[patb]

[quote=sdrealtor]My brother did an 80/20 with interest only on the 1st. Using the extra cash flow to help pay off the 2nd in 5 years. Then he’ll power down his 1st with huge principal payments. There another class of buyer. I’m sure there are others.[/quote]

how would that be different from a 97% with 30 year amortization?

[patb]

it struck me there is only one class of buyer who will use an I/O loan
effectively. Someone who by nature will have a very serious
increase in their income soon. Recent graduates from med school,
People starting new small businesses (Franchises), people
in apprenticeship programs.

But that’s maybe 1-2% of all buyers. I/O’s are otherwise a tool for
flippers. if you aren’t amortizing the debt you will see a big spike in
payments, and for what?

The logic was “Property is skyrocketing, get an I/O now, then
when you have 80% equity re-fi”. Gee, why not get a 5/25 ARM
pay on an amortization schedule and then in 5 years look at re-fi.

I/O’s combined payment risk with interest risk.

I’m hanging out here in DC, because 50% of all sales in 2005 were
non-traditionals and when those I/O’s go amortizing they will
all go into default within 90 days.

[patb]

it struck me there is only one class of buyer who will use an I/O loan
effectively. Someone who by nature will have a very serious
increase in their income soon. Recent graduates from med school,
People starting new small businesses (Franchises), people
in apprenticeship programs.

But that’s maybe 1-2% of all buyers. I/O’s are otherwise a tool for
flippers. if you aren’t amortizing the debt you will see a big spike in
payments, and for what?

The logic was “Property is skyrocketing, get an I/O now, then
when you have 80% equity re-fi”. Gee, why not get a 5/25 ARM
pay on an amortization schedule and then in 5 years look at re-fi.

I/O’s combined payment risk with interest risk.

I’m hanging out here in DC, because 50% of all sales in 2005 were
non-traditionals and when those I/O’s go amortizing they will
all go into default within 90 days.

[patb]

it struck me there is only one class of buyer who will use an I/O loan
effectively. Someone who by nature will have a very serious
increase in their income soon. Recent graduates from med school,
People starting new small businesses (Franchises), people
in apprenticeship programs.

But that’s maybe 1-2% of all buyers. I/O’s are otherwise a tool for
flippers. if you aren’t amortizing the debt you will see a big spike in
payments, and for what?

The logic was “Property is skyrocketing, get an I/O now, then
when you have 80% equity re-fi”. Gee, why not get a 5/25 ARM
pay on an amortization schedule and then in 5 years look at re-fi.

I/O’s combined payment risk with interest risk.

I’m hanging out here in DC, because 50% of all sales in 2005 were
non-traditionals and when those I/O’s go amortizing they will
all go into default within 90 days.

[patb]

it struck me there is only one class of buyer who will use an I/O loan
effectively. Someone who by nature will have a very serious
increase in their income soon. Recent graduates from med school,
People starting new small businesses (Franchises), people
in apprenticeship programs.

But that’s maybe 1-2% of all buyers. I/O’s are otherwise a tool for
flippers. if you aren’t amortizing the debt you will see a big spike in
payments, and for what?

The logic was “Property is skyrocketing, get an I/O now, then
when you have 80% equity re-fi”. Gee, why not get a 5/25 ARM
pay on an amortization schedule and then in 5 years look at re-fi.

I/O’s combined payment risk with interest risk.

I’m hanging out here in DC, because 50% of all sales in 2005 were
non-traditionals and when those I/O’s go amortizing they will
all go into default within 90 days.

[patb]

it struck me there is only one class of buyer who will use an I/O loan
effectively. Someone who by nature will have a very serious
increase in their income soon. Recent graduates from med school,
People starting new small businesses (Franchises), people
in apprenticeship programs.

But that’s maybe 1-2% of all buyers. I/O’s are otherwise a tool for
flippers. if you aren’t amortizing the debt you will see a big spike in
payments, and for what?

The logic was “Property is skyrocketing, get an I/O now, then
when you have 80% equity re-fi”. Gee, why not get a 5/25 ARM
pay on an amortization schedule and then in 5 years look at re-fi.

I/O’s combined payment risk with interest risk.

I’m hanging out here in DC, because 50% of all sales in 2005 were
non-traditionals and when those I/O’s go amortizing they will
all go into default within 90 days.

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]
Pat: Ah, I get it now. So, BushCo and its various evil minions and henchmen meant to engage in all manner of kleptocratic deeds, but they were foiled by their own ineptitude, eh?

Nice try, but not what you said at all. You made the claim that US oil companies were solidly in control of the process [/quote]

BS, I said Bush invaded Iraq to steal Iraq’s oil.

I was then accused of all sorts of Republican stupidity, and I merely
pointed out that Cheney in 2001 was pushing for an Oil Law that matched
the goals of several oil companies.

i’m going to stick to my original claim that Bush invaded Iraq to steal
their oil. It’s a better explanation then anything else.

You please tell me why a trillion dollars in treasure and 50,000 casualties
were inflicted?

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]
Pat: Ah, I get it now. So, BushCo and its various evil minions and henchmen meant to engage in all manner of kleptocratic deeds, but they were foiled by their own ineptitude, eh?

Nice try, but not what you said at all. You made the claim that US oil companies were solidly in control of the process [/quote]

BS, I said Bush invaded Iraq to steal Iraq’s oil.

I was then accused of all sorts of Republican stupidity, and I merely
pointed out that Cheney in 2001 was pushing for an Oil Law that matched
the goals of several oil companies.

i’m going to stick to my original claim that Bush invaded Iraq to steal
their oil. It’s a better explanation then anything else.

You please tell me why a trillion dollars in treasure and 50,000 casualties
were inflicted?

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]
Pat: Ah, I get it now. So, BushCo and its various evil minions and henchmen meant to engage in all manner of kleptocratic deeds, but they were foiled by their own ineptitude, eh?

Nice try, but not what you said at all. You made the claim that US oil companies were solidly in control of the process [/quote]

BS, I said Bush invaded Iraq to steal Iraq’s oil.

I was then accused of all sorts of Republican stupidity, and I merely
pointed out that Cheney in 2001 was pushing for an Oil Law that matched
the goals of several oil companies.

i’m going to stick to my original claim that Bush invaded Iraq to steal
their oil. It’s a better explanation then anything else.

You please tell me why a trillion dollars in treasure and 50,000 casualties
were inflicted?

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]
Pat: Ah, I get it now. So, BushCo and its various evil minions and henchmen meant to engage in all manner of kleptocratic deeds, but they were foiled by their own ineptitude, eh?

Nice try, but not what you said at all. You made the claim that US oil companies were solidly in control of the process [/quote]

BS, I said Bush invaded Iraq to steal Iraq’s oil.

I was then accused of all sorts of Republican stupidity, and I merely
pointed out that Cheney in 2001 was pushing for an Oil Law that matched
the goals of several oil companies.

i’m going to stick to my original claim that Bush invaded Iraq to steal
their oil. It’s a better explanation then anything else.

You please tell me why a trillion dollars in treasure and 50,000 casualties
were inflicted?

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]
Pat: Ah, I get it now. So, BushCo and its various evil minions and henchmen meant to engage in all manner of kleptocratic deeds, but they were foiled by their own ineptitude, eh?

Nice try, but not what you said at all. You made the claim that US oil companies were solidly in control of the process [/quote]

BS, I said Bush invaded Iraq to steal Iraq’s oil.

I was then accused of all sorts of Republican stupidity, and I merely
pointed out that Cheney in 2001 was pushing for an Oil Law that matched
the goals of several oil companies.

i’m going to stick to my original claim that Bush invaded Iraq to steal
their oil. It’s a better explanation then anything else.

You please tell me why a trillion dollars in treasure and 50,000 casualties
were inflicted?

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Zeitgeist]Allan,

I think captcha makes a good point, in that it’s more realistic to believe that Iraq was about oil, because the other alternatives seem somewhat unbelievable, but I always fall back on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in that instance: “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.[/quote]

I found a citation that in 2001, the Cheney energy task force was aimed at
rewriting the iraqi oil laws. Now just because the Bush people turned out
to be so incompetent that they could invade a country intending to
steal their oil and then prove incapable of even doing that, well, what
can I say.

Also, while Halliburton is an oil services company, not a production
cmpany, they were in charge of all the pipelines, the production and
the deliveries to Jordan and turkey. None of halliurton’s work was audited,
measured, tracked. The system in iraq is totally corrupt, and Halliburton
moved to dubai to avoid any ability of US Courts or the SEC to
look at their books.

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Zeitgeist]Allan,

I think captcha makes a good point, in that it’s more realistic to believe that Iraq was about oil, because the other alternatives seem somewhat unbelievable, but I always fall back on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in that instance: “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.[/quote]

I found a citation that in 2001, the Cheney energy task force was aimed at
rewriting the iraqi oil laws. Now just because the Bush people turned out
to be so incompetent that they could invade a country intending to
steal their oil and then prove incapable of even doing that, well, what
can I say.

Also, while Halliburton is an oil services company, not a production
cmpany, they were in charge of all the pipelines, the production and
the deliveries to Jordan and turkey. None of halliurton’s work was audited,
measured, tracked. The system in iraq is totally corrupt, and Halliburton
moved to dubai to avoid any ability of US Courts or the SEC to
look at their books.

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Zeitgeist]Allan,

I think captcha makes a good point, in that it’s more realistic to believe that Iraq was about oil, because the other alternatives seem somewhat unbelievable, but I always fall back on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in that instance: “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.[/quote]

I found a citation that in 2001, the Cheney energy task force was aimed at
rewriting the iraqi oil laws. Now just because the Bush people turned out
to be so incompetent that they could invade a country intending to
steal their oil and then prove incapable of even doing that, well, what
can I say.

Also, while Halliburton is an oil services company, not a production
cmpany, they were in charge of all the pipelines, the production and
the deliveries to Jordan and turkey. None of halliurton’s work was audited,
measured, tracked. The system in iraq is totally corrupt, and Halliburton
moved to dubai to avoid any ability of US Courts or the SEC to
look at their books.

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Zeitgeist]Allan,

I think captcha makes a good point, in that it’s more realistic to believe that Iraq was about oil, because the other alternatives seem somewhat unbelievable, but I always fall back on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in that instance: “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.[/quote]

I found a citation that in 2001, the Cheney energy task force was aimed at
rewriting the iraqi oil laws. Now just because the Bush people turned out
to be so incompetent that they could invade a country intending to
steal their oil and then prove incapable of even doing that, well, what
can I say.

Also, while Halliburton is an oil services company, not a production
cmpany, they were in charge of all the pipelines, the production and
the deliveries to Jordan and turkey. None of halliurton’s work was audited,
measured, tracked. The system in iraq is totally corrupt, and Halliburton
moved to dubai to avoid any ability of US Courts or the SEC to
look at their books.

[Author]

Posts