On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 10:05:18 -0400, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
So the unemployment rate was zero at the time you graduated?

Did I say that? No, here is what I said: "The class before mine was 85%
recruited before graduation and 100% employed in the field. AFAIK that
was the peak." This was speaking of undergrad engineers, specificially
BSME grads from a well regarded university. I wouldn't be surprised if
the engineering class at Wottsamatta U. did not fare so well.

You are supposedly in the education field, John, is this discussion
about economics *that* far above your head, or are you truly blinded to
any fact which does not support Bush/Cheney's propaganda?

Meanwhile, what do you have to say about the implications of interest
rates versus the supposedly booming economy?

DSK

I am thrilled that all your fellow graduates found work. Now, what was the
unemployment rate then? Was it a lot lower than 5.6%?

I refinanced my home one year ago at 5.125% (with no points). My daughter
locked in at 6.3% last month. Today the rates are 6.5% (all with no points). I
would consider that an upward trend, wouldn't you?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

You are supposedly in the education field, John, is this discussion
about economics *that* far above your head, or are you truly blinded to
any fact which does not support Bush/Cheney's propaganda?

Meanwhile, what do you have to say about the implications of interest
rates versus the supposedly booming economy?

DSK

John H wrote:
I am thrilled that all your fellow graduates found work. Now, what was the
unemployment rate then?

Let's just say that 1- you have a job (or at least claim to) and I have
a job, so the verifiable employment rate between us is 100%. But there
are lots of others who aren't so lucky.

Of course, this is a transparent attempt on your part to cheerlead for
Bush/Cheney by pointing out HOW LOW THE (manipulated) UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
IS (yay!!). But that dog won't hunt. The difference between the 1996
unemployment rate (lots of jobs at a high salary) and 2004 unemployment
rates (few if any jobs, and those at low salary) is obvious.


I refinanced my home one year ago at 5.125% (with no points). My daughter
locked in at 6.3% last month. Today the rates are 6.5% (all with no points). I
would consider that an upward trend, wouldn't you?

Hmmm... your daughter is getting ripped off (most likely by your fellow
Republicans).

http://www.nfsn.com/library/prime.htm

The prime rate hasn't budged upward, and the fed has dropped the fund
rates, and bond rates (paid by businesses seeking to expand) are at
historic lows.

It should be obvious to even you and NOBBY that there is a difference
between consumers borrowing at profit to lenders, and businesses
borrowing to increase production for increased profits. OTOH the fact
that somebody is paying slightly higher interest rates indicates some
increase in demand... unless it's a local monopoly (banks around here
aren't charging that much AFAIK).

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
You are supposedly in the education field, John, is this discussion
about economics *that* far above your head, or are you truly blinded to
any fact which does not support Bush/Cheney's propaganda?

Meanwhile, what do you have to say about the implications of interest
rates versus the supposedly booming economy?

DSK

John H wrote:
I am thrilled that all your fellow graduates found work. Now, what was
the
unemployment rate then?

Let's just say that 1- you have a job (or at least claim to) and I have
a job, so the verifiable employment rate between us is 100%. But there
are lots of others who aren't so lucky.

Of course, this is a transparent attempt on your part to cheerlead for
Bush/Cheney by pointing out HOW LOW THE (manipulated) UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
IS (yay!!). But that dog won't hunt. The difference between the 1996
unemployment rate (lots of jobs at a high salary) and 2004 unemployment
rates (few if any jobs, and those at low salary) is obvious.


I refinanced my home one year ago at 5.125% (with no points). My
daughter
locked in at 6.3% last month. Today the rates are 6.5% (all with no
points). I
would consider that an upward trend, wouldn't you?

Hmmm... your daughter is getting ripped off (most likely by your fellow
Republicans).

http://www.nfsn.com/library/prime.htm

The prime rate hasn't budged upward, and the fed has dropped the fund
rates, and bond rates (paid by businesses seeking to expand) are at
historic lows.

It should be obvious to even you and NOBBY that there is a difference
between consumers borrowing at profit to lenders, and businesses
borrowing to increase production for increased profits. OTOH the fact
that somebody is paying slightly higher interest rates indicates some
increase in demand... unless it's a local monopoly (banks around here
aren't charging that much AFAIK).

Where's "around here"? Here's a look at the rates in the top 10 markets:

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/mtg...p?prodtype=mtg

NOYB wrote:
Where's "around here"? Here's a look at the rates in the top 10 markets:

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/mtg...p?prodtype=mtg

Interesting. Thanks for the link. Please note that the only rates quoted
with zero points were 1-year ARMs (a sucker bet IMHO), if John H's
daughter got a 15 year mortgage then she's doing just OK, if a 30 (the
way to go IMHO based on historical interest rates) then she's getting
ripped off.

BTW none of those places are near me... or for that matter, none of them
are in Florida which I'd assume to be a major market...

BTW2 if you want to know something about real economics (ie in the world
outide Bush/Cheney Fantasyland) try reading some of this
http://www.strom.clemson.edu/becker/...cs_primer.html
The title ain't so hot but the material is right on.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
NOYB wrote:
Where's "around here"? Here's a look at the rates in the top 10
markets:

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/mtg...p?prodtype=mtg

Interesting. Thanks for the link. Please note that the only rates quoted
with zero points were 1-year ARMs (a sucker bet IMHO), if John H's
daughter got a 15 year mortgage then she's doing just OK, if a 30 (the
way to go IMHO based on historical interest rates) then she's getting
ripped off.


Not really. The average 30 year fixed rate in most of the east coast
markets is over 6.3%...which is what John H said his daughter was getting.
Plus, that 6.3% is with points.


BTW none of those places are near me... or for that matter, none of them
are in Florida which I'd assume to be a major market...

The national index average is 6.34%. I doubt any specific market would
deviate much from that.

I just closed on a house 6 weeks ago with a 4.25% 5/1 ARM. 95% LTV.
"Interest-only" payment option, jumbo loan. 80% first mortgage. 15% second.
The second is indexed to prime plus 1/4.

I would have locked a 30-year fixed, but I couldn't afford a fully amortized
(interest and principle) 30 year fixed loan at this point in my life. In 5
years, my practice is paid off and I can afford to pay the principle. At
that point, I can either refinance the loan, or let it adjust to the new
rate.

Paying "interest only" is not a great idea unless: 1) housing is
appreciating very rapidly, and 2) your income will be significantly higher
in the near future...at which time you can pay a fully amortized payment
which includes principle.

... if a 30 (the
way to go IMHO based on historical interest rates) then she's getting
ripped off.


NOYB wrote:
Not really. The average 30 year fixed rate in most of the east coast
markets is over 6.3%...which is what John H said his daughter was getting.
Plus, that 6.3% is with points.

I assumed his daughter was also in the DC area, not necessarily a valid
assumption.

In any event, looking at macroeconomic events and doing the math, over
the next 30 years it seems almost a certainty that interest rates will
go up, and stay up, enough to make a 30 year mortgage at current rates
very attractive.



I would have locked a 30-year fixed, but I couldn't afford a fully amortized
(interest and principle) 30 year fixed loan at this point in my life.

Not to get personal, but this suggests you have too much house.

... In 5
years, my practice is paid off and I can afford to pay the principle. At
that point, I can either refinance the loan, or let it adjust to the new
rate.

Paying "interest only" is not a great idea unless: 1) housing is
appreciating very rapidly, and 2) your income will be significantly higher
in the near future...at which time you can pay a fully amortized payment
which includes principle.

Agreed. #2 is not an assumption a real conservative would make, though.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
... if a 30 (the
way to go IMHO based on historical interest rates) then she's getting
ripped off.


NOYB wrote:
Not really. The average 30 year fixed rate in most of the east coast
markets is over 6.3%...which is what John H said his daughter was
getting.
Plus, that 6.3% is with points.

I assumed his daughter was also in the DC area, not necessarily a valid
assumption.

In any event, looking at macroeconomic events and doing the math, over
the next 30 years it seems almost a certainty that interest rates will
go up, and stay up, enough to make a 30 year mortgage at current rates
very attractive.



I would have locked a 30-year fixed, but I couldn't afford a fully
amortized
(interest and principle) 30 year fixed loan at this point in my life.

Not to get personal, but this suggests you have too much house.

Normally, I would say that I agree with you. However, in my personal
situation, it makes sense. The house in on the water, which is why it is so
expensive. As a boater, I was paying nearly $500/mo. to store 2 boats. I
was also paying another $400/mo in homeowners' association fees for my old
house. I used that "saved" $900/mo towards the mortgage on the new
house...since I don't have association fees and I don't have to pay to store
my boat anymore.



... In 5
years, my practice is paid off and I can afford to pay the principle.
At
that point, I can either refinance the loan, or let it adjust to the new
rate.

Paying "interest only" is not a great idea unless: 1) housing is
appreciating very rapidly, and 2) your income will be significantly
higher
in the near future...at which time you can pay a fully amortized payment
which includes principle.

Agreed. #2 is not an assumption a real conservative would make, though.


It makes sense for me since my business is paid off in 5 years. That frees
up an additional $6000/mo. that flows through to me as income...income that
I can use to pay down the principal if I so desire. That's why it's safe to
assume that my income in 5 years will be significantly higher than it is
today...even with zero growth in my business. I know I won't see the full
$6k due to taxes...but since most of the payment is principal by now, I'm
personally taxed on the 6 thousand *as if* it were income...but never get
the 6 grand since it goes to the bank.

Every year, I pay cash to update my office and equipment, so I won't have to
take out a large loan again when this one is paid off.

Sure, the house is too expensive for me at this point...but I look at it
this way:

I'm effectively renting the place for 5 years with an option to buy it in 5
years at today's price. I'm also getting a nice big mortgage deduction on
my taxes...which plain ol' renting wouldn't give me. With housing on the
water averaging 26%/year appreciation over the last 5 years down here, it's
a no-brainer.

Even if the house goes up only 5%/year, it'll be worth almost 28% more than
I paid for it. I'll have 33% equity in the place without ever paying a
dime towards principal. I can consolidate the first and second and get a 15
year mortgage for 70% of appraised value. By age 57, the house is paid
off...and very likely worth three to four times my purchase price. By then,
the house is paid off and the kids are through college...and I'll retire
with no debt at age 60.

If the value goes up 10%/year (much more realistic for waterfront in
Naples), then in 5 years, the house will be worth 61% more than I paid for
it. I'll have a little over 40% equity in the place...without ever paying
principal.

If you're young enough, foresee a higher income in the near future, and are
buying a house in an area with rapidly appreciating housing values, then
"interest-only" (and maybe even "negative amortization") loans make sense.

If you're older, have a pretty level income for the foreseeable future, and
are buying in a housing market where home values increase very little, then
interest only loans make *no* sense.

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
NOYB wrote:
Where's "around here"? Here's a look at the rates in the top 10
markets:

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/mtg...p?prodtype=mtg

Interesting. Thanks for the link. Please note that the only rates quoted
with zero points were 1-year ARMs (a sucker bet IMHO), if John H's
daughter got a 15 year mortgage then she's doing just OK, if a 30 (the
way to go IMHO based on historical interest rates) then she's getting
ripped off.

BTW none of those places are near me... or for that matter, none of them
are in Florida which I'd assume to be a major market...

BTW2 if you want to know something about real economics (ie in the world
outide Bush/Cheney Fantasyland) try reading some of this
http://www.strom.clemson.edu/becker/...cs_primer.html
The title ain't so hot but the material is right on.

If most kids paid attention in high school econ, then there is no new
information in that link. Nevertheless, I bookmarked the page. It may come
in handy to some of the nimwits on usenet who haven't a clue about the basic
workings of economics.