[Daniel]

HLS, your post isn’t primarily about investment properties, but still… I wanted to get this off my chest for a long time, and you provided the opportunity:

I’ve never understood why Fannie and Freddie were allowed to deal with non-owner occupied mortgages in the first place. They’re taxpayer sponsored entities (more like taxpayer owned, recently) supposed to “help foster homeownership”, right? How exactly is giving a mortgage to a landlord helping homeownership? Could someone explain that to me, please?

Now, don’t get me wrong, a landlord should be able to get a mortgage, of course. There is a private market for mortgages, isn’t there? I just can’t see what interest, as a taxpayer, I would have in “sponsoring” such an enterprise. Any way I wrap my mind around this, it doesn’t make any sense.

The best I can do is “OK, the landlord is esentially a small business owner, and perhaps he should be able to get a better rate loan through a Small Business Administration (SBA) program”. But Fannie and Freddie??? What in the world Fannie and Freddie have to do with it?

[Daniel]

HLS, your post isn’t primarily about investment properties, but still… I wanted to get this off my chest for a long time, and you provided the opportunity:

I’ve never understood why Fannie and Freddie were allowed to deal with non-owner occupied mortgages in the first place. They’re taxpayer sponsored entities (more like taxpayer owned, recently) supposed to “help foster homeownership”, right? How exactly is giving a mortgage to a landlord helping homeownership? Could someone explain that to me, please?

Now, don’t get me wrong, a landlord should be able to get a mortgage, of course. There is a private market for mortgages, isn’t there? I just can’t see what interest, as a taxpayer, I would have in “sponsoring” such an enterprise. Any way I wrap my mind around this, it doesn’t make any sense.

The best I can do is “OK, the landlord is esentially a small business owner, and perhaps he should be able to get a better rate loan through a Small Business Administration (SBA) program”. But Fannie and Freddie??? What in the world Fannie and Freddie have to do with it?

[Daniel]

HLS, your post isn’t primarily about investment properties, but still… I wanted to get this off my chest for a long time, and you provided the opportunity:

I’ve never understood why Fannie and Freddie were allowed to deal with non-owner occupied mortgages in the first place. They’re taxpayer sponsored entities (more like taxpayer owned, recently) supposed to “help foster homeownership”, right? How exactly is giving a mortgage to a landlord helping homeownership? Could someone explain that to me, please?

Now, don’t get me wrong, a landlord should be able to get a mortgage, of course. There is a private market for mortgages, isn’t there? I just can’t see what interest, as a taxpayer, I would have in “sponsoring” such an enterprise. Any way I wrap my mind around this, it doesn’t make any sense.

The best I can do is “OK, the landlord is esentially a small business owner, and perhaps he should be able to get a better rate loan through a Small Business Administration (SBA) program”. But Fannie and Freddie??? What in the world Fannie and Freddie have to do with it?

[Daniel]

HLS, your post isn’t primarily about investment properties, but still… I wanted to get this off my chest for a long time, and you provided the opportunity:

I’ve never understood why Fannie and Freddie were allowed to deal with non-owner occupied mortgages in the first place. They’re taxpayer sponsored entities (more like taxpayer owned, recently) supposed to “help foster homeownership”, right? How exactly is giving a mortgage to a landlord helping homeownership? Could someone explain that to me, please?

Now, don’t get me wrong, a landlord should be able to get a mortgage, of course. There is a private market for mortgages, isn’t there? I just can’t see what interest, as a taxpayer, I would have in “sponsoring” such an enterprise. Any way I wrap my mind around this, it doesn’t make any sense.

The best I can do is “OK, the landlord is esentially a small business owner, and perhaps he should be able to get a better rate loan through a Small Business Administration (SBA) program”. But Fannie and Freddie??? What in the world Fannie and Freddie have to do with it?

[Daniel]

The “OP” topic (hehe, I’m internet literate now, too 🙂 has been wildly hijacked…

[quote=CA renter]

You’re implying that unionized workers are afraid to compete with other workers based on the merit of their skill or quality of product produced. That’s not the case at all. This is not a competition based on abilities, it’s a competition based only on wages. If you’re suggesting U.S. workers should embrace working for third-world wages, feel free to lead the way. You go first.
[/quote]

… so I’m gonna get into the fray on the new subject.

First, apologies to CA renter, with whom I often agree, but I feel compelled to take Dave’s side on this one. Dave is getting pretty lonely on this board, and that’s not fair (since his arguments are right most of the time 🙂

You see, CA renter, what you perceive as “third-world wages” may not be seen in Bangalore as such. Viewed from there, they’re very fairly paid, while American workers doing similar jobs are obscenely well paid. As Dave said, it depends on where you sit. I lived (for years) on both sides of the divide; I have to say that I think their point of view may be much closer to the truth than yours.

The fact is, an engineer in Bangalore often does a similar job to an engineer in San Diego for a lot less money (caveats and exceptions aside, I’m talking in very general terms, of course). As long as this is true, market forces will push one of two options: the job will leave San Diego for Bangalore, or the Indian engineer will come here on an H1-B visa. It’s either one or the other. Anything else (unionizing, trade restrictions, etc) is just pissing against the wind, for lack of a better metaphor.

[Daniel]

The “OP” topic (hehe, I’m internet literate now, too 🙂 has been wildly hijacked…

[quote=CA renter]

You’re implying that unionized workers are afraid to compete with other workers based on the merit of their skill or quality of product produced. That’s not the case at all. This is not a competition based on abilities, it’s a competition based only on wages. If you’re suggesting U.S. workers should embrace working for third-world wages, feel free to lead the way. You go first.
[/quote]

… so I’m gonna get into the fray on the new subject.

First, apologies to CA renter, with whom I often agree, but I feel compelled to take Dave’s side on this one. Dave is getting pretty lonely on this board, and that’s not fair (since his arguments are right most of the time 🙂

You see, CA renter, what you perceive as “third-world wages” may not be seen in Bangalore as such. Viewed from there, they’re very fairly paid, while American workers doing similar jobs are obscenely well paid. As Dave said, it depends on where you sit. I lived (for years) on both sides of the divide; I have to say that I think their point of view may be much closer to the truth than yours.

The fact is, an engineer in Bangalore often does a similar job to an engineer in San Diego for a lot less money (caveats and exceptions aside, I’m talking in very general terms, of course). As long as this is true, market forces will push one of two options: the job will leave San Diego for Bangalore, or the Indian engineer will come here on an H1-B visa. It’s either one or the other. Anything else (unionizing, trade restrictions, etc) is just pissing against the wind, for lack of a better metaphor.

[Daniel]

The “OP” topic (hehe, I’m internet literate now, too 🙂 has been wildly hijacked…

[quote=CA renter]

You’re implying that unionized workers are afraid to compete with other workers based on the merit of their skill or quality of product produced. That’s not the case at all. This is not a competition based on abilities, it’s a competition based only on wages. If you’re suggesting U.S. workers should embrace working for third-world wages, feel free to lead the way. You go first.
[/quote]

… so I’m gonna get into the fray on the new subject.

First, apologies to CA renter, with whom I often agree, but I feel compelled to take Dave’s side on this one. Dave is getting pretty lonely on this board, and that’s not fair (since his arguments are right most of the time 🙂

You see, CA renter, what you perceive as “third-world wages” may not be seen in Bangalore as such. Viewed from there, they’re very fairly paid, while American workers doing similar jobs are obscenely well paid. As Dave said, it depends on where you sit. I lived (for years) on both sides of the divide; I have to say that I think their point of view may be much closer to the truth than yours.

The fact is, an engineer in Bangalore often does a similar job to an engineer in San Diego for a lot less money (caveats and exceptions aside, I’m talking in very general terms, of course). As long as this is true, market forces will push one of two options: the job will leave San Diego for Bangalore, or the Indian engineer will come here on an H1-B visa. It’s either one or the other. Anything else (unionizing, trade restrictions, etc) is just pissing against the wind, for lack of a better metaphor.

[Daniel]

The “OP” topic (hehe, I’m internet literate now, too 🙂 has been wildly hijacked…

[quote=CA renter]

You’re implying that unionized workers are afraid to compete with other workers based on the merit of their skill or quality of product produced. That’s not the case at all. This is not a competition based on abilities, it’s a competition based only on wages. If you’re suggesting U.S. workers should embrace working for third-world wages, feel free to lead the way. You go first.
[/quote]

… so I’m gonna get into the fray on the new subject.

First, apologies to CA renter, with whom I often agree, but I feel compelled to take Dave’s side on this one. Dave is getting pretty lonely on this board, and that’s not fair (since his arguments are right most of the time 🙂

You see, CA renter, what you perceive as “third-world wages” may not be seen in Bangalore as such. Viewed from there, they’re very fairly paid, while American workers doing similar jobs are obscenely well paid. As Dave said, it depends on where you sit. I lived (for years) on both sides of the divide; I have to say that I think their point of view may be much closer to the truth than yours.

The fact is, an engineer in Bangalore often does a similar job to an engineer in San Diego for a lot less money (caveats and exceptions aside, I’m talking in very general terms, of course). As long as this is true, market forces will push one of two options: the job will leave San Diego for Bangalore, or the Indian engineer will come here on an H1-B visa. It’s either one or the other. Anything else (unionizing, trade restrictions, etc) is just pissing against the wind, for lack of a better metaphor.

[Daniel]

The “OP” topic (hehe, I’m internet literate now, too 🙂 has been wildly hijacked…

[quote=CA renter]

You’re implying that unionized workers are afraid to compete with other workers based on the merit of their skill or quality of product produced. That’s not the case at all. This is not a competition based on abilities, it’s a competition based only on wages. If you’re suggesting U.S. workers should embrace working for third-world wages, feel free to lead the way. You go first.
[/quote]

… so I’m gonna get into the fray on the new subject.

First, apologies to CA renter, with whom I often agree, but I feel compelled to take Dave’s side on this one. Dave is getting pretty lonely on this board, and that’s not fair (since his arguments are right most of the time 🙂

You see, CA renter, what you perceive as “third-world wages” may not be seen in Bangalore as such. Viewed from there, they’re very fairly paid, while American workers doing similar jobs are obscenely well paid. As Dave said, it depends on where you sit. I lived (for years) on both sides of the divide; I have to say that I think their point of view may be much closer to the truth than yours.

The fact is, an engineer in Bangalore often does a similar job to an engineer in San Diego for a lot less money (caveats and exceptions aside, I’m talking in very general terms, of course). As long as this is true, market forces will push one of two options: the job will leave San Diego for Bangalore, or the Indian engineer will come here on an H1-B visa. It’s either one or the other. Anything else (unionizing, trade restrictions, etc) is just pissing against the wind, for lack of a better metaphor.

[Daniel]

nc4, ok, I’ll bite: I’m in my early thirties, just like you. I have a spouse and kids, just like you. We make $200K+, just like you. Our FICOs are 800+, just like yours. As far as assets, let’s say we wouldn’t even need a mortgage if we were to “liquidate all our assets for housing”, as you nicely put it.

Still, we rent. We rent a house that no long ago was “worth” in the seven figures. Why? Because, although I agree with most of your statements, I take exception to one: “in our tax bracket, renting does not make sense”. Yes, today it does (as it did last year, and the year before, and the year before). It makes perfect sense in La Jolla, and Del Mar, and Carmel Valley, and in all areas that haven’t (yet) come down as much. Just like it made perfect sense to stay away from stocks a decade ago.

Honest advice: find a house you like, a house you’d be happy living in as your own, and rent for a couple of years. If you must own (for emotional or practical reasons, as I really think that financially it doesn’t make any sense), then stay with a conforming jumbo and buy smaller or farther away.

I know, it sucks turning thirty during the biggest housing bubble in history. You think that you only have two options, both unappealing: grossly overpay for a house you like, or settle for one that you don’t like. I’m here to tell you that there is a third option: wait.

[Daniel]

nc4, ok, I’ll bite: I’m in my early thirties, just like you. I have a spouse and kids, just like you. We make $200K+, just like you. Our FICOs are 800+, just like yours. As far as assets, let’s say we wouldn’t even need a mortgage if we were to “liquidate all our assets for housing”, as you nicely put it.

Still, we rent. We rent a house that no long ago was “worth” in the seven figures. Why? Because, although I agree with most of your statements, I take exception to one: “in our tax bracket, renting does not make sense”. Yes, today it does (as it did last year, and the year before, and the year before). It makes perfect sense in La Jolla, and Del Mar, and Carmel Valley, and in all areas that haven’t (yet) come down as much. Just like it made perfect sense to stay away from stocks a decade ago.

Honest advice: find a house you like, a house you’d be happy living in as your own, and rent for a couple of years. If you must own (for emotional or practical reasons, as I really think that financially it doesn’t make any sense), then stay with a conforming jumbo and buy smaller or farther away.

I know, it sucks turning thirty during the biggest housing bubble in history. You think that you only have two options, both unappealing: grossly overpay for a house you like, or settle for one that you don’t like. I’m here to tell you that there is a third option: wait.

[Daniel]

nc4, ok, I’ll bite: I’m in my early thirties, just like you. I have a spouse and kids, just like you. We make $200K+, just like you. Our FICOs are 800+, just like yours. As far as assets, let’s say we wouldn’t even need a mortgage if we were to “liquidate all our assets for housing”, as you nicely put it.

Still, we rent. We rent a house that no long ago was “worth” in the seven figures. Why? Because, although I agree with most of your statements, I take exception to one: “in our tax bracket, renting does not make sense”. Yes, today it does (as it did last year, and the year before, and the year before). It makes perfect sense in La Jolla, and Del Mar, and Carmel Valley, and in all areas that haven’t (yet) come down as much. Just like it made perfect sense to stay away from stocks a decade ago.

Honest advice: find a house you like, a house you’d be happy living in as your own, and rent for a couple of years. If you must own (for emotional or practical reasons, as I really think that financially it doesn’t make any sense), then stay with a conforming jumbo and buy smaller or farther away.

I know, it sucks turning thirty during the biggest housing bubble in history. You think that you only have two options, both unappealing: grossly overpay for a house you like, or settle for one that you don’t like. I’m here to tell you that there is a third option: wait.

[Daniel]

nc4, ok, I’ll bite: I’m in my early thirties, just like you. I have a spouse and kids, just like you. We make $200K+, just like you. Our FICOs are 800+, just like yours. As far as assets, let’s say we wouldn’t even need a mortgage if we were to “liquidate all our assets for housing”, as you nicely put it.

Still, we rent. We rent a house that no long ago was “worth” in the seven figures. Why? Because, although I agree with most of your statements, I take exception to one: “in our tax bracket, renting does not make sense”. Yes, today it does (as it did last year, and the year before, and the year before). It makes perfect sense in La Jolla, and Del Mar, and Carmel Valley, and in all areas that haven’t (yet) come down as much. Just like it made perfect sense to stay away from stocks a decade ago.

Honest advice: find a house you like, a house you’d be happy living in as your own, and rent for a couple of years. If you must own (for emotional or practical reasons, as I really think that financially it doesn’t make any sense), then stay with a conforming jumbo and buy smaller or farther away.

I know, it sucks turning thirty during the biggest housing bubble in history. You think that you only have two options, both unappealing: grossly overpay for a house you like, or settle for one that you don’t like. I’m here to tell you that there is a third option: wait.

[Daniel]

nc4, ok, I’ll bite: I’m in my early thirties, just like you. I have a spouse and kids, just like you. We make $200K+, just like you. Our FICOs are 800+, just like yours. As far as assets, let’s say we wouldn’t even need a mortgage if we were to “liquidate all our assets for housing”, as you nicely put it.

Still, we rent. We rent a house that no long ago was “worth” in the seven figures. Why? Because, although I agree with most of your statements, I take exception to one: “in our tax bracket, renting does not make sense”. Yes, today it does (as it did last year, and the year before, and the year before). It makes perfect sense in La Jolla, and Del Mar, and Carmel Valley, and in all areas that haven’t (yet) come down as much. Just like it made perfect sense to stay away from stocks a decade ago.

Honest advice: find a house you like, a house you’d be happy living in as your own, and rent for a couple of years. If you must own (for emotional or practical reasons, as I really think that financially it doesn’t make any sense), then stay with a conforming jumbo and buy smaller or farther away.

I know, it sucks turning thirty during the biggest housing bubble in history. You think that you only have two options, both unappealing: grossly overpay for a house you like, or settle for one that you don’t like. I’m here to tell you that there is a third option: wait.

[Daniel]

Oh, Josh, come on… Raise taxes? Lower spending? Don’t go into politics, coz you’re not getting my vote, buddy. I only vote for politicians who lower my taxes (the lower the better) and also give me good schools, nice roads, and a good amount of pork.

What are you saying? Not possible anymore? End of the rope? Well, now you’re certainly not getting my vote. I want my pony and I want it now!

[Author]

Posts