Posted on 12/20/2006 8:07:27 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Would more than 9 out of 10 be 10?
ping
Hey, my comment got posted to the wrong article. I was in the article about the premarital sex survey. Sorry.
And during that past 5 years, Homes have appreciated over $10 Trillion, so homeowners have only tapped into 20% of their appreciated equity.
The folks in my town are still hoping against hope--putting their houses on the market for 2x-3x what they're worth and hoping the Kalifornians will show up to pounce on an "investment property". This charade has been going on for over a year now.
Risky mortgages drove the prices of housing up by allowing people to qualify for houses they couldn't afford..now they will drive them down and everyone is going to suffer.
No money down..low starting interest..no allowance for taxes etc.
These were all bad practices that must come to an end.
10% down minimum..plus escrow accounts for taxes and no promotional rates or negative amortization. That would trim house prices and make them a lot more affordable and encourage saving for down payment.
Must be a freudian slip, as you were reading of subprime borrowers screwing [themselves].
When you hear the same thing from lots of sources, more often than not it's true. One thing I heard from lots of people early on is: Never, ever borrow against your home, or roll debt into a mortgage unless it's your last option.
People want everything now. Kids who are 25 want a home bigger, newer and nice than mom and dad's house. The concept of a starter home is lost on most people now.
So, they make a deal with the devil. (Not literally, but in terms of shaky financial activity). Well, the bill is coming due.
Historically lenders will screw the consumer if left unsupervised by government. The Bible even acknowledges that the lender will be used to enslave you. (Check out Proverbs).
You're enjoying this, aren't you?
More than 9 out of 10 grandparents having premarital sex were also subprime borrowers! I know it 'cause I read it in a study.
/s
Well, if one wants to be charitable, they can say it was loose lending policies that led up to this.
The lending that happened amounted to a kind of bidding war between the institutions. A house worth 100K in a certain market suddenly zoomed to 200K in short order. And there was nothing to justify the increase save what the institutions were willing to lend on it.
So now because of these policies, literally millions of people face foreclosure and possible bankruptcy. Years of destroyed credit.
And the lenders sit back, after having the sheriff toss the schmucks stuff on the sidewalk, and say "Don't blame us!" "They knew all about it!" "It's not our fault!!"
And you know what? Some of the lenders might take serious financial hits because of it. And before you can say "cheese", the gummint will be in there filling up there back pockets like the S&L debacle.
Meanwhile, the schmuck is sitting in a Barcalounger on the sidewalk, with basically a negative credit rating now, without a pot to whiz in.
And the bankers and Wall Streeters will still be eating lobster and flying first class.
No, I'm not. Now, if you are wondering if "I told you so" occasionally pops up from my subconscious re: the fatal optimists who tried to argue that housing fundamentals were just fine, the answer is yes. Now that the housing decline is on everyone's radar screen, it's time to start finding articles that point to the least painful way out of this mess (or even how to profit from it).
the ponzie scheme was just this:
1. buy maximum house on mimimum payments and no money down
2. wait 2 years for appreciation or flip to a new buyer
3. move up to bigger house with mimimum payments and no money down
All of this is dependent on home price appreciation and a steady flow of buyers. Now that sub-prime lenders are tightening standards, and there are fewer buyers who can not really 'afford' the entry costs with even the riskiest most toxic loans, the conveyer belt is jammed and support for these prices is disappearing.
You mean taking a out a 30 year loan on a trip to Hawaii and a car that may last 7 years is a bad idea?
"Well, if one wants to be charitable, they can say it was loose lending policies that led up to this. "
I'd say it was financially uneducated consumers who were impatient to have it all now that caused this. One thing that our school systems lack is financial education. Kids should be taught about the magic that is interest. The power of financial discipline. As a parent, I've tried to give that to my kids.
ARMs are evil for your primary dwelling. Less than 10% down is asking for a financial bloody nose. Paying over 40% of your income for your mortgage is just plan stupid. But people are doing all of that and more. I don't blame the lenders on this one. It's the uneducated consumers. If you don't understand what you're signing up for, you probably shouldn't sign up.
Hey Barney and Chris -- how about lowering taxes so people can better afford their housing?!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.