|
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. ... 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 |
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? ... I really can't afford an $825k house (with a conventional mortgage) while I am still paying off my business loan. But if I didn't buy when I did, I'd never be able to afford it. So why do you feel you need an $800K+ house? To show off? To impress your trophy wife? ... When my loan is paid off (in just under 5 years), I can easily afford such a house. In 5 years, a lot can happen. Including double-digit inflation and a real estate crash... but in your case it sounds like a much less severe scenario will still seal your financial doom. ... I look at like this: I'm effectively renting the house for 5 -years (but with a tax write-off!) Or tying a huge anchor around your neck for the rest of your earning life. Did the banker who wrote your mortgage feed you this justification? Did he give a shark-like smile as he did so? A whole lot of people in California got a big chunk bitten out of their hides by this beast. But hey, don't listen to me... Those people weren't in the same boat as me. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Hope springs eternal etc etc... unfortunately, so does self-deception. I *hate* the fact that I have to spend as much as I do on insurance...but it sure makes me sleep better at night. 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. Personally, I wouldn't roll those dice with my own future, much less my families. OTOH I handle a lot of stock market investments without a qualm, and sleep very well indeed at night. With good wishes Doug King |
NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... DSK wrote: NOBBY wrote: In Florida, your home is your safest investment. Yeah, at least Florida doesn't have earthquakes... Oh, not necessarily. There are deep earth faults that go through Florida. The potential is always there. Slight, but there. ... The tax write-off is a bonus. I can write off the interest on the home loan, but not interest on my school loan. That just doesn't make sense. You haven't paid off your school loans yet, and you're floating a mortgage for a $900K home? NOBBY, you're a financial train wreck waiting to happen. Not surprising, really, considering how you come by your opinions & attitudes, but I hope for the sake of your family that you have good life insurance. DSK Yep, that's our NOYB, risk a nice safe affordable home for his family, all for the sake of keeping up with the Jones'. My neighbor's name isn't Jones. He's German. I didn't expect you'd get it. |
"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? ... I really can't afford an $825k house (with a conventional mortgage) while I am still paying off my business loan. But if I didn't buy when I did, I'd never be able to afford it. So why do you feel you need an $800K+ house? To show off? To impress your trophy wife? Because I wanted to be on the water. Boating access down here is hard to come by. The parking spaces at the ramps are filled by 9am on the weekend. Even if you get there early enough, you have to pay a storage place $100+/ mo. to store your boat on the trailer. Two largest marinas have closed in the last 3 years stranding me and 500 other boaters without a space to keep our boats. Renting private in-water slips for a boat my size runs $300/mo...and the owner could decide tomorrow that he doesn't want to rent to me anymore. I was keeping the boat in Ft. Myers Beach, and the seasonal traffic was turning a 30 minute ride to the marina into an hour and a half. Now, I hop in my boat and I'm in the gulf in 17 minutes from my back door. ... When my loan is paid off (in just under 5 years), I can easily afford such a house. In 5 years, a lot can happen. Including double-digit inflation and a real estate crash... but in your case it sounds like a much less severe scenario will still seal your financial doom. So what. In 2009, my rate can begin adjusting 2 points per year, upto a max of 5 points. The worst case scenario: I'll be sitting with a rate of 9.25%...which I can afford to pay since I won't have the $6500/mo. business loan any longer. ... I look at like this: I'm effectively renting the house for 5 -years (but with a tax write-off!) Or tying a huge anchor around your neck for the rest of your earning life. Not for the rest of my earning life. Just for another 4 1/2 years. Then I can afford to start paying an additional $4000/mo in principal. 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. A whole lot of people in California got a big chunk bitten out of their hides by this beast. But hey, don't listen to me... Thanks. I won't. Those people weren't in the same boat as me. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Hope springs eternal etc etc... unfortunately, so does self-deception. How many people can say with absolute certainty, that on September 20, 2009, they will get a before-tax raise of $6500/month? I can. I *hate* the fact that I have to spend as much as I do on insurance...but it sure makes me sleep better at night. 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. Personally, I wouldn't roll those dice with my own future, much less my families. OTOH I handle a lot of stock market investments without a qualm, and sleep very well indeed at night. With good wishes Thanks. |
"basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... DSK wrote: NOBBY wrote: In Florida, your home is your safest investment. Yeah, at least Florida doesn't have earthquakes... Oh, not necessarily. There are deep earth faults that go through Florida. The potential is always there. Slight, but there. ... The tax write-off is a bonus. I can write off the interest on the home loan, but not interest on my school loan. That just doesn't make sense. You haven't paid off your school loans yet, and you're floating a mortgage for a $900K home? NOBBY, you're a financial train wreck waiting to happen. Not surprising, really, considering how you come by your opinions & attitudes, but I hope for the sake of your family that you have good life insurance. DSK Yep, that's our NOYB, risk a nice safe affordable home for his family, all for the sake of keeping up with the Jones'. My neighbor's name isn't Jones. He's German. I didn't expect you'd get it. I didn't expect that you would. |
"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. ... I really can't afford an $825k house (with a conventional mortgage) while I am still paying off my business loan. But if I didn't buy when I did, I'd never be able to afford it. So why do you feel you need an $800K+ house? To show off? To impress your trophy wife? Because I wanted to be on the water. Boating access down here is hard to come by. The parking spaces at the ramps are filled by 9am on the weekend. Even if you get there early enough, you have to pay a storage place $100+/ mo. to store your boat on the trailer. Two largest marinas have closed in the last 3 years stranding me and 500 other boaters without a space to keep our boats. Renting private in-water slips for a boat my size runs $300/mo...and the owner could decide tomorrow that he doesn't want to rent to me anymore. I was keeping the boat in Ft. Myers Beach, and the seasonal traffic was turning a 30 minute ride to the marina into an hour and a half. Now, I hop in my boat and I'm in the gulf in 17 minutes from my back door. ... When my loan is paid off (in just under 5 years), I can easily afford such a house. In 5 years, a lot can happen. Including double-digit inflation and a real estate crash... but in your case it sounds like a much less severe scenario will still seal your financial doom. So what. In 2009, my rate can begin adjusting 2 points per year, upto a max of 5 points. The worst case scenario: I'll be sitting with a rate of 9.25%...which I can afford to pay since I won't have the $6500/mo. business loan any longer. ;-) And you are in a profession that is reasonably recession proof, unlike the construction biz ;-) You've also bought into a limited resource......there is a finite limit of useable waterfront property. ... I look at like this: I'm effectively renting the house for 5 -years (but with a tax write-off!) Or tying a huge anchor around your neck for the rest of your earning life. Not for the rest of my earning life. Just for another 4 1/2 years. Then I can afford to start paying an additional $4000/mo in principal. Hell, if you could pay interest only, with the tax deductiblity for life, at the rate you have, combined with the historical appreciation of real estate, it would still be a great investment. I have clients that invest in retail properties, they keep everything mortgaged to the max......they are constantly refinancing, pulling any appreciation out of the property and reinvesting it in others. 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. A whole lot of people in California got a big chunk bitten out of their hides by this beast. But hey, don't listen to me... Thanks. I won't. Those people weren't in the same boat as me. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Hope springs eternal etc etc... unfortunately, so does self-deception. How many people can say with absolute certainty, that on September 20, 2009, they will get a before-tax raise of $6500/month? I can. I *hate* the fact that I have to spend as much as I do on insurance...but it sure makes me sleep better at night. 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. Personally, I wouldn't roll those dice with my own future, much less my families. OTOH I handle a lot of stock market investments without a qualm, and sleep very well indeed at night. With good wishes Thanks. |
NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... DSK wrote: NOBBY wrote: In Florida, your home is your safest investment. Yeah, at least Florida doesn't have earthquakes... Oh, not necessarily. There are deep earth faults that go through Florida. The potential is always there. Slight, but there. ... The tax write-off is a bonus. I can write off the interest on the home loan, but not interest on my school loan. That just doesn't make sense. You haven't paid off your school loans yet, and you're floating a mortgage for a $900K home? NOBBY, you're a financial train wreck waiting to happen. Not surprising, really, considering how you come by your opinions & attitudes, but I hope for the sake of your family that you have good life insurance. DSK Yep, that's our NOYB, risk a nice safe affordable home for his family, all for the sake of keeping up with the Jones'. My neighbor's name isn't Jones. He's German. I didn't expect you'd get it. I didn't expect that you would. And you didn't..... |
NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... DSK wrote: NOBBY wrote: In Florida, your home is your safest investment. Yeah, at least Florida doesn't have earthquakes... Oh, not necessarily. There are deep earth faults that go through Florida. The potential is always there. Slight, but there. ... The tax write-off is a bonus. I can write off the interest on the home loan, but not interest on my school loan. That just doesn't make sense. You haven't paid off your school loans yet, and you're floating a mortgage for a $900K home? NOBBY, you're a financial train wreck waiting to happen. Not surprising, really, considering how you come by your opinions & attitudes, but I hope for the sake of your family that you have good life insurance. DSK Yep, that's our NOYB, risk a nice safe affordable home for his family, all for the sake of keeping up with the Jones'. My neighbor's name isn't Jones. He's German. I didn't expect you'd get it. I didn't expect that you would. And you didn't..... |
"P.Fritz" wrote in message ... "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. ... I really can't afford an $825k house (with a conventional mortgage) while I am still paying off my business loan. But if I didn't buy when I did, I'd never be able to afford it. So why do you feel you need an $800K+ house? To show off? To impress your trophy wife? Because I wanted to be on the water. Boating access down here is hard to come by. The parking spaces at the ramps are filled by 9am on the weekend. Even if you get there early enough, you have to pay a storage place $100+/ mo. to store your boat on the trailer. Two largest marinas have closed in the last 3 years stranding me and 500 other boaters without a space to keep our boats. Renting private in-water slips for a boat my size runs $300/mo...and the owner could decide tomorrow that he doesn't want to rent to me anymore. I was keeping the boat in Ft. Myers Beach, and the seasonal traffic was turning a 30 minute ride to the marina into an hour and a half. Now, I hop in my boat and I'm in the gulf in 17 minutes from my back door. ... When my loan is paid off (in just under 5 years), I can easily afford such a house. In 5 years, a lot can happen. Including double-digit inflation and a real estate crash... but in your case it sounds like a much less severe scenario will still seal your financial doom. So what. In 2009, my rate can begin adjusting 2 points per year, upto a max of 5 points. The worst case scenario: I'll be sitting with a rate of 9.25%...which I can afford to pay since I won't have the $6500/mo. business loan any longer. ;-) And you are in a profession that is reasonably recession proof, unlike the construction biz ;-) You've also bought into a limited resource......there is a finite limit of useable waterfront property. ... I look at like this: I'm effectively renting the house for 5 -years (but with a tax write-off!) Or tying a huge anchor around your neck for the rest of your earning life. Not for the rest of my earning life. Just for another 4 1/2 years. Then I can afford to start paying an additional $4000/mo in principal. Hell, if you could pay interest only, with the tax deductiblity for life, at the rate you have, combined with the historical appreciation of real estate, it would still be a great investment. Of course...and that's probably what I will do. When I retire, I can sell my Naples waterfront home and move virtually anywhere in the country that I choose...since Naples real estate will always outpace 90% of the rest of the country. I'd be able to reclaim a large chunk of equity upon the sale of the home without ever having to spend a dime on principal. An alternate plan is to stay put forever. Then when I retire, I can then do a reverse mortgage on the new-found equity, and use the proceeds to fund my retirement. I have clients that invest in retail properties, they keep everything mortgaged to the max......they are constantly refinancing, pulling any appreciation out of the property and reinvesting it in others. There's a guy on TV selling tapes to tell people how to do just that. :-) But who needs the tapes? It's not rocket science. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in snip .. Once I liquidate the asset and take care of the taxes, I'll have to consider what to do with my sudden liquidity. Maybe I'll buy into an offshore dental clinic... Brilliant idea. If there was some way to 'ferry' patients over to Cuba for treatment and back I'm sure you could make money. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: How many people can say with absolute certainty, that on September 20, 2009, they will get a before-tax raise of $6500/month? I can. No, you cannot. You might die of natural causes before that date. Then my life insurance policy would pay off my loan. Or something else unpredictable might happen. You can't live in fear. But, you like leading a leveraged existence. Many of us do not. I don't like it. But I *do* like what leveraging can do to your net worth in a short amount of time. I'm not ready to retire, but I decided to put up for sale my largest real estate holding this year, because the market for it is high and, with Bush in office another four years, I am not willing to gamble on the future of anything in this country. Once I liquidate the asset and take care of the taxes, I'll have to consider what to do with my sudden liquidity. Maybe I'll buy into an offshore dental clinic... Buy pre-construction down here. |
NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... DSK wrote: NOBBY wrote: In Florida, your home is your safest investment. Yeah, at least Florida doesn't have earthquakes... Oh, not necessarily. There are deep earth faults that go through Florida. The potential is always there. Slight, but there. ... The tax write-off is a bonus. I can write off the interest on the home loan, but not interest on my school loan. That just doesn't make sense. You haven't paid off your school loans yet, and you're floating a mortgage for a $900K home? NOBBY, you're a financial train wreck waiting to happen. Not surprising, really, considering how you come by your opinions & attitudes, but I hope for the sake of your family that you have good life insurance. DSK Yep, that's our NOYB, risk a nice safe affordable home for his family, all for the sake of keeping up with the Jones'. My neighbor's name isn't Jones. He's German. I didn't expect you'd get it. I didn't expect that you would. And....you didn't..... |
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: How many people can say with absolute certainty, that on September 20, 2009, they will get a before-tax raise of $6500/month? I can. No, you cannot. You might die of natural causes before that date. Then my life insurance policy would pay off my loan. Or something else unpredictable might happen. You can't live in fear. But, you like leading a leveraged existence. Many of us do not. I don't like it. But I *do* like what leveraging can do to your net worth in a short amount of time. No different than buy margins in the stock market. If you can afford the risk, it is a great way to make lots with little cash. I'm not ready to retire, but I decided to put up for sale my largest real estate holding this year, because the market for it is high and, with Bush in office another four years, I am not willing to gamble on the future of anything in this country. Once I liquidate the asset and take care of the taxes, I'll have to consider what to do with my sudden liquidity. Maybe I'll buy into an offshore dental clinic... Buy pre-construction down here. |
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 has always been a high-pressure sales type of office. But, you know that, being the used car salesman of the medical field. |
"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. 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. 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. |
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!! |
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.... |
"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 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" |
"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. 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. |
"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. |
"P.Fritz" wrote in message ... "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/ I was just speaking about what I'd do if I were dumb. I, of course, would never do that. ;-) |
"DSK" wrote in message ... 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. Wells Fargo is everybody else's secondary holder. They haven't sold off the note, and never will. And even if they did, any future party is bound by the contractural terms of the loan that they buy. 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. It's already become profitable. When I refinance in April to consolidate all of my non-business debt (taking advantage of the 1-year 25% appreciation which has already taken place), I'll have freed up about $1000/month in additional cash. (And, no, I don't have any credit card debt). My house has already gone up 25%. Homes in my neighborhood would now have to *lose* 20% of their present value just for me to be even. |
NOYB wrote:
Wells Fargo is everybody else's secondary holder. They haven't sold off the note, and never will. If that's true, then it's relatively safer. But I'd want some damn reliable sources for that before dangling my families future over that cliff. Very very few mortgage holders have street offices. BTW do you think the Fanny Mae shake-up is going to affect the housing market? .. And even if they did, any future party is bound by the contractural terms of the loan that they buy. Nope, sorry, thanks to Bush Sr, they don't. Happens every day in America! The first Bush Administration also changed the rules for investment disclosure. One of the reasons why I distrust the whole family is that they have long history of making it easy for crooks, frauds, and con men. It's already become profitable. When I refinance in April to consolidate all of my non-business debt (taking advantage of the 1-year 25% appreciation which has already taken place), I'll have freed up about $1000/month in additional cash. (And, no, I don't have any credit card debt). Well, that sounds good. But it's a silly rigmarole to get a place to play boats, and it's even sillier as a way to attempt to build net worth. My house has already gone up 25%. Homes in my neighborhood would now have to *lose* 20% of their present value just for me to be even. And you're totally convinced that this can't happen? Still praying that the "greater fool" strategy will pay off? Consider that prices for *any* good or service never stray too far, too long, from the background rate of inflation. It's like the economic Law of Gravity. Betting against it is just plain dumb. Furthermore, betting on a long-term boom in very high-priced luxury goods is even dumber. Aren't you one of the people who crow about Wal-Mart's economic success? Consistancy ain't your strong point, is it? Why not sell now, short term, and take the cash? That's be the smartest thing, especially if you could convince the buyer to let you keep your boat there for free as part of the bargain. Again, I wish you luck. DSK |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "DSK" wrote in message ... 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. Wells Fargo is everybody else's secondary holder. They haven't sold off the note, and never will. And even if they did, any future party is bound by the contractural terms of the loan that they buy. Where the hell do people get ideas like that.......a secondary holder has all the same obligations of the note....they cannot change that. The very reason you got such a good rate is that the note is only for 5 years, therefore there is little risk to the lender.....which is represented in the reduced rate........sheesh.....what is so difficult to understand about that? 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. It's already become profitable. When I refinance in April to consolidate all of my non-business debt (taking advantage of the 1-year 25% appreciation which has already taken place), I'll have freed up about $1000/month in additional cash. (And, no, I don't have any credit card debt). My house has already gone up 25%. Homes in my neighborhood would now have to *lose* 20% of their present value just for me to be even. And they will most likely keep going up......just the inflation rate alone pushes the cost of construction up, then throw in the sustained popilation growth in Fla, and the dwindling supply of waterfront property. |
"basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... I have a friend, who actually worked for the local Wells Fargo office here, and he left after six months. Who? Walt Irvin? |
joe wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... I have a friend, who actually worked for the local Wells Fargo office here, and he left after six months. Who? Walt Irvin? Do you think you'd know him. Hey, JoeTechnician, since I've got you here, how come, when you asked for proof of my identity, and I told you that I'd show you my driver's license to your face when I come to Tampa, you disappeared......why IS that? You sure seem to have a lot of bravado hiding behind privacy.net, but, I guess you just aren't brave in person.....pathetic. |
P.Fritz wrote:
Where the hell do people get ideas like that.......a secondary holder has all the same obligations of the note....they cannot change that. Where hell do people get ideas like that? A mortgage buyer has no obligation whatever to the mortagee. His contract is with the mortgage initiator. How do you think Fannie, Ginnie, and Freddie stay in business? In most states, they *do* have the legal obligation to tell you before they change the terms of your mortgage. But they don't have any obligation to stick to the original terms. Happens every day. ... The very reason you got such a good rate is that the note is only for 5 years, therefore there is little risk to the lender.....which is represented in the reduced rate........sheesh.....what is so difficult to understand about that? Not difficult to understand at all. I was just pointing out that it's a gamble, and IMHO a dumb one considering the pressures on interest rates. And they will most likely keep going up......just the inflation rate alone pushes the cost of construction up, then throw in the sustained popilation growth in Fla, and the dwindling supply of waterfront property. So you're counting on high inflation to make your loan profitable, and low inflation to keep your loan affordable? That makes great sense! As for increased population, what percent of that population can afford a million dollar house? What percentage has a burning desire to live on a man-made canal which is subject to flooding, silting, is a mosquito breeder, and is likely to become ever more polluted under increasingly strong Bush/Cheney policies? Think. It's painful and the results don't aren't always agreeable, but if you're going to gamble with your families future, at least you should know what you're gambling on. DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message ... P.Fritz wrote: Where the hell do people get ideas like that.......a secondary holder has all the same obligations of the note....they cannot change that. Where hell do people get ideas like that? A mortgage buyer has no obligation whatever to the mortagee. His contract is with the mortgage initiator. How do you think Fannie, Ginnie, and Freddie stay in business? In most states, they *do* have the legal obligation to tell you before they change the terms of your mortgage. But they don't have any obligation to stick to the original terms. Happens every day. You're absolutely wrong. Purchasing a contract doesn't absolve the buyer of the contract from the responsibilties that are spelled out in the contract. When an assignment of mortgage takes place, the secondary lender is on the hook for all of the terms of the original mortgage. Period. |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "DSK" wrote in message ... P.Fritz wrote: Where the hell do people get ideas like that.......a secondary holder has all the same obligations of the note....they cannot change that. Where hell do people get ideas like that? A mortgage buyer has no obligation whatever to the mortagee. His contract is with the mortgage initiator. How do you think Fannie, Ginnie, and Freddie stay in business? In most states, they *do* have the legal obligation to tell you before they change the terms of your mortgage. But they don't have any obligation to stick to the original terms. Happens every day. You're absolutely wrong. Purchasing a contract doesn't absolve the buyer of the contract from the responsibilties that are spelled out in the contract. When an assignment of mortgage takes place, the secondary lender is on the hook for all of the terms of the original mortgage. Period. No ****, if that were true, a secondary buyer could change the interest rate, payment due date, prepayemnt clause etc etc. The fact is the mortagee has a contract, those terms cannot be altered by a third party. Now credit cards are a whole different story. |
"P.Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "DSK" wrote in message ... P.Fritz wrote: Where the hell do people get ideas like that.......a secondary holder has all the same obligations of the note....they cannot change that. Where hell do people get ideas like that? A mortgage buyer has no obligation whatever to the mortagee. His contract is with the mortgage initiator. How do you think Fannie, Ginnie, and Freddie stay in business? In most states, they *do* have the legal obligation to tell you before they change the terms of your mortgage. But they don't have any obligation to stick to the original terms. Happens every day. You're absolutely wrong. Purchasing a contract doesn't absolve the buyer of the contract from the responsibilties that are spelled out in the contract. When an assignment of mortgage takes place, the secondary lender is on the hook for all of the terms of the original mortgage. Period. No ****, if that were true, a secondary buyer could change the interest rate, payment due date, prepayemnt clause etc etc. The fact is the mortagee has a contract, those terms cannot be altered by a third party. The rules apply whenever there's a contract. A mortgage is a contract. My lease is a contract. When I leased my office space, I knew that there was the likely scenario of the landlord selling it to another party. I contacted an attorney to ensure that the new landlord couldn't buy the building, terminate my lease, and toss me out. They can't. They must honor the contract/lease, or provide compensation to me if they need to alter the terms of the lease in any way. I know of one dentist who had 4 years remaining on a lease in a building that was sold and scheduled to be torn down. He got nearly $200k from the building's new owner to move out of his lease space...AND sufficient time to find a new location, build it out, and move into it. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:34 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com