[Daniel]

I find it shocking that media still chooses to rely on numbers and opinions from NAR and NAR “economists” (or former ones). These people have discredited themselves so much. Their forecasts have become the laughing stock of housing economists everywhere. It’s incredible.

Reporters could easily find independent economists that could be interviewed, on the record, about housing issues. And some reputable bloggers, like CR, also talk to the media. It really strikes me as gross incompetence from the part of reporters to have NAR as their primary forecast source.

[Daniel]

I find it shocking that media still chooses to rely on numbers and opinions from NAR and NAR “economists” (or former ones). These people have discredited themselves so much. Their forecasts have become the laughing stock of housing economists everywhere. It’s incredible.

Reporters could easily find independent economists that could be interviewed, on the record, about housing issues. And some reputable bloggers, like CR, also talk to the media. It really strikes me as gross incompetence from the part of reporters to have NAR as their primary forecast source.

[Daniel]

I find it shocking that media still chooses to rely on numbers and opinions from NAR and NAR “economists” (or former ones). These people have discredited themselves so much. Their forecasts have become the laughing stock of housing economists everywhere. It’s incredible.

Reporters could easily find independent economists that could be interviewed, on the record, about housing issues. And some reputable bloggers, like CR, also talk to the media. It really strikes me as gross incompetence from the part of reporters to have NAR as their primary forecast source.

[Daniel]

I find it shocking that media still chooses to rely on numbers and opinions from NAR and NAR “economists” (or former ones). These people have discredited themselves so much. Their forecasts have become the laughing stock of housing economists everywhere. It’s incredible.

Reporters could easily find independent economists that could be interviewed, on the record, about housing issues. And some reputable bloggers, like CR, also talk to the media. It really strikes me as gross incompetence from the part of reporters to have NAR as their primary forecast source.

[Daniel]

FHA loan… I see… Tell Carrie not to worry. If she falls behind with her payments, it would be our pleasure to pick up the tab. I just sent a big fat check to Uncle Sam a few weeks back, so Uncle Sam will take care of her. After all, what are taxpayers good for?

[Daniel]

FHA loan… I see… Tell Carrie not to worry. If she falls behind with her payments, it would be our pleasure to pick up the tab. I just sent a big fat check to Uncle Sam a few weeks back, so Uncle Sam will take care of her. After all, what are taxpayers good for?

[Daniel]

FHA loan… I see… Tell Carrie not to worry. If she falls behind with her payments, it would be our pleasure to pick up the tab. I just sent a big fat check to Uncle Sam a few weeks back, so Uncle Sam will take care of her. After all, what are taxpayers good for?

[Daniel]

FHA loan… I see… Tell Carrie not to worry. If she falls behind with her payments, it would be our pleasure to pick up the tab. I just sent a big fat check to Uncle Sam a few weeks back, so Uncle Sam will take care of her. After all, what are taxpayers good for?

[Daniel]

FHA loan… I see… Tell Carrie not to worry. If she falls behind with her payments, it would be our pleasure to pick up the tab. I just sent a big fat check to Uncle Sam a few weeks back, so Uncle Sam will take care of her. After all, what are taxpayers good for?

[Daniel]

That was fully expected. From an MBS trader point of view, large loans behave quite differently from small loans (they have different prepayment characteristics), so the bids in the secondary market reflect that. Therefore, one ends up with 3 categories of MBS:

– under $417K: no credit risk (covered by GSEs), low prepayment risk

– between $417K and $730K: no credit risk (still covered by GSEs), but high prepayment risk

– above $730K: both credit risk and prepayment risk

Prices (and, therefore, rates) simply reflect this reality.

[Daniel]

That was fully expected. From an MBS trader point of view, large loans behave quite differently from small loans (they have different prepayment characteristics), so the bids in the secondary market reflect that. Therefore, one ends up with 3 categories of MBS:

– under $417K: no credit risk (covered by GSEs), low prepayment risk

– between $417K and $730K: no credit risk (still covered by GSEs), but high prepayment risk

– above $730K: both credit risk and prepayment risk

Prices (and, therefore, rates) simply reflect this reality.

[Daniel]

That was fully expected. From an MBS trader point of view, large loans behave quite differently from small loans (they have different prepayment characteristics), so the bids in the secondary market reflect that. Therefore, one ends up with 3 categories of MBS:

– under $417K: no credit risk (covered by GSEs), low prepayment risk

– between $417K and $730K: no credit risk (still covered by GSEs), but high prepayment risk

– above $730K: both credit risk and prepayment risk

Prices (and, therefore, rates) simply reflect this reality.

[Daniel]

That was fully expected. From an MBS trader point of view, large loans behave quite differently from small loans (they have different prepayment characteristics), so the bids in the secondary market reflect that. Therefore, one ends up with 3 categories of MBS:

– under $417K: no credit risk (covered by GSEs), low prepayment risk

– between $417K and $730K: no credit risk (still covered by GSEs), but high prepayment risk

– above $730K: both credit risk and prepayment risk

Prices (and, therefore, rates) simply reflect this reality.

[Daniel]

That was fully expected. From an MBS trader point of view, large loans behave quite differently from small loans (they have different prepayment characteristics), so the bids in the secondary market reflect that. Therefore, one ends up with 3 categories of MBS:

– under $417K: no credit risk (covered by GSEs), low prepayment risk

– between $417K and $730K: no credit risk (still covered by GSEs), but high prepayment risk

– above $730K: both credit risk and prepayment risk

Prices (and, therefore, rates) simply reflect this reality.

[Daniel]

To answer your specific question: high balances (like your $10K) do hurt. Not a lot, and it depends on other factors, but they do. There is nothing in your credit report that tells FICO that you are paying in full every month. So, as far as FICO is concerned, your pattern of charging $10K every month and paying it in full looks no different than having charged $10K long time ago and now struggling with a minimum payment every month. Again, it’s no big deal (maybe 10-20 FICO points or so), but, if those points make a difference to you, you’d be better off keeping lower balances and using your debit cards more often.

[Author]

Posts