[temeculaguy]

He was right about a number of things and he is fun to watch. Where he goofed is failing to understand that the world is no longer a horse race, that the west, europe and asia are too intertwined now. He used Asia and europe as a hedge, hoping they would win the game as if it were like football. It is no longer a football game, it is more like cycling, where the team needs and uses each other. I’ve reached three sports analogies and that is the limit.

[temeculaguy]

He was right about a number of things and he is fun to watch. Where he goofed is failing to understand that the world is no longer a horse race, that the west, europe and asia are too intertwined now. He used Asia and europe as a hedge, hoping they would win the game as if it were like football. It is no longer a football game, it is more like cycling, where the team needs and uses each other. I’ve reached three sports analogies and that is the limit.

[temeculaguy]

He was right about a number of things and he is fun to watch. Where he goofed is failing to understand that the world is no longer a horse race, that the west, europe and asia are too intertwined now. He used Asia and europe as a hedge, hoping they would win the game as if it were like football. It is no longer a football game, it is more like cycling, where the team needs and uses each other. I’ve reached three sports analogies and that is the limit.

[temeculaguy]

He was right about a number of things and he is fun to watch. Where he goofed is failing to understand that the world is no longer a horse race, that the west, europe and asia are too intertwined now. He used Asia and europe as a hedge, hoping they would win the game as if it were like football. It is no longer a football game, it is more like cycling, where the team needs and uses each other. I’ve reached three sports analogies and that is the limit.

[temeculaguy]

econ and paramount, thanks for the props, hugs

With regards to the comments of anyone being entitled to 2003 prices, it’s not about entitlement, it’s just logic and math.

The primer on this site and any analysis of the historical value of R/E will tell you that 2003 was a pivotal year in our financial history. That was when it should have been a peak year and should have gone flat for four years from there, technically down because it wouldn’t have kept up with inflation. Then 4 years of tracking inflation and then four years of exceeding inflation, lather, rinse, repeat. Ying/Yang, whatever the market takes as extra during boom years it gives back in bust years, it owes the gods that exact amount. The trouble arose when the “creative” financing in 2003 tried to cheat the invisible hand and extend the rally beyond the fundamentals, something that had never happened on that scale in our history. There is always a consequnce for removing the balance of the universe and the markets. Let’s look at 2020 (12 years from 2003, peak to peak on a 12 year cycle), if you take your 2003 value and calculated 12 years of inflation you would arrive in 2020 with that value, or roughly 30-35% higher than your 2003. If you take the 1997/1998 bottom of the last cycle and take it to 2010, do the same. That is where we should have been and ultimately will end up, except the years will be off by 4 or so.

Things will be different this time but they will be the same, the 12 year cycle will be a 16 yr because of the false extension and the swings will be more wild, more extreme, but the end of the world is not here nor will it come, this is just the universe’s way of teaching us a lesson. We have lost the WWII generation to old age and, we needed this to make us stronger and smarter, open your arms and accept the gift of wisdom so on the other side of this mess we will be better off at identifying potential problems not just better at pointing fingers.

I honestly think paramount is not in a bad place as far as the grand scheme of things goes, he is not in the FB category, he did not buy at the artificial peak, he did not get a zero down toxic loan and he did not borrow what he could not afford to pay back and he did not heloc himself into the artificial peak, effectively joining the fb’s buy re-buying his own property during the artificial peak. He is in a recoverable position, with the means to ride it out and that is why I gave the opinion I did.

[temeculaguy]

econ and paramount, thanks for the props, hugs

With regards to the comments of anyone being entitled to 2003 prices, it’s not about entitlement, it’s just logic and math.

The primer on this site and any analysis of the historical value of R/E will tell you that 2003 was a pivotal year in our financial history. That was when it should have been a peak year and should have gone flat for four years from there, technically down because it wouldn’t have kept up with inflation. Then 4 years of tracking inflation and then four years of exceeding inflation, lather, rinse, repeat. Ying/Yang, whatever the market takes as extra during boom years it gives back in bust years, it owes the gods that exact amount. The trouble arose when the “creative” financing in 2003 tried to cheat the invisible hand and extend the rally beyond the fundamentals, something that had never happened on that scale in our history. There is always a consequnce for removing the balance of the universe and the markets. Let’s look at 2020 (12 years from 2003, peak to peak on a 12 year cycle), if you take your 2003 value and calculated 12 years of inflation you would arrive in 2020 with that value, or roughly 30-35% higher than your 2003. If you take the 1997/1998 bottom of the last cycle and take it to 2010, do the same. That is where we should have been and ultimately will end up, except the years will be off by 4 or so.

Things will be different this time but they will be the same, the 12 year cycle will be a 16 yr because of the false extension and the swings will be more wild, more extreme, but the end of the world is not here nor will it come, this is just the universe’s way of teaching us a lesson. We have lost the WWII generation to old age and, we needed this to make us stronger and smarter, open your arms and accept the gift of wisdom so on the other side of this mess we will be better off at identifying potential problems not just better at pointing fingers.

I honestly think paramount is not in a bad place as far as the grand scheme of things goes, he is not in the FB category, he did not buy at the artificial peak, he did not get a zero down toxic loan and he did not borrow what he could not afford to pay back and he did not heloc himself into the artificial peak, effectively joining the fb’s buy re-buying his own property during the artificial peak. He is in a recoverable position, with the means to ride it out and that is why I gave the opinion I did.

[temeculaguy]

econ and paramount, thanks for the props, hugs

With regards to the comments of anyone being entitled to 2003 prices, it’s not about entitlement, it’s just logic and math.

The primer on this site and any analysis of the historical value of R/E will tell you that 2003 was a pivotal year in our financial history. That was when it should have been a peak year and should have gone flat for four years from there, technically down because it wouldn’t have kept up with inflation. Then 4 years of tracking inflation and then four years of exceeding inflation, lather, rinse, repeat. Ying/Yang, whatever the market takes as extra during boom years it gives back in bust years, it owes the gods that exact amount. The trouble arose when the “creative” financing in 2003 tried to cheat the invisible hand and extend the rally beyond the fundamentals, something that had never happened on that scale in our history. There is always a consequnce for removing the balance of the universe and the markets. Let’s look at 2020 (12 years from 2003, peak to peak on a 12 year cycle), if you take your 2003 value and calculated 12 years of inflation you would arrive in 2020 with that value, or roughly 30-35% higher than your 2003. If you take the 1997/1998 bottom of the last cycle and take it to 2010, do the same. That is where we should have been and ultimately will end up, except the years will be off by 4 or so.

Things will be different this time but they will be the same, the 12 year cycle will be a 16 yr because of the false extension and the swings will be more wild, more extreme, but the end of the world is not here nor will it come, this is just the universe’s way of teaching us a lesson. We have lost the WWII generation to old age and, we needed this to make us stronger and smarter, open your arms and accept the gift of wisdom so on the other side of this mess we will be better off at identifying potential problems not just better at pointing fingers.

I honestly think paramount is not in a bad place as far as the grand scheme of things goes, he is not in the FB category, he did not buy at the artificial peak, he did not get a zero down toxic loan and he did not borrow what he could not afford to pay back and he did not heloc himself into the artificial peak, effectively joining the fb’s buy re-buying his own property during the artificial peak. He is in a recoverable position, with the means to ride it out and that is why I gave the opinion I did.

[temeculaguy]

econ and paramount, thanks for the props, hugs

With regards to the comments of anyone being entitled to 2003 prices, it’s not about entitlement, it’s just logic and math.

The primer on this site and any analysis of the historical value of R/E will tell you that 2003 was a pivotal year in our financial history. That was when it should have been a peak year and should have gone flat for four years from there, technically down because it wouldn’t have kept up with inflation. Then 4 years of tracking inflation and then four years of exceeding inflation, lather, rinse, repeat. Ying/Yang, whatever the market takes as extra during boom years it gives back in bust years, it owes the gods that exact amount. The trouble arose when the “creative” financing in 2003 tried to cheat the invisible hand and extend the rally beyond the fundamentals, something that had never happened on that scale in our history. There is always a consequnce for removing the balance of the universe and the markets. Let’s look at 2020 (12 years from 2003, peak to peak on a 12 year cycle), if you take your 2003 value and calculated 12 years of inflation you would arrive in 2020 with that value, or roughly 30-35% higher than your 2003. If you take the 1997/1998 bottom of the last cycle and take it to 2010, do the same. That is where we should have been and ultimately will end up, except the years will be off by 4 or so.

Things will be different this time but they will be the same, the 12 year cycle will be a 16 yr because of the false extension and the swings will be more wild, more extreme, but the end of the world is not here nor will it come, this is just the universe’s way of teaching us a lesson. We have lost the WWII generation to old age and, we needed this to make us stronger and smarter, open your arms and accept the gift of wisdom so on the other side of this mess we will be better off at identifying potential problems not just better at pointing fingers.

I honestly think paramount is not in a bad place as far as the grand scheme of things goes, he is not in the FB category, he did not buy at the artificial peak, he did not get a zero down toxic loan and he did not borrow what he could not afford to pay back and he did not heloc himself into the artificial peak, effectively joining the fb’s buy re-buying his own property during the artificial peak. He is in a recoverable position, with the means to ride it out and that is why I gave the opinion I did.

[temeculaguy]

econ and paramount, thanks for the props, hugs

With regards to the comments of anyone being entitled to 2003 prices, it’s not about entitlement, it’s just logic and math.

The primer on this site and any analysis of the historical value of R/E will tell you that 2003 was a pivotal year in our financial history. That was when it should have been a peak year and should have gone flat for four years from there, technically down because it wouldn’t have kept up with inflation. Then 4 years of tracking inflation and then four years of exceeding inflation, lather, rinse, repeat. Ying/Yang, whatever the market takes as extra during boom years it gives back in bust years, it owes the gods that exact amount. The trouble arose when the “creative” financing in 2003 tried to cheat the invisible hand and extend the rally beyond the fundamentals, something that had never happened on that scale in our history. There is always a consequnce for removing the balance of the universe and the markets. Let’s look at 2020 (12 years from 2003, peak to peak on a 12 year cycle), if you take your 2003 value and calculated 12 years of inflation you would arrive in 2020 with that value, or roughly 30-35% higher than your 2003. If you take the 1997/1998 bottom of the last cycle and take it to 2010, do the same. That is where we should have been and ultimately will end up, except the years will be off by 4 or so.

Things will be different this time but they will be the same, the 12 year cycle will be a 16 yr because of the false extension and the swings will be more wild, more extreme, but the end of the world is not here nor will it come, this is just the universe’s way of teaching us a lesson. We have lost the WWII generation to old age and, we needed this to make us stronger and smarter, open your arms and accept the gift of wisdom so on the other side of this mess we will be better off at identifying potential problems not just better at pointing fingers.

I honestly think paramount is not in a bad place as far as the grand scheme of things goes, he is not in the FB category, he did not buy at the artificial peak, he did not get a zero down toxic loan and he did not borrow what he could not afford to pay back and he did not heloc himself into the artificial peak, effectively joining the fb’s buy re-buying his own property during the artificial peak. He is in a recoverable position, with the means to ride it out and that is why I gave the opinion I did.

[temeculaguy]

paramount, unless you sell, you didn’t lose anything. From my memory of other posts, your payment is $1500, it is a fixed rate and you can afford it and you put 10% down. That is about what rent would be for your place. Right now your sales price would be based on a market almost entirely made up of shorts and repos. Why sell now? What does it matter how much equity you have, when your place was worth 400k it wasn’t in your savings account it was just an appraised value, the payment was the same. It is just a matter of how that makes you feel, you didn’t have that money and you haven’t lost the money based on today’s numbers either. 2003 numbers will return, probably sooner than you think, the people who really need to evaluate their situation are the 05/06 buyers which most of them have toxic loans that were designed to be refinanced within 5 years and now they are stuck with them.

If my assumptions were incorrect and your loan is not as low as I stated or if it is not a fixed rate, wait a few weeks. The government plans that should be released soon are all about bailout of people in your scenario. All the interviews and articles I read this week are about bailing out those in the margins and not the extremes, saving those who didn’t lie about their income and have been making thier payments for at least two years but are a little underwater and feeling just a little financial stress. The bailout would be in the form of being able to refi an underwater loan to a 4 or 4.5 fixed with low refi costs and a little principal held back that you would only pay back when you sell or when it returns to it’s value.

Scenario: your 240k debt has 70k held back to make it the current value of 170k, you make a fixed payment on the 170k at 4% which is $811/mo P&I, when the market returns to 2003 levels or when you sell, they get that 70k back. They only want to do this for those who can afford to pay, have a history of paying and more than likely will continue to pay. The only loss for them is a few years interest on 70k ($150/mo for three years is a little over 5k). For 5k, they avoid foreclosure, you stay put and keep paying and one less foreclosure hits the market.

This cheaper bailout plan will be seperate from the stimulus and I like it because it doesn’t cost taxpayers or banks much. They will have some form of qualification and solid payment history/verifiable income is the cornerstone so it rewards those who are paying. They learned that the fb’s still don’t pay even when they get a loan mod so they will have to be sacrificed but the masses in the margin do pay and will pay, they just need a little boost to get them through this rough patch. Making it quick and readily available will put a floor on things.

[temeculaguy]

paramount, unless you sell, you didn’t lose anything. From my memory of other posts, your payment is $1500, it is a fixed rate and you can afford it and you put 10% down. That is about what rent would be for your place. Right now your sales price would be based on a market almost entirely made up of shorts and repos. Why sell now? What does it matter how much equity you have, when your place was worth 400k it wasn’t in your savings account it was just an appraised value, the payment was the same. It is just a matter of how that makes you feel, you didn’t have that money and you haven’t lost the money based on today’s numbers either. 2003 numbers will return, probably sooner than you think, the people who really need to evaluate their situation are the 05/06 buyers which most of them have toxic loans that were designed to be refinanced within 5 years and now they are stuck with them.

If my assumptions were incorrect and your loan is not as low as I stated or if it is not a fixed rate, wait a few weeks. The government plans that should be released soon are all about bailout of people in your scenario. All the interviews and articles I read this week are about bailing out those in the margins and not the extremes, saving those who didn’t lie about their income and have been making thier payments for at least two years but are a little underwater and feeling just a little financial stress. The bailout would be in the form of being able to refi an underwater loan to a 4 or 4.5 fixed with low refi costs and a little principal held back that you would only pay back when you sell or when it returns to it’s value.

Scenario: your 240k debt has 70k held back to make it the current value of 170k, you make a fixed payment on the 170k at 4% which is $811/mo P&I, when the market returns to 2003 levels or when you sell, they get that 70k back. They only want to do this for those who can afford to pay, have a history of paying and more than likely will continue to pay. The only loss for them is a few years interest on 70k ($150/mo for three years is a little over 5k). For 5k, they avoid foreclosure, you stay put and keep paying and one less foreclosure hits the market.

This cheaper bailout plan will be seperate from the stimulus and I like it because it doesn’t cost taxpayers or banks much. They will have some form of qualification and solid payment history/verifiable income is the cornerstone so it rewards those who are paying. They learned that the fb’s still don’t pay even when they get a loan mod so they will have to be sacrificed but the masses in the margin do pay and will pay, they just need a little boost to get them through this rough patch. Making it quick and readily available will put a floor on things.

[temeculaguy]

paramount, unless you sell, you didn’t lose anything. From my memory of other posts, your payment is $1500, it is a fixed rate and you can afford it and you put 10% down. That is about what rent would be for your place. Right now your sales price would be based on a market almost entirely made up of shorts and repos. Why sell now? What does it matter how much equity you have, when your place was worth 400k it wasn’t in your savings account it was just an appraised value, the payment was the same. It is just a matter of how that makes you feel, you didn’t have that money and you haven’t lost the money based on today’s numbers either. 2003 numbers will return, probably sooner than you think, the people who really need to evaluate their situation are the 05/06 buyers which most of them have toxic loans that were designed to be refinanced within 5 years and now they are stuck with them.

If my assumptions were incorrect and your loan is not as low as I stated or if it is not a fixed rate, wait a few weeks. The government plans that should be released soon are all about bailout of people in your scenario. All the interviews and articles I read this week are about bailing out those in the margins and not the extremes, saving those who didn’t lie about their income and have been making thier payments for at least two years but are a little underwater and feeling just a little financial stress. The bailout would be in the form of being able to refi an underwater loan to a 4 or 4.5 fixed with low refi costs and a little principal held back that you would only pay back when you sell or when it returns to it’s value.

Scenario: your 240k debt has 70k held back to make it the current value of 170k, you make a fixed payment on the 170k at 4% which is $811/mo P&I, when the market returns to 2003 levels or when you sell, they get that 70k back. They only want to do this for those who can afford to pay, have a history of paying and more than likely will continue to pay. The only loss for them is a few years interest on 70k ($150/mo for three years is a little over 5k). For 5k, they avoid foreclosure, you stay put and keep paying and one less foreclosure hits the market.

This cheaper bailout plan will be seperate from the stimulus and I like it because it doesn’t cost taxpayers or banks much. They will have some form of qualification and solid payment history/verifiable income is the cornerstone so it rewards those who are paying. They learned that the fb’s still don’t pay even when they get a loan mod so they will have to be sacrificed but the masses in the margin do pay and will pay, they just need a little boost to get them through this rough patch. Making it quick and readily available will put a floor on things.

[temeculaguy]

paramount, unless you sell, you didn’t lose anything. From my memory of other posts, your payment is $1500, it is a fixed rate and you can afford it and you put 10% down. That is about what rent would be for your place. Right now your sales price would be based on a market almost entirely made up of shorts and repos. Why sell now? What does it matter how much equity you have, when your place was worth 400k it wasn’t in your savings account it was just an appraised value, the payment was the same. It is just a matter of how that makes you feel, you didn’t have that money and you haven’t lost the money based on today’s numbers either. 2003 numbers will return, probably sooner than you think, the people who really need to evaluate their situation are the 05/06 buyers which most of them have toxic loans that were designed to be refinanced within 5 years and now they are stuck with them.

If my assumptions were incorrect and your loan is not as low as I stated or if it is not a fixed rate, wait a few weeks. The government plans that should be released soon are all about bailout of people in your scenario. All the interviews and articles I read this week are about bailing out those in the margins and not the extremes, saving those who didn’t lie about their income and have been making thier payments for at least two years but are a little underwater and feeling just a little financial stress. The bailout would be in the form of being able to refi an underwater loan to a 4 or 4.5 fixed with low refi costs and a little principal held back that you would only pay back when you sell or when it returns to it’s value.

Scenario: your 240k debt has 70k held back to make it the current value of 170k, you make a fixed payment on the 170k at 4% which is $811/mo P&I, when the market returns to 2003 levels or when you sell, they get that 70k back. They only want to do this for those who can afford to pay, have a history of paying and more than likely will continue to pay. The only loss for them is a few years interest on 70k ($150/mo for three years is a little over 5k). For 5k, they avoid foreclosure, you stay put and keep paying and one less foreclosure hits the market.

This cheaper bailout plan will be seperate from the stimulus and I like it because it doesn’t cost taxpayers or banks much. They will have some form of qualification and solid payment history/verifiable income is the cornerstone so it rewards those who are paying. They learned that the fb’s still don’t pay even when they get a loan mod so they will have to be sacrificed but the masses in the margin do pay and will pay, they just need a little boost to get them through this rough patch. Making it quick and readily available will put a floor on things.

[temeculaguy]

paramount, unless you sell, you didn’t lose anything. From my memory of other posts, your payment is $1500, it is a fixed rate and you can afford it and you put 10% down. That is about what rent would be for your place. Right now your sales price would be based on a market almost entirely made up of shorts and repos. Why sell now? What does it matter how much equity you have, when your place was worth 400k it wasn’t in your savings account it was just an appraised value, the payment was the same. It is just a matter of how that makes you feel, you didn’t have that money and you haven’t lost the money based on today’s numbers either. 2003 numbers will return, probably sooner than you think, the people who really need to evaluate their situation are the 05/06 buyers which most of them have toxic loans that were designed to be refinanced within 5 years and now they are stuck with them.

If my assumptions were incorrect and your loan is not as low as I stated or if it is not a fixed rate, wait a few weeks. The government plans that should be released soon are all about bailout of people in your scenario. All the interviews and articles I read this week are about bailing out those in the margins and not the extremes, saving those who didn’t lie about their income and have been making thier payments for at least two years but are a little underwater and feeling just a little financial stress. The bailout would be in the form of being able to refi an underwater loan to a 4 or 4.5 fixed with low refi costs and a little principal held back that you would only pay back when you sell or when it returns to it’s value.

Scenario: your 240k debt has 70k held back to make it the current value of 170k, you make a fixed payment on the 170k at 4% which is $811/mo P&I, when the market returns to 2003 levels or when you sell, they get that 70k back. They only want to do this for those who can afford to pay, have a history of paying and more than likely will continue to pay. The only loss for them is a few years interest on 70k ($150/mo for three years is a little over 5k). For 5k, they avoid foreclosure, you stay put and keep paying and one less foreclosure hits the market.

This cheaper bailout plan will be seperate from the stimulus and I like it because it doesn’t cost taxpayers or banks much. They will have some form of qualification and solid payment history/verifiable income is the cornerstone so it rewards those who are paying. They learned that the fb’s still don’t pay even when they get a loan mod so they will have to be sacrificed but the masses in the margin do pay and will pay, they just need a little boost to get them through this rough patch. Making it quick and readily available will put a floor on things.

[temeculaguy]

Turbo tax! The problem with asking what percentage of a new house will be returned to you via tax refund has too many variables. Dependents, other deductions, and ever increasing amount of taxes that you cant develop a formula because taxes gradually increase and certain income levels phase out deductions. Your filing status alone will swing it wildly. Tomorrows state budget vote will change it as well, so will next years.

Here is my simple way to figure it out:

The tax deduction will be equal to the taxes, insurance and maintenance. So figure if you can afford the principal and interest on your current take home pay and the deduction will cover the other three assuming they are normal.

BTW, 450k on 100k income is not affordable unless you put 150k+ down. Never borrow more than 3x your gross.

Don’t let tax benefits cause you to overwhelm yourself with debt, paying $3 to the bank to avoid paying $1 to the government wont make you rich, you will be out $2.

[Author]

Posts