[DomoArigato]

More good news for those of us who have been waiting to buy in SD.

So in some pricey places, the new limits will really pinch borrowers. Those limits vary from market to market and are determined in part by local housing prices. In expensive housing markets where prices have fallen, the limits will drop the most. Hardest to be hit, according to a new analysis by Move.com, will be San Diego, where loans up until $697,500 qualify for Fannie and Freddie until Sept. 30. On Oct. 1, that limit drops to $546,250, a $151,250 difference.

http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-money/2011/09/08/what-new-jumbo-mortgage-rules-mean-for-expensive-zip-codes/

It finally feels like those of us who have been responsible and patient are about to be rewarded.

[DomoArigato]

I just noticed this article.

http://www.housingwire.com/2011/09/16/extension-of-conforming-loan-limits-fails-in-house

So it looks like the high conforming loan limits will expire and go back to the old lower loan limits. There is some chance that the high limits could be reinstated in a bill expected to be introduced late this year. This quote from the article is spot on IMO:

“We expect to see significant negative consequences for the struggling housing market as a result of the limit drop after Oct. 1,” Campbell’s office said.

Combine the end of high loan limits with the fact that California foreclosures are set to surge and we should be seeing much lower prices shortly.

http://www.housingwire.com/2011/09/19/california-foreclosures-set-to-surge

This probably isn’t being discussed very much on this board because most have already bought and there are only a few holdouts like myself left.

[DomoArigato]

With the government backing 95%+ of all new mortgages I believe this is actually a much bigger deal than the various foreclosure tsunamis that may or may not be coming down the pipe. Keep in mind also that the government is looking to charge higher fees and require bigger down payments for loans underneath the conforming limits, so that will affect house prices as well.

The conforming loan limits are scheduled to come down on October 1, but most banks started working under the new limits some time last month. Some lawmakers are pushing to keep the current conforming limits, but it’s unclear if that push is getting any traction.

The WSJ answered a reader question about this the other day:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904060604576574722172610628.html

With buyers in that price range being asked to put down $100K+ more than they would have to just a month ago, there is no way this won’t put extreme negative pressure on prices.

[DomoArigato]

This is a good move by the government. The U.S. government should try to eliminate as much government contracting as possible as it costs tons more for a contractor to do the same work as a government employee:

Despite a widespread belief that contracting out services to the private sector saves the federal government money, a new study suggests just the opposite — that the government actually pays more when it farms out work.

The study found that in 33 of 35 occupations, the government actually paid billions of dollars more to hire contractors than it would have cost government employees to perform comparable services. On average, the study found that contractors charged the federal government more than twice the amount it pays federal workers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/us/13contractor.html

Obama mentioned in his recent speech that he was going to speed up payments to government contractors. Instead of doing that, he should be freezing payments to government contractors, cutting them loose wholesale, and hiring more federal employees.

[DomoArigato]

[quote=UCGal]I hesitate to post this – for fear of looking like I’m promoting one team and bashing another… but I was surprised to read that the Solyndra loan guarantees were initiated and mostly completed under the former administration.

http://fefwww.istockanalyst.com/article/viewnewspaged/articleid/2686855/pageid/1

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/13/317594/timeline-bush-administration-solyndra-loan-guarantee/

I’m sure folks will blame whichever side they feel is to blame. But I’m not sure that the full blame for the Solyndra loan can go to Obama.[/quote]

Hmmmm … so both sides are full of corrupt idiots. Hoocoodanode?

[DomoArigato]

[quote=svelte]Maybe I’m just getting too used to well polished Hollywood type politicians, but I wasn’t overly impressed with any of the candidates in the debate last night. The parts I saw anyway.

And they all certainly have their vulnerabilities. It is going to be a fairly interesting Presidential race, methinks.[/quote]

As a Liberal, I like that Perry doubled the size of the Texas state debt and grew the public sector at twice the rate of the private sector during his term. Perry also raised taxes during his term as Governor of Texas. I think we need something similar at the Federal level to get us out of this economic jam.

Perry is looking better than Obama at this point.

[DomoArigato]

For those of you upset about this relatively piddling amount, are you also concerned about the $16 trillion in secret loans to criminal banksters?

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3

After all, $500 million is only 0.003 percent of $16 trillion.

If the criminal banksters were able to make just a 2% spread on those $16 trillion in loans, that’s a theft of $320 billion from taxpayers straight to the criminal banksters who caused the economic mess we are currently in. $500 million is just 0.15 percent of $320 billion.

The difference between the right and the left is that the right always focuses on something that is relatively inconsequential (a $500 million dollar failed loan) while the left actually focuses on things that are important ($16 trillion in secret loans from the Federal Reserve to criminal banksters).

[DomoArigato]

[quote=EconProf]Businesses can’t predict their future costs or regulatory environment, so they sit on their cash hoard.[/quote]

Wrong.

None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it. Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-09 and its grim aftermath.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/01/122865/regulations-taxes-arent-killing.html#ixzz1X1LiASzJ

[DomoArigato]

[quote=carlsbadworker]Agree with CAR. The reason deadbeats use their houses as ATM is because they have no where else to get money for consumption.[/quote]

My bank now literally allows one to use their home as an ATM as the ATMs now have an option for direct withdraws from a home equity line of credit. I haven’t seen this before. It used to be you could only withdraw from a checking account or a savings account.

Is this something new or was my bank just behind the curve?

[DomoArigato]

[quote=CA renter]
Yes, they’ve already done this with all the mortgages that *could* be refinanced over the past few years — most of the refis have been into govt-backed loans. Now, they are going to take the worst of the worst and refi those into govt-backed loans.

The whole thing stinks.[/quote]

Although I’m against any attempt to stimulate the housing market because I think the whole premise is ridiculous, per the New York Times article that Mish linked to, it looks like the current proposal is to take loans that are already government-backed and refinance them to a lower interest rate.

The proponents say the plan carries little risk because the mortgages are already guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They also say it makes those loans less likely to go into default and ultimately foreclosure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/business/economy/us-may-back-mortgage-refinancing-for-millions.html?_r=3&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha25&pagewanted=all

So this plan might actually reduce the government’s mortgage-related expenses because it may result in less foreclosures in the future.

[DomoArigato]

[quote=CA renter]
Yes, they’ve already done this with all the mortgages that *could* be refinanced over the past few years — most of the refis have been into govt-backed loans. Now, they are going to take the worst of the worst and refi those into govt-backed loans.

The whole thing stinks.[/quote]

Although I’m against any attempt to stimulate the housing market because I think the whole premise is ridiculous, per the New York Times article that Mish linked to, it looks like the current proposal is to take loans that are already government-backed and refinance them to a lower interest rate.

The proponents say the plan carries little risk because the mortgages are already guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They also say it makes those loans less likely to go into default and ultimately foreclosure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/business/economy/us-may-back-mortgage-refinancing-for-millions.html?_r=3&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha25&pagewanted=all

So this plan might actually reduce the government’s mortgage-related expenses because it may result in less foreclosures in the future.

[DomoArigato]

[quote=CA renter]
Yes, they’ve already done this with all the mortgages that *could* be refinanced over the past few years — most of the refis have been into govt-backed loans. Now, they are going to take the worst of the worst and refi those into govt-backed loans.

The whole thing stinks.[/quote]

Although I’m against any attempt to stimulate the housing market because I think the whole premise is ridiculous, per the New York Times article that Mish linked to, it looks like the current proposal is to take loans that are already government-backed and refinance them to a lower interest rate.

The proponents say the plan carries little risk because the mortgages are already guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They also say it makes those loans less likely to go into default and ultimately foreclosure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/business/economy/us-may-back-mortgage-refinancing-for-millions.html?_r=3&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha25&pagewanted=all

So this plan might actually reduce the government’s mortgage-related expenses because it may result in less foreclosures in the future.

[DomoArigato]

[quote=CA renter]
Yes, they’ve already done this with all the mortgages that *could* be refinanced over the past few years — most of the refis have been into govt-backed loans. Now, they are going to take the worst of the worst and refi those into govt-backed loans.

The whole thing stinks.[/quote]

Although I’m against any attempt to stimulate the housing market because I think the whole premise is ridiculous, per the New York Times article that Mish linked to, it looks like the current proposal is to take loans that are already government-backed and refinance them to a lower interest rate.

The proponents say the plan carries little risk because the mortgages are already guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They also say it makes those loans less likely to go into default and ultimately foreclosure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/business/economy/us-may-back-mortgage-refinancing-for-millions.html?_r=3&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha25&pagewanted=all

So this plan might actually reduce the government’s mortgage-related expenses because it may result in less foreclosures in the future.

[DomoArigato]

[quote=CA renter]
Yes, they’ve already done this with all the mortgages that *could* be refinanced over the past few years — most of the refis have been into govt-backed loans. Now, they are going to take the worst of the worst and refi those into govt-backed loans.

The whole thing stinks.[/quote]

Although I’m against any attempt to stimulate the housing market because I think the whole premise is ridiculous, per the New York Times article that Mish linked to, it looks like the current proposal is to take loans that are already government-backed and refinance them to a lower interest rate.

The proponents say the plan carries little risk because the mortgages are already guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They also say it makes those loans less likely to go into default and ultimately foreclosure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/business/economy/us-may-back-mortgage-refinancing-for-millions.html?_r=3&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha25&pagewanted=all

So this plan might actually reduce the government’s mortgage-related expenses because it may result in less foreclosures in the future.

[DomoArigato]

[quote=ucodegen]Sounds like you don’t understand fractional reserve banking and how it might relate to market cap. Remember that for a bank to make a loan, it often has to borrow money itself. In some cases that money may be your own bank account. In order to pay you interest, it has to generate money from it somehow. It does this by lending the money out. When things went south, the money that the bank borrowed had to be paid back.. Basically the market cap is related to Assets – Liabilities (it is not pure assets). The Fed money was to help plump up the Assets because house values (or effectively the loans face value) dropped like a stone.[/quote]

I’m not surprised that you are a supporter of one of the two major parties (Republican), because you are clearly clueless. JPM didn’t lend out that $390 billion. They just turned around and put it in Treasuries risk-free. Fractional-reserve lending has nothing to do with the massive bailouts the criminal banksters received.

A 3% risk-free spread on $390 billion is almost $12 billion. No wonder the U.S. government borrowing rates are staying so low. The Fed is giving $16 trillion in bailout money at near zero rates to the criminal bankster elites who are turning around and buying government debt with it in order to turn a risk-free profit.

What homeowner wouldn’t love to earn a risk-free return on 3 times the amount of his home? Too bad this level of criminality can only be played by the elites.

[Author]

Posts