« First « Previous Comments 218 - 232 of 232 Search these comments
APOCALYPSEFUCK isFrank Sinatra says
I can be flexible. As long as the housing is priced rationally - like a fair valuation from 1973, maybe all the way out to 1974.
First time I have seen your milder side. Hehe.
It's just better to ask Congress to stop the housing sector subsidies. We are running this nation bankrupt trying to subsidize every single bank and wall street gambling casino out there.
Tell your Realtard buddy that In-N-Out Burger is always hiring if this RE thing doesn't work out.
This, and a lot of other legislation, could be read, "We do not believe in free markets. Please pass, or don't pass, a law to sway things back to favoring the people with most of the money."
TODAYS RIDICULOUSLY DEBT-FUELED HOUSING PRICE VALUATIONS
Exactly! And I'd add 'TODAY'S RIDICULOUSLY, FRAUDULENTLY, PEOPLE BEING GAMED BY WITHOLDING INFORMATION FOR PROFIT BY THOSE IN POWER, DEBT UNDER FALSE PRETENSES -FUELED HOUSING PRICE VALUATIONS..."
Tell your Realtard buddy that In-N-Out Burger is always hiring if this RE thing doesn't work out.
Yeah, but why would they want to work much harder for less pay?
APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says
When will Patrick.Net advocate 50% downpayments? Anything less is just asking for speculators to fuck up the market.
Why settle for only 50% down payments when you can advocate cash only?
What bothers me more than the speculation and perceived "right-to-own-a-home" is that once the project goes south the taxpayers are on the hook for bailouts. If they never had provided a single penny of bailout the problem would have been solved long ago, a lot more people would be renting vs owning and proces would have cratered to their fair values.
If they never had provided a single penny of bailout the problem would have been solved long ago, a lot more people would be renting vs owning and proces would have cratered to their fair values.
We can't have THAT. This is America. Too many bankers would lose money.
as an ad don to klarek as well it might look fair from a lenders perstive charge more for a higher risk, but the SAME fee is charged if u put down 19% or 0% until your principle is at 80% of the purchase.
I was getting quotes fairly recently, and I don't believe this is true (at least not in all cases). The fee was structured in at least 3 steps IIRC. 5%/10%/15% down.
The 5% fee doesn't morph into the 10% fee once you reach 90% LTV, though. It's there in full force until you get to 80% (or 78% or whatever)
Government could offer everyone $1/gallon vouchers, and we'd soon seen $5 gas here.
Eh?
Wouldn't we have to consume enough additional fuel to get to get to that price on the supply curve? I don't anticipate that $1/gallon voucher would change my consumption habits by much, if at all.
"it would take 14 years for a typical person to save up a 20% down payment to buy a median-priced home."
That's just stupid math.
While you are saving up your 20% down payment, you are paying for rent. Imagine a situation where monthly rent is 50% more than the monthly payment on a comparable house (Roberto says this is the case in Phoenix, no?)....
After 17 years, you save up 20% down. Now you buy a house...if you continue to save the same amount, and put the same amount as before towards housing, you will pay it off much sooner than if you had kept saving until you had 100% of the purchase price.
In the situation where rent is more than buying, you might in fact be better off buying with 3.5% down, or whatever the minimum is.
That's just stupid math.
I took what was written to be more reflective of actual behavior rather than one of mathematical exercise. I agree with you, but that kind of understanding of the total costs of housing relative income is rare.
« First « Previous Comments 218 - 232 of 232 Search these comments
A realtor forwarded me the email below, showing that he is being pressured by the NAR to lobby against 20% downpayments. Lending without 20% down is very risky, but it generates realtor commissions -- and commissions are the only thing that the NAR cares about. The NAR clearly does not care that risky lending causes banks to fail, and forces taxpayers to bail out failed banks.
The email contains a dead giveaway that the NAR knows it is encouraging bad lending : "it would take 14 years for a typical person to save up a 20% down payment to buy a median-priced home."
If it would take a buyer 14 years to pay only 20% (one fifth) of the purchase price, it would take five times as long to pay it all off, and that's 70 years!
Anyone who needs 70 years to pay off a house should not be buying that house. If realtors can't get a commission because some math-challenged buyer can no longer borrow ten times his income, that would be a very good thing. If prices fall to the point where most people can afford a house without crazy amounts of mortgage debt, that would be an even better thing.
Please write congress and strongly support the QRM proposal. Your chance of getting a reasonably priced house depends on stopping the criminally insane lending that realtors are lobbying to continue.
#housing