Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
TheBreeze
ParticipantI think this picture illustrates pretty well why people tend to hate Hilary Clinton:
[img_assist|nid=6477|link=node|align=left|width=444|height=500]
You can see the other poor woman in the photo is terrified as Hilary almost trampled her in a desperate bid to shake the hand of a man who had just snubbed her. The look of crazy ‘please like me’ desperation on Hilary’s face is scary. Hilary is just this huge mix of crazy, desperation, bitchitude, and raw ambition all rolled into one and it really tends to turn people off — especially if they don’t agree with her political positions in the first place.
Another poster above said he was confused by my post. What I was trying to say is that I think Obama will lose the Democratic nomination, but that he will still run for the Office of El Presidente as an Independent. If this happens, there would be a three-way race for President between McCain, Hilary, and Obama. McCain would have a good chance of winning such a race because members of his own party would all vote for him (although many would be holding their noses).
ParticipantI think this picture illustrates pretty well why people tend to hate Hilary Clinton:
[img_assist|nid=6477|link=node|align=left|width=444|height=500]
You can see the other poor woman in the photo is terrified as Hilary almost trampled her in a desperate bid to shake the hand of a man who had just snubbed her. The look of crazy ‘please like me’ desperation on Hilary’s face is scary. Hilary is just this huge mix of crazy, desperation, bitchitude, and raw ambition all rolled into one and it really tends to turn people off — especially if they don’t agree with her political positions in the first place.
Another poster above said he was confused by my post. What I was trying to say is that I think Obama will lose the Democratic nomination, but that he will still run for the Office of El Presidente as an Independent. If this happens, there would be a three-way race for President between McCain, Hilary, and Obama. McCain would have a good chance of winning such a race because members of his own party would all vote for him (although many would be holding their noses).
ParticipantI think this picture illustrates pretty well why people tend to hate Hilary Clinton:
[img_assist|nid=6477|link=node|align=left|width=444|height=500]
You can see the other poor woman in the photo is terrified as Hilary almost trampled her in a desperate bid to shake the hand of a man who had just snubbed her. The look of crazy ‘please like me’ desperation on Hilary’s face is scary. Hilary is just this huge mix of crazy, desperation, bitchitude, and raw ambition all rolled into one and it really tends to turn people off — especially if they don’t agree with her political positions in the first place.
Another poster above said he was confused by my post. What I was trying to say is that I think Obama will lose the Democratic nomination, but that he will still run for the Office of El Presidente as an Independent. If this happens, there would be a three-way race for President between McCain, Hilary, and Obama. McCain would have a good chance of winning such a race because members of his own party would all vote for him (although many would be holding their noses).
ParticipantI think this picture illustrates pretty well why people tend to hate Hilary Clinton:
[img_assist|nid=6477|link=node|align=left|width=444|height=500]
You can see the other poor woman in the photo is terrified as Hilary almost trampled her in a desperate bid to shake the hand of a man who had just snubbed her. The look of crazy ‘please like me’ desperation on Hilary’s face is scary. Hilary is just this huge mix of crazy, desperation, bitchitude, and raw ambition all rolled into one and it really tends to turn people off — especially if they don’t agree with her political positions in the first place.
Another poster above said he was confused by my post. What I was trying to say is that I think Obama will lose the Democratic nomination, but that he will still run for the Office of El Presidente as an Independent. If this happens, there would be a three-way race for President between McCain, Hilary, and Obama. McCain would have a good chance of winning such a race because members of his own party would all vote for him (although many would be holding their noses).
ParticipantOK, I did a little more research on this. It looks like Freddie has a no cash-out refinance program up to 95% LTV. Fannie appears to have a cash-out refinance up to 90% LTV.
So it doesn’t look like Fannie or Freddie will be able to buy/guarantee all of these worthless mortgages at bubble prices. It appears they will be able to buy/guarantee all mortgages originated after July 2007. However, for the 2002-June 2007 vintage of crappy mortgage, Fannie/Freddie would only be able to buy/guarantee those under the new limits if the borrower does a refi. The refis appear to have LTV limits so it doesn’t look like the banks will be able to put all those 2002-June 2007 $417,000+ mortages that are now on homes that are way under the original mortgage amount to the taxpayer. Instead, the banks will have to hope the borrower refis. At least that’s how I’m interpreting this bill.
It will be interesting to see if the banks allow borrowers to refi for much less than the mortgage amount just to get the loan off their books. For example, say Crooked Borrower (CB) took out a mortgage in 2005 for $600K. Let’s say the house securing that mortgage is now only worth $500K. Will the bank allow the borrower to refi at $475K (95% of $500K) just to get the loan off their books? It doesn’t seem like they would if the house is really worth $500K. Better to take a short sale at $500K and then sell that to Fannie/Freddie. Of course, with all the crooked appraisers out there, it may be better to do a refi at an inflated value.
With the July 2007 cutoff date, this bill doesn’t look as horrible as I thought it would be. I don’t like it (and I’m sure I’m missing a ton of things in my amateur analysis), but it sure looks like it could have been worse. So what am I missing?
ParticipantOK, I did a little more research on this. It looks like Freddie has a no cash-out refinance program up to 95% LTV. Fannie appears to have a cash-out refinance up to 90% LTV.
So it doesn’t look like Fannie or Freddie will be able to buy/guarantee all of these worthless mortgages at bubble prices. It appears they will be able to buy/guarantee all mortgages originated after July 2007. However, for the 2002-June 2007 vintage of crappy mortgage, Fannie/Freddie would only be able to buy/guarantee those under the new limits if the borrower does a refi. The refis appear to have LTV limits so it doesn’t look like the banks will be able to put all those 2002-June 2007 $417,000+ mortages that are now on homes that are way under the original mortgage amount to the taxpayer. Instead, the banks will have to hope the borrower refis. At least that’s how I’m interpreting this bill.
It will be interesting to see if the banks allow borrowers to refi for much less than the mortgage amount just to get the loan off their books. For example, say Crooked Borrower (CB) took out a mortgage in 2005 for $600K. Let’s say the house securing that mortgage is now only worth $500K. Will the bank allow the borrower to refi at $475K (95% of $500K) just to get the loan off their books? It doesn’t seem like they would if the house is really worth $500K. Better to take a short sale at $500K and then sell that to Fannie/Freddie. Of course, with all the crooked appraisers out there, it may be better to do a refi at an inflated value.
With the July 2007 cutoff date, this bill doesn’t look as horrible as I thought it would be. I don’t like it (and I’m sure I’m missing a ton of things in my amateur analysis), but it sure looks like it could have been worse. So what am I missing?
ParticipantOK, I did a little more research on this. It looks like Freddie has a no cash-out refinance program up to 95% LTV. Fannie appears to have a cash-out refinance up to 90% LTV.
So it doesn’t look like Fannie or Freddie will be able to buy/guarantee all of these worthless mortgages at bubble prices. It appears they will be able to buy/guarantee all mortgages originated after July 2007. However, for the 2002-June 2007 vintage of crappy mortgage, Fannie/Freddie would only be able to buy/guarantee those under the new limits if the borrower does a refi. The refis appear to have LTV limits so it doesn’t look like the banks will be able to put all those 2002-June 2007 $417,000+ mortages that are now on homes that are way under the original mortgage amount to the taxpayer. Instead, the banks will have to hope the borrower refis. At least that’s how I’m interpreting this bill.
It will be interesting to see if the banks allow borrowers to refi for much less than the mortgage amount just to get the loan off their books. For example, say Crooked Borrower (CB) took out a mortgage in 2005 for $600K. Let’s say the house securing that mortgage is now only worth $500K. Will the bank allow the borrower to refi at $475K (95% of $500K) just to get the loan off their books? It doesn’t seem like they would if the house is really worth $500K. Better to take a short sale at $500K and then sell that to Fannie/Freddie. Of course, with all the crooked appraisers out there, it may be better to do a refi at an inflated value.
With the July 2007 cutoff date, this bill doesn’t look as horrible as I thought it would be. I don’t like it (and I’m sure I’m missing a ton of things in my amateur analysis), but it sure looks like it could have been worse. So what am I missing?
ParticipantOK, I did a little more research on this. It looks like Freddie has a no cash-out refinance program up to 95% LTV. Fannie appears to have a cash-out refinance up to 90% LTV.
So it doesn’t look like Fannie or Freddie will be able to buy/guarantee all of these worthless mortgages at bubble prices. It appears they will be able to buy/guarantee all mortgages originated after July 2007. However, for the 2002-June 2007 vintage of crappy mortgage, Fannie/Freddie would only be able to buy/guarantee those under the new limits if the borrower does a refi. The refis appear to have LTV limits so it doesn’t look like the banks will be able to put all those 2002-June 2007 $417,000+ mortages that are now on homes that are way under the original mortgage amount to the taxpayer. Instead, the banks will have to hope the borrower refis. At least that’s how I’m interpreting this bill.
It will be interesting to see if the banks allow borrowers to refi for much less than the mortgage amount just to get the loan off their books. For example, say Crooked Borrower (CB) took out a mortgage in 2005 for $600K. Let’s say the house securing that mortgage is now only worth $500K. Will the bank allow the borrower to refi at $475K (95% of $500K) just to get the loan off their books? It doesn’t seem like they would if the house is really worth $500K. Better to take a short sale at $500K and then sell that to Fannie/Freddie. Of course, with all the crooked appraisers out there, it may be better to do a refi at an inflated value.
With the July 2007 cutoff date, this bill doesn’t look as horrible as I thought it would be. I don’t like it (and I’m sure I’m missing a ton of things in my amateur analysis), but it sure looks like it could have been worse. So what am I missing?
ParticipantOK, I did a little more research on this. It looks like Freddie has a no cash-out refinance program up to 95% LTV. Fannie appears to have a cash-out refinance up to 90% LTV.
So it doesn’t look like Fannie or Freddie will be able to buy/guarantee all of these worthless mortgages at bubble prices. It appears they will be able to buy/guarantee all mortgages originated after July 2007. However, for the 2002-June 2007 vintage of crappy mortgage, Fannie/Freddie would only be able to buy/guarantee those under the new limits if the borrower does a refi. The refis appear to have LTV limits so it doesn’t look like the banks will be able to put all those 2002-June 2007 $417,000+ mortages that are now on homes that are way under the original mortgage amount to the taxpayer. Instead, the banks will have to hope the borrower refis. At least that’s how I’m interpreting this bill.
It will be interesting to see if the banks allow borrowers to refi for much less than the mortgage amount just to get the loan off their books. For example, say Crooked Borrower (CB) took out a mortgage in 2005 for $600K. Let’s say the house securing that mortgage is now only worth $500K. Will the bank allow the borrower to refi at $475K (95% of $500K) just to get the loan off their books? It doesn’t seem like they would if the house is really worth $500K. Better to take a short sale at $500K and then sell that to Fannie/Freddie. Of course, with all the crooked appraisers out there, it may be better to do a refi at an inflated value.
With the July 2007 cutoff date, this bill doesn’t look as horrible as I thought it would be. I don’t like it (and I’m sure I’m missing a ton of things in my amateur analysis), but it sure looks like it could have been worse. So what am I missing?
ParticipantThis appears to be a link to the relevant section of the bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110tibyGb::
There’s an interesting term in that link: “maximum original principal obligation of a mortgage”. Does anyone have a definition for this term? It would be interesting to know whether Fannie can buy/guarantee refis or whether fannie/freddie can only buy/guarantee a mortgage that resulted in a sale from one party to another. It’s probably just wishful thinking on my part, but it would be nice if Fannie/Freddie could not purchase a refi mortgage.
ParticipantThis appears to be a link to the relevant section of the bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110tibyGb::
There’s an interesting term in that link: “maximum original principal obligation of a mortgage”. Does anyone have a definition for this term? It would be interesting to know whether Fannie can buy/guarantee refis or whether fannie/freddie can only buy/guarantee a mortgage that resulted in a sale from one party to another. It’s probably just wishful thinking on my part, but it would be nice if Fannie/Freddie could not purchase a refi mortgage.
ParticipantThis appears to be a link to the relevant section of the bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110tibyGb::
There’s an interesting term in that link: “maximum original principal obligation of a mortgage”. Does anyone have a definition for this term? It would be interesting to know whether Fannie can buy/guarantee refis or whether fannie/freddie can only buy/guarantee a mortgage that resulted in a sale from one party to another. It’s probably just wishful thinking on my part, but it would be nice if Fannie/Freddie could not purchase a refi mortgage.
ParticipantThis appears to be a link to the relevant section of the bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110tibyGb::
There’s an interesting term in that link: “maximum original principal obligation of a mortgage”. Does anyone have a definition for this term? It would be interesting to know whether Fannie can buy/guarantee refis or whether fannie/freddie can only buy/guarantee a mortgage that resulted in a sale from one party to another. It’s probably just wishful thinking on my part, but it would be nice if Fannie/Freddie could not purchase a refi mortgage.
ParticipantThis appears to be a link to the relevant section of the bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110tibyGb::
There’s an interesting term in that link: “maximum original principal obligation of a mortgage”. Does anyone have a definition for this term? It would be interesting to know whether Fannie can buy/guarantee refis or whether fannie/freddie can only buy/guarantee a mortgage that resulted in a sale from one party to another. It’s probably just wishful thinking on my part, but it would be nice if Fannie/Freddie could not purchase a refi mortgage.
-
AuthorPosts
