Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SD Realtor
ParticipantCAR and Arraya do nto misunderstand what I am saying. Arraya once again I agree with what you said and the with the current direction govt is heading forced debt would not surprise me in the least.
Of COURSE govt should be out of the lending business and govt insured loans are something I don’t agree with either. Honestly if the entire industry was fully privatized with no subsidy or insurance by the govt I believe we would have much lower housing prices. Once more, nobody is entitled to own a home however the govt has convinced the public otherwise. Again, ponzi scheme…
As we have all seen, backstopping any industry causes severe distortions. CAR of course your proposal of 20% (in my opinion maybe even 30% or more is a very good solution) however can you imagine the outcry? Is it the best solution yes? Is it even remotely possible no, not in my opinion.
Arraya you did not really address my point, you kind of walked around it pointing out how f’d up things are which we all know and agree with. Of course they are getting what they asked for which is massive walkaways, fraud, because it is pretty endimic for humans to behave in that manner. Once again though humans cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Nobody should buy a home if they do not have a vested interest in it. This is the point I was trying to make in a roundabout manner. There will always be appreciation and depreciation cycles so there has to be more to tether a homeowner to a home. To me that is a very healthy downpayment.
ParticipantCAR and Arraya do nto misunderstand what I am saying. Arraya once again I agree with what you said and the with the current direction govt is heading forced debt would not surprise me in the least.
Of COURSE govt should be out of the lending business and govt insured loans are something I don’t agree with either. Honestly if the entire industry was fully privatized with no subsidy or insurance by the govt I believe we would have much lower housing prices. Once more, nobody is entitled to own a home however the govt has convinced the public otherwise. Again, ponzi scheme…
As we have all seen, backstopping any industry causes severe distortions. CAR of course your proposal of 20% (in my opinion maybe even 30% or more is a very good solution) however can you imagine the outcry? Is it the best solution yes? Is it even remotely possible no, not in my opinion.
Arraya you did not really address my point, you kind of walked around it pointing out how f’d up things are which we all know and agree with. Of course they are getting what they asked for which is massive walkaways, fraud, because it is pretty endimic for humans to behave in that manner. Once again though humans cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Nobody should buy a home if they do not have a vested interest in it. This is the point I was trying to make in a roundabout manner. There will always be appreciation and depreciation cycles so there has to be more to tether a homeowner to a home. To me that is a very healthy downpayment.
ParticipantCAR and Arraya do nto misunderstand what I am saying. Arraya once again I agree with what you said and the with the current direction govt is heading forced debt would not surprise me in the least.
Of COURSE govt should be out of the lending business and govt insured loans are something I don’t agree with either. Honestly if the entire industry was fully privatized with no subsidy or insurance by the govt I believe we would have much lower housing prices. Once more, nobody is entitled to own a home however the govt has convinced the public otherwise. Again, ponzi scheme…
As we have all seen, backstopping any industry causes severe distortions. CAR of course your proposal of 20% (in my opinion maybe even 30% or more is a very good solution) however can you imagine the outcry? Is it the best solution yes? Is it even remotely possible no, not in my opinion.
Arraya you did not really address my point, you kind of walked around it pointing out how f’d up things are which we all know and agree with. Of course they are getting what they asked for which is massive walkaways, fraud, because it is pretty endimic for humans to behave in that manner. Once again though humans cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Nobody should buy a home if they do not have a vested interest in it. This is the point I was trying to make in a roundabout manner. There will always be appreciation and depreciation cycles so there has to be more to tether a homeowner to a home. To me that is a very healthy downpayment.
ParticipantNo scaredy the price of credit has nothing to do with the expectation of housing prices. The price of credit drives housing prices.
The price of credit is ultimately, when you trace it back up the chain, is driven by the bond market. Yes risk is inherent in the price of credit but if credit were really determined by risk then in 2007 when we first started seeing spiraling defaults credit should have skyrocketed but it did not because the dominoes would have all fallen, rightfully so I might add.
So we have punted the risk from the consumer past the lenders, and now it is at the federal level. One would think it stops there because our creditors are foreign govts now. It should and we will see.
ParticipantNo scaredy the price of credit has nothing to do with the expectation of housing prices. The price of credit drives housing prices.
The price of credit is ultimately, when you trace it back up the chain, is driven by the bond market. Yes risk is inherent in the price of credit but if credit were really determined by risk then in 2007 when we first started seeing spiraling defaults credit should have skyrocketed but it did not because the dominoes would have all fallen, rightfully so I might add.
So we have punted the risk from the consumer past the lenders, and now it is at the federal level. One would think it stops there because our creditors are foreign govts now. It should and we will see.
ParticipantNo scaredy the price of credit has nothing to do with the expectation of housing prices. The price of credit drives housing prices.
The price of credit is ultimately, when you trace it back up the chain, is driven by the bond market. Yes risk is inherent in the price of credit but if credit were really determined by risk then in 2007 when we first started seeing spiraling defaults credit should have skyrocketed but it did not because the dominoes would have all fallen, rightfully so I might add.
So we have punted the risk from the consumer past the lenders, and now it is at the federal level. One would think it stops there because our creditors are foreign govts now. It should and we will see.
ParticipantNo scaredy the price of credit has nothing to do with the expectation of housing prices. The price of credit drives housing prices.
The price of credit is ultimately, when you trace it back up the chain, is driven by the bond market. Yes risk is inherent in the price of credit but if credit were really determined by risk then in 2007 when we first started seeing spiraling defaults credit should have skyrocketed but it did not because the dominoes would have all fallen, rightfully so I might add.
So we have punted the risk from the consumer past the lenders, and now it is at the federal level. One would think it stops there because our creditors are foreign govts now. It should and we will see.
ParticipantNo scaredy the price of credit has nothing to do with the expectation of housing prices. The price of credit drives housing prices.
The price of credit is ultimately, when you trace it back up the chain, is driven by the bond market. Yes risk is inherent in the price of credit but if credit were really determined by risk then in 2007 when we first started seeing spiraling defaults credit should have skyrocketed but it did not because the dominoes would have all fallen, rightfully so I might add.
So we have punted the risk from the consumer past the lenders, and now it is at the federal level. One would think it stops there because our creditors are foreign govts now. It should and we will see.
ParticipantDataAgent is correct. The property is listed so the listing agent still gets whatever is worked out for him.
Ben if you have the listing agent represent you that listing agent will still get a coop commission though it may be reduced. If you are not represented then the seller pays no coop commission to anyone. You can ask the seller what they were going to pay as a coop commission and have them reduce the price by that amount.
What Brian said about more hands in the cookie jar with respect to escrow and title is incorrect. Escrow fees are for the escrow company and title insurance is a requirement for both the buyer (ie the seller should be purchasing your policy) and the lender (you will purchase a policy for your lender) What Brian was trying to point out is that many companies have both title and escrow divisions in them. However believing that since they are the same company thus you pay any less for either is not correct. If you want, go out and price shop for both escrow and title. Call a few companies and let them know you are purchasing house X for $Y and tell them you want a quote for escrow. Call title companies and do the same for title insurance. Pick what is suitable.
You can call a few attornies to ask them what the cost will be for the obligations you ask them to perform. Basically if you want them to draw a purchase agreement up for you they can. Some real estate attornies also are licensed by the DRE and will use the standard CAR forms. How much they charge you, rather then getting the coop commission offered by the seller is negotiable between yourselves. The attorney will walk through the purchase agreement with you and help you make sure that the seller produces the deliverables spelled out in the contract per the contract guidelines.
ParticipantDataAgent is correct. The property is listed so the listing agent still gets whatever is worked out for him.
Ben if you have the listing agent represent you that listing agent will still get a coop commission though it may be reduced. If you are not represented then the seller pays no coop commission to anyone. You can ask the seller what they were going to pay as a coop commission and have them reduce the price by that amount.
What Brian said about more hands in the cookie jar with respect to escrow and title is incorrect. Escrow fees are for the escrow company and title insurance is a requirement for both the buyer (ie the seller should be purchasing your policy) and the lender (you will purchase a policy for your lender) What Brian was trying to point out is that many companies have both title and escrow divisions in them. However believing that since they are the same company thus you pay any less for either is not correct. If you want, go out and price shop for both escrow and title. Call a few companies and let them know you are purchasing house X for $Y and tell them you want a quote for escrow. Call title companies and do the same for title insurance. Pick what is suitable.
You can call a few attornies to ask them what the cost will be for the obligations you ask them to perform. Basically if you want them to draw a purchase agreement up for you they can. Some real estate attornies also are licensed by the DRE and will use the standard CAR forms. How much they charge you, rather then getting the coop commission offered by the seller is negotiable between yourselves. The attorney will walk through the purchase agreement with you and help you make sure that the seller produces the deliverables spelled out in the contract per the contract guidelines.
ParticipantDataAgent is correct. The property is listed so the listing agent still gets whatever is worked out for him.
Ben if you have the listing agent represent you that listing agent will still get a coop commission though it may be reduced. If you are not represented then the seller pays no coop commission to anyone. You can ask the seller what they were going to pay as a coop commission and have them reduce the price by that amount.
What Brian said about more hands in the cookie jar with respect to escrow and title is incorrect. Escrow fees are for the escrow company and title insurance is a requirement for both the buyer (ie the seller should be purchasing your policy) and the lender (you will purchase a policy for your lender) What Brian was trying to point out is that many companies have both title and escrow divisions in them. However believing that since they are the same company thus you pay any less for either is not correct. If you want, go out and price shop for both escrow and title. Call a few companies and let them know you are purchasing house X for $Y and tell them you want a quote for escrow. Call title companies and do the same for title insurance. Pick what is suitable.
You can call a few attornies to ask them what the cost will be for the obligations you ask them to perform. Basically if you want them to draw a purchase agreement up for you they can. Some real estate attornies also are licensed by the DRE and will use the standard CAR forms. How much they charge you, rather then getting the coop commission offered by the seller is negotiable between yourselves. The attorney will walk through the purchase agreement with you and help you make sure that the seller produces the deliverables spelled out in the contract per the contract guidelines.
ParticipantDataAgent is correct. The property is listed so the listing agent still gets whatever is worked out for him.
Ben if you have the listing agent represent you that listing agent will still get a coop commission though it may be reduced. If you are not represented then the seller pays no coop commission to anyone. You can ask the seller what they were going to pay as a coop commission and have them reduce the price by that amount.
What Brian said about more hands in the cookie jar with respect to escrow and title is incorrect. Escrow fees are for the escrow company and title insurance is a requirement for both the buyer (ie the seller should be purchasing your policy) and the lender (you will purchase a policy for your lender) What Brian was trying to point out is that many companies have both title and escrow divisions in them. However believing that since they are the same company thus you pay any less for either is not correct. If you want, go out and price shop for both escrow and title. Call a few companies and let them know you are purchasing house X for $Y and tell them you want a quote for escrow. Call title companies and do the same for title insurance. Pick what is suitable.
You can call a few attornies to ask them what the cost will be for the obligations you ask them to perform. Basically if you want them to draw a purchase agreement up for you they can. Some real estate attornies also are licensed by the DRE and will use the standard CAR forms. How much they charge you, rather then getting the coop commission offered by the seller is negotiable between yourselves. The attorney will walk through the purchase agreement with you and help you make sure that the seller produces the deliverables spelled out in the contract per the contract guidelines.
ParticipantDataAgent is correct. The property is listed so the listing agent still gets whatever is worked out for him.
Ben if you have the listing agent represent you that listing agent will still get a coop commission though it may be reduced. If you are not represented then the seller pays no coop commission to anyone. You can ask the seller what they were going to pay as a coop commission and have them reduce the price by that amount.
What Brian said about more hands in the cookie jar with respect to escrow and title is incorrect. Escrow fees are for the escrow company and title insurance is a requirement for both the buyer (ie the seller should be purchasing your policy) and the lender (you will purchase a policy for your lender) What Brian was trying to point out is that many companies have both title and escrow divisions in them. However believing that since they are the same company thus you pay any less for either is not correct. If you want, go out and price shop for both escrow and title. Call a few companies and let them know you are purchasing house X for $Y and tell them you want a quote for escrow. Call title companies and do the same for title insurance. Pick what is suitable.
You can call a few attornies to ask them what the cost will be for the obligations you ask them to perform. Basically if you want them to draw a purchase agreement up for you they can. Some real estate attornies also are licensed by the DRE and will use the standard CAR forms. How much they charge you, rather then getting the coop commission offered by the seller is negotiable between yourselves. The attorney will walk through the purchase agreement with you and help you make sure that the seller produces the deliverables spelled out in the contract per the contract guidelines.
ParticipantScaredy the reply was meant for Arraya and not you. Also no house, car, boat, it doesnt matter. Lifespan doesn’t matter. Look, extension of credit is extension of credit. I am loaning you money and you promise to pay me back or return the asset I loaned you the money for. Regardless of the asset, there is never an inherent gaurantee of appreciation or depreciation.
What Arraya said about encouraging people to walk if there is a certain threshold that they reach makes sense for them financially. However the threshold is arbitrary and the premise cannot be carried out in entirety because the bounds do not hold.
The logical answer is as follows, do not buy on credit. Similarly only a fool would extend credit to someone who will walk on the basis of depreciation of the asset. Accordingly a free market economic system cannot operate under that guise, (at least that I know of)
I agree with everything that Arraya said about the ponzi scheme, about the fed, about our banks, about the govt. People who I have represented in short sales I also counsel not to pay if it will be a hardhsip for them.
The premise that living in a home for free is a victimless crime is not true. In fact, for those who think they are punishing a bank, they are mistaken. The bank would rather have you live for free in the home, rather then vacate. Once you vacate and send them the keys, they are responsible for the home. If you go further and work a deed in lieu of foreclosure they then become responsible for taxes, and other costs as well. Furthermore that will trigger a change on the books for them.
It is a complex problem. Most people I know who have had to walk on the loan feel very badly about it. They have paid their debts all their life and psychologically it is tough. Other people brag about it and as we have seen, become quite vitriolic when challenged. Still others have had true hardship and simply cannot pay.
The problem I have with issue of walk when depreciation strikes is that the system of credit does not work then.
-
AuthorPosts
