[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=UCGal] . . . UCSD has more apartments for students now – a friend is starting b-school at night at UCSD – he’s getting his own room in an apartment, on campus, for $453/month. It’s cheaper than what he was paying a few blocks away in UTC for a room in a shared, non campus, apartment.

The meal plan at a dorm is over-rated… College should be about subsisting on ramen, mac-n-cheese, and quesadillas. LOL.[/quote]

UCGal, this is very interesting. A couple of questions. What is b-school? And these on-campus apartments you speak of – how many bdrms and baths do they have? Approx. sq. footage? And how many students per unit? And how long in advance do you have to apply for one of these (reasonable-rent) apts? (Many students from S. County do commute there for classes, but, due to traffic, this is borderline impractical.)

I know the apt-rents near UTC can be exorbitant, even for a unit sporting ’70’s or early ’80’s “decor,” no less!

I agree that at $350-$400 mo., a college “meal plan” is overrated and very expensive (and will probably cause weight gain, assuming your student is present for it 3x daily). My current college kid has an (underground) Trader Joes just blocks from their SF house where they are able to buy their staples in bulk and most of their fresh food :=)[/quote]

b-school = business school, more specifically, an MBA (vs undergrad.) Enough of my friends have gone to “b-school” and changed careers, I thought the term was pretty widely known…

Here’s info on the apartments at UCSD.
Grad student apartments:
http://hdh.ucsd.edu/RAR/
typical is 600-700 sf 2br apts for 2 people. Not super spacious – but not bad.

Undergrad is more traditional dorms with meal plans
http://hds.ucsd.edu/housing/newundergrad.asp

I don’t know how long the wait list is/was for the grad student apartments… I just found out my friend was moving and starting night school this week – apparently the buildings are brand new, don’t even have occupancy yet – which probably effected the wait list (hard to be on a wait list if the building isn’t built yet.) He’s due to move in mid Sept.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=UCGal] . . . UCSD has more apartments for students now – a friend is starting b-school at night at UCSD – he’s getting his own room in an apartment, on campus, for $453/month. It’s cheaper than what he was paying a few blocks away in UTC for a room in a shared, non campus, apartment.

The meal plan at a dorm is over-rated… College should be about subsisting on ramen, mac-n-cheese, and quesadillas. LOL.[/quote]

UCGal, this is very interesting. A couple of questions. What is b-school? And these on-campus apartments you speak of – how many bdrms and baths do they have? Approx. sq. footage? And how many students per unit? And how long in advance do you have to apply for one of these (reasonable-rent) apts? (Many students from S. County do commute there for classes, but, due to traffic, this is borderline impractical.)

I know the apt-rents near UTC can be exorbitant, even for a unit sporting ’70’s or early ’80’s “decor,” no less!

I agree that at $350-$400 mo., a college “meal plan” is overrated and very expensive (and will probably cause weight gain, assuming your student is present for it 3x daily). My current college kid has an (underground) Trader Joes just blocks from their SF house where they are able to buy their staples in bulk and most of their fresh food :=)[/quote]

b-school = business school, more specifically, an MBA (vs undergrad.) Enough of my friends have gone to “b-school” and changed careers, I thought the term was pretty widely known…

Here’s info on the apartments at UCSD.
Grad student apartments:
http://hdh.ucsd.edu/RAR/
typical is 600-700 sf 2br apts for 2 people. Not super spacious – but not bad.

Undergrad is more traditional dorms with meal plans
http://hds.ucsd.edu/housing/newundergrad.asp

I don’t know how long the wait list is/was for the grad student apartments… I just found out my friend was moving and starting night school this week – apparently the buildings are brand new, don’t even have occupancy yet – which probably effected the wait list (hard to be on a wait list if the building isn’t built yet.) He’s due to move in mid Sept.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=UCGal] . . . UCSD has more apartments for students now – a friend is starting b-school at night at UCSD – he’s getting his own room in an apartment, on campus, for $453/month. It’s cheaper than what he was paying a few blocks away in UTC for a room in a shared, non campus, apartment.

The meal plan at a dorm is over-rated… College should be about subsisting on ramen, mac-n-cheese, and quesadillas. LOL.[/quote]

UCGal, this is very interesting. A couple of questions. What is b-school? And these on-campus apartments you speak of – how many bdrms and baths do they have? Approx. sq. footage? And how many students per unit? And how long in advance do you have to apply for one of these (reasonable-rent) apts? (Many students from S. County do commute there for classes, but, due to traffic, this is borderline impractical.)

I know the apt-rents near UTC can be exorbitant, even for a unit sporting ’70’s or early ’80’s “decor,” no less!

I agree that at $350-$400 mo., a college “meal plan” is overrated and very expensive (and will probably cause weight gain, assuming your student is present for it 3x daily). My current college kid has an (underground) Trader Joes just blocks from their SF house where they are able to buy their staples in bulk and most of their fresh food :=)[/quote]

b-school = business school, more specifically, an MBA (vs undergrad.) Enough of my friends have gone to “b-school” and changed careers, I thought the term was pretty widely known…

Here’s info on the apartments at UCSD.
Grad student apartments:
http://hdh.ucsd.edu/RAR/
typical is 600-700 sf 2br apts for 2 people. Not super spacious – but not bad.

Undergrad is more traditional dorms with meal plans
http://hds.ucsd.edu/housing/newundergrad.asp

I don’t know how long the wait list is/was for the grad student apartments… I just found out my friend was moving and starting night school this week – apparently the buildings are brand new, don’t even have occupancy yet – which probably effected the wait list (hard to be on a wait list if the building isn’t built yet.) He’s due to move in mid Sept.

[UCGal]

I didn’t do the dorm thing – it was cheaper to have an apartment off campus.

UCSD has more apartments for students now – a friend is starting b-school at night at UCSD – he’s getting his own room in an apartment, on campus, for $453/month. It’s cheaper than what he was paying a few blocks away in UTC for a room in a shared, non campus, apartment.

The meal plan at a dorm is over-rated… College should be about subsisting on ramen, mac-n-cheese, and quesadillas. LOL.

[UCGal]

I didn’t do the dorm thing – it was cheaper to have an apartment off campus.

UCSD has more apartments for students now – a friend is starting b-school at night at UCSD – he’s getting his own room in an apartment, on campus, for $453/month. It’s cheaper than what he was paying a few blocks away in UTC for a room in a shared, non campus, apartment.

The meal plan at a dorm is over-rated… College should be about subsisting on ramen, mac-n-cheese, and quesadillas. LOL.

[UCGal]

I didn’t do the dorm thing – it was cheaper to have an apartment off campus.

UCSD has more apartments for students now – a friend is starting b-school at night at UCSD – he’s getting his own room in an apartment, on campus, for $453/month. It’s cheaper than what he was paying a few blocks away in UTC for a room in a shared, non campus, apartment.

The meal plan at a dorm is over-rated… College should be about subsisting on ramen, mac-n-cheese, and quesadillas. LOL.

[UCGal]

I didn’t do the dorm thing – it was cheaper to have an apartment off campus.

UCSD has more apartments for students now – a friend is starting b-school at night at UCSD – he’s getting his own room in an apartment, on campus, for $453/month. It’s cheaper than what he was paying a few blocks away in UTC for a room in a shared, non campus, apartment.

The meal plan at a dorm is over-rated… College should be about subsisting on ramen, mac-n-cheese, and quesadillas. LOL.

[UCGal]

I didn’t do the dorm thing – it was cheaper to have an apartment off campus.

UCSD has more apartments for students now – a friend is starting b-school at night at UCSD – he’s getting his own room in an apartment, on campus, for $453/month. It’s cheaper than what he was paying a few blocks away in UTC for a room in a shared, non campus, apartment.

The meal plan at a dorm is over-rated… College should be about subsisting on ramen, mac-n-cheese, and quesadillas. LOL.

[UCGal]

[quote=eavesdropper][quote=bearishgurl][quote=UCGal]To make matters worse – original purchase money loans (first and seconds trust deeds gotten at time of purchase) are NON RECOURSE in CA. Only refi’s and HELOCS that occur after the purchase are recourse.[/quote]

For the life of me (I wasn’t working in RE when this practice became common), I HAVE NO IDEA WHY ANY LENDER (either the one holding the 1st TD or a diff. one) would subordinate themselves to themselves or to the 1st TD holder at the time of purchase and make a 2nd “purchase money” loan (for a dn. pymt. perhaps?) and obtain a 2nd TD (purchase $$ NON RECOURSE paper) from the “buyer” in their “favor.” How risky is that??? It’s effectively 100%(+) financing and makes absolutely no sense at all to me.

These lenders must have been two jokers short of a full deck.[/quote]

I don’t know, bg. Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that about 10 or 15 years ago, banks stopped hiring rather forbidding-looking pinstripe-suited people actually educated/trained in finance, accounting, and risk management, and replaced them all with friendly and approachable 22 year-olds, clad in polo shirts and khakis, who had proven track records in…..SALES?[/quote]

I don’t think the personel at the retail outlets of the banks are the cause – they’re the symptoms. What triggered the lower underwriting standards was the money being generated by writing loans, selling them to the secondary market, bundling them into mortgage backed securities and selling them as investment grade vehicles… Profits were taken at every step – and they wanted more mortgages to feed the MBS beast… pretty soon you barely needed a pulse to get a loan and downpayments… pppht… who needs that. There was little risk to the banks originating the loans since they were sold off as soon as they were written and the borrower only had to make payments for the first 2 years… so underwriting standards looked for 2 years worth of solvency on a 30 year loan.

The khaki/polo clad folks at the bank were a symptom, not the cause. The underwriting standards were lowered by the corporate officers, not the clerks in comfortable attire.

[UCGal]

[quote=eavesdropper][quote=bearishgurl][quote=UCGal]To make matters worse – original purchase money loans (first and seconds trust deeds gotten at time of purchase) are NON RECOURSE in CA. Only refi’s and HELOCS that occur after the purchase are recourse.[/quote]

For the life of me (I wasn’t working in RE when this practice became common), I HAVE NO IDEA WHY ANY LENDER (either the one holding the 1st TD or a diff. one) would subordinate themselves to themselves or to the 1st TD holder at the time of purchase and make a 2nd “purchase money” loan (for a dn. pymt. perhaps?) and obtain a 2nd TD (purchase $$ NON RECOURSE paper) from the “buyer” in their “favor.” How risky is that??? It’s effectively 100%(+) financing and makes absolutely no sense at all to me.

These lenders must have been two jokers short of a full deck.[/quote]

I don’t know, bg. Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that about 10 or 15 years ago, banks stopped hiring rather forbidding-looking pinstripe-suited people actually educated/trained in finance, accounting, and risk management, and replaced them all with friendly and approachable 22 year-olds, clad in polo shirts and khakis, who had proven track records in…..SALES?[/quote]

I don’t think the personel at the retail outlets of the banks are the cause – they’re the symptoms. What triggered the lower underwriting standards was the money being generated by writing loans, selling them to the secondary market, bundling them into mortgage backed securities and selling them as investment grade vehicles… Profits were taken at every step – and they wanted more mortgages to feed the MBS beast… pretty soon you barely needed a pulse to get a loan and downpayments… pppht… who needs that. There was little risk to the banks originating the loans since they were sold off as soon as they were written and the borrower only had to make payments for the first 2 years… so underwriting standards looked for 2 years worth of solvency on a 30 year loan.

The khaki/polo clad folks at the bank were a symptom, not the cause. The underwriting standards were lowered by the corporate officers, not the clerks in comfortable attire.

[UCGal]

[quote=eavesdropper][quote=bearishgurl][quote=UCGal]To make matters worse – original purchase money loans (first and seconds trust deeds gotten at time of purchase) are NON RECOURSE in CA. Only refi’s and HELOCS that occur after the purchase are recourse.[/quote]

For the life of me (I wasn’t working in RE when this practice became common), I HAVE NO IDEA WHY ANY LENDER (either the one holding the 1st TD or a diff. one) would subordinate themselves to themselves or to the 1st TD holder at the time of purchase and make a 2nd “purchase money” loan (for a dn. pymt. perhaps?) and obtain a 2nd TD (purchase $$ NON RECOURSE paper) from the “buyer” in their “favor.” How risky is that??? It’s effectively 100%(+) financing and makes absolutely no sense at all to me.

These lenders must have been two jokers short of a full deck.[/quote]

I don’t know, bg. Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that about 10 or 15 years ago, banks stopped hiring rather forbidding-looking pinstripe-suited people actually educated/trained in finance, accounting, and risk management, and replaced them all with friendly and approachable 22 year-olds, clad in polo shirts and khakis, who had proven track records in…..SALES?[/quote]

I don’t think the personel at the retail outlets of the banks are the cause – they’re the symptoms. What triggered the lower underwriting standards was the money being generated by writing loans, selling them to the secondary market, bundling them into mortgage backed securities and selling them as investment grade vehicles… Profits were taken at every step – and they wanted more mortgages to feed the MBS beast… pretty soon you barely needed a pulse to get a loan and downpayments… pppht… who needs that. There was little risk to the banks originating the loans since they were sold off as soon as they were written and the borrower only had to make payments for the first 2 years… so underwriting standards looked for 2 years worth of solvency on a 30 year loan.

The khaki/polo clad folks at the bank were a symptom, not the cause. The underwriting standards were lowered by the corporate officers, not the clerks in comfortable attire.

[UCGal]

[quote=eavesdropper][quote=bearishgurl][quote=UCGal]To make matters worse – original purchase money loans (first and seconds trust deeds gotten at time of purchase) are NON RECOURSE in CA. Only refi’s and HELOCS that occur after the purchase are recourse.[/quote]

For the life of me (I wasn’t working in RE when this practice became common), I HAVE NO IDEA WHY ANY LENDER (either the one holding the 1st TD or a diff. one) would subordinate themselves to themselves or to the 1st TD holder at the time of purchase and make a 2nd “purchase money” loan (for a dn. pymt. perhaps?) and obtain a 2nd TD (purchase $$ NON RECOURSE paper) from the “buyer” in their “favor.” How risky is that??? It’s effectively 100%(+) financing and makes absolutely no sense at all to me.

These lenders must have been two jokers short of a full deck.[/quote]

I don’t know, bg. Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that about 10 or 15 years ago, banks stopped hiring rather forbidding-looking pinstripe-suited people actually educated/trained in finance, accounting, and risk management, and replaced them all with friendly and approachable 22 year-olds, clad in polo shirts and khakis, who had proven track records in…..SALES?[/quote]

I don’t think the personel at the retail outlets of the banks are the cause – they’re the symptoms. What triggered the lower underwriting standards was the money being generated by writing loans, selling them to the secondary market, bundling them into mortgage backed securities and selling them as investment grade vehicles… Profits were taken at every step – and they wanted more mortgages to feed the MBS beast… pretty soon you barely needed a pulse to get a loan and downpayments… pppht… who needs that. There was little risk to the banks originating the loans since they were sold off as soon as they were written and the borrower only had to make payments for the first 2 years… so underwriting standards looked for 2 years worth of solvency on a 30 year loan.

The khaki/polo clad folks at the bank were a symptom, not the cause. The underwriting standards were lowered by the corporate officers, not the clerks in comfortable attire.

[UCGal]

[quote=eavesdropper][quote=bearishgurl][quote=UCGal]To make matters worse – original purchase money loans (first and seconds trust deeds gotten at time of purchase) are NON RECOURSE in CA. Only refi’s and HELOCS that occur after the purchase are recourse.[/quote]

For the life of me (I wasn’t working in RE when this practice became common), I HAVE NO IDEA WHY ANY LENDER (either the one holding the 1st TD or a diff. one) would subordinate themselves to themselves or to the 1st TD holder at the time of purchase and make a 2nd “purchase money” loan (for a dn. pymt. perhaps?) and obtain a 2nd TD (purchase $$ NON RECOURSE paper) from the “buyer” in their “favor.” How risky is that??? It’s effectively 100%(+) financing and makes absolutely no sense at all to me.

These lenders must have been two jokers short of a full deck.[/quote]

I don’t know, bg. Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that about 10 or 15 years ago, banks stopped hiring rather forbidding-looking pinstripe-suited people actually educated/trained in finance, accounting, and risk management, and replaced them all with friendly and approachable 22 year-olds, clad in polo shirts and khakis, who had proven track records in…..SALES?[/quote]

I don’t think the personel at the retail outlets of the banks are the cause – they’re the symptoms. What triggered the lower underwriting standards was the money being generated by writing loans, selling them to the secondary market, bundling them into mortgage backed securities and selling them as investment grade vehicles… Profits were taken at every step – and they wanted more mortgages to feed the MBS beast… pretty soon you barely needed a pulse to get a loan and downpayments… pppht… who needs that. There was little risk to the banks originating the loans since they were sold off as soon as they were written and the borrower only had to make payments for the first 2 years… so underwriting standards looked for 2 years worth of solvency on a 30 year loan.

The khaki/polo clad folks at the bank were a symptom, not the cause. The underwriting standards were lowered by the corporate officers, not the clerks in comfortable attire.

[UCGal]

I think this is how you feel today.

Based on past performance, I think you’ll feel differently tomorrow.

You strike me as incapable of letting her pick the house with no input/say from you. Yet that’s what you’re offering her.

Good luck. I hope your wife takes you up on the offer and holds you to the email.

[UCGal]

I think this is how you feel today.

Based on past performance, I think you’ll feel differently tomorrow.

You strike me as incapable of letting her pick the house with no input/say from you. Yet that’s what you’re offering her.

Good luck. I hope your wife takes you up on the offer and holds you to the email.

[Author]

Posts