Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
ucodegen
ParticipantThe following is not good, despite the positive spin. I would need to dig more.
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idCAN2444964620080124?rpc=44
Any time a company asks for ratings to be pulled, brings into question the quality of the underlying assets. They are happy about a savings of $350,000 while they are a $6B institution?
Suggestion on the option: Ride it with a finger ready on the trigger… if you know what I mean
ParticipantThe following is not good, despite the positive spin. I would need to dig more.
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idCAN2444964620080124?rpc=44
Any time a company asks for ratings to be pulled, brings into question the quality of the underlying assets. They are happy about a savings of $350,000 while they are a $6B institution?
Suggestion on the option: Ride it with a finger ready on the trigger… if you know what I mean
Participanttake a look at imb… after posting my query, i went ahead and placed a bet for apr 7.5 call…
Betting on a rise in stock prices.. going for a short time ‘pop’ before selling the option before its date?
Participanttake a look at imb… after posting my query, i went ahead and placed a bet for apr 7.5 call…
Betting on a rise in stock prices.. going for a short time ‘pop’ before selling the option before its date?
Participanttake a look at imb… after posting my query, i went ahead and placed a bet for apr 7.5 call…
Betting on a rise in stock prices.. going for a short time ‘pop’ before selling the option before its date?
Participanttake a look at imb… after posting my query, i went ahead and placed a bet for apr 7.5 call…
Betting on a rise in stock prices.. going for a short time ‘pop’ before selling the option before its date?
Participanttake a look at imb… after posting my query, i went ahead and placed a bet for apr 7.5 call…
Betting on a rise in stock prices.. going for a short time ‘pop’ before selling the option before its date?
ParticipantThese banks don’t want houses to become more affordable, they want you to borrow as much money as possible and become a long term revenue stream to them. I think what we’re seeing is that homeowning is becoming sort of a lifetime renting arrangement from the bank.
Ironic you should mention this.. because Japan was looking at lifetime ‘mortgages’ before their RE bubble crashed.
If you still need X down and a yearly income of Y to afford house at price Z then prices will still fall to those levels, and to me it seems like we are still a bit away from that.
Yes, but allowing Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae to pick them up, drops the interest rate for those loans, changing the relationship between X,Y and Z above.
would this save those banks from having to mark down their holdings by simply getting rid of them altogether?
Kind of. I would have to see the specific language and how Freddie Mac is going to select the criteria for the mortgages.
does this save indy mac?
See above. I suspect not though. Right now the requirement of Freddie Mac is doc’d mortgages w/ a minimum equity ratio (though this part might get fudged). See implode-o-meter
http://ml-implode.com/ailing/lender_IndyMacBancorp_2008-01-09.html
Specifically, Frank said Fannie and Freddie would be able to buy mortgages worth up to 125 pct of the median value of a home in any given region, up to a new limit of 730,000 usd.
Humm.. and why would 125% financing in a downward real estate market with insufficient loan loss reserves be a problem?… I agree. Hopefully it won’t go through.
Really rich people don’t get hit with taxes.
Actually they do. In fact they get reamed. I already posted the tax schedule for single in another thread. That the rich are not paying their share of taxes is a common theme that politicians like to play out when looking at more taxes. They either have to fight 80 to 90% of the population on raising taxes or they fight 20 – 10% of the population(so called rich) to raise taxes.
This is from a 2005 tax table for single.
0 – 7299 10% marginal rate, 10% total.
7300 – 29699 15% marginal rate (additional dollars over 7300 taxed at 15% on top of the 10% on under 7300)
29700 – 71949 25% marginal rate.
71950 – 150149 28% marginal rate.
150150 – 326449 33% marginal rate
326450+ 35% marginal rate.Add in the fact that deductions start being eliminated for incomes over 146,000(single) due to AMT. So where is it that the rich are not paying taxes? 35% of your income gone to fed taxes? Add in CA state and you are looking at 44% of your income gone to taxes. Looks like it is almost better to sit around and let the gov take care of you..
ParticipantThese banks don’t want houses to become more affordable, they want you to borrow as much money as possible and become a long term revenue stream to them. I think what we’re seeing is that homeowning is becoming sort of a lifetime renting arrangement from the bank.
Ironic you should mention this.. because Japan was looking at lifetime ‘mortgages’ before their RE bubble crashed.
If you still need X down and a yearly income of Y to afford house at price Z then prices will still fall to those levels, and to me it seems like we are still a bit away from that.
Yes, but allowing Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae to pick them up, drops the interest rate for those loans, changing the relationship between X,Y and Z above.
would this save those banks from having to mark down their holdings by simply getting rid of them altogether?
Kind of. I would have to see the specific language and how Freddie Mac is going to select the criteria for the mortgages.
does this save indy mac?
See above. I suspect not though. Right now the requirement of Freddie Mac is doc’d mortgages w/ a minimum equity ratio (though this part might get fudged). See implode-o-meter
http://ml-implode.com/ailing/lender_IndyMacBancorp_2008-01-09.html
Specifically, Frank said Fannie and Freddie would be able to buy mortgages worth up to 125 pct of the median value of a home in any given region, up to a new limit of 730,000 usd.
Humm.. and why would 125% financing in a downward real estate market with insufficient loan loss reserves be a problem?… I agree. Hopefully it won’t go through.
Really rich people don’t get hit with taxes.
Actually they do. In fact they get reamed. I already posted the tax schedule for single in another thread. That the rich are not paying their share of taxes is a common theme that politicians like to play out when looking at more taxes. They either have to fight 80 to 90% of the population on raising taxes or they fight 20 – 10% of the population(so called rich) to raise taxes.
This is from a 2005 tax table for single.
0 – 7299 10% marginal rate, 10% total.
7300 – 29699 15% marginal rate (additional dollars over 7300 taxed at 15% on top of the 10% on under 7300)
29700 – 71949 25% marginal rate.
71950 – 150149 28% marginal rate.
150150 – 326449 33% marginal rate
326450+ 35% marginal rate.Add in the fact that deductions start being eliminated for incomes over 146,000(single) due to AMT. So where is it that the rich are not paying taxes? 35% of your income gone to fed taxes? Add in CA state and you are looking at 44% of your income gone to taxes. Looks like it is almost better to sit around and let the gov take care of you..
ParticipantThese banks don’t want houses to become more affordable, they want you to borrow as much money as possible and become a long term revenue stream to them. I think what we’re seeing is that homeowning is becoming sort of a lifetime renting arrangement from the bank.
Ironic you should mention this.. because Japan was looking at lifetime ‘mortgages’ before their RE bubble crashed.
If you still need X down and a yearly income of Y to afford house at price Z then prices will still fall to those levels, and to me it seems like we are still a bit away from that.
Yes, but allowing Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae to pick them up, drops the interest rate for those loans, changing the relationship between X,Y and Z above.
would this save those banks from having to mark down their holdings by simply getting rid of them altogether?
Kind of. I would have to see the specific language and how Freddie Mac is going to select the criteria for the mortgages.
does this save indy mac?
See above. I suspect not though. Right now the requirement of Freddie Mac is doc’d mortgages w/ a minimum equity ratio (though this part might get fudged). See implode-o-meter
http://ml-implode.com/ailing/lender_IndyMacBancorp_2008-01-09.html
Specifically, Frank said Fannie and Freddie would be able to buy mortgages worth up to 125 pct of the median value of a home in any given region, up to a new limit of 730,000 usd.
Humm.. and why would 125% financing in a downward real estate market with insufficient loan loss reserves be a problem?… I agree. Hopefully it won’t go through.
Really rich people don’t get hit with taxes.
Actually they do. In fact they get reamed. I already posted the tax schedule for single in another thread. That the rich are not paying their share of taxes is a common theme that politicians like to play out when looking at more taxes. They either have to fight 80 to 90% of the population on raising taxes or they fight 20 – 10% of the population(so called rich) to raise taxes.
This is from a 2005 tax table for single.
0 – 7299 10% marginal rate, 10% total.
7300 – 29699 15% marginal rate (additional dollars over 7300 taxed at 15% on top of the 10% on under 7300)
29700 – 71949 25% marginal rate.
71950 – 150149 28% marginal rate.
150150 – 326449 33% marginal rate
326450+ 35% marginal rate.Add in the fact that deductions start being eliminated for incomes over 146,000(single) due to AMT. So where is it that the rich are not paying taxes? 35% of your income gone to fed taxes? Add in CA state and you are looking at 44% of your income gone to taxes. Looks like it is almost better to sit around and let the gov take care of you..
ParticipantThese banks don’t want houses to become more affordable, they want you to borrow as much money as possible and become a long term revenue stream to them. I think what we’re seeing is that homeowning is becoming sort of a lifetime renting arrangement from the bank.
Ironic you should mention this.. because Japan was looking at lifetime ‘mortgages’ before their RE bubble crashed.
If you still need X down and a yearly income of Y to afford house at price Z then prices will still fall to those levels, and to me it seems like we are still a bit away from that.
Yes, but allowing Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae to pick them up, drops the interest rate for those loans, changing the relationship between X,Y and Z above.
would this save those banks from having to mark down their holdings by simply getting rid of them altogether?
Kind of. I would have to see the specific language and how Freddie Mac is going to select the criteria for the mortgages.
does this save indy mac?
See above. I suspect not though. Right now the requirement of Freddie Mac is doc’d mortgages w/ a minimum equity ratio (though this part might get fudged). See implode-o-meter
http://ml-implode.com/ailing/lender_IndyMacBancorp_2008-01-09.html
Specifically, Frank said Fannie and Freddie would be able to buy mortgages worth up to 125 pct of the median value of a home in any given region, up to a new limit of 730,000 usd.
Humm.. and why would 125% financing in a downward real estate market with insufficient loan loss reserves be a problem?… I agree. Hopefully it won’t go through.
Really rich people don’t get hit with taxes.
Actually they do. In fact they get reamed. I already posted the tax schedule for single in another thread. That the rich are not paying their share of taxes is a common theme that politicians like to play out when looking at more taxes. They either have to fight 80 to 90% of the population on raising taxes or they fight 20 – 10% of the population(so called rich) to raise taxes.
This is from a 2005 tax table for single.
0 – 7299 10% marginal rate, 10% total.
7300 – 29699 15% marginal rate (additional dollars over 7300 taxed at 15% on top of the 10% on under 7300)
29700 – 71949 25% marginal rate.
71950 – 150149 28% marginal rate.
150150 – 326449 33% marginal rate
326450+ 35% marginal rate.Add in the fact that deductions start being eliminated for incomes over 146,000(single) due to AMT. So where is it that the rich are not paying taxes? 35% of your income gone to fed taxes? Add in CA state and you are looking at 44% of your income gone to taxes. Looks like it is almost better to sit around and let the gov take care of you..
ParticipantThese banks don’t want houses to become more affordable, they want you to borrow as much money as possible and become a long term revenue stream to them. I think what we’re seeing is that homeowning is becoming sort of a lifetime renting arrangement from the bank.
Ironic you should mention this.. because Japan was looking at lifetime ‘mortgages’ before their RE bubble crashed.
If you still need X down and a yearly income of Y to afford house at price Z then prices will still fall to those levels, and to me it seems like we are still a bit away from that.
Yes, but allowing Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae to pick them up, drops the interest rate for those loans, changing the relationship between X,Y and Z above.
would this save those banks from having to mark down their holdings by simply getting rid of them altogether?
Kind of. I would have to see the specific language and how Freddie Mac is going to select the criteria for the mortgages.
does this save indy mac?
See above. I suspect not though. Right now the requirement of Freddie Mac is doc’d mortgages w/ a minimum equity ratio (though this part might get fudged). See implode-o-meter
http://ml-implode.com/ailing/lender_IndyMacBancorp_2008-01-09.html
Specifically, Frank said Fannie and Freddie would be able to buy mortgages worth up to 125 pct of the median value of a home in any given region, up to a new limit of 730,000 usd.
Humm.. and why would 125% financing in a downward real estate market with insufficient loan loss reserves be a problem?… I agree. Hopefully it won’t go through.
Really rich people don’t get hit with taxes.
Actually they do. In fact they get reamed. I already posted the tax schedule for single in another thread. That the rich are not paying their share of taxes is a common theme that politicians like to play out when looking at more taxes. They either have to fight 80 to 90% of the population on raising taxes or they fight 20 – 10% of the population(so called rich) to raise taxes.
This is from a 2005 tax table for single.
0 – 7299 10% marginal rate, 10% total.
7300 – 29699 15% marginal rate (additional dollars over 7300 taxed at 15% on top of the 10% on under 7300)
29700 – 71949 25% marginal rate.
71950 – 150149 28% marginal rate.
150150 – 326449 33% marginal rate
326450+ 35% marginal rate.Add in the fact that deductions start being eliminated for incomes over 146,000(single) due to AMT. So where is it that the rich are not paying taxes? 35% of your income gone to fed taxes? Add in CA state and you are looking at 44% of your income gone to taxes. Looks like it is almost better to sit around and let the gov take care of you..
ParticipantTo anyone who will think that increasing conforming loan limits would be good… think again!
Think of it this way. It makes it easier to get financing at low rates.. which just like the low interest rates and funky financing that got us into this problem in the first place, will drive up the price of houses. Normally you get a lot more house per dollar when you get over about $500K in most markets. This change would move that breakpoint up to about $800K. Basically what is happening here is an attempt to re-inflate the bubble as well as the banks/money managers trying to shove off their bad loans onto Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac (no one wants to pick them up at the price that the banks want to sell them at, and the banks don’t want to write the value down to sell it. Remember Warren Buffets comment that they should mark to market not mark to model.).
http://www.minyanville.com/articles/index.php?a=12869
It seems that many people have an obsession with thinking lower interest rates make a house more affordable. It doesn’t. It is actually makes it more expensive because it increases realizable demand at that price level thereby driving up the price not to mention property taxes and insurance costs. Imagine what house prices would be if interest rates were 15%? A higher interest rate means your down payment goes a lot further. The way to profit from RE is to buy when rates are high, sell or refi to a lower fixed when rates are low.
There is another problem here too. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae already have a problem on loan loss reserves. Allowing them to pick up loans with a higher face value will not make this better.. it makes it a lot worse. If either of these institutions fails, guess who picks up the tab? The taxpayer. Both of these institutions are guaranteed by the US gov and thereby the taxpayer.
ParticipantTo anyone who will think that increasing conforming loan limits would be good… think again!
Think of it this way. It makes it easier to get financing at low rates.. which just like the low interest rates and funky financing that got us into this problem in the first place, will drive up the price of houses. Normally you get a lot more house per dollar when you get over about $500K in most markets. This change would move that breakpoint up to about $800K. Basically what is happening here is an attempt to re-inflate the bubble as well as the banks/money managers trying to shove off their bad loans onto Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac (no one wants to pick them up at the price that the banks want to sell them at, and the banks don’t want to write the value down to sell it. Remember Warren Buffets comment that they should mark to market not mark to model.).
http://www.minyanville.com/articles/index.php?a=12869
It seems that many people have an obsession with thinking lower interest rates make a house more affordable. It doesn’t. It is actually makes it more expensive because it increases realizable demand at that price level thereby driving up the price not to mention property taxes and insurance costs. Imagine what house prices would be if interest rates were 15%? A higher interest rate means your down payment goes a lot further. The way to profit from RE is to buy when rates are high, sell or refi to a lower fixed when rates are low.
There is another problem here too. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae already have a problem on loan loss reserves. Allowing them to pick up loans with a higher face value will not make this better.. it makes it a lot worse. If either of these institutions fails, guess who picks up the tab? The taxpayer. Both of these institutions are guaranteed by the US gov and thereby the taxpayer.
-
AuthorPosts
