Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
ParticipantUp until 2003, HELOCs were not permitted in the State of TX and are now currently limited to 50% LTV there.
Home Equity Lines of Credit
With the recent legislation that gives Texas homeowners the ability to utilize Home Equity Lines of Credit (HELOCs), HFCU members now have access to the most flexible kind of home equity loan. Until Fall 2003, Texas was the only state that did not allow HELOCS…see: https://www.houstonfcu.org/home/loans/mortgages/helocs
https://www.oag.state.tx.us/consumer/200307household.pdf
and: http://www.bankersonline.com/lending/guru2005/gurus_ldng110705j.html
bake, where ar-r-r-r-e-e-e yo-o-o-o-u-u when the Piggs need your expertise here? :=]
Participant[quote=sdrealtor] . . . UPDATE: Looks like we can rule out him being a flipper or underwater unless he refi’d his way into it.
What he does appear to be however is a delusional seller!!!
http://www.zillow.com/homes/101-Blossom-St.,-lake-jackson,-tx_rb/#/homes/for_sale/Lake-Jackson-TX/18915_rid/29.044445,-95.427283,29.041105,-95.437347_rect/16_zm/0_mmm/
The house next door is currently asking $125,000 and he’s asking $325,0000[/quote]
The $125K house is 1784 sf and Dr. Paul’s longtime homestead is 5500 sf. If this area is not on tract, then this price discrepancy is common in TX. Residents there normally build the type of home they want or need on the land they have available. If Dr. Paul actually built the house 42 years ago on land he previously owned, then the smaller, neighboring houses were already there and didn’t bother him at the time.
I don’t have any proof, of course, but based upon my personal knowledge of semi-rural and rural lifestyles in that area, Dr. Paul’s house was likely paid off many years ago.
Longtime Texas natives typically buy land and build houses exactly the way they want. They don’t care if there is a grain elevator next door, a cattle ranch or a small house. The small neighboring houses will not affect Dr. Paul’s value as he’s not asking for the moon, IMO.
November 17, 2011 at 10:37 AM in reply to: Excellent Economist Mag. article on CA’s Gov. retiree Pension problems #733107Participant[quote=pri_dk] . . . Got a problem with bankers, traders, and Wall Street types? Why don’t you do it yourself if they’ve got it so good?
See how easy it is to turn the argument around?[/quote]
Actually, no I don’t. I believe in karma. Those “wall st types” not only live on constant stress, they have absolutely no control over their own incomes or futures. Their house of cards could come tumbling down on ANY bad morning. Many already have. I wouldn’t want any of those jobs even if I were “qualified” for them.
[quote=pri_dk]Anyway, the OP article is about the STATE pension shortfalls, so if you want to tell us dramatic, peripherally relevant anecdotes about the hardships of pension beneficiaries, you should be linking the the CHP website.[/quote]
Not sure what you’re stating here about the “cushy” existence of “CHP retirees.” This is of course after acquiring PTSD (at the very least) in decades of chasing vehicles on the fwy (incl speeding vans full of 20+ illegal aliens driven by smugglers), standing on a fwy shoulder/median several times per day and night and responding to numerous fatal accidents, etc! pri-dk, are you aware that CHP officers MUST serve 2-3 years out of every decade of service in “BFE??” Of course, while serving in “BFE” the CHP will put you (and your family, if they can stomach it) up in their awesome, state-owned houses in the heart of Death Valley, Salton Sea, Pacheco Pass, Needles, Mono Lake, McCloud, Madera/Chowchilla . . . you get the picture! Not what you’re used to or the size your family expects? No “carefully-planned” developments within a 100 mi radius? Not “Tuscan-style” and has a 20+ mi bus ride to school?? TOUGH SHIT! Leave your family back in suburbia or exurbia and visit them every other wknd or so!
pri_dk, what are you waiting for? This is your chance to become vested in CalPERS!
[quote=pri_dk]Of course nobody on this thread rooting for the public sector employees has even attempted to answer the fundamental question:
Who is going to to pay for the $240-$500 billion shortfall? . . . [/quote]
pri_dk, can you point me to a link where you obtained this information? If it is already posted on this thread and I overlooked it, can you point me there? Thank you 🙂
November 17, 2011 at 9:18 AM in reply to: Excellent Economist Mag. article on CA’s Gov. retiree Pension problems #733102Participant[quote=pri_dk] . . . We are sacrificing the education of the next generation in order to allow a minority from our own generation to retire early and in extraordinary comfort. It’s disgusting.[/quote]
pri_dk, I know several retired teachers and school administrators (now between the ages of 65-75). I would hardly call their retirement conditions living in “extraordinary comfort.” ALL of them own properties (both personal residence and rentals) in areas of SD (in the school district they retired from) that many on this forum have stated they wouldn’t even drive into. Several HAVE TO DEPEND upon their rental incomes to keep them afloat if their primary residences are not paid off. Of course, they manage them themselves.
How did these lowly teachers acquire all these investment properties, you may ask? First of all, they ALL worked >=30 years, most the entire time with the same district. They lived, ate, dressed and drove frugally all along and within their means. They kept an eye out for good deals (whether listed or not) in their respective immediate areas. They bought fixers and fixed them up for tenants on school vacations and weekends.
Many, many retired law enforcement here in SD County have done the exact same thing to supplement their retirements. The only difference between them and the educators is that they were able to retire 10 years younger than educators with the same level of benefits, due to their “Class C” retirements, by law. If YOU wish to work the street for 2/3 to 3/4 of your career, YOU can have the same. Your first “duty station” will be the SDPD Southeastern Station located at 7222 Skyline Drive, 92114. You’ll be there for 8-10 years before you’ll be able to “pick” your next stn from a pool or lottery – that is … if you make it that far …
Get crackin’ on the “hiring process,” Piggs. Your “usual haunts” on Imperial Ave beckon . . .
http://www.sandiego.gov/police/recruiting/join/
Time’s a wastin’! You could have been “vested” by now!!
November 17, 2011 at 8:58 AM in reply to: Excellent Economist Mag. article on CA’s Gov. retiree Pension problems #733099ParticipantThese “furloughs” affect workers of ALL ranks and seniority levels . . . even those slated to “retire” in the next 3 years. They also have the effect of negating end-career “retired-pay spiking” (whether deliberate or not) since public retirement benefits are based upon the highest 1 yr or avg of 3 yrs salary. If a rank-and-file member at the “height” of their “career” and close to retirement gets a 3-5% annual “step raise” in accordance with their union contract, any furlough taken that calendar year wipes out part or all of that raise, keeping their annual gross pay for that year down to a previous level even though they are now making more per hr.
November 17, 2011 at 8:49 AM in reply to: Excellent Economist Mag. article on CA’s Gov. retiree Pension problems #733096Participant[quote=CA renter] . . . many of them are going to see 10-35% pay cuts going forward. Some have already seen rather significant cuts already.[/quote]
Every time a public worker is ordered to take a “furlough,” whether 1-2 days per month, X-mas thru New Years, etc (and the public is inconvenienced because gov’mt offices are short-staffed or closed), those workers go unpaid for those days unless they wish to use paid vacation for this time.
This amounts to a pay cut in the amount of days per year they are ordered to take furloughs and this practice has been going on for the last several years in nearly every jurisdiction.
Edit: It’s not uncommon for govm’t workers to be ordered to take 12 (CA Court system) to 21 working days per year in unpaid “furlough.” These furloughs alone are akin a 4.6% to 8% pay cut.
November 13, 2011 at 4:15 PM in reply to: CA Revenue comes in 6.5% lower than expected (and some common sense solutions) #732860ParticipantAnd personally, I don’t think I’d classify either EconProf or myself as “faux conservatives” (or any kind of “conservative” for that matter), lol.
Correct me if I have this wrong, EconProf :=]
November 13, 2011 at 4:13 PM in reply to: CA Revenue comes in 6.5% lower than expected (and some common sense solutions) #732859Participant[quote=gandalf] . . . Responsibility for this mess starts with Wall Street executives and the financial industry, assisted by the Fed, rating agencies and corrupt politicians who engineered deregulation, fraud and loose credit. Bigger problem than federal/state/muni pensions by orders of magnitude.[/quote]
Completely agree, gandalf. Public pension funds were, for the most part, solvent until their respective Boards began investing it in Wall-Street-created vehicles that “promised” higher returns but were not, in any way shape or form appropriate or in our best interest.
FWIW, due to its small size, I chose to defer my pension (let it grow a bit more) before I apply for it. I don’t currently live off my “pension” OR collect “retiree health benefits.”
November 13, 2011 at 3:53 PM in reply to: CA Revenue comes in 6.5% lower than expected (and some common sense solutions) #732857Participantgandalf, who better to be in position to intelligently criticize the way the “system” is run than those who know it inside and out?
I could sit here on a stump and list criticisms, too. But what for? All the “rules” were laid out into law long ago by our lofty legislature. However, their “interpretation” is left to the individual jurisdictions.
We are all led to believe that being chosen for employment in government positions is based upon a “merit system.” Except in the Federal Government (who has multiple-agency oversight in this regard), I have NEVER known govm’t “merit systems” to exist in practice. The laws are written with many loopholes for Agency Heads to navigate to get exactly WHO they want for positions (test score, experience or “merit” be damned).
He’s just reiterating his experience working in a politically-based “system,” here. You have the choice of taking his word for it or going thru the arduous process of finding out for yourselves! All other (obviously ignorant) “hypocrite” jabs are coming from “the mouths of babes” :=]
November 13, 2011 at 3:39 PM in reply to: CA Revenue comes in 6.5% lower than expected (and some common sense solutions) #732855ParticipantLol, Domo, I can’t imagine you would give up a meager pension that you yourself fed into thru payroll deductions after 23 years of toiling in “the system” for low pay.
You stated yourself that you believe you make more $$ working for a private enterprise. However, if you have never applied to any government position, you do not actually know if you are “hiring material.” Until your lengthy application is processed, you take (and pass) the required written exam (if applic), you interview (sometimes multiple times with one agency) and ALL your background checks are run (and the govm’t employer is satisfied with “who you are”), you don’t even know IF you can even obtain a position with govm’t!
Until such time as you go thru the above described process, you have no idea if you have or would have had the “choice” of a public or private “career.”
November 13, 2011 at 2:58 PM in reply to: CA Revenue comes in 6.5% lower than expected (and some common sense solutions) #732852Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
I, too am a “local” govm’t “retiree” but will never avail myself of their health benefits as, in my case, they are priced at (expensive) COBRA rates. [/quote]I don’t want to take this too far off topic, but this is the 2nd time recently that I’ve seen COBRA rates described as expensive. They are, but health insurance is expensive. Premiums are limited to 102% of what the employer was/is paying. So there is no substantial COBRA insurance premium over other medical insurance rates. If the emplyer got a good deal, the separated employee does too. (Provided the plan is age rated. If not, i.e., the employer paid flat rates regardless of the employees age, then younger separated employees would pay more, older separated employees would pay less.)[/quote]
SK, below are the 2012 offerings for SDCERA retirees:
see pg 2 of: http://www.sdcera.org/PDF/HIPlans_factsheet_2012.pdf
I completely understand if the retiree (ineligible for Medicare) has pre-existing conditions and so has no choice but to continue on with their plan they had while employed. But for the “healthy retiree” such as myself (knock on wood), the individual market offers more freedom for MUCH less money. Also, many retirees are afraid of HDHP’s because they are so used to paying small copays and don’t or can’t budget for a large hospital copay/coinsurance.
My HDHP has excellent preventative-care benefits. Along with my usual annual exams this past Sept, I rec’d a $397 “bone scan” from Sharp Memorial Hospital for free! I was shocked when I recently rec’d a small “reading physician” bill for $9, which was my cost-share for the entire procedure!
IMHO, SDCERA has ridiculous premiums for what you get (even with the $200+ “allowance” thrown in). I am fortunate in that I have choices that many other retirees don’t, due to my continuing good health (which has not been without effort in that regard) :=]
November 13, 2011 at 1:43 PM in reply to: CA Revenue comes in 6.5% lower than expected (and some common sense solutions) #732843Participant[quote=EconProf]…Anyway, to address the charge of hypocrisy, my pension of $540/month and health care I see as deferred compensation for years of relatively low pay…[/quote]
Lol, EconProf, thanks for sharing. I can now see that we’re both able to run and jump over our monthly pensions on a bright sunny day! That and your good looks will pay your winter SDGE bill, sewer and water bill combined!
Anyone here can see why you decided early on to depend upon rental income in retirement, lol …
November 13, 2011 at 1:37 PM in reply to: CA Revenue comes in 6.5% lower than expected (and some common sense solutions) #732841ParticipantLet me ask you Piggs calling EconProf a “hypocrite” if YOU would give back the benes you “earned” and not avail yourself of them if you were in his place. It appears he COULD have stayed longer and thus got way more pension but decided instead to get the fvck out and take early retirement.
I can tell you from personal experience that vocal employees working in government can be ostracized by the powers that be. It doesn’t matter if they’re “right” or not.
I, too am a “local” govm’t “retiree” but will never avail myself of their health benefits as, in my case, they are priced at (expensive) COBRA rates. Half of my health-plan offerings are higher than my monthly pension! Our “health care allowance” is between about $220 and $280 mo (about 1/3 to 1/4 of the mo premium). If you retired after 3/02 (I didn’t) under an “enhanced plan,” you are not eligible for the “health care allowance.”
It’s worthless to me, anyway.
Shadowfax, correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t you a Federal worker? I agree with you in that Prop 13 will NOT “repeal itself” due to all the reasons you mentioned. In CA, there is no reason whatsoever to let a “Prop 13” property slip out of family ownership unless there are no heirs or those heirs are now dead. It would be STUPID for even a group of heirs to not let at least one of them take title to the family home, get a mortgage and pay the rest of them their share. Property taxes can absolutely eat up most modest-retirees’ pensions and SS if not protected by Prop 13.
Unless partially or completely repealed by the legislature, we are stuck with Prop 13.
Why should we assume EconProf didn’t buy his “investment properties” with 20%+ down with a mtg of a MUCH higher interest rate than is available today? Properties didn’t start really skyrocketing in value until the “easy lending stds” were common (around 2004). I’m sure Econprof just held on and collected rents even when the values of his properties dipped (1983, 1993, etc). He probably never even thought about “short sale!” Why should we automatically think EconProf was a “bubble purchaser” or “bubble seller.” If you ask him, he might tell you he sat out the “millenium bubble,” lol.
Why don’t some of you non-govm’t employees take a few days off work and “shadow” a govm’t employee for those days? You have no idea what they go thru on a daily basis under the “framework of supervision” and “working conditions” that they are subject to until you see it for yourself.
If you find after your “shadowing experience” that you think you can “hang with the program” long-term, then go for it! Put in a lengthy application, sign releases for your (very thorough) background checks and go on interviews! Serve your (often lengthy) “probationary period” and your first 10 years or so to “get vested” in that “cushy pension.” And for each promotion, you will serve probation all over again!
Everything looks incredibly easy to an “outsider” looking in … :=0
ParticipantMaybe a loan officer can chime in here but wouldn’t the amount of the new monthly MIP negate any potential savings in interest rate?
I’d rather keep paying the principal down (as you are) than throwing more (non-tax deductible for principal residence) MIP to the wind.
I’m afraid the up-front costs of a new FHA loan ALSO will cause your LTV to increase. Doesn’t FHA only allow about 103% LTV with MIP rolled in?
I think you may be stuck, TK. You have the option of waiting out the rest of this RE downturn with your current mtg and continue to maintain your property. Perhaps in the coming years you will qualify to retire your MIP.
see: http://www.approvedfha.com/fha-mortgage-insurance.html
to calculate what your new up-front and monthly MIP would be if you refinanced FHA
edit: the above post assumes you have purchased a residence with an FHA mtg in the last 8 years.
-
AuthorPosts
