0
0

Can't refinance under water


 invite response                
2007 May 3, 4:35am   24,551 views  283 comments

by Patrick   ➕follow (61)   💰tip   ignore  

underwater houses

During the boom, if borrowers asked about the adjustable rates on their mortgages, they were told "oh, you can just refinance and start over".

But no one told them you can't refinance if your house is under water, that is, if the loan amount is more than the value of the house. Banks won't go for that, even in the continuing lax lending environment.

So their rates will adjust upward, and they won't be able to pay the mortgage, or refinance, or sell for what they paid.

Interesting times ahead.

Patrick

#housing

« First        Comments 117 - 156 of 283       Last »     Search these comments

117   HeadSet   2007 May 4, 6:47am  

OOPS, I confused "short sale" with "renegotiated loan," which was the subject of an article I was reading. The renegotiated loan also had the 1099 issue.

118   Peter P   2007 May 4, 6:48am  

As more interest and cheaper jets come about, the entry fee shrinks as these planes are spread over more “owners”, to the point it resembles a charter club.

Fractional owners always own the same interest (e.g. 1/16) on a plane. So the entry fee will not shrink when there are more owners. With more people, there will be more planes.

(Similarly, the same time-share condos will not be spread over more owners.)

Chartering is different. They are more like private airlines.

119   HeadSet   2007 May 4, 6:49am  

"If anything, it just introduces a lot more sketchy airport employees who would get access to sensitive areas. "

Yes, like the ones who pre-planted the boxcutters for the 9-11 highjackers.

120   Peter P   2007 May 4, 6:51am  

Cheaper jets will lower the entry fee though, although they are not really much heavier than SUVs.

121   HeadSet   2007 May 4, 6:53am  

Peter P,

Your facts and logic are unassailable. I admit error.

122   HeadSet   2007 May 4, 6:54am  

Peter P,

Your facts and logic are unassailable. I admit error.

123   HeadSet   2007 May 4, 6:55am  

Peter P

Your facts and logic are unassailable. I admit error on the Fractional Ownership issue.

124   HeadSet   2007 May 4, 6:56am  

Why did it post 3 times? It was bad enough I had to be wrong.

125   Peter P   2007 May 4, 6:58am  

My facts and logic are not usually straight. This is why I am a better sophist. :)

126   cb   2007 May 4, 7:01am  

Actually, I think fractional jet ownership is gaining popularity because people do not want the hassle of airport security.

Years ago when I worked at HP, we took HP's propeller plane to Roseville, it was fantastic when you can drive right up to the gate, no screening and hop on the airplane. Some of my coworkers flew to COMDEX on the jet and we wish all air travel was like that.

127   Peter P   2007 May 4, 7:06am  

CB, IIRC HP has a few Gulfstream IV-SP, right?

128   astrid   2007 May 4, 7:07am  

Why can't someone build a transporter booth system already? Is safe, energy efficient, simultaneous transportation really so much to ask for?

129   Peter P   2007 May 4, 7:08am  

Why can’t someone build a transporter booth system already? Is safe, energy efficient, simultaneous transportation really so much to ask for?

It has unanswerable metaphysical questions.

130   Peter P   2007 May 4, 7:13am  

Anyone remember this story about someone deplaned mid-flight from an HP turboprop?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/12/15/MN137139.DTL

131   Peter P   2007 May 4, 7:14am  

RE: transporter

I will take a slow route, perhaps a cruise boat.

132   HeadSet   2007 May 4, 7:15am  

"Why can’t someone build a transporter booth system already? Is safe, energy efficient, simultaneous transportation really so much to ask for?

It has unanswerable metaphysical questions. "

Some real physical ones, too. Converting a human to energy, according to E=MC squared, would make quite a pop. Just for comparison, that "crowd pleaser" 60 megaton nuke (deliverable only by B-52, in its day) only converts 4 ounces of matter to energy.

133   Peter P   2007 May 4, 7:19am  

Just for comparison, that “crowd pleaser” 60 megaton nuke (deliverable only by B-52, in its day) only converts 4 ounces of matter to energy.

Someone had said that "640K ought to be enough for everyone."

Now I will not buy a computer with less than 2GB RAM.

Perhaps technology will solve that problem in the future. But metaphysics issues cannot possibly be resolved.

134   HeadSet   2007 May 4, 7:22am  

RE: Transporter

No Ceasarian needed, just beam baby out of mother

Eat all you want, beam food from stomach to hog trough

No sex needed, just beam sperm to......

135   HeadSet   2007 May 4, 7:23am  

"Someone had said that “640K ought to be enough for everyone.”

Are you saying I should upgrade?

136   Peter P   2007 May 4, 7:24am  

Eat all you want, beam food from stomach to hog trough

That is something I can look forward too. My wife would not let be do the Roman thing. She said it is bad for my teeth.

137   Peter P   2007 May 4, 7:25am  

Are you saying I should upgrade?

No. You should be able to run Windows 3.0 in real mode. Say hello to your "Program Manager." :)

138   astrid   2007 May 4, 7:27am  

(or maybe just jump ahead to the energy being phase)

139   Peter P   2007 May 4, 7:28am  

(or maybe just jump ahead to the energy being phase)

Or perhaps we are energy beings after all. The physically world may be an illusion.

140   HeadSet   2007 May 4, 7:32am  

"My wife would not let be do the Roman thing. She said it is bad for my teeth."

Ah, yes the Vomitorium. (At least I hope that's the "Roman Thing" that would be bad for your teeth)

I heard that Emperor Senilius often confused the Vomitorium with the Buffet.

141   astrid   2007 May 4, 7:39am  

Peter P,

Why not just chew and spit out? Some fat and starch will get through, but a lot less.

142   Peter P   2007 May 4, 7:44am  

Why not just chew and spit out? Some fat and starch will get through, but a lot less.

Swallowing the food is part of the enjoyment too.

143   Randy H   2007 May 4, 7:54am  

Or perhaps we are energy beings after all. The physically world may be an illusion.

Even if this were true, the fact that you experience the physical universe, well...physically, makes the idea moot. If you jump off a building you will fall to the ground and die, because of gravity, imagined, illusionary, or real, all the same.

This is the problem I have with the postmodernists. The difference between something *real* and something *illusionary-but-perceived-exactly-as-if-real* is inconsequential.

Question: "But we could all be just dust in the wind. Isn't that deep?"

Answer: "No. Who cares. Quit smoking so much pot while watching adult swim, thinking you've discovered something profound".

144   Peter P   2007 May 4, 7:54am  

GC, have you looked through all the regulatory requirements yet?

145   Peter P   2007 May 4, 7:56am  

This is the problem I have with the postmodernists.

This is why I am a sophist, not a postmodernist.

146   Peter P   2007 May 4, 8:00am  

Even if this were true, the fact that you experience the physical universe, well…physically, makes the idea moot. If you jump off a building you will fall to the ground and die, because of gravity, imagined, illusionary, or real, all the same.

Then what really separates this universe from Second Life? :)

I think SL has gravity too.

147   Malcolm   2007 May 4, 8:06am  

Hey Peter, I think I had the same argument with my brother once. That whole, perception is the reality nonsense. I used the same counter, I don't care what your perception is, if you jump off that building you will die regardless of whether you perceive it as tall or illusionary.

148   Peter P   2007 May 4, 8:09am  

Malcolm, you are right.

Actually, if a person truly believes that perception is reality he will be actively trying to change his thinking in order to improve reality.

Anyhow, I am not a good postmodernist. I am a pragmatist.

149   Malcolm   2007 May 4, 8:11am  

Peter, why do you consider yourself a sophist. That doesn't have a good connotation.

150   Malcolm   2007 May 4, 8:19am  

Actually GC, I think your position is kind of clever. How about this angle? If the guy is jumping off the building to prove the perception is reality, and he splatters on the ground he has failed to prove it, and the fact that he died before he figured it out is +1 for Darwinism. Since we are then left laughing at his stupidity, I would conclude his argument falls short, pardon the pun.

151   Peter P   2007 May 4, 8:23am  

Peter, why do you consider yourself a sophist. That doesn’t have a good connotation.

Astrid called me a sophist. I assumed she would not call me anything bad. Oh well.

152   Peter P   2007 May 4, 8:25am  

But, before that computation could terminate, the processor blue-screened. So the man died happily believing his prior notion.

Blue screen? Whose fault is that? ;)

153   Malcolm   2007 May 4, 8:26am  

Ha ha. I don't know that it is bad, it just means that you would try to win an argument by your charisma verses solid logic and support. I kind of consider Penn and Teller to be sophists.

154   Peter P   2007 May 4, 8:27am  

Ha ha. I don’t know that it is bad, it just means that you would try to win an argument by your charisma verses solid logic and support.

If I had the required charisma I do not mind being a little facts-challenged. ;)

155   Malcolm   2007 May 4, 8:29am  

I'm normally suspicious of people who throw the labels around verses just saying what's on their mind. I'm kind of tired of the term 'straw man' being thrown around everytime someone wants to sound enlightened.

156   Malcolm   2007 May 4, 8:30am  

You'd be a sophist if the Sushi Guild of America made you their spokesperson.

« First        Comments 117 - 156 of 283       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions   gaiste