have been the lowest rate possible if that’s exactly what I did at the time that I close the loan? When the loan changed hands, if I refi around similar time, I would be paying more than what I originally got my loan for. So, I still don’t understand your logic. I don’t see how just because the original bank can sell my loan to another bank mean I’m paying more than the lowest interest rate possible for my risk category. Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t see the connection (at least in the eyes/shoes of a borrower).

[an]

[quote=ucodegen]
My point is not that you will be paying more, but that you are not paying what would have been the lowest interest rate possible for your risk category. The difference is what the originating bank pocketed before hot-potato-ing the loan to someone else.[/quote]
How can you say I’m not paying what would have been the lowest rate possible if that’s exactly what I did at the time that I close the loan? When the loan changed hands, if I refi around similar time, I would be paying more than what I originally got my loan for. So, I still don’t understand your logic. I don’t see how just because the original bank can sell my loan to another bank mean I’m paying more than the lowest interest rate possible for my risk category. Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t see the connection (at least in the eyes/shoes of a borrower).

[an]

[quote=ucodegen]
My point is not that you will be paying more, but that you are not paying what would have been the lowest interest rate possible for your risk category. The difference is what the originating bank pocketed before hot-potato-ing the loan to someone else.[/quote]
How can you say I’m not paying what would have been the lowest rate possible if that’s exactly what I did at the time that I close the loan? When the loan changed hands, if I refi around similar time, I would be paying more than what I originally got my loan for. So, I still don’t understand your logic. I don’t see how just because the original bank can sell my loan to another bank mean I’m paying more than the lowest interest rate possible for my risk category. Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t see the connection (at least in the eyes/shoes of a borrower).

[an]

[quote=ucodegen]
My point is not that you will be paying more, but that you are not paying what would have been the lowest interest rate possible for your risk category. The difference is what the originating bank pocketed before hot-potato-ing the loan to someone else.[/quote]
How can you say I’m not paying what would have been the lowest rate possible if that’s exactly what I did at the time that I close the loan? When the loan changed hands, if I refi around similar time, I would be paying more than what I originally got my loan for. So, I still don’t understand your logic. I don’t see how just because the original bank can sell my loan to another bank mean I’m paying more than the lowest interest rate possible for my risk category. Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t see the connection (at least in the eyes/shoes of a borrower).

[an]

[quote=ucodegen]
My point is not that you will be paying more, but that you are not paying what would have been the lowest interest rate possible for your risk category. The difference is what the originating bank pocketed before hot-potato-ing the loan to someone else.[/quote]
How can you say I’m not paying what would have been the lowest rate possible if that’s exactly what I did at the time that I close the loan? When the loan changed hands, if I refi around similar time, I would be paying more than what I originally got my loan for. So, I still don’t understand your logic. I don’t see how just because the original bank can sell my loan to another bank mean I’m paying more than the lowest interest rate possible for my risk category. Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t see the connection (at least in the eyes/shoes of a borrower).

[an]

[quote=SD Realtor]That is kind of a bizarre statement. The homeowner is paying the rate specified on the note. Nothing more and nothing less regardless of how many times the note changes hands.[/quote]
Totally agree. That statement makes no sense at all. My loan changed hands once. Yet, my payment didn’t change one penny. So, I’m not sure how I can be paying more for the note, yet I’m not any extra penny for the note.

[an]

[quote=SD Realtor]That is kind of a bizarre statement. The homeowner is paying the rate specified on the note. Nothing more and nothing less regardless of how many times the note changes hands.[/quote]
Totally agree. That statement makes no sense at all. My loan changed hands once. Yet, my payment didn’t change one penny. So, I’m not sure how I can be paying more for the note, yet I’m not any extra penny for the note.

[an]

[quote=SD Realtor]That is kind of a bizarre statement. The homeowner is paying the rate specified on the note. Nothing more and nothing less regardless of how many times the note changes hands.[/quote]
Totally agree. That statement makes no sense at all. My loan changed hands once. Yet, my payment didn’t change one penny. So, I’m not sure how I can be paying more for the note, yet I’m not any extra penny for the note.

[an]

[quote=SD Realtor]That is kind of a bizarre statement. The homeowner is paying the rate specified on the note. Nothing more and nothing less regardless of how many times the note changes hands.[/quote]
Totally agree. That statement makes no sense at all. My loan changed hands once. Yet, my payment didn’t change one penny. So, I’m not sure how I can be paying more for the note, yet I’m not any extra penny for the note.

[an]

[quote=SD Realtor]That is kind of a bizarre statement. The homeowner is paying the rate specified on the note. Nothing more and nothing less regardless of how many times the note changes hands.[/quote]
Totally agree. That statement makes no sense at all. My loan changed hands once. Yet, my payment didn’t change one penny. So, I’m not sure how I can be paying more for the note, yet I’m not any extra penny for the note.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]I think that the rights of citizens should come before the rights of foreigners…[/quote]Like the right of citizens to sell at a higher price? Or do only citizens who are buyers have rights?

[quote=CA renter] We should not lock locals out of the housing market because foreigners want to buy vacation homes here (and I would argue that other countries have this obligation to their people as well).[/quote]
The government is not locking anyone out. Savers can compete with foreigners for the same property. They have the mean and the $ to do so, since they have been saving just like those Canadians. Why should government step in and tell who can buy luxury goods? $1M+ homes are a luxury, not necessity.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]I think that the rights of citizens should come before the rights of foreigners…[/quote]Like the right of citizens to sell at a higher price? Or do only citizens who are buyers have rights?

[quote=CA renter] We should not lock locals out of the housing market because foreigners want to buy vacation homes here (and I would argue that other countries have this obligation to their people as well).[/quote]
The government is not locking anyone out. Savers can compete with foreigners for the same property. They have the mean and the $ to do so, since they have been saving just like those Canadians. Why should government step in and tell who can buy luxury goods? $1M+ homes are a luxury, not necessity.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]I think that the rights of citizens should come before the rights of foreigners…[/quote]Like the right of citizens to sell at a higher price? Or do only citizens who are buyers have rights?

[quote=CA renter] We should not lock locals out of the housing market because foreigners want to buy vacation homes here (and I would argue that other countries have this obligation to their people as well).[/quote]
The government is not locking anyone out. Savers can compete with foreigners for the same property. They have the mean and the $ to do so, since they have been saving just like those Canadians. Why should government step in and tell who can buy luxury goods? $1M+ homes are a luxury, not necessity.

[Author]

Posts