[equalizer]

[quote=arraya]Treasury Secretary Paulson said:

“I don’t see subprime mortgage market troubles imposing a serious problem. I think it’s going to be largely contained,”

“A recession is unlikely.”

“We are experiencing a correction in the housing sector.”

“America is not in recession.”

“It is likely that housing prices won’t recover until early 2009.”
[/quote]
While his former firm was betting against sub-prime loans.

[equalizer]

[quote=LuckyInOC][quote=4plexowner]
In order to buy our bonds, the Chinese would print up yuan on their printer – this caused inflation IN CHINA because the only new currency created in this scenario was yuan (ie, we exported our inflation to China)
[/quote]

4plexowner, I don’t think China has to print any yuan. They just use our dollars from the trade deficit to buy those bonds or come over here and buy US property. Japan did the same thing in the ’70’s & ’80’s before their collapse.

As I see it, the FED is trying to pump enough money in to the system to make up for all the mortgages, stock market, and derivatives loses. I don’t think they will know when to or even can stop at the right time and will over shoot the mark.

The difference is between credit inflation and money inflation. All past US bank panic’s before and after the FED have been started due to credit inflation (also read ‘over speculation’) in land, stock market, or some other commodity. Banks or the US Govt over-leveraged the system with easy credit. It spilled over into the general economy.
When that speculation cycle ended, the economy collapsed as well.

The problem is most don’t think you can have too much of a good thing (gluttony). Over-speculation is the cause of a later collapse. The bigger the speculation, the bigger the collapse. We need to devise a system to identify and control over-speculation.

Lucky In OC

[/quote]
Actually quite easy to stop most bubbles even the ones the Maestro cant see. Change the tax code. In 1999 if fed changed the margin rules for stocks and the short term cap gains tax, internet bubble would have been cut off much sooner. In 2003, if tax rules on cap gains on housing was changed, the housing bubble would have been much smaller.

Much easier said than done. Would have to brand all lobbyists as enemies of the state first and deport them to …

[equalizer]

[quote=LuckyInOC][quote=4plexowner]
In order to buy our bonds, the Chinese would print up yuan on their printer – this caused inflation IN CHINA because the only new currency created in this scenario was yuan (ie, we exported our inflation to China)
[/quote]

4plexowner, I don’t think China has to print any yuan. They just use our dollars from the trade deficit to buy those bonds or come over here and buy US property. Japan did the same thing in the ’70’s & ’80’s before their collapse.

As I see it, the FED is trying to pump enough money in to the system to make up for all the mortgages, stock market, and derivatives loses. I don’t think they will know when to or even can stop at the right time and will over shoot the mark.

The difference is between credit inflation and money inflation. All past US bank panic’s before and after the FED have been started due to credit inflation (also read ‘over speculation’) in land, stock market, or some other commodity. Banks or the US Govt over-leveraged the system with easy credit. It spilled over into the general economy.
When that speculation cycle ended, the economy collapsed as well.

The problem is most don’t think you can have too much of a good thing (gluttony). Over-speculation is the cause of a later collapse. The bigger the speculation, the bigger the collapse. We need to devise a system to identify and control over-speculation.

Lucky In OC

[/quote]
Actually quite easy to stop most bubbles even the ones the Maestro cant see. Change the tax code. In 1999 if fed changed the margin rules for stocks and the short term cap gains tax, internet bubble would have been cut off much sooner. In 2003, if tax rules on cap gains on housing was changed, the housing bubble would have been much smaller.

Much easier said than done. Would have to brand all lobbyists as enemies of the state first and deport them to …

[equalizer]

[quote=LuckyInOC][quote=4plexowner]
In order to buy our bonds, the Chinese would print up yuan on their printer – this caused inflation IN CHINA because the only new currency created in this scenario was yuan (ie, we exported our inflation to China)
[/quote]

4plexowner, I don’t think China has to print any yuan. They just use our dollars from the trade deficit to buy those bonds or come over here and buy US property. Japan did the same thing in the ’70’s & ’80’s before their collapse.

As I see it, the FED is trying to pump enough money in to the system to make up for all the mortgages, stock market, and derivatives loses. I don’t think they will know when to or even can stop at the right time and will over shoot the mark.

The difference is between credit inflation and money inflation. All past US bank panic’s before and after the FED have been started due to credit inflation (also read ‘over speculation’) in land, stock market, or some other commodity. Banks or the US Govt over-leveraged the system with easy credit. It spilled over into the general economy.
When that speculation cycle ended, the economy collapsed as well.

The problem is most don’t think you can have too much of a good thing (gluttony). Over-speculation is the cause of a later collapse. The bigger the speculation, the bigger the collapse. We need to devise a system to identify and control over-speculation.

Lucky In OC

[/quote]
Actually quite easy to stop most bubbles even the ones the Maestro cant see. Change the tax code. In 1999 if fed changed the margin rules for stocks and the short term cap gains tax, internet bubble would have been cut off much sooner. In 2003, if tax rules on cap gains on housing was changed, the housing bubble would have been much smaller.

Much easier said than done. Would have to brand all lobbyists as enemies of the state first and deport them to …

[equalizer]

[quote=LuckyInOC][quote=4plexowner]
In order to buy our bonds, the Chinese would print up yuan on their printer – this caused inflation IN CHINA because the only new currency created in this scenario was yuan (ie, we exported our inflation to China)
[/quote]

4plexowner, I don’t think China has to print any yuan. They just use our dollars from the trade deficit to buy those bonds or come over here and buy US property. Japan did the same thing in the ’70’s & ’80’s before their collapse.

As I see it, the FED is trying to pump enough money in to the system to make up for all the mortgages, stock market, and derivatives loses. I don’t think they will know when to or even can stop at the right time and will over shoot the mark.

The difference is between credit inflation and money inflation. All past US bank panic’s before and after the FED have been started due to credit inflation (also read ‘over speculation’) in land, stock market, or some other commodity. Banks or the US Govt over-leveraged the system with easy credit. It spilled over into the general economy.
When that speculation cycle ended, the economy collapsed as well.

The problem is most don’t think you can have too much of a good thing (gluttony). Over-speculation is the cause of a later collapse. The bigger the speculation, the bigger the collapse. We need to devise a system to identify and control over-speculation.

Lucky In OC

[/quote]
Actually quite easy to stop most bubbles even the ones the Maestro cant see. Change the tax code. In 1999 if fed changed the margin rules for stocks and the short term cap gains tax, internet bubble would have been cut off much sooner. In 2003, if tax rules on cap gains on housing was changed, the housing bubble would have been much smaller.

Much easier said than done. Would have to brand all lobbyists as enemies of the state first and deport them to …

[equalizer]

[quote=LuckyInOC][quote=4plexowner]
In order to buy our bonds, the Chinese would print up yuan on their printer – this caused inflation IN CHINA because the only new currency created in this scenario was yuan (ie, we exported our inflation to China)
[/quote]

4plexowner, I don’t think China has to print any yuan. They just use our dollars from the trade deficit to buy those bonds or come over here and buy US property. Japan did the same thing in the ’70’s & ’80’s before their collapse.

As I see it, the FED is trying to pump enough money in to the system to make up for all the mortgages, stock market, and derivatives loses. I don’t think they will know when to or even can stop at the right time and will over shoot the mark.

The difference is between credit inflation and money inflation. All past US bank panic’s before and after the FED have been started due to credit inflation (also read ‘over speculation’) in land, stock market, or some other commodity. Banks or the US Govt over-leveraged the system with easy credit. It spilled over into the general economy.
When that speculation cycle ended, the economy collapsed as well.

The problem is most don’t think you can have too much of a good thing (gluttony). Over-speculation is the cause of a later collapse. The bigger the speculation, the bigger the collapse. We need to devise a system to identify and control over-speculation.

Lucky In OC

[/quote]
Actually quite easy to stop most bubbles even the ones the Maestro cant see. Change the tax code. In 1999 if fed changed the margin rules for stocks and the short term cap gains tax, internet bubble would have been cut off much sooner. In 2003, if tax rules on cap gains on housing was changed, the housing bubble would have been much smaller.

Much easier said than done. Would have to brand all lobbyists as enemies of the state first and deport them to …

[equalizer]

[quote=massey][quote=equalizer]
Except sellers just read your post and will raise prices a little, maybe 5%.
[/quote]

Fat chance of that strategy succeeding right now.

It’s a buyer’s market. If it weren’t there would be no need for the fed to monetize debt to push the rates so low in the first place. At best this will “stabilize” the prices where they are now. Net effect, though, is a discount to the buyer. Isn’t it cool how the Fed can force all these self-deluding owners to discount their properties without their consent or participation?

[/quote]
meant a little bit tongue in cheek, but don’t discount the delusions of sellers. Have heard of multiple offers on Mira Mesa homes and foreclosures in Chula Vista that are down 40%+ from purchase price. And this was months ago before rates dropped. Everyone loves a 40-50% off sale. Must be a great deal. They are not building any more.

[equalizer]

[quote=massey][quote=equalizer]
Except sellers just read your post and will raise prices a little, maybe 5%.
[/quote]

Fat chance of that strategy succeeding right now.

It’s a buyer’s market. If it weren’t there would be no need for the fed to monetize debt to push the rates so low in the first place. At best this will “stabilize” the prices where they are now. Net effect, though, is a discount to the buyer. Isn’t it cool how the Fed can force all these self-deluding owners to discount their properties without their consent or participation?

[/quote]
meant a little bit tongue in cheek, but don’t discount the delusions of sellers. Have heard of multiple offers on Mira Mesa homes and foreclosures in Chula Vista that are down 40%+ from purchase price. And this was months ago before rates dropped. Everyone loves a 40-50% off sale. Must be a great deal. They are not building any more.

[equalizer]

[quote=massey][quote=equalizer]
Except sellers just read your post and will raise prices a little, maybe 5%.
[/quote]

Fat chance of that strategy succeeding right now.

It’s a buyer’s market. If it weren’t there would be no need for the fed to monetize debt to push the rates so low in the first place. At best this will “stabilize” the prices where they are now. Net effect, though, is a discount to the buyer. Isn’t it cool how the Fed can force all these self-deluding owners to discount their properties without their consent or participation?

[/quote]
meant a little bit tongue in cheek, but don’t discount the delusions of sellers. Have heard of multiple offers on Mira Mesa homes and foreclosures in Chula Vista that are down 40%+ from purchase price. And this was months ago before rates dropped. Everyone loves a 40-50% off sale. Must be a great deal. They are not building any more.

[equalizer]

[quote=massey][quote=equalizer]
Except sellers just read your post and will raise prices a little, maybe 5%.
[/quote]

Fat chance of that strategy succeeding right now.

It’s a buyer’s market. If it weren’t there would be no need for the fed to monetize debt to push the rates so low in the first place. At best this will “stabilize” the prices where they are now. Net effect, though, is a discount to the buyer. Isn’t it cool how the Fed can force all these self-deluding owners to discount their properties without their consent or participation?

[/quote]
meant a little bit tongue in cheek, but don’t discount the delusions of sellers. Have heard of multiple offers on Mira Mesa homes and foreclosures in Chula Vista that are down 40%+ from purchase price. And this was months ago before rates dropped. Everyone loves a 40-50% off sale. Must be a great deal. They are not building any more.

[equalizer]

[quote=massey][quote=equalizer]
Except sellers just read your post and will raise prices a little, maybe 5%.
[/quote]

Fat chance of that strategy succeeding right now.

It’s a buyer’s market. If it weren’t there would be no need for the fed to monetize debt to push the rates so low in the first place. At best this will “stabilize” the prices where they are now. Net effect, though, is a discount to the buyer. Isn’t it cool how the Fed can force all these self-deluding owners to discount their properties without their consent or participation?

[/quote]
meant a little bit tongue in cheek, but don’t discount the delusions of sellers. Have heard of multiple offers on Mira Mesa homes and foreclosures in Chula Vista that are down 40%+ from purchase price. And this was months ago before rates dropped. Everyone loves a 40-50% off sale. Must be a great deal. They are not building any more.

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj][quote=equalizer][quote=davelj]I just re-financed (30-year fixed) at 4.25% + 2 points + $1200 in closing costs through BofA. So, the APR is 4.6%.

Yeah, maybe some combination of rate plus points/closing costs gets down to an APR of 4.25% on a 30-year fixed during this cycle, but I’m not taking that chance. I’m happy to leave a little on the table. But that’s just me.[/quote]

Did you lock today, or have you already closed?

I got ripped off at 4.7% APR refi few months ago. Should have waited for 4%. Now I have no choice but to walk away or ask for a bailout.

[/quote]

I locked yesterday. If rates go to 4%, so be it. Again, I’m not trying to bottom-tick anything. Anyone lending anyone else money for 4.6% fixed for 30 years is making a bad trade, although the degree to which the trade is bad for the lender may not be known for a few years.

If you feel ripped off because you didn’t bottom-tick your re-fi, would you turn around and pay a higher rate if fixed rates went to 6.5% in the future? Or does the “rip-off” only work in one direction? Just curious.[/quote]

That would be my signature firebrand satire in case anyone hasn’t picked that up in my 3 years of posting here. Mocking the savagery with 9 words is better than a tiring diatribe.

Who knew that “losers” walking away with a $200K loss for the lenders or the unbridled trading on these loans for instant commission would nearly bankrupt our society.

Agree that locking in 4.6% on 30 years is crazy for lender side.

[satire alert]
As you stated something like, “But we we have to live in the world that is, not the one we dream of.” So should we just learn to cheat like these losers and others at Goldman with their “insider trading” info?

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj][quote=equalizer][quote=davelj]I just re-financed (30-year fixed) at 4.25% + 2 points + $1200 in closing costs through BofA. So, the APR is 4.6%.

Yeah, maybe some combination of rate plus points/closing costs gets down to an APR of 4.25% on a 30-year fixed during this cycle, but I’m not taking that chance. I’m happy to leave a little on the table. But that’s just me.[/quote]

Did you lock today, or have you already closed?

I got ripped off at 4.7% APR refi few months ago. Should have waited for 4%. Now I have no choice but to walk away or ask for a bailout.

[/quote]

I locked yesterday. If rates go to 4%, so be it. Again, I’m not trying to bottom-tick anything. Anyone lending anyone else money for 4.6% fixed for 30 years is making a bad trade, although the degree to which the trade is bad for the lender may not be known for a few years.

If you feel ripped off because you didn’t bottom-tick your re-fi, would you turn around and pay a higher rate if fixed rates went to 6.5% in the future? Or does the “rip-off” only work in one direction? Just curious.[/quote]

That would be my signature firebrand satire in case anyone hasn’t picked that up in my 3 years of posting here. Mocking the savagery with 9 words is better than a tiring diatribe.

Who knew that “losers” walking away with a $200K loss for the lenders or the unbridled trading on these loans for instant commission would nearly bankrupt our society.

Agree that locking in 4.6% on 30 years is crazy for lender side.

[satire alert]
As you stated something like, “But we we have to live in the world that is, not the one we dream of.” So should we just learn to cheat like these losers and others at Goldman with their “insider trading” info?

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj][quote=equalizer][quote=davelj]I just re-financed (30-year fixed) at 4.25% + 2 points + $1200 in closing costs through BofA. So, the APR is 4.6%.

Yeah, maybe some combination of rate plus points/closing costs gets down to an APR of 4.25% on a 30-year fixed during this cycle, but I’m not taking that chance. I’m happy to leave a little on the table. But that’s just me.[/quote]

Did you lock today, or have you already closed?

I got ripped off at 4.7% APR refi few months ago. Should have waited for 4%. Now I have no choice but to walk away or ask for a bailout.

[/quote]

I locked yesterday. If rates go to 4%, so be it. Again, I’m not trying to bottom-tick anything. Anyone lending anyone else money for 4.6% fixed for 30 years is making a bad trade, although the degree to which the trade is bad for the lender may not be known for a few years.

If you feel ripped off because you didn’t bottom-tick your re-fi, would you turn around and pay a higher rate if fixed rates went to 6.5% in the future? Or does the “rip-off” only work in one direction? Just curious.[/quote]

That would be my signature firebrand satire in case anyone hasn’t picked that up in my 3 years of posting here. Mocking the savagery with 9 words is better than a tiring diatribe.

Who knew that “losers” walking away with a $200K loss for the lenders or the unbridled trading on these loans for instant commission would nearly bankrupt our society.

Agree that locking in 4.6% on 30 years is crazy for lender side.

[satire alert]
As you stated something like, “But we we have to live in the world that is, not the one we dream of.” So should we just learn to cheat like these losers and others at Goldman with their “insider trading” info?

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj][quote=equalizer][quote=davelj]I just re-financed (30-year fixed) at 4.25% + 2 points + $1200 in closing costs through BofA. So, the APR is 4.6%.

Yeah, maybe some combination of rate plus points/closing costs gets down to an APR of 4.25% on a 30-year fixed during this cycle, but I’m not taking that chance. I’m happy to leave a little on the table. But that’s just me.[/quote]

Did you lock today, or have you already closed?

I got ripped off at 4.7% APR refi few months ago. Should have waited for 4%. Now I have no choice but to walk away or ask for a bailout.

[/quote]

I locked yesterday. If rates go to 4%, so be it. Again, I’m not trying to bottom-tick anything. Anyone lending anyone else money for 4.6% fixed for 30 years is making a bad trade, although the degree to which the trade is bad for the lender may not be known for a few years.

If you feel ripped off because you didn’t bottom-tick your re-fi, would you turn around and pay a higher rate if fixed rates went to 6.5% in the future? Or does the “rip-off” only work in one direction? Just curious.[/quote]

That would be my signature firebrand satire in case anyone hasn’t picked that up in my 3 years of posting here. Mocking the savagery with 9 words is better than a tiring diatribe.

Who knew that “losers” walking away with a $200K loss for the lenders or the unbridled trading on these loans for instant commission would nearly bankrupt our society.

Agree that locking in 4.6% on 30 years is crazy for lender side.

[satire alert]
As you stated something like, “But we we have to live in the world that is, not the one we dream of.” So should we just learn to cheat like these losers and others at Goldman with their “insider trading” info?

[Author]

Posts