[equalizer]

[quote=flu][quote=threadkiller]Who did you go with flu? B of A is saying 3.5% with 1/2 point and $3600 in fees. Sounds about the same that we paid on the original 30 year @ 4.875%, not sure how the 3600 dollars breaks down, getting all the paperwork together now.[/quote]

http://piggington.com/well_folkslooks_like_interest_rates_for_loans_are_about_to_go_lo

A broker friend got me the loan. The loan was resold to Wells Fargo a few days after I closed, and it’s also being serviced by Wells Fargo (at lest according to the paper work)….

Originally, I was going to get the loan from aerospace credit union (which has rates even lower now)

http://aerofcu.mortgagewebcenter.com/Default.asp?bhcp=1

Personally, I think you can do better than what B of A is offering in this environment. Maybe try talking to HLS…

My original loan was 30 year @5.5ish…So I ended up getting a 15 year and also having lower payments by about $700/month….I took some friendly advice here, and bought a car LOL….can’t beat them, join them :))

I keep entertaining the thought that if rates on the 30year fall below 4% (like <3.5%), I just might refi back into a 30year and rent the house out and upgrade to something else. I think I'd be able to float the home with about $100-200 positive a month, after all the costs...though my equity would be tied up...then again, it's not like we're seeing great interest rates anyway :(...
I really wish I had a 3 car garage...I really want to have a permanent home/shop where I can work on and leave all my tools/crap, parts, engine, transmission around.

The new Flu...Sporting and encouraging fiscal irresponsibility :([/quote]
Now you have gone and done it. Sellout!

Banks won't let brokers lock rate without reviewing all paystubs, taxes, etc. Was also told that bank are assuming falling home prices and are reducing last sold comps depeding on the months back.

Got quote from broker today that was from Wells Fargo as well with about $3500 closing costs: 15 yr 3.5% no point, 7/8 pt 3.25%; 20yr 3.75% 1/4pt.

[equalizer]

[quote=pjwal]No one is concerned about inflation, which is why it’s a great time to get TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities) at a good price at auction. You should keep your overall portfolio to 7-17% of this anyway as the hedge against inflation, imho.[/quote]
Good observation, against the crowd. Mircrosoft, and other top 50 companies are issuing massive amount of short term notes at near 0% to finance dividends and stock buybacks. Who are the dummies on the other side of the trade – pension funds?

[equalizer]

[quote=pjwal]No one is concerned about inflation, which is why it’s a great time to get TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities) at a good price at auction. You should keep your overall portfolio to 7-17% of this anyway as the hedge against inflation, imho.[/quote]
Good observation, against the crowd. Mircrosoft, and other top 50 companies are issuing massive amount of short term notes at near 0% to finance dividends and stock buybacks. Who are the dummies on the other side of the trade – pension funds?

[equalizer]

[quote=pjwal]No one is concerned about inflation, which is why it’s a great time to get TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities) at a good price at auction. You should keep your overall portfolio to 7-17% of this anyway as the hedge against inflation, imho.[/quote]
Good observation, against the crowd. Mircrosoft, and other top 50 companies are issuing massive amount of short term notes at near 0% to finance dividends and stock buybacks. Who are the dummies on the other side of the trade – pension funds?

[equalizer]

[quote=pjwal]No one is concerned about inflation, which is why it’s a great time to get TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities) at a good price at auction. You should keep your overall portfolio to 7-17% of this anyway as the hedge against inflation, imho.[/quote]
Good observation, against the crowd. Mircrosoft, and other top 50 companies are issuing massive amount of short term notes at near 0% to finance dividends and stock buybacks. Who are the dummies on the other side of the trade – pension funds?

[equalizer]

[quote=pjwal]No one is concerned about inflation, which is why it’s a great time to get TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities) at a good price at auction. You should keep your overall portfolio to 7-17% of this anyway as the hedge against inflation, imho.[/quote]
Good observation, against the crowd. Mircrosoft, and other top 50 companies are issuing massive amount of short term notes at near 0% to finance dividends and stock buybacks. Who are the dummies on the other side of the trade – pension funds?

[equalizer]

[quote=Rich Toscano]The US in the 70s, for generic stagflation. (BTW if high inflation and low growth/employment never happen together, why is there a word to describe them happening together?)

Or, for an example of an inflation driven by a loss of confidence in the sovereign debt and currency, Iceland in 08-09.

I don’t know how to make an example gallop so I think I’m good.[/quote]
Whatever started the 70’s inflation (oil embargoes, wage inflation), the economic policy mistakes kept inflation high. Today, Inflation would remedy/reduce the debt problem, so Fed will likely hope for and adopt strategies to increase inflation.

Rich: Are you gonna wear more gold chains than Mr. T at the next (Halloween) meet-up?

“And, as has been stressed by a number of scholars, a belief in a permanent trade-off between inflation and unemployment briefly held sway. These views led to highly expansionary monetary and fiscal policies, and inflation and booming real growth resulted….

The Samuelson-Solow permanent trade-off view was rejected at the start of the Nixon administration. However, it was replaced by another flawed model: first by a natural rate framework with a very low natural rate, then by a natural rate framework with an extreme insensitivity of inflation to slack. It was this succession of misguided models that gave rise to repeated policy mistakes and persistent inflation in this period.”

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/04/what_caused_the.html

[equalizer]

[quote=Rich Toscano]The US in the 70s, for generic stagflation. (BTW if high inflation and low growth/employment never happen together, why is there a word to describe them happening together?)

Or, for an example of an inflation driven by a loss of confidence in the sovereign debt and currency, Iceland in 08-09.

I don’t know how to make an example gallop so I think I’m good.[/quote]
Whatever started the 70’s inflation (oil embargoes, wage inflation), the economic policy mistakes kept inflation high. Today, Inflation would remedy/reduce the debt problem, so Fed will likely hope for and adopt strategies to increase inflation.

Rich: Are you gonna wear more gold chains than Mr. T at the next (Halloween) meet-up?

“And, as has been stressed by a number of scholars, a belief in a permanent trade-off between inflation and unemployment briefly held sway. These views led to highly expansionary monetary and fiscal policies, and inflation and booming real growth resulted….

The Samuelson-Solow permanent trade-off view was rejected at the start of the Nixon administration. However, it was replaced by another flawed model: first by a natural rate framework with a very low natural rate, then by a natural rate framework with an extreme insensitivity of inflation to slack. It was this succession of misguided models that gave rise to repeated policy mistakes and persistent inflation in this period.”

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/04/what_caused_the.html

[equalizer]

[quote=Rich Toscano]The US in the 70s, for generic stagflation. (BTW if high inflation and low growth/employment never happen together, why is there a word to describe them happening together?)

Or, for an example of an inflation driven by a loss of confidence in the sovereign debt and currency, Iceland in 08-09.

I don’t know how to make an example gallop so I think I’m good.[/quote]
Whatever started the 70’s inflation (oil embargoes, wage inflation), the economic policy mistakes kept inflation high. Today, Inflation would remedy/reduce the debt problem, so Fed will likely hope for and adopt strategies to increase inflation.

Rich: Are you gonna wear more gold chains than Mr. T at the next (Halloween) meet-up?

“And, as has been stressed by a number of scholars, a belief in a permanent trade-off between inflation and unemployment briefly held sway. These views led to highly expansionary monetary and fiscal policies, and inflation and booming real growth resulted….

The Samuelson-Solow permanent trade-off view was rejected at the start of the Nixon administration. However, it was replaced by another flawed model: first by a natural rate framework with a very low natural rate, then by a natural rate framework with an extreme insensitivity of inflation to slack. It was this succession of misguided models that gave rise to repeated policy mistakes and persistent inflation in this period.”

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/04/what_caused_the.html

[equalizer]

[quote=Rich Toscano]The US in the 70s, for generic stagflation. (BTW if high inflation and low growth/employment never happen together, why is there a word to describe them happening together?)

Or, for an example of an inflation driven by a loss of confidence in the sovereign debt and currency, Iceland in 08-09.

I don’t know how to make an example gallop so I think I’m good.[/quote]
Whatever started the 70’s inflation (oil embargoes, wage inflation), the economic policy mistakes kept inflation high. Today, Inflation would remedy/reduce the debt problem, so Fed will likely hope for and adopt strategies to increase inflation.

Rich: Are you gonna wear more gold chains than Mr. T at the next (Halloween) meet-up?

“And, as has been stressed by a number of scholars, a belief in a permanent trade-off between inflation and unemployment briefly held sway. These views led to highly expansionary monetary and fiscal policies, and inflation and booming real growth resulted….

The Samuelson-Solow permanent trade-off view was rejected at the start of the Nixon administration. However, it was replaced by another flawed model: first by a natural rate framework with a very low natural rate, then by a natural rate framework with an extreme insensitivity of inflation to slack. It was this succession of misguided models that gave rise to repeated policy mistakes and persistent inflation in this period.”

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/04/what_caused_the.html

[equalizer]

[quote=Rich Toscano]The US in the 70s, for generic stagflation. (BTW if high inflation and low growth/employment never happen together, why is there a word to describe them happening together?)

Or, for an example of an inflation driven by a loss of confidence in the sovereign debt and currency, Iceland in 08-09.

I don’t know how to make an example gallop so I think I’m good.[/quote]
Whatever started the 70’s inflation (oil embargoes, wage inflation), the economic policy mistakes kept inflation high. Today, Inflation would remedy/reduce the debt problem, so Fed will likely hope for and adopt strategies to increase inflation.

Rich: Are you gonna wear more gold chains than Mr. T at the next (Halloween) meet-up?

“And, as has been stressed by a number of scholars, a belief in a permanent trade-off between inflation and unemployment briefly held sway. These views led to highly expansionary monetary and fiscal policies, and inflation and booming real growth resulted….

The Samuelson-Solow permanent trade-off view was rejected at the start of the Nixon administration. However, it was replaced by another flawed model: first by a natural rate framework with a very low natural rate, then by a natural rate framework with an extreme insensitivity of inflation to slack. It was this succession of misguided models that gave rise to repeated policy mistakes and persistent inflation in this period.”

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/04/what_caused_the.html

[equalizer]

Heard debate on radio with running commentary on KFI. Funniest skit since Indecision ’96 on Comedy Central. Uncle Jerry may not have (any) great ideas, but he comes off as jovial, whereas Meg comes off as elitist robot that can’t connect with the masses by talking straight. This latest incident may further the perception (however unfairly) that Meg is cold as steel. American people don’t like to vote for nerdy smart people like Romney, just happy guys and prom queens.

Note to CEO’s and Billionaires: Just think about conducting a background search on your help. I heard you could do that online, maybe bid on a PI service on Ebay.

[equalizer]

Heard debate on radio with running commentary on KFI. Funniest skit since Indecision ’96 on Comedy Central. Uncle Jerry may not have (any) great ideas, but he comes off as jovial, whereas Meg comes off as elitist robot that can’t connect with the masses by talking straight. This latest incident may further the perception (however unfairly) that Meg is cold as steel. American people don’t like to vote for nerdy smart people like Romney, just happy guys and prom queens.

Note to CEO’s and Billionaires: Just think about conducting a background search on your help. I heard you could do that online, maybe bid on a PI service on Ebay.

[equalizer]

Heard debate on radio with running commentary on KFI. Funniest skit since Indecision ’96 on Comedy Central. Uncle Jerry may not have (any) great ideas, but he comes off as jovial, whereas Meg comes off as elitist robot that can’t connect with the masses by talking straight. This latest incident may further the perception (however unfairly) that Meg is cold as steel. American people don’t like to vote for nerdy smart people like Romney, just happy guys and prom queens.

Note to CEO’s and Billionaires: Just think about conducting a background search on your help. I heard you could do that online, maybe bid on a PI service on Ebay.

[equalizer]

Heard debate on radio with running commentary on KFI. Funniest skit since Indecision ’96 on Comedy Central. Uncle Jerry may not have (any) great ideas, but he comes off as jovial, whereas Meg comes off as elitist robot that can’t connect with the masses by talking straight. This latest incident may further the perception (however unfairly) that Meg is cold as steel. American people don’t like to vote for nerdy smart people like Romney, just happy guys and prom queens.

Note to CEO’s and Billionaires: Just think about conducting a background search on your help. I heard you could do that online, maybe bid on a PI service on Ebay.

[Author]

Posts