Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SD Realtor
ParticipantI thought that the following quote in the LA Times was one of the most responsible statements regarding housing that we have ever seen:
*****************************
….That man was typified by Romney’s response little more than a year ago when he was asked by the Las Vegas Review-Journal about another housing issue: What he would do about the foreclosure crisis that was costing thousands of Nevadans their homes?“Let it run its course and hit the bottom,” Romney said. “Allow investors to buy homes, put renters in them, fix the homes up, and let it turn around and come back up.”
******************************August 24, 2012 at 11:38 AM in reply to: Borrower recourse when lender won’t provide HUD-1 prior to settlement #750703ParticipantPlease be more specific.
First off the lender does not generate the HUD, escrow generates the HUD. So you need to make that request to escrow not your lender.
Second off, the final HUD is never ready until the day that the closing occurs due to proration calculations.
Third off, escrow should always be able to give you a preliminary HUD prior to close of escrow based on an estimated closing date.
A more accurate version of the estimated HUD can be given after loan docs as the dates are less likely to move and the full lender fees have been given to escrow by the lender. Additionally if there are escrow accounts for homeowners insurance and property taxes, any estimates made by escrow for funding of these accounts is usually moot until after the lender has received loan docs and updated escrow to what these amounts should be.
Participantcrickets chirping….
August 20, 2012 at 12:44 PM in reply to: OT: Why Miramar Ranch is low in API score when compared to other Scripps Ranch elementary schools #750585ParticipantDamn FLU you figured it out.
Quit pushing your child to do well. You are screwing it up for the rest of us!!!
Soon you will be asked to distribute the intelligence.
ParticipantI guess I am not sure what you mean by “them” when you say you don’t see “them” lettng everything go BK.
There is not an us and them. There are borrowers and there are beneficiaries. We are a nation of borrowers. We have not always been that way, but looking back will not help.
You can look at it in a sad but somewhat honest opinion which is generally great nations generally implode rather then get defeated. I am not saying this is our fate but I think we live in a period of history where historical events happen much quicker then they used to.
I am hopeful we will change our ways. You hear alot of talk about the economic cliff that we are approaching at the turn of the year due to expiration of tax cuts and reduced spending. In all honesty, to me it may be a welcome sign of some much needed discipline.
ParticipantYour theory falls apart when the interest payments have to be made to foreign entities.
California, TX, and many many municipalities are walking corpses and have been for years. In reality they all are bankrupt… it is simply a matter of defaulting then liquidating, then resetting to a different reality that the level of services provided, pensions, obligations etc simply will have to match revenue.
Eventually we will all learn that we have to live within our means. Either we learn it and implement it ourselves or eventually defaults will humble us as a nation. Maybe in a few years, maybe in 20 years.
It is a simple fact. You cannot spend more then you make. Eventually it all catches up. These trajectories are not sustainable at any level of taxation.
ParticipantAnd yes bond holders would be wiped out. Anyone foolish enough to by bonds at a peak like this should be wiped out. However if there is going to be a lost decade… or two… then they will slug through it.
ParticipantI lived through that as well shoveler. There are a few major differences and they are basic yet fundamental.
From 1978 to 1981 we saw the 10 year treasury yield move from 8.15% to a little over 15%. That is fairly staggering.
Here is the key to that event. When that event happened, our country did not have 100s of billions of interest due annually.
Here is another key, our ten year yields now are well below 5%, in fact they are below 2%. Projected debt loads and interest payments are all done with current rate levels in mind.
Now if we take those two keys and apply them to the amount of debt we have today and our out of control deficit, it is game over.
The deflation we have now is the precursor to a much harsher future, way way harsher then the 70s and 80s if rates move quickly and we dont get our sht together. The only way out of the mess is that we RAISE TAX REVENUE AND SPEND WAY WAY LESS BEFORE AND keep a tight lid on the rate of increase for rates, or better yet duplicate the lost decade Japan has had. If we can duplicate that decade and rein in our debt to get out from under 9 digit interest payments then we will be fine.
Here is an old link from seeking alpha that is pretty good.
ParticipantNothing is stopping that paramount.
In fact some people have argued that we have been monetizing our own debt for awhile now. Rich and others who are more educated in economics could answer better then I could.
I do believe that the end game to monetizing your own debt is hyper-inflation. Also when you are taking several hundred billion in interest payments, and monetizing that with trillions…
well that (in my humble opinion) would be pretty ugly.
ParticipantHere is an exercise for you…
Look at our annual deficit.
Look at our debt.
Look at how much our govt has to pay in interest alone on that accumulated debt (which has rapidly increased)
Now, what do you suppose will happen when (not if) the bond market does start to deteriorate?
Let’s just say for instance that ten year treasury yields go from where they are now to say 7% over the next decade?
What do you think that will mean for the interest payments our govt must make?
Participantsd gal rather then going to websites just call a loan officer and talk to them personally. Go online to like aimloan.com and call them up, don’t bother filling out the online form. They have nice rates but are very stringent. They may be able to recommend a different lender.
As long as there is an avenue for the secondary market (aka the gse’s who are backed by taxpayer money) to purchase your loan then there will be an originator for the loan. If you can’t get anything from Aim call around.
Maybe you can get one, maybe not.
ParticipantMy personal advice would be to not buy. However if you decide to, you can probably find lenders that will loan to you.
If you have a pulse and can prove income or have enough phony documentation to fool an underwriter then our the FHA will gladly backstop your loan with taxpayer money.
Call a lender and tell them your story.
ParticipantI think we are very much in agreement except for the last line about little evidence that federal laws aren’t being enforced. I believe the entire premise for AZ coming up with all of this was because of the lack of enforcement. True the lack of enforcement could be due to lack of resources. Possibly true the lack of enforcement could be due to a decision at the federal level not to allocate those resources.
Note… NOT unique to Obama.
ParticipantSK here is the link I copied the text below from:
See below:
In enacting a state policy of “attrition through enforcement,” Arizona’s S.B. 1070 ignores every objective of the federal immigration system, save one: the immediate apprehension and criminal sanction of all unlawfully present aliens. See S.B. 1070 § 1. Arizona’s one-size-fits-all approach to immigration policy and enforcement undermines the federal government’s ability to balance the variety of objectives inherent in the federal immigration system, including the federal government’s focus on the most dangerous aliens. By requiring local police officers to engage in maximum inquiry and verification (on pain of civil suit) and by providing for the conviction and incarceration of certain foreign nationals in Arizona for their failure to register, for entering or traveling throughout the state using commercial transportation, or for soliciting work, the “balance” struck by S.B. 1070 is not only different from that of the federal government, but it will interfere with the federal government’s ability to administer and enforce the immigration laws in a manner consistent with the aforementioned concerns that are reflected in the INA. Despite the statute’s self serving claim that it “shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration,” S.B. 1070 § 12, the act mandates a conflicting, Arizona-specific immigration policy – “attrition through enforcement” – and prescribes various provisions that implement that policy in conflict with federal priorities. To permit a hodgepodge of state immigration policies, such as the one Arizona has attempted in S.B. 1070, would impermissibly interfere with the federal government’s balance of uniquely national interests and priorities in a number of ways.
******************************************************
Now I did not boldface the part about enforcement but it is in there……
Arguing semantics is not necessary.
However having a law that is not enforced just seems lame to me. If we don’t want to enforce immigration then don’t enforce it at all… Having some sort of bizarre selective enforcement is a joke.
-
AuthorPosts
