Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
spdrun
ParticipantFunny, I know a lot of people who are getting married in their mid-30s. Maybe it will be a thing with older people.
ParticipantWeren’t we just talking about buying a county or two in Liberia? Might be a better investment than SD real estate, even at 50% off peak value.
Participant
Putin gets a lot of encouragement. Maybe you should try to take over an Eastern European country if you want sycophants.
ParticipantYou’d have to be smokin’ something to want to live in either place, but Detroit doesn’t have a Bong County. Unlile Liberia.
ParticipantIf you’re traveling with a friend or partner, I’d imagine that you’d post pictures of yourself quite frequently since someone has to take the picture 🙂
Maybe men in this country don’t travel enough…
ParticipantBefore the speculation starts, I must say that the more I read about this, the less dramatic it seems. Title of the L.A. Times article (as usual for that rag) is much more sensational than what the agreement appears to entail.
Here’s the actual WSJ article that everyone is rehashing and using as their basis of speculation, BTW. Apart from a 3% downpayment requirement for some loans (which existed anyway until 2013) and a clarification of rules vis-a-vis fraud, it doesn’t actually seem all that dramatic or quick to be implemented:
The new agreement would clarify which mistakes should constitute fraud, giving greater confidence to lenders that they won’t be penalized many years after a loan is made. Still, lenders and regulators must reach an accord on what to do if they disagree on some problems, which could involve using a third-party arbiter to resolve disputes.
Betting that lying about income or failing to verify will still constitute fraud.
Lastly, the 3% downpayment is the minimum downpayment possible, and won’t apply to a lot of loans. If the loan hits debt-to-income thresholds under QM/ability-to-repay, the bank will have to keep a part of the loan on its books and won’t be able to fully resell it to the GSEs unless the loan is made for less money. Requiring either a lower sale price or more money down. So ultimately, QM will control downpayments more than the minimum % requirement itself.
I try to buy a house at 3% down, but the loan payment is 60% of my income, verified over past two years, and I have credit card payments totalling another 10%. Lender will tell me to either put more down, negotiate price down, or go walk off a pier. And rightly so.
If and when someone tries to fuck around with QM or Dodd-Frank, THEN I will worry about a new bubble.
ParticipantLooks like the Fed is clamping down at the same time as Fannie and Freddie are loosening:
http://www.realtytoday.com/articles/6746/20141018/federal-reserve-s-new-rules-affect-housing-market.htmWith any luck, we’ll also have both houses go GOP this year and make sure that Obama’s pet FHFA stooge won’t be able to do much more for the next two years!
ParticipantLovely. Obama just appointed Ron Klain (political hack lawyer and damage controller extraordinaire) as “Ebola Czar.” Instead of (say) a former military doctor with public health experience. Where’s the fucking logic, unless Obama views this as an image crisis first and gives a shit about the American public second?
And I’m speaking as someone who voted for Obama and supported at least some of his policies.
October 16, 2014 at 3:33 PM in reply to: How will unfunded “pensions” affect the local economy? #778848ParticipantWhat do you care? Why would you want them competing with you? Keep ’em renting!
And there’s your answer: if you have a $600 car payment and $200 insurance per month, it eats into your ability to get approved for a mortgage a wee bit…
October 16, 2014 at 3:05 PM in reply to: How will unfunded “pensions” affect the local economy? #778844ParticipantWhy worry about what’s good for the economy? Worry about what’s good for you and enjoy the fact that you don’t have Twitter Twits competing with you to buy.
BTW – the home ownership rate is similar to what it was in 1995, which wasn’t exactly the end of the world economically. Actually, not owning a primary residence has its benefits. For example, if you have to move 1000 miles for work, you’re mobile and more likely to take a job than be tied to your city.
The idea that every schmoe has to own a house is egalitarian nonsense. Some people simply aren’t cut out to make an expensive investment. Lastly, you’re talking about Vegas. No one whom I know who’s moved there has stayed beyond a few years. It’s a transient town and people know it. I can understand the aversion to putting down roots there.
October 16, 2014 at 2:31 PM in reply to: How will unfunded “pensions” affect the local economy? #778841ParticipantThat’s a “worry?” Nah. Keep ’em renting and leave buying up to the professionals.
ParticipantGrowth is another word for cancer.
Participantlol. Though I’m hoping for stocks of sign printers to go up soon.
FOR SALE!
FORECLOSURE!
SHORT SALE!CAR FOR SALE, $100! LOST EVERYTHING IN STOCK MARKET!
PS – told you all some stupid goats would buy NFLX today. It’s up from $330 after hours yesterday to $365 right now.
ParticipantWell, it’s begun. Even James Bullard, who’s a noted hawk is trying to suck off Wall Street by yapping about pausing the taper:
http://www.businessinsider.com/feds-bullard-on-delaying-qe-taper-2014-10
-
AuthorPosts
