Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is why I'm so worried about the future of this country. It takes someone with grad school degree to understand it? Most of the math used in financial need no more than high school degree. I have no idea what to say when one of my ex-coworkers told us that he was taking a 3 credit course in grad school. That course teaches how to use Powerpoint.
Even if you don't want to do the math, if it says it is variable rate, is it that difficult to understand it may go way way up someday?
No, I don't mean it takes someone with a grad school degree. I mean it takes math (or a level of financial literacy) that is genuinely outside the scope of undergrad classes anywhere.
Measure theory and stochastic calc aren't "high school math".
ARMs are complicated because the rate is resetable, and it's not that easy to quantify what the risk is that the rate will be reset at something you can't afford.
No, I don't mean it takes someone with a grad school degree. I mean it takes math (or a level of financial literacy) that is genuinely outside the scope of undergrad classes anywhere.
Measure theory and stochastic calc aren't "high school math".
ARMs are complicated because the rate is resetable, and it's not that easy to quantify what the risk is that the rate will be reset at something you can't afford.
I think you miss the point you were responding to. Simply that the person agreeing to an adjustable loan knows it's adjustable. I do agree that most people don't know how to do the actual calculations, but in my entire life I have never sat at my desk and tried to figure out if the interest calculations were correct on my car payment, credit cards, or mortgage. And I've never met anyone else that has.
If people had re-fied into a fixed rate loan at first chance, not raised the principal by pulling out equity, this crisis would be a mere shadow of what it is today, IMO.
My heart goes out to the folks that are in trouble because of employment issues that have never played around with their mortgage. But I continue to go back to the point that when congress forced lenders to loosen their credit standards, this situation we find ourselves in was inevitable.
Access to gsmls, for example, is restricted for non real estate agents. Byuers do not know the address of the house, whether it was listed before and taken off the market, the original price, days in market, etc. As you mentioned buyers do not know contract offers and selling prices for the last three months, inventory ratio, etc
Saying that re agents fill in the above information is quite an overstatement because this is exactly the kind of info they use for their own benefit. Of course, now things are better than before especially in NJ. I believe this is one of the reason market corrects faster than NYC, westchester and long island.
Yes I too wish they would print the address in GSMLS listings. Almost every other MLS in the country does. It's senseless to have my buyers call me to get the address of a property for sale. It wastes BOTH our time.
Actually as far as market time, there is no MLS in northern NJ that accurately reveals that data, even to us! If I want true days-on-market, I have to go back and research old listings.
One of the large MLS systems in California DOES NOT ALLOW an agent to pull a listing off the market and re-list it in order to reset the days-on-market. I would favor this change here also. It's deceptive and unnecessary. It would also help us to encourage sellers to price right if they knew the clock was really ticking and they could not play with it at a later date.
And the situation in Manhattan is even worse, with no MLS at all. I stopped appraising properties in Manhattan when I got sick of not being able to get a straight answer from agents regarding sales in contract, true selling prices, etc. Not to mention paying $50 of my $350 appraisal fee to a parking attendant...
You guys keep pushing this red herring while evading my point. The fact that irresponsible lenders shouldn't be bailed out does not vindicate irresponsible, predatory or fraudulent lenders.
Why didn't you come right out with that in the beginning? Instead of all the talk of "complicated rates and documents", etc, etc, LOL!
Who here has defended fraudulent or illegal actions by lenders or brokers? We ALL are paying for them lineing their pockets with the taxes we'll pay for the bailout.
Do you have access to hard figures over how many borrowers are completely absolved of responsibility because of fraud or malfeasance? I know for a fact such things happened, because we have had successful prosecutions for loan fraud here in California. My dissent is that you seem to imply this is the MAIN reason so many folks find themselves in their current state. Still, even the innocent should have been happy, so to speak, the greedy loan officer "enhanced" their application, made their payments on time for 2 years, then passed on taking cash out when they re-fied into a fixed rate product.
All things being equal, if you make your payments on time, maintain your income, don't incur new debt, you get to re-fi into a fixed rate.
I won't accept the "predatory loans" were the main cause in this, and I've yet to see anyone define in legally accepted terms what that means. It's said and repeated so often it's taken on a life of it's own. Still doesn't make it true, though.
You guys keep pushing this red herring while evading my point. The fact that irresponsible lenders shouldn't be bailed out does not vindicate irresponsible, predatory or fraudulent lenders.
you're right. The lenders can go to hell to. But you shouldn't reward people who bit off more than they could chew on the other side as well. Whatever bad transactions lenders and borrowers did, leave it to them to sort it out. They can both go bankrupt. Leave the taxpayer out of it. All this talk about predatory lending makes it out like the person who borrowed too much money is the victim. Sad story indeed. But why pass off the consequences on the innocent bystander?
All this talk about predatory lending makes it out like the person who borrowed too much money is the victim. Sad story indeed. But why pass off the consequences on the innocent bystander?
I would happily contribute to a bailout of a homeowner with a cramdown by the judge. Especially the poorer ones. The cost of this plan is $275 billion. In contrast, bank bailout is $1.5 trillion and annual defence costs are $739 billion.
I do not consider homeowners responsible for this situation. People can be greedy and irresponsible when the ground is fertile. This was always true. It is the fault of the gov and the fed who allowed (better, encouraged) those vices. It is also the fault of the gov and fed that everyone pays now for it.
So you haven't voted for the Republican Presidential Candidate for 20 years. Mmmm, isn't that just about when the Christian Right basically took over the GOP?
You seem to want to connect my voting record with the Christian right.....botton line is I could care less about that group. The Christian right has a voice just like any other group of people with views and thats fine.....and all candidates claim to believe in God and turn to Him for direction which is fine too.....what bothers me is when an individual candidate claims to be a "Christian" to gain votes and then doesn't demonstrate one "Christian" act in 8 years in office including turning his back on the hundreds of thousands starving to death in Darfur.
Again-if they signed it without understanding it-they have no one to blame but themselves. If they did not have the $$ to hire someone to work on their behalf to understand it-then perhaps they should have not purchased a home. Perhaps they should have waited until they were not only financially ready but mature enough to take responsibility for what they were signing.
Again.....you ignored my question asking if you've ever signed any document from a lawyer, doctor, accountant or other expert that you trusted based upon their expertise that they were looking out for your best interest but didn't read or understand every single word ? To say you can't have a house, a medical procedure, an audit or a legal matter resolved until you are "mature" enough to be able to read and understand everything in detail is just absurd. We rely upon experts to guide us through what we don't know or understand....apparently you are the sole person in the world who so intelligent that they never require guidance from an expert. I salute you !!!
Again.....you ignored my question asking if you've ever signed any document from a lawyer, doctor, accountant or other expert that you trusted based upon their expertise that they were looking out for your best interest but didn't read or understand every single word ? To say you can't have a house, a medical procedure, an audit or a legal matter resolved until you are "mature" enough to be able to read and understand everything in detail is just absurd. We rely upon experts to guide us through what we don't know or understand....apparently you are the sole person in the world who so intelligent that they never require guidance from an expert. I salute you !!!
and if they have truly been wronged, let them have their day of justice in the court of law through a civil suit.
I would happily contribute to a bailout of a homeowner with a cramdown by the judge. Especially the poorer ones. The cost of this plan is $275 billion. In contrast, bank bailout is $1.5 trillion and annual defence costs are $739 billion.
I do not consider homeowners responsible for this situation. People can be greedy and irresponsible when the ground is fertile. This was always true. It is the fault of the gov and the fed who allowed (better, encouraged) those vices. It is also the fault of the gov and fed that everyone pays now for it.
What exactly do you mean by the term, "cramdown"? Not being cute, just don't want to misunderstand what you are saying. Also, you say that people can be greedy/irresponsible when the ground is fertile, which I take as you passing some responsibility to the borrowers.
Could we maybe just limiit any bailout to those that never re-fied and took profits from equity? That seems like a reasonable compromise. And we would not be forced to bail out those that got big profits the past decade or so; just those that got "flim-flammed".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
