Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
NotCranky
Participant“aren’t always” is not inclusive and especially not inclusive of you, however if the shoe fits wear it.
The conspiracy theory was a fun way of saying I am speculating. SDR and I were having an interesting but speculative conversation and keeping it light by poking fun at ourselves mostly.“As you theorize, mortgage guys are just a bunch of lying puppets for the lender out to fleece experts like you.”
Statements like this and others you have made, show that your temper is getting the best of you and nothing else.
Fact of the matter most of us are here to debate and not sell stuff. Some are here for both, This is a housing bust blog so you are going to face skepticism when you try to puff yourself and peddle loans. If you can’t debate whatever it is you are putting out, including dealing with mistakes against your content, character or business orientation you are not going to make it.That includes a shot from left field now and then. If you support yourself in a decent manner, most the time you will get an apology or at least and “agree to disagree”. I am not saying this because I make the rules or anything like that. Just my observations, people that lose their heads, over and over , don’t stick around.
Your input is interesting and appreciated by many,I can tell your that.
Best wishesParticipant“aren’t always” is not inclusive and especially not inclusive of you, however if the shoe fits wear it.
The conspiracy theory was a fun way of saying I am speculating. SDR and I were having an interesting but speculative conversation and keeping it light by poking fun at ourselves mostly.“As you theorize, mortgage guys are just a bunch of lying puppets for the lender out to fleece experts like you.”
Statements like this and others you have made, show that your temper is getting the best of you and nothing else.
Fact of the matter most of us are here to debate and not sell stuff. Some are here for both, This is a housing bust blog so you are going to face skepticism when you try to puff yourself and peddle loans. If you can’t debate whatever it is you are putting out, including dealing with mistakes against your content, character or business orientation you are not going to make it.That includes a shot from left field now and then. If you support yourself in a decent manner, most the time you will get an apology or at least and “agree to disagree”. I am not saying this because I make the rules or anything like that. Just my observations, people that lose their heads, over and over , don’t stick around.
Your input is interesting and appreciated by many,I can tell your that.
Best wishesParticipantWho needs PMI when you have MBS? Yes this is a conspiracy theory until proven otherwise, but PMI has way more skin in the game, so it kinda makes you go hmmmm,
ParticipantWho needs PMI when you have MBS? Yes this is a conspiracy theory until proven otherwise, but PMI has way more skin in the game, so it kinda makes you go hmmmm,
Participant“In terms of simply qualifying for the loan, I don’t see how there would be any difference at all. In each case you would have to disclose the exact same information to each underwriter.”
SDR
I just meant the willingness of lenders to give them because for the first it was less risk than a higher LTV and the second was more reward for the risk. I think I recall sometimes the same lender carried both so that would definitely be about the lender wanting the money and the risk instead of PMI. Perhaps PMI underwriters would have said no way to half of these loan/borrower combinations anyway?No need to answer the topic just got me wondering. Maybe one of the mortgage guys here knows but they aren’t always exposed to what is going on behind the scenes either.
Anyway thanks for answering. It’s not a big deal of course.
Hope you are having a good weekend.Participant“In terms of simply qualifying for the loan, I don’t see how there would be any difference at all. In each case you would have to disclose the exact same information to each underwriter.”
SDR
I just meant the willingness of lenders to give them because for the first it was less risk than a higher LTV and the second was more reward for the risk. I think I recall sometimes the same lender carried both so that would definitely be about the lender wanting the money and the risk instead of PMI. Perhaps PMI underwriters would have said no way to half of these loan/borrower combinations anyway?No need to answer the topic just got me wondering. Maybe one of the mortgage guys here knows but they aren’t always exposed to what is going on behind the scenes either.
Anyway thanks for answering. It’s not a big deal of course.
Hope you are having a good weekend.ParticipantSDR
Wasn’t the 80/20 arrangement just as much about getting a loan at all, as it was about avoiding PMI? The risk gets split between two lenders or even the same lender with two loans and the second being at a considerably higher interest rate to offset the risk. The loan overall wasn’t cheaper than a loan with PMI because the second had pretty expensive terms? Does that ring a bell or do I need my bell rung,again ;)?
ParticipantSDR
Wasn’t the 80/20 arrangement just as much about getting a loan at all, as it was about avoiding PMI? The risk gets split between two lenders or even the same lender with two loans and the second being at a considerably higher interest rate to offset the risk. The loan overall wasn’t cheaper than a loan with PMI because the second had pretty expensive terms? Does that ring a bell or do I need my bell rung,again ;)?
ParticipantThanks gn,
If I understand Temecula Guy correctly he is not really trying to time bottom. He would rather buy when his parameters are met which is fine too. Lately though, he has shared second thoughts on that strategy so I thought I would pitch in my two cents.ParticipantThanks gn,
If I understand Temecula Guy correctly he is not really trying to time bottom. He would rather buy when his parameters are met which is fine too. Lately though, he has shared second thoughts on that strategy so I thought I would pitch in my two cents.ParticipantThat’s a nice link. Good timing on your part in posting it too.
ParticipantThat’s a nice link. Good timing on your part in posting it too.
ParticipantTemecula guy,
With RE you can afford to show up to the dance six months to a year or more after the bottom. I wouldn’t get the jitters over that. I would say,having read your take on things for months, that you might want to force yourself to buy six months after you think it is time. If stability is in the air buy ,if the waiting revealed more declines wait another six months. This is not bossy advice, it’s a friendly suggestion for a possible alternative plan that could put you in a better equity situation.
Best wishesParticipantTemecula guy,
With RE you can afford to show up to the dance six months to a year or more after the bottom. I wouldn’t get the jitters over that. I would say,having read your take on things for months, that you might want to force yourself to buy six months after you think it is time. If stability is in the air buy ,if the waiting revealed more declines wait another six months. This is not bossy advice, it’s a friendly suggestion for a possible alternative plan that could put you in a better equity situation.
Best wishes -
AuthorPosts
