Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
temeculaguy
ParticipantThe bailout bill already covers this, bank agrees to take 90% of appraised value and borrower refi’s with fha. It’s voluntary and has a few catches. Catch one is any profit when it is sold is split with FHA, they saved you, they want half. The other catch is you pay 1.5% per year in pmi. Third catch is it is voluntary. Bank can look at it as they will lose 10% in the repo process and the escrow/realtor fees. People get to basicly walk away and walk back in without ever moving, resetting to today’s value.
The downside is it is too late for most and the income requirements, documentation and no missed payments will kill anyone in the pipeline already. It may save 10% but that is moving forward, we have a year of repos to chew through. At best it shortens the downturn, bringing to an end in 12 months. Softening the landing will inhibit the next rise, my guess, things will be flat from 2010 on, for a few years.
ParticipantThe bailout bill already covers this, bank agrees to take 90% of appraised value and borrower refi’s with fha. It’s voluntary and has a few catches. Catch one is any profit when it is sold is split with FHA, they saved you, they want half. The other catch is you pay 1.5% per year in pmi. Third catch is it is voluntary. Bank can look at it as they will lose 10% in the repo process and the escrow/realtor fees. People get to basicly walk away and walk back in without ever moving, resetting to today’s value.
The downside is it is too late for most and the income requirements, documentation and no missed payments will kill anyone in the pipeline already. It may save 10% but that is moving forward, we have a year of repos to chew through. At best it shortens the downturn, bringing to an end in 12 months. Softening the landing will inhibit the next rise, my guess, things will be flat from 2010 on, for a few years.
ParticipantThe bailout bill already covers this, bank agrees to take 90% of appraised value and borrower refi’s with fha. It’s voluntary and has a few catches. Catch one is any profit when it is sold is split with FHA, they saved you, they want half. The other catch is you pay 1.5% per year in pmi. Third catch is it is voluntary. Bank can look at it as they will lose 10% in the repo process and the escrow/realtor fees. People get to basicly walk away and walk back in without ever moving, resetting to today’s value.
The downside is it is too late for most and the income requirements, documentation and no missed payments will kill anyone in the pipeline already. It may save 10% but that is moving forward, we have a year of repos to chew through. At best it shortens the downturn, bringing to an end in 12 months. Softening the landing will inhibit the next rise, my guess, things will be flat from 2010 on, for a few years.
ParticipantWho cares about who is paying the rent, why did he buy a place for 400k and go section 8? Section 8 has eligibility rules, tenants must make half the median income and the rent has to be between 30% and 40% of their income. At best he is getting 2k a month, likely it is less. 300k is the most anyone should pay for a 2k rental using the 150x multiplier as the utmost ceiling. In a year it wont be section 8, it will be a re-repo. Curently the maximum income for a family of 8 is 52k.
http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/sdhcd/docs/income_limits.pdf
40% of that is 20k a year, 1800 a month being the ceiling for a family of 8 and that is pushing the envelope. Section 8 is not designed for nice houses or high rent most section 8 rentals are at the bottom tier of the housing stock. Now group homes is an entirely different scenario, that is a legitimate worry but there is a finite amount, so it’s not like 10k group homes will come in. It is possible that someone has decent income but has a disabled family member and thus receives some form of benefit but that is not the norm for section 8 and nothing you need to worry about. If he isn’t getting upwards of 3k in rent, he’s an idiot.
Don’t worry about trends like this, only a few fools are left to be separated from their money, there isn’t going to be line forming behind this guy, the line is very short to be 50% cash negative on a rental.
ParticipantWho cares about who is paying the rent, why did he buy a place for 400k and go section 8? Section 8 has eligibility rules, tenants must make half the median income and the rent has to be between 30% and 40% of their income. At best he is getting 2k a month, likely it is less. 300k is the most anyone should pay for a 2k rental using the 150x multiplier as the utmost ceiling. In a year it wont be section 8, it will be a re-repo. Curently the maximum income for a family of 8 is 52k.
http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/sdhcd/docs/income_limits.pdf
40% of that is 20k a year, 1800 a month being the ceiling for a family of 8 and that is pushing the envelope. Section 8 is not designed for nice houses or high rent most section 8 rentals are at the bottom tier of the housing stock. Now group homes is an entirely different scenario, that is a legitimate worry but there is a finite amount, so it’s not like 10k group homes will come in. It is possible that someone has decent income but has a disabled family member and thus receives some form of benefit but that is not the norm for section 8 and nothing you need to worry about. If he isn’t getting upwards of 3k in rent, he’s an idiot.
Don’t worry about trends like this, only a few fools are left to be separated from their money, there isn’t going to be line forming behind this guy, the line is very short to be 50% cash negative on a rental.
ParticipantWho cares about who is paying the rent, why did he buy a place for 400k and go section 8? Section 8 has eligibility rules, tenants must make half the median income and the rent has to be between 30% and 40% of their income. At best he is getting 2k a month, likely it is less. 300k is the most anyone should pay for a 2k rental using the 150x multiplier as the utmost ceiling. In a year it wont be section 8, it will be a re-repo. Curently the maximum income for a family of 8 is 52k.
http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/sdhcd/docs/income_limits.pdf
40% of that is 20k a year, 1800 a month being the ceiling for a family of 8 and that is pushing the envelope. Section 8 is not designed for nice houses or high rent most section 8 rentals are at the bottom tier of the housing stock. Now group homes is an entirely different scenario, that is a legitimate worry but there is a finite amount, so it’s not like 10k group homes will come in. It is possible that someone has decent income but has a disabled family member and thus receives some form of benefit but that is not the norm for section 8 and nothing you need to worry about. If he isn’t getting upwards of 3k in rent, he’s an idiot.
Don’t worry about trends like this, only a few fools are left to be separated from their money, there isn’t going to be line forming behind this guy, the line is very short to be 50% cash negative on a rental.
ParticipantWho cares about who is paying the rent, why did he buy a place for 400k and go section 8? Section 8 has eligibility rules, tenants must make half the median income and the rent has to be between 30% and 40% of their income. At best he is getting 2k a month, likely it is less. 300k is the most anyone should pay for a 2k rental using the 150x multiplier as the utmost ceiling. In a year it wont be section 8, it will be a re-repo. Curently the maximum income for a family of 8 is 52k.
http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/sdhcd/docs/income_limits.pdf
40% of that is 20k a year, 1800 a month being the ceiling for a family of 8 and that is pushing the envelope. Section 8 is not designed for nice houses or high rent most section 8 rentals are at the bottom tier of the housing stock. Now group homes is an entirely different scenario, that is a legitimate worry but there is a finite amount, so it’s not like 10k group homes will come in. It is possible that someone has decent income but has a disabled family member and thus receives some form of benefit but that is not the norm for section 8 and nothing you need to worry about. If he isn’t getting upwards of 3k in rent, he’s an idiot.
Don’t worry about trends like this, only a few fools are left to be separated from their money, there isn’t going to be line forming behind this guy, the line is very short to be 50% cash negative on a rental.
ParticipantWho cares about who is paying the rent, why did he buy a place for 400k and go section 8? Section 8 has eligibility rules, tenants must make half the median income and the rent has to be between 30% and 40% of their income. At best he is getting 2k a month, likely it is less. 300k is the most anyone should pay for a 2k rental using the 150x multiplier as the utmost ceiling. In a year it wont be section 8, it will be a re-repo. Curently the maximum income for a family of 8 is 52k.
http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/sdhcd/docs/income_limits.pdf
40% of that is 20k a year, 1800 a month being the ceiling for a family of 8 and that is pushing the envelope. Section 8 is not designed for nice houses or high rent most section 8 rentals are at the bottom tier of the housing stock. Now group homes is an entirely different scenario, that is a legitimate worry but there is a finite amount, so it’s not like 10k group homes will come in. It is possible that someone has decent income but has a disabled family member and thus receives some form of benefit but that is not the norm for section 8 and nothing you need to worry about. If he isn’t getting upwards of 3k in rent, he’s an idiot.
Don’t worry about trends like this, only a few fools are left to be separated from their money, there isn’t going to be line forming behind this guy, the line is very short to be 50% cash negative on a rental.
ParticipantIt makes some sense to go after that component or that particular breakdown in the system but you can’t interfere with an existing legal contract between two parties. You cannot force these things, you need to make them voluntary and offer incentives to make the voluntary loss of money more palatable. banks should process short sales faster but you cant force them to lose money faster, they hate losing money and it is their money so they have every right to take their sweet time in losing it. I don’t need politicians to tell me “yes we can” I need them to acknowledge that “can’t” is a nessecary vocabulary word. You “can’t” have peace in the middle east, you “can’t” buy or keep a home if you can’t afford it, you “can’t” have free money, you “can’t” have a trophy if you don’t win, you “can’t” have a BMW if you don’t have a job, you “can’t” buy things you “can’t” afford and if you aren’t smart or savvy or “can’t” resist temptation, you “can’t” be rich. My message to mike or any ambitious politician, start using the word “can’t” and use it often.
Any law passed would only be in effect for loans made after the law was enacted, loans today don’t need the protection of 2005 loans and they are full doc with downpayments at lower prices, 2009 loans wont default like the earlier vintages. So it’s all just noise for the election and do we really need more regulation, more bail outs, more government. What we need is for a politician to stand up and say, “this is the greatest system of economics ever created, intervention distorts it, the sooner this plays out the sooner we can enjoy the recovery. We “can’t” save people from themselves, for every winner there must be a loser and in this case the lenders are losers along with the borrowers, the winner sold and we “can’t” go back and take their profits, both losers will be rich with wisdom and that is how is supposed to be.”
This lesson is nothing new, it can be found in the writings of Lao Tzu many years B.C., it can be found in the christian bible and it is clear as day in the writings of the architect of capatalism, check out “The Wealth of Nations” circa 1776 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations
I saw batman this week, and while Heath Ledger’s Joker exceeded Nicholson’s, the previous joker had an applicable quote, “This town needs an enema.”
Or if I may quote Judge Smails as I have done many times before “The world needs ditch diggers too.” If Ted was alive today, that line could be rewritten “the world needs renters too.”
ParticipantIt makes some sense to go after that component or that particular breakdown in the system but you can’t interfere with an existing legal contract between two parties. You cannot force these things, you need to make them voluntary and offer incentives to make the voluntary loss of money more palatable. banks should process short sales faster but you cant force them to lose money faster, they hate losing money and it is their money so they have every right to take their sweet time in losing it. I don’t need politicians to tell me “yes we can” I need them to acknowledge that “can’t” is a nessecary vocabulary word. You “can’t” have peace in the middle east, you “can’t” buy or keep a home if you can’t afford it, you “can’t” have free money, you “can’t” have a trophy if you don’t win, you “can’t” have a BMW if you don’t have a job, you “can’t” buy things you “can’t” afford and if you aren’t smart or savvy or “can’t” resist temptation, you “can’t” be rich. My message to mike or any ambitious politician, start using the word “can’t” and use it often.
Any law passed would only be in effect for loans made after the law was enacted, loans today don’t need the protection of 2005 loans and they are full doc with downpayments at lower prices, 2009 loans wont default like the earlier vintages. So it’s all just noise for the election and do we really need more regulation, more bail outs, more government. What we need is for a politician to stand up and say, “this is the greatest system of economics ever created, intervention distorts it, the sooner this plays out the sooner we can enjoy the recovery. We “can’t” save people from themselves, for every winner there must be a loser and in this case the lenders are losers along with the borrowers, the winner sold and we “can’t” go back and take their profits, both losers will be rich with wisdom and that is how is supposed to be.”
This lesson is nothing new, it can be found in the writings of Lao Tzu many years B.C., it can be found in the christian bible and it is clear as day in the writings of the architect of capatalism, check out “The Wealth of Nations” circa 1776 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations
I saw batman this week, and while Heath Ledger’s Joker exceeded Nicholson’s, the previous joker had an applicable quote, “This town needs an enema.”
Or if I may quote Judge Smails as I have done many times before “The world needs ditch diggers too.” If Ted was alive today, that line could be rewritten “the world needs renters too.”
ParticipantIt makes some sense to go after that component or that particular breakdown in the system but you can’t interfere with an existing legal contract between two parties. You cannot force these things, you need to make them voluntary and offer incentives to make the voluntary loss of money more palatable. banks should process short sales faster but you cant force them to lose money faster, they hate losing money and it is their money so they have every right to take their sweet time in losing it. I don’t need politicians to tell me “yes we can” I need them to acknowledge that “can’t” is a nessecary vocabulary word. You “can’t” have peace in the middle east, you “can’t” buy or keep a home if you can’t afford it, you “can’t” have free money, you “can’t” have a trophy if you don’t win, you “can’t” have a BMW if you don’t have a job, you “can’t” buy things you “can’t” afford and if you aren’t smart or savvy or “can’t” resist temptation, you “can’t” be rich. My message to mike or any ambitious politician, start using the word “can’t” and use it often.
Any law passed would only be in effect for loans made after the law was enacted, loans today don’t need the protection of 2005 loans and they are full doc with downpayments at lower prices, 2009 loans wont default like the earlier vintages. So it’s all just noise for the election and do we really need more regulation, more bail outs, more government. What we need is for a politician to stand up and say, “this is the greatest system of economics ever created, intervention distorts it, the sooner this plays out the sooner we can enjoy the recovery. We “can’t” save people from themselves, for every winner there must be a loser and in this case the lenders are losers along with the borrowers, the winner sold and we “can’t” go back and take their profits, both losers will be rich with wisdom and that is how is supposed to be.”
This lesson is nothing new, it can be found in the writings of Lao Tzu many years B.C., it can be found in the christian bible and it is clear as day in the writings of the architect of capatalism, check out “The Wealth of Nations” circa 1776 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations
I saw batman this week, and while Heath Ledger’s Joker exceeded Nicholson’s, the previous joker had an applicable quote, “This town needs an enema.”
Or if I may quote Judge Smails as I have done many times before “The world needs ditch diggers too.” If Ted was alive today, that line could be rewritten “the world needs renters too.”
ParticipantIt makes some sense to go after that component or that particular breakdown in the system but you can’t interfere with an existing legal contract between two parties. You cannot force these things, you need to make them voluntary and offer incentives to make the voluntary loss of money more palatable. banks should process short sales faster but you cant force them to lose money faster, they hate losing money and it is their money so they have every right to take their sweet time in losing it. I don’t need politicians to tell me “yes we can” I need them to acknowledge that “can’t” is a nessecary vocabulary word. You “can’t” have peace in the middle east, you “can’t” buy or keep a home if you can’t afford it, you “can’t” have free money, you “can’t” have a trophy if you don’t win, you “can’t” have a BMW if you don’t have a job, you “can’t” buy things you “can’t” afford and if you aren’t smart or savvy or “can’t” resist temptation, you “can’t” be rich. My message to mike or any ambitious politician, start using the word “can’t” and use it often.
Any law passed would only be in effect for loans made after the law was enacted, loans today don’t need the protection of 2005 loans and they are full doc with downpayments at lower prices, 2009 loans wont default like the earlier vintages. So it’s all just noise for the election and do we really need more regulation, more bail outs, more government. What we need is for a politician to stand up and say, “this is the greatest system of economics ever created, intervention distorts it, the sooner this plays out the sooner we can enjoy the recovery. We “can’t” save people from themselves, for every winner there must be a loser and in this case the lenders are losers along with the borrowers, the winner sold and we “can’t” go back and take their profits, both losers will be rich with wisdom and that is how is supposed to be.”
This lesson is nothing new, it can be found in the writings of Lao Tzu many years B.C., it can be found in the christian bible and it is clear as day in the writings of the architect of capatalism, check out “The Wealth of Nations” circa 1776 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations
I saw batman this week, and while Heath Ledger’s Joker exceeded Nicholson’s, the previous joker had an applicable quote, “This town needs an enema.”
Or if I may quote Judge Smails as I have done many times before “The world needs ditch diggers too.” If Ted was alive today, that line could be rewritten “the world needs renters too.”
ParticipantIt makes some sense to go after that component or that particular breakdown in the system but you can’t interfere with an existing legal contract between two parties. You cannot force these things, you need to make them voluntary and offer incentives to make the voluntary loss of money more palatable. banks should process short sales faster but you cant force them to lose money faster, they hate losing money and it is their money so they have every right to take their sweet time in losing it. I don’t need politicians to tell me “yes we can” I need them to acknowledge that “can’t” is a nessecary vocabulary word. You “can’t” have peace in the middle east, you “can’t” buy or keep a home if you can’t afford it, you “can’t” have free money, you “can’t” have a trophy if you don’t win, you “can’t” have a BMW if you don’t have a job, you “can’t” buy things you “can’t” afford and if you aren’t smart or savvy or “can’t” resist temptation, you “can’t” be rich. My message to mike or any ambitious politician, start using the word “can’t” and use it often.
Any law passed would only be in effect for loans made after the law was enacted, loans today don’t need the protection of 2005 loans and they are full doc with downpayments at lower prices, 2009 loans wont default like the earlier vintages. So it’s all just noise for the election and do we really need more regulation, more bail outs, more government. What we need is for a politician to stand up and say, “this is the greatest system of economics ever created, intervention distorts it, the sooner this plays out the sooner we can enjoy the recovery. We “can’t” save people from themselves, for every winner there must be a loser and in this case the lenders are losers along with the borrowers, the winner sold and we “can’t” go back and take their profits, both losers will be rich with wisdom and that is how is supposed to be.”
This lesson is nothing new, it can be found in the writings of Lao Tzu many years B.C., it can be found in the christian bible and it is clear as day in the writings of the architect of capatalism, check out “The Wealth of Nations” circa 1776 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations
I saw batman this week, and while Heath Ledger’s Joker exceeded Nicholson’s, the previous joker had an applicable quote, “This town needs an enema.”
Or if I may quote Judge Smails as I have done many times before “The world needs ditch diggers too.” If Ted was alive today, that line could be rewritten “the world needs renters too.”
ParticipantGeorgia tried something similar in 2003, their anti predatory lending law resulted in all of the major lenders refusing to business there. Even the VA/FHA/Fannie/Freddie curbed their dealings with anything in Georgia. They created a credit crunch and eventually reversed themselves. Perfect example of the law of unintended consequences.
Aguirre will not be successful, but on the off chance that he is, all it will accomplish is a complete implosion of the market. He will be personally responsible for causing the inability of anyone to get a loan, driving prices down further, faster, thus creating more foreclosures. Good luck Mike, it is going to be hillarious to watch. Either he effectively burns the market and the local economy to the ground or he fails and looks like an uninformed buffoon, entertaining either way and the first scenario will probably result in the first actual “tar and feather” incident in my lifetime. I can’t wait.
-
AuthorPosts
