[temeculaguy]

The first sentence says that 84 bil was due to reduced purchase originations, the rest (616 bln) is refi’s. The article is mostly about fewer refi’s in the 5’s, ratewise. I’m not sure if 84 bln lower purcahse originations is the indicator to determine the buying, number of units sold is a better index because houses purchased now cost less, in many cases, a lot less, so less will be borrowed. I also think todays buyer is probably biting off less than they can chew as opposed to two years ago, partially due to lower prices and partially due to marcoeconmic uncertainty.

I guess I have been one those who mentions buying activity, but I’m not a realtor, just a potential landlord shopping the market for a cheap rental, I’m not making this stuff up, there are people buying real estate right now, lots of them, it would be easier for me if they weren’t, but they are. Inventory, number of sales, number of offers, days on market, these are metrics to determine activity, loan originations can be a factor but it’s a smaller indicator and the large refi percentage clouds it so you have to seperate the data.

[temeculaguy]

The first sentence says that 84 bil was due to reduced purchase originations, the rest (616 bln) is refi’s. The article is mostly about fewer refi’s in the 5’s, ratewise. I’m not sure if 84 bln lower purcahse originations is the indicator to determine the buying, number of units sold is a better index because houses purchased now cost less, in many cases, a lot less, so less will be borrowed. I also think todays buyer is probably biting off less than they can chew as opposed to two years ago, partially due to lower prices and partially due to marcoeconmic uncertainty.

I guess I have been one those who mentions buying activity, but I’m not a realtor, just a potential landlord shopping the market for a cheap rental, I’m not making this stuff up, there are people buying real estate right now, lots of them, it would be easier for me if they weren’t, but they are. Inventory, number of sales, number of offers, days on market, these are metrics to determine activity, loan originations can be a factor but it’s a smaller indicator and the large refi percentage clouds it so you have to seperate the data.

[temeculaguy]

The first sentence says that 84 bil was due to reduced purchase originations, the rest (616 bln) is refi’s. The article is mostly about fewer refi’s in the 5’s, ratewise. I’m not sure if 84 bln lower purcahse originations is the indicator to determine the buying, number of units sold is a better index because houses purchased now cost less, in many cases, a lot less, so less will be borrowed. I also think todays buyer is probably biting off less than they can chew as opposed to two years ago, partially due to lower prices and partially due to marcoeconmic uncertainty.

I guess I have been one those who mentions buying activity, but I’m not a realtor, just a potential landlord shopping the market for a cheap rental, I’m not making this stuff up, there are people buying real estate right now, lots of them, it would be easier for me if they weren’t, but they are. Inventory, number of sales, number of offers, days on market, these are metrics to determine activity, loan originations can be a factor but it’s a smaller indicator and the large refi percentage clouds it so you have to seperate the data.

[temeculaguy]

The first sentence says that 84 bil was due to reduced purchase originations, the rest (616 bln) is refi’s. The article is mostly about fewer refi’s in the 5’s, ratewise. I’m not sure if 84 bln lower purcahse originations is the indicator to determine the buying, number of units sold is a better index because houses purchased now cost less, in many cases, a lot less, so less will be borrowed. I also think todays buyer is probably biting off less than they can chew as opposed to two years ago, partially due to lower prices and partially due to marcoeconmic uncertainty.

I guess I have been one those who mentions buying activity, but I’m not a realtor, just a potential landlord shopping the market for a cheap rental, I’m not making this stuff up, there are people buying real estate right now, lots of them, it would be easier for me if they weren’t, but they are. Inventory, number of sales, number of offers, days on market, these are metrics to determine activity, loan originations can be a factor but it’s a smaller indicator and the large refi percentage clouds it so you have to seperate the data.

[temeculaguy]

Laura, I can answer it for Ren, it was a sarcastic joke. There are no vampires or demons in Murrieta, it is one of the more conservative and religious enclaves in the region, the fact is there are many threads comparing and contrasting the two towns and they are essentially the same town, which occupy the same valley with very few differences and no geographical barrier.

If you seek vampires, I say go north, the twilight series and the lost boys were all set in the pacific northwest, if there are vampires in North America, that is where you will find them (sorry, another sarcastic remark).

[temeculaguy]

Laura, I can answer it for Ren, it was a sarcastic joke. There are no vampires or demons in Murrieta, it is one of the more conservative and religious enclaves in the region, the fact is there are many threads comparing and contrasting the two towns and they are essentially the same town, which occupy the same valley with very few differences and no geographical barrier.

If you seek vampires, I say go north, the twilight series and the lost boys were all set in the pacific northwest, if there are vampires in North America, that is where you will find them (sorry, another sarcastic remark).

[temeculaguy]

Laura, I can answer it for Ren, it was a sarcastic joke. There are no vampires or demons in Murrieta, it is one of the more conservative and religious enclaves in the region, the fact is there are many threads comparing and contrasting the two towns and they are essentially the same town, which occupy the same valley with very few differences and no geographical barrier.

If you seek vampires, I say go north, the twilight series and the lost boys were all set in the pacific northwest, if there are vampires in North America, that is where you will find them (sorry, another sarcastic remark).

[temeculaguy]

Laura, I can answer it for Ren, it was a sarcastic joke. There are no vampires or demons in Murrieta, it is one of the more conservative and religious enclaves in the region, the fact is there are many threads comparing and contrasting the two towns and they are essentially the same town, which occupy the same valley with very few differences and no geographical barrier.

If you seek vampires, I say go north, the twilight series and the lost boys were all set in the pacific northwest, if there are vampires in North America, that is where you will find them (sorry, another sarcastic remark).

[temeculaguy]

Laura, I can answer it for Ren, it was a sarcastic joke. There are no vampires or demons in Murrieta, it is one of the more conservative and religious enclaves in the region, the fact is there are many threads comparing and contrasting the two towns and they are essentially the same town, which occupy the same valley with very few differences and no geographical barrier.

If you seek vampires, I say go north, the twilight series and the lost boys were all set in the pacific northwest, if there are vampires in North America, that is where you will find them (sorry, another sarcastic remark).

[temeculaguy]

The only ones I see as a possibility are, but not in the context they put them especially with the occasional next leading question:

#12 We are headed eventually for a bond market dislocation where nominal interest rates will shoot up into the double digits

#13 Real interest rates will be even higher (the nominal rate minus negative inflation)

#15 Government spending (all levels) will be slashed, with loss of entitlements and inability to maintain infrastructure

#16 Finance rules will be changed at will and changes applied retroactively (eg short selling will be banned, loans will be called in at some point)

#19 People with essentially no purchasing power will be living in a pay-as-you-go world

#23 The US dollar will continue to rise for quite a while on a flight to safety and as dollar-denominated debt deflates

But here’s where I don’t like the way they wrote it, it’s kinda like how some polls are skewed with the way they ask a question. A lot of them are two parters, like #23, it is written simply but #24 is written so as if you believe #23 is true, then #24 must be. #19 is vauge, do they mean all people? If you put the word “some” in front of the sentence, I’d say it is true now, it wont apply to all. It has some classic, associative theorum (or bolean) that mimmic timeshare salespeople. An apple is red, an apple tastes good, therefore we will all live in grass huts and eat rocks.

Look at #16, sure part a and b make sense, but c is ridiculous, indulge me, lets break it down, yes financial rules will be changed at will. We see that now, I’m still there. Short selling will be banned, o.k., it has for certain industries and for periods of time, I’m still there. But then C, loans will be called in at some point. You lost me right there, which loans? How many? Maybe some? Not all. Do they mean all home loans? Loans and interest have existed since the first trading occured when someone traded a goat for some corn, banking has been around since the templars, these things aren’t going away.

They need to soften #15, government spending will go down, some entitlemens will be lost or reduced and some infrastructure will be “maintenance deferred” The way they have it, even mexico isn’t in that kinda shape.

Classic timeshare sales, you like vacations (o.k), vacations prices go up on average (I’m listening), therefore, give me 50 grand….ooops, you lost me
right there.

[temeculaguy]

The only ones I see as a possibility are, but not in the context they put them especially with the occasional next leading question:

#12 We are headed eventually for a bond market dislocation where nominal interest rates will shoot up into the double digits

#13 Real interest rates will be even higher (the nominal rate minus negative inflation)

#15 Government spending (all levels) will be slashed, with loss of entitlements and inability to maintain infrastructure

#16 Finance rules will be changed at will and changes applied retroactively (eg short selling will be banned, loans will be called in at some point)

#19 People with essentially no purchasing power will be living in a pay-as-you-go world

#23 The US dollar will continue to rise for quite a while on a flight to safety and as dollar-denominated debt deflates

But here’s where I don’t like the way they wrote it, it’s kinda like how some polls are skewed with the way they ask a question. A lot of them are two parters, like #23, it is written simply but #24 is written so as if you believe #23 is true, then #24 must be. #19 is vauge, do they mean all people? If you put the word “some” in front of the sentence, I’d say it is true now, it wont apply to all. It has some classic, associative theorum (or bolean) that mimmic timeshare salespeople. An apple is red, an apple tastes good, therefore we will all live in grass huts and eat rocks.

Look at #16, sure part a and b make sense, but c is ridiculous, indulge me, lets break it down, yes financial rules will be changed at will. We see that now, I’m still there. Short selling will be banned, o.k., it has for certain industries and for periods of time, I’m still there. But then C, loans will be called in at some point. You lost me right there, which loans? How many? Maybe some? Not all. Do they mean all home loans? Loans and interest have existed since the first trading occured when someone traded a goat for some corn, banking has been around since the templars, these things aren’t going away.

They need to soften #15, government spending will go down, some entitlemens will be lost or reduced and some infrastructure will be “maintenance deferred” The way they have it, even mexico isn’t in that kinda shape.

Classic timeshare sales, you like vacations (o.k), vacations prices go up on average (I’m listening), therefore, give me 50 grand….ooops, you lost me
right there.

[temeculaguy]

The only ones I see as a possibility are, but not in the context they put them especially with the occasional next leading question:

#12 We are headed eventually for a bond market dislocation where nominal interest rates will shoot up into the double digits

#13 Real interest rates will be even higher (the nominal rate minus negative inflation)

#15 Government spending (all levels) will be slashed, with loss of entitlements and inability to maintain infrastructure

#16 Finance rules will be changed at will and changes applied retroactively (eg short selling will be banned, loans will be called in at some point)

#19 People with essentially no purchasing power will be living in a pay-as-you-go world

#23 The US dollar will continue to rise for quite a while on a flight to safety and as dollar-denominated debt deflates

But here’s where I don’t like the way they wrote it, it’s kinda like how some polls are skewed with the way they ask a question. A lot of them are two parters, like #23, it is written simply but #24 is written so as if you believe #23 is true, then #24 must be. #19 is vauge, do they mean all people? If you put the word “some” in front of the sentence, I’d say it is true now, it wont apply to all. It has some classic, associative theorum (or bolean) that mimmic timeshare salespeople. An apple is red, an apple tastes good, therefore we will all live in grass huts and eat rocks.

Look at #16, sure part a and b make sense, but c is ridiculous, indulge me, lets break it down, yes financial rules will be changed at will. We see that now, I’m still there. Short selling will be banned, o.k., it has for certain industries and for periods of time, I’m still there. But then C, loans will be called in at some point. You lost me right there, which loans? How many? Maybe some? Not all. Do they mean all home loans? Loans and interest have existed since the first trading occured when someone traded a goat for some corn, banking has been around since the templars, these things aren’t going away.

They need to soften #15, government spending will go down, some entitlemens will be lost or reduced and some infrastructure will be “maintenance deferred” The way they have it, even mexico isn’t in that kinda shape.

Classic timeshare sales, you like vacations (o.k), vacations prices go up on average (I’m listening), therefore, give me 50 grand….ooops, you lost me
right there.

[temeculaguy]

The only ones I see as a possibility are, but not in the context they put them especially with the occasional next leading question:

#12 We are headed eventually for a bond market dislocation where nominal interest rates will shoot up into the double digits

#13 Real interest rates will be even higher (the nominal rate minus negative inflation)

#15 Government spending (all levels) will be slashed, with loss of entitlements and inability to maintain infrastructure

#16 Finance rules will be changed at will and changes applied retroactively (eg short selling will be banned, loans will be called in at some point)

#19 People with essentially no purchasing power will be living in a pay-as-you-go world

#23 The US dollar will continue to rise for quite a while on a flight to safety and as dollar-denominated debt deflates

But here’s where I don’t like the way they wrote it, it’s kinda like how some polls are skewed with the way they ask a question. A lot of them are two parters, like #23, it is written simply but #24 is written so as if you believe #23 is true, then #24 must be. #19 is vauge, do they mean all people? If you put the word “some” in front of the sentence, I’d say it is true now, it wont apply to all. It has some classic, associative theorum (or bolean) that mimmic timeshare salespeople. An apple is red, an apple tastes good, therefore we will all live in grass huts and eat rocks.

Look at #16, sure part a and b make sense, but c is ridiculous, indulge me, lets break it down, yes financial rules will be changed at will. We see that now, I’m still there. Short selling will be banned, o.k., it has for certain industries and for periods of time, I’m still there. But then C, loans will be called in at some point. You lost me right there, which loans? How many? Maybe some? Not all. Do they mean all home loans? Loans and interest have existed since the first trading occured when someone traded a goat for some corn, banking has been around since the templars, these things aren’t going away.

They need to soften #15, government spending will go down, some entitlemens will be lost or reduced and some infrastructure will be “maintenance deferred” The way they have it, even mexico isn’t in that kinda shape.

Classic timeshare sales, you like vacations (o.k), vacations prices go up on average (I’m listening), therefore, give me 50 grand….ooops, you lost me
right there.

[temeculaguy]

The only ones I see as a possibility are, but not in the context they put them especially with the occasional next leading question:

#12 We are headed eventually for a bond market dislocation where nominal interest rates will shoot up into the double digits

#13 Real interest rates will be even higher (the nominal rate minus negative inflation)

#15 Government spending (all levels) will be slashed, with loss of entitlements and inability to maintain infrastructure

#16 Finance rules will be changed at will and changes applied retroactively (eg short selling will be banned, loans will be called in at some point)

#19 People with essentially no purchasing power will be living in a pay-as-you-go world

#23 The US dollar will continue to rise for quite a while on a flight to safety and as dollar-denominated debt deflates

But here’s where I don’t like the way they wrote it, it’s kinda like how some polls are skewed with the way they ask a question. A lot of them are two parters, like #23, it is written simply but #24 is written so as if you believe #23 is true, then #24 must be. #19 is vauge, do they mean all people? If you put the word “some” in front of the sentence, I’d say it is true now, it wont apply to all. It has some classic, associative theorum (or bolean) that mimmic timeshare salespeople. An apple is red, an apple tastes good, therefore we will all live in grass huts and eat rocks.

Look at #16, sure part a and b make sense, but c is ridiculous, indulge me, lets break it down, yes financial rules will be changed at will. We see that now, I’m still there. Short selling will be banned, o.k., it has for certain industries and for periods of time, I’m still there. But then C, loans will be called in at some point. You lost me right there, which loans? How many? Maybe some? Not all. Do they mean all home loans? Loans and interest have existed since the first trading occured when someone traded a goat for some corn, banking has been around since the templars, these things aren’t going away.

They need to soften #15, government spending will go down, some entitlemens will be lost or reduced and some infrastructure will be “maintenance deferred” The way they have it, even mexico isn’t in that kinda shape.

Classic timeshare sales, you like vacations (o.k), vacations prices go up on average (I’m listening), therefore, give me 50 grand….ooops, you lost me
right there.

[temeculaguy]

The more I think about the scooby thing, the more I think we can use it as slang. If someone is knocking a particular area/house/stock because they want to buy it for less for themselves, that is “pulling a scooby.” Conversely, a “reverse scooby” is what Rt.66 can accuse me of when he thinks I’m pimping my hood for my own property values (which he really can’t if you look at my big picture, but it will be more funny when he does it).

Automatic Earth was a good read but there is no real debate on their boards, they are the victims of their own intelligence and the posters and contributing authors just build on each other until it is foil hat time.

Veritas, my ability to interpret biblical text is very poor, it would my most feared jeapordy category. But, yes, I entertain the crazy all the time, I am a nice as I can be, but I am way to rational/skeptical to take their advice, so if one has talked to the angels, I’d probably miss out. I wish one of them had told me that I should have bought Ford stock at $1.01, when I was about to do it, then I would have bought that guy some soup and see how much more the angels told him. But I’ll bet in that same bible, you can find twenty verses that warn of turning the street hobo into Dustin Hoffman in Rain man for your own financial gain.

[Author]

Posts