Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
(former)FormerSanDiegan
ParticipantNo, it doesn’t, not here in Irvine at least.
Good point. I was interpreting from a San Diego perspective.
Irvine appears to be a bit behind SD in the current cycle.ParticipantNo, it doesn’t, not here in Irvine at least.
Good point. I was interpreting from a San Diego perspective.
Irvine appears to be a bit behind SD in the current cycle.ParticipantNo, it doesn’t, not here in Irvine at least.
Good point. I was interpreting from a San Diego perspective.
Irvine appears to be a bit behind SD in the current cycle.ParticipantNo, it doesn’t, not here in Irvine at least.
Good point. I was interpreting from a San Diego perspective.
Irvine appears to be a bit behind SD in the current cycle.ParticipantAlso of note, is that the LIBOR index has fallen steadily over the past several months. The beginning of the decline was about the time the FED cut rates.
The 1-year LIBOR is down to 4.6375%.
See plot here
http://www.moneycafe.com/library/libor.htmConsider the Loan re-sets that are scheduled in the next 18 months. Most of the sub-prime loans will reset within the next 8 months. We all know that those people are screwed.
However, the next wave after that is more heavily Alt-A and Prime loans, that were initiated with 3- to 5-year resets. Some folks have speculated that that is when the Fit really hits the Shan.
Consider that typical Alt-A and Prime borrowers were getting loans tied to 1-year LIBOR + 2.25% (or similar) up through at least early 2006.
Their reset rates would now be less than 7%.The severity of the “second wave” of loan resets will depend heavily on rates. My position is that the second wave will not be as bad as the first if we see continued downward pressure on interest rates (which we typically do see in slowdowns /recessions). It is worth keeping an eye on this factor over the next 18-24 months.
ParticipantAlso of note, is that the LIBOR index has fallen steadily over the past several months. The beginning of the decline was about the time the FED cut rates.
The 1-year LIBOR is down to 4.6375%.
See plot here
http://www.moneycafe.com/library/libor.htmConsider the Loan re-sets that are scheduled in the next 18 months. Most of the sub-prime loans will reset within the next 8 months. We all know that those people are screwed.
However, the next wave after that is more heavily Alt-A and Prime loans, that were initiated with 3- to 5-year resets. Some folks have speculated that that is when the Fit really hits the Shan.
Consider that typical Alt-A and Prime borrowers were getting loans tied to 1-year LIBOR + 2.25% (or similar) up through at least early 2006.
Their reset rates would now be less than 7%.The severity of the “second wave” of loan resets will depend heavily on rates. My position is that the second wave will not be as bad as the first if we see continued downward pressure on interest rates (which we typically do see in slowdowns /recessions). It is worth keeping an eye on this factor over the next 18-24 months.
ParticipantAlso of note, is that the LIBOR index has fallen steadily over the past several months. The beginning of the decline was about the time the FED cut rates.
The 1-year LIBOR is down to 4.6375%.
See plot here
http://www.moneycafe.com/library/libor.htmConsider the Loan re-sets that are scheduled in the next 18 months. Most of the sub-prime loans will reset within the next 8 months. We all know that those people are screwed.
However, the next wave after that is more heavily Alt-A and Prime loans, that were initiated with 3- to 5-year resets. Some folks have speculated that that is when the Fit really hits the Shan.
Consider that typical Alt-A and Prime borrowers were getting loans tied to 1-year LIBOR + 2.25% (or similar) up through at least early 2006.
Their reset rates would now be less than 7%.The severity of the “second wave” of loan resets will depend heavily on rates. My position is that the second wave will not be as bad as the first if we see continued downward pressure on interest rates (which we typically do see in slowdowns /recessions). It is worth keeping an eye on this factor over the next 18-24 months.
ParticipantAlso of note, is that the LIBOR index has fallen steadily over the past several months. The beginning of the decline was about the time the FED cut rates.
The 1-year LIBOR is down to 4.6375%.
See plot here
http://www.moneycafe.com/library/libor.htmConsider the Loan re-sets that are scheduled in the next 18 months. Most of the sub-prime loans will reset within the next 8 months. We all know that those people are screwed.
However, the next wave after that is more heavily Alt-A and Prime loans, that were initiated with 3- to 5-year resets. Some folks have speculated that that is when the Fit really hits the Shan.
Consider that typical Alt-A and Prime borrowers were getting loans tied to 1-year LIBOR + 2.25% (or similar) up through at least early 2006.
Their reset rates would now be less than 7%.The severity of the “second wave” of loan resets will depend heavily on rates. My position is that the second wave will not be as bad as the first if we see continued downward pressure on interest rates (which we typically do see in slowdowns /recessions). It is worth keeping an eye on this factor over the next 18-24 months.
ParticipantAlso of note, is that the LIBOR index has fallen steadily over the past several months. The beginning of the decline was about the time the FED cut rates.
The 1-year LIBOR is down to 4.6375%.
See plot here
http://www.moneycafe.com/library/libor.htmConsider the Loan re-sets that are scheduled in the next 18 months. Most of the sub-prime loans will reset within the next 8 months. We all know that those people are screwed.
However, the next wave after that is more heavily Alt-A and Prime loans, that were initiated with 3- to 5-year resets. Some folks have speculated that that is when the Fit really hits the Shan.
Consider that typical Alt-A and Prime borrowers were getting loans tied to 1-year LIBOR + 2.25% (or similar) up through at least early 2006.
Their reset rates would now be less than 7%.The severity of the “second wave” of loan resets will depend heavily on rates. My position is that the second wave will not be as bad as the first if we see continued downward pressure on interest rates (which we typically do see in slowdowns /recessions). It is worth keeping an eye on this factor over the next 18-24 months.
ParticipantIf you figure in the whole amount of owning it is now over double that of renting an equivalent place.
It was generally true that renting was about half of “owning” in 2005. However, with home prices down 15-25% in many areas and rents having gone up at least 5% in the past two years you need to update your pat phrase. It is no longer half in many places. For places that I follow it now costs about 2/3 to 3/4 as much to rent as to “own”.
ParticipantIf you figure in the whole amount of owning it is now over double that of renting an equivalent place.
It was generally true that renting was about half of “owning” in 2005. However, with home prices down 15-25% in many areas and rents having gone up at least 5% in the past two years you need to update your pat phrase. It is no longer half in many places. For places that I follow it now costs about 2/3 to 3/4 as much to rent as to “own”.
ParticipantIf you figure in the whole amount of owning it is now over double that of renting an equivalent place.
It was generally true that renting was about half of “owning” in 2005. However, with home prices down 15-25% in many areas and rents having gone up at least 5% in the past two years you need to update your pat phrase. It is no longer half in many places. For places that I follow it now costs about 2/3 to 3/4 as much to rent as to “own”.
ParticipantIf you figure in the whole amount of owning it is now over double that of renting an equivalent place.
It was generally true that renting was about half of “owning” in 2005. However, with home prices down 15-25% in many areas and rents having gone up at least 5% in the past two years you need to update your pat phrase. It is no longer half in many places. For places that I follow it now costs about 2/3 to 3/4 as much to rent as to “own”.
ParticipantIf you figure in the whole amount of owning it is now over double that of renting an equivalent place.
It was generally true that renting was about half of “owning” in 2005. However, with home prices down 15-25% in many areas and rents having gone up at least 5% in the past two years you need to update your pat phrase. It is no longer half in many places. For places that I follow it now costs about 2/3 to 3/4 as much to rent as to “own”.
-
AuthorPosts
