"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

P.Fritz wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
I am paying interest-only on a 5-year fixed at 4.25%.

Pardon me for being blunt, but that's friggin' dumb. That's as
stupid as
punting on 3rd and short. Do you *want* the economy to take a big
chunk
out of your future?

Why is it dumb? I explained in detail why it works well for me.
Why pay
interest on an asset that's appreciating at 10-20% per year?

Some people just don't get that owing money is not necessarrily a bad
thing.


It IS a bad thing, when you are talked into an interest only ARM....

I presented the interest-only ARM idea to the lender. Until 2009, I
can't afford to pay interest *and principle* on such an expensive house.
However, if I waited until I *could* afford to pay principal and interest
on my house (5 years from now), then my house would be selling for even
more money...and it would once again be out of my price range.

Like I said...
I'm effectively renting this house with an option at the end of 5 years
to buy it at today's price. The best part is that I get to write-off the
"lease" payment (ie--the interest).

It's a no-brainer.

And the fact that asslicker cannot comprehend that shows why he is still
"king of the NG idiots"


Oh, he gets it alright. He's just being intentionally obtuse because he
doesn't want to admit that he was wrong...nor that he lacks the brains and
the balls to do something so financially brilliant.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:

Did the banker who wrote your mortgage feed you this
justification?
Did he
give a shark-like smile as he did so?

No. I used Wells Fargo. I had to talk *him* into it.

I have a friend, who actually worked for the local Wells Fargo
office
here, and he left after six months. Asked why, and he told stories
of
getting people into mortgages that he knew damned well they had no
business being in.


Wells Fargo doesn't do high-risk mortgages.

HORSE****!!!!!!
Perhaps you didn't see the Home Loan Workbench, right there on their
website? Go ahead, try it. Several statements, including poor credit,
bankruptcy, we can tailor a loan for your needs.....
My buddy actually quit working for the company just because of some of
the loans he wrote.



They have some of the strictest
lending requirements of all the lenders. They don't need the
high-risk
stuff, since they're already the number one home mortgage lender in
the
country. One out of every 11 homes is financed by Wells Fargo.

Regardless, your friend didn't work for the division that did my
loan:
http://www.wellsfargo.com/com/corpor...pprivate.jhtml

The Private Mortgage Banking division can do things the other
divisions
can't...but not everyone qualifies.

Did I say anywhere, at anytime, that "everyone qualifies"? Can you ever
objectively analyze anything without completely changing the context of
the debate to fit your particular bull****?


I have a 5-year ARM, interest-only, non-comforming jumbo mortgage for
80% of
the purchase price with a 4.25% interest rate. I financed another
15% with
an equity line at prime plus 1/4. That means I got better than most
people's conforming rates on a non-conforming loan. I paid zero
points.
Ask your friend how many deals he wrote like that. Answer: zero.
Hmm, an interest only loan.....hehe!!

You have no clue about interest only loans, do you?

He doesn't have much of a clue about anything.

A fixed rate interest-only loan is ideal in a market with rapidly
appreciating properties.

It is also ideal for people that do not intend on staying in a house for
more than 5 years.

What you're confusing it with is "minimum payment" loans that have
ridiculously low initial rates of 1.5% or less. Those are dangerous loans,
because as rates rise, you can get into a negative amortization situation.

Especially if they are not capped.


Where is the risk with 5 year fixed-rate interest-only loans?

Very little.....and it is a good risk for the lender as well.....they are
not bound to an interest rate for 30 years.

And how are they any different from a conventional ARM? Answer: they're
not. You pay so little principle in the first 5 years of a conventional
loan, that there's virtually no difference from an interest-only loan.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
The California people have not lost money.

Yes, a lot have. Especially people who took cash out of their "increased
equity" by refinancing, and then either got laid off or got the loan
called. Or those who got laid off and had to sell.



That is not losing money! They gambled on permanent, high payed employment
and took money out. It is not free money, they still had to pay it back.
They got the money! That is not losing money. They had to sell the house,
but they got the money.


... May take a little longer to
sell, but the prices have not gone down.

You have your head stuck in the sand, too. Do you have

I have several relatives & close friends who are in the real estate
business in California, and another associate who is an REIT manager and
does a lot of business there. The decline in value is not really a crash
(although it looked like it was going to be a BIG crash for a while) but
it's definite.


... Since the guy and his partners are realtors, they seem
to know a value.

Are they as full of malarkey as you are, Mr Moderate Democrat?

DSK


Well, since the sales prices of most houses in California are not
decreasing, but increasing, maybe slower than during the boom years, you
relatives must be really bad realtors. It is you ultr-lefty Dem's that are
full of malarkey. Is why the Democratic party is in trouble.

NOYB wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:

Did the banker who wrote your mortgage feed you this
justification?
Did he
give a shark-like smile as he did so?

No. I used Wells Fargo. I had to talk *him* into it.

I have a friend, who actually worked for the local Wells Fargo
office
here, and he left after six months. Asked why, and he told
stories
of
getting people into mortgages that he knew damned well they had
no
business being in.


Wells Fargo doesn't do high-risk mortgages.

HORSE****!!!!!!
Perhaps you didn't see the Home Loan Workbench, right there on
their
website? Go ahead, try it. Several statements, including poor
credit,
bankruptcy, we can tailor a loan for your needs.....
My buddy actually quit working for the company just because of some
of
the loans he wrote.



They have some of the strictest
lending requirements of all the lenders. They don't need the
high-risk
stuff, since they're already the number one home mortgage lender
in
the
country. One out of every 11 homes is financed by Wells Fargo.

Regardless, your friend didn't work for the division that did my
loan:
http://www.wellsfargo.com/com/corpor...pprivate.jhtml

The Private Mortgage Banking division can do things the other
divisions
can't...but not everyone qualifies.

Did I say anywhere, at anytime, that "everyone qualifies"? Can you
ever
objectively analyze anything without completely changing the
context of
the debate to fit your particular bull****?


I have a 5-year ARM, interest-only, non-comforming jumbo mortgage
for
80% of
the purchase price with a 4.25% interest rate. I financed another
15% with
an equity line at prime plus 1/4. That means I got better than
most
people's conforming rates on a non-conforming loan. I paid zero
points.
Ask your friend how many deals he wrote like that. Answer: zero.
Hmm, an interest only loan.....hehe!!

You have no clue about interest only loans, do you? A fixed rate
interest-only loan is ideal in a market with rapidly appreciating
properties.

Oh, so then, you plan on keeping your interest only loan for ever? The
lender will GLADLY do that! Do you REALLY think that it's sound
financial advice to tell someone to buy something, paying only the
interest, and not paying down ONE BIT of the principal????

What you're confusing it with is "minimum payment" loans that
have ridiculously low initial rates of 1.5% or less. Those are
dangerous
loans, because as rates rise, you can get into a negative
amortization
situation.

Where is the risk with 5 year fixed-rate interest-only loans? And
how are
they any different from a conventional ARM? Answer: they're not.
You pay
so little principle in the first 5 years of a conventional loan, that

there's virtually no difference from an interest-only loan.
If you pay the minimum, yes.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
The California people have not lost money.

Yes, a lot have. Especially people who took cash out of their "increased
equity" by refinancing, and then either got laid off or got the loan
called. Or those who got laid off and had to sell.



That is not losing money! They gambled on permanent, high payed
employment
and took money out. It is not free money, they still had to pay it back.
They got the money! That is not losing money. They had to sell the
house,
but they got the money.


... May take a little longer to
sell, but the prices have not gone down.

You have your head stuck in the sand, too. Do you have

I have several relatives & close friends who are in the real estate
business in California, and another associate who is an REIT manager and
does a lot of business there. The decline in value is not really a crash
(although it looked like it was going to be a BIG crash for a while) but
it's definite.


... Since the guy and his partners are realtors, they seem
to know a value.

Are they as full of malarkey as you are, Mr Moderate Democrat?

DSK


Well, since the sales prices of most houses in California are not
decreasing, but increasing, maybe slower than during the boom years, you
relatives must be really bad realtors. It is you ultr-lefty Dem's that
are
full of malarkey. Is why the Democratic party is in trouble.

Sort of like how it is always democratic run precincts that always have the
voting problems???? :-)

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

You have no clue about interest only loans, do you? A fixed rate
interest-only loan is ideal in a market with rapidly appreciating
properties.

Oh, so then, you plan on keeping your interest only loan for ever? The
lender will GLADLY do that! Do you REALLY think that it's sound
financial advice to tell someone to buy something, paying only the
interest, and not paying down ONE BIT of the principal????

Yes. *If* the house is in a rapidly appreciating area *and* they intend to
sell it (or reverse mortgage it) upon retirement.

If they want it paid for *in full* by retirement, then the answer is *no*.




What you're confusing it with is "minimum payment" loans that
have ridiculously low initial rates of 1.5% or less. Those are
dangerous
loans, because as rates rise, you can get into a negative
amortization
situation.

Where is the risk with 5 year fixed-rate interest-only loans? And
how are
they any different from a conventional ARM? Answer: they're not.
You pay
so little principle in the first 5 years of a conventional loan, that

there's virtually no difference from an interest-only loan.
If you pay the minimum, yes.

If you can afford to pay more than the minimum, then why not just go with a
shorter term loan? You'll get a lower interest rate, and you'll pay far,
far less interest over the life of the loan.

An interest-only loan just lowers your "minimum payment" each month. I
could always pay principle if I wanted to.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

You have no clue about interest only loans, do you? A fixed rate
interest-only loan is ideal in a market with rapidly appreciating
properties.

Oh, so then, you plan on keeping your interest only loan for ever? The
lender will GLADLY do that! Do you REALLY think that it's sound
financial advice to tell someone to buy something, paying only the
interest, and not paying down ONE BIT of the principal????

Yes. *If* the house is in a rapidly appreciating area *and* they intend
to sell it (or reverse mortgage it) upon retirement.

If they want it paid for *in full* by retirement, then the answer is *no*.

As long as you have the cash flow, and an interest rate lower than the
average return in the stock market......it is ALWAYS better to have the
maximum mortgage.






What you're confusing it with is "minimum payment" loans that
have ridiculously low initial rates of 1.5% or less. Those are
dangerous
loans, because as rates rise, you can get into a negative
amortization
situation.

Where is the risk with 5 year fixed-rate interest-only loans? And
how are
they any different from a conventional ARM? Answer: they're not.
You pay
so little principle in the first 5 years of a conventional loan, that

there's virtually no difference from an interest-only loan.
If you pay the minimum, yes.

If you can afford to pay more than the minimum, then why not just go with
a shorter term loan? You'll get a lower interest rate, and you'll pay
far, far less interest over the life of the loan.

An interest-only loan just lowers your "minimum payment" each month. I
could always pay principle if I wanted to.


But then all you are doing is buying a 4% note back from the bank.......why
do that when you can get 7-10 in the market/

The payment for a P&I loan would not be much more than the payments on an
interest only loan for a 30 year mortgage. With the present low interest
rates, you should lock in the low interest rate with a 30 year fixed. Rates
are only going up, as they have doubled in the last year alone. In 5 years,
you are probably looking at probably a 8% minimum loan.
Bill

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

P.Fritz wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
I am paying interest-only on a 5-year fixed at 4.25%.

Pardon me for being blunt, but that's friggin' dumb. That's as
stupid as
punting on 3rd and short. Do you *want* the economy to take a big
chunk
out of your future?

Why is it dumb? I explained in detail why it works well for me.
Why pay
interest on an asset that's appreciating at 10-20% per year?

Some people just don't get that owing money is not necessarrily a bad
thing.


It IS a bad thing, when you are talked into an interest only ARM....

I presented the interest-only ARM idea to the lender. Until 2009, I can't
afford to pay interest *and principle* on such an expensive house.
However,
if I waited until I *could* afford to pay principal and interest on my
house
(5 years from now), then my house would be selling for even more
money...and
it would once again be out of my price range.

Like I said...
I'm effectively renting this house with an option at the end of 5 years to
buy it at today's price. The best part is that I get to write-off the
"lease" payment (ie--the interest).

It's a no-brainer.

NOYB wrote:
Why is it dumb? I explained in detail why it works well for me. Why pay
interest on an asset that's appreciating at 10-20% per year?

Because it's a mug's game. You're handing over a lot of money to the
bank, and paying upkeep & insurance on a big fancy house you can't
really afford, while hoping that the boom will continue long enough for
you to come out ahead.

In the stock market, this is called the "greater fool" strategy. Guess why.


So what. In 2009, my rate can begin adjusting 2 points per year, upto a max
of 5 points.

Sorry, read the fine print. If the prime rate hits 12% again, do you
think your banker is going to be all palsy-walsy about keeping your
fancy expensive roof over your head, out of his pocket? Homey don't play
dat... your mortgage is probably already sold off to a secondary holder
who has no contractual obligation to you.


Insurance is just legalized gambling. Think for a second... why do you
have to gamble so heavily on your own failure? If you weren't taking big
risks, you wouldn't need so much insurance.


And I would reap the rewards that go along with risk.

Although you've certainly shown yourself to be mean-spirited and petty,
I don't wish you ill. My advice is that tap-dancing on the edge of a
cliff is not a profitable undertaking, but you've convinced yourself
otherwise. Good luck.

DSK

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...
The payment for a P&I loan would not be much more than the payments on an
interest only loan for a 30 year mortgage.

A conventional loan would be *alot* more *because* of the low interest rate.
For example, the P&I on an $800k loan at 4.25% is $3935.52. The interest on
that same loan is $2833.33. That's an extra $1100/month payment. Of
course, you couldn't get a 30 year fixed at 4.25%, so the payment difference
would be even higher than $1100. Probably closer to an extra $1500/month.
As rates go higher, then the difference between an interest-only and a fully
amortized loans becomes miniscule.




With the present low interest
rates, you should lock in the low interest rate with a 30 year fixed.
Rates
are only going up, as they have doubled in the last year alone. In 5
years,
you are probably looking at probably a 8% minimum loan.

If my loan payment went from $2833/month (current payment..not including
taxes and insurance), to $5333.33/month (paying interest-only on the same
amount financed at 8%), I could afford that in 5 years. That's a
$2500/month jump, but I should have $4000/month in extra disposable income
by then, so it more than covers it.

Today, I can't swing the extra $1500/month...so that's why I'm doing an
interest-only loan.