[Diego Mamani]

Down by $500/month! That’s great.

My landlord bought at the peak, and his 5/1 ARM (also not an OA) resets next spring. I forgot what his index is, but I imagine that his monthly payments will probably remain unchanged, or might even come down, as in your friend’s case. But my landlord would still be bleeding cash every month, even after a $500 haircut.

[Diego Mamani]

Down by $500/month! That’s great.

My landlord bought at the peak, and his 5/1 ARM (also not an OA) resets next spring. I forgot what his index is, but I imagine that his monthly payments will probably remain unchanged, or might even come down, as in your friend’s case. But my landlord would still be bleeding cash every month, even after a $500 haircut.

[Diego Mamani]

Down by $500/month! That’s great.

My landlord bought at the peak, and his 5/1 ARM (also not an OA) resets next spring. I forgot what his index is, but I imagine that his monthly payments will probably remain unchanged, or might even come down, as in your friend’s case. But my landlord would still be bleeding cash every month, even after a $500 haircut.

[Diego Mamani]

Down by $500/month! That’s great.

My landlord bought at the peak, and his 5/1 ARM (also not an OA) resets next spring. I forgot what his index is, but I imagine that his monthly payments will probably remain unchanged, or might even come down, as in your friend’s case. But my landlord would still be bleeding cash every month, even after a $500 haircut.

[Diego Mamani]

Down by $500/month! That’s great.

My landlord bought at the peak, and his 5/1 ARM (also not an OA) resets next spring. I forgot what his index is, but I imagine that his monthly payments will probably remain unchanged, or might even come down, as in your friend’s case. But my landlord would still be bleeding cash every month, even after a $500 haircut.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=sdrealtor]It also mentions that once they do adjust the payment shock would be minimal so the only real danger is for those who suffer loss of employment. I am stunned if this is accurate as I beleived this was one of the real shoes that could drop. Government manipulation at its finest.[/quote]

I think the 2nd responder missed a crucial point here. The original article mentions one real danger other than loss of employment: overstated income at the time the original loan was written. Some originators had as much as 80% of loans in the “liar loan” category.

So… if a borrower was barely making her (inflated) monthly payments, even a small payment “shock” could end up being rather shocking indeed.

[Where are the new words “alot” and “beleived” coming from?]

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=sdrealtor]It also mentions that once they do adjust the payment shock would be minimal so the only real danger is for those who suffer loss of employment. I am stunned if this is accurate as I beleived this was one of the real shoes that could drop. Government manipulation at its finest.[/quote]

I think the 2nd responder missed a crucial point here. The original article mentions one real danger other than loss of employment: overstated income at the time the original loan was written. Some originators had as much as 80% of loans in the “liar loan” category.

So… if a borrower was barely making her (inflated) monthly payments, even a small payment “shock” could end up being rather shocking indeed.

[Where are the new words “alot” and “beleived” coming from?]

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=sdrealtor]It also mentions that once they do adjust the payment shock would be minimal so the only real danger is for those who suffer loss of employment. I am stunned if this is accurate as I beleived this was one of the real shoes that could drop. Government manipulation at its finest.[/quote]

I think the 2nd responder missed a crucial point here. The original article mentions one real danger other than loss of employment: overstated income at the time the original loan was written. Some originators had as much as 80% of loans in the “liar loan” category.

So… if a borrower was barely making her (inflated) monthly payments, even a small payment “shock” could end up being rather shocking indeed.

[Where are the new words “alot” and “beleived” coming from?]

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=sdrealtor]It also mentions that once they do adjust the payment shock would be minimal so the only real danger is for those who suffer loss of employment. I am stunned if this is accurate as I beleived this was one of the real shoes that could drop. Government manipulation at its finest.[/quote]

I think the 2nd responder missed a crucial point here. The original article mentions one real danger other than loss of employment: overstated income at the time the original loan was written. Some originators had as much as 80% of loans in the “liar loan” category.

So… if a borrower was barely making her (inflated) monthly payments, even a small payment “shock” could end up being rather shocking indeed.

[Where are the new words “alot” and “beleived” coming from?]

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=sdrealtor]It also mentions that once they do adjust the payment shock would be minimal so the only real danger is for those who suffer loss of employment. I am stunned if this is accurate as I beleived this was one of the real shoes that could drop. Government manipulation at its finest.[/quote]

I think the 2nd responder missed a crucial point here. The original article mentions one real danger other than loss of employment: overstated income at the time the original loan was written. Some originators had as much as 80% of loans in the “liar loan” category.

So… if a borrower was barely making her (inflated) monthly payments, even a small payment “shock” could end up being rather shocking indeed.

[Where are the new words “alot” and “beleived” coming from?]

[Diego Mamani]

Look at how much people insure their houses for. What I have in mind is replacement value, in case of, say, fire.

For your example, you are looking at the higher end of the $600K-$1MM range. Of course, if you go for the really fancy materials, flooring, etc., the sky is the limit.

[Diego Mamani]

Look at how much people insure their houses for. What I have in mind is replacement value, in case of, say, fire.

For your example, you are looking at the higher end of the $600K-$1MM range. Of course, if you go for the really fancy materials, flooring, etc., the sky is the limit.

[Diego Mamani]

Look at how much people insure their houses for. What I have in mind is replacement value, in case of, say, fire.

For your example, you are looking at the higher end of the $600K-$1MM range. Of course, if you go for the really fancy materials, flooring, etc., the sky is the limit.

[Diego Mamani]

Look at how much people insure their houses for. What I have in mind is replacement value, in case of, say, fire.

For your example, you are looking at the higher end of the $600K-$1MM range. Of course, if you go for the really fancy materials, flooring, etc., the sky is the limit.

[Diego Mamani]

Look at how much people insure their houses for. What I have in mind is replacement value, in case of, say, fire.

For your example, you are looking at the higher end of the $600K-$1MM range. Of course, if you go for the really fancy materials, flooring, etc., the sky is the limit.

[Author]

Posts