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.
You can't post links because you don't have any supporting facts to back you up.
I don't "need a link" to support the common sense fact that putting 3% down on homes that are over inflated by as much as 60% in todays volatile real estate market is financially insane. You don't need "links" either. You need a course in Basic Finance 101.
Ok, you kept saying a $2 trillion bailout but what you're really referring to is the QE.
Understand that QE is different from bailout.
In the case of the GSEs, $2 trillion in QE was used exclusively to buy US Treasuries which were then exchanged for the bad paper [toxic GSE-issued MBS] held by financial institutions and other investors. The proof that this is exactly what happened is the HUGE increase on the Federal Reserve's balance sheet, in which GSE MBS holdings went from $0 in 2008 to $1.75+ Trillion in 2016.
And, yes, we're paying INTEREST on that $2 Trillion created exclusively to bail out the GSEs, relieve them of their payment obligations on the compromised MBS they issued, and relieve financial institutions and other investors of the $2 Trillion in compromised GSE MBS.
"A smart rule of thumb is always try to put 20 percent down. Period. It’s the gold standard that so many people forgot about when they were buying homes they could not afford in the mid 2000s."
"The first and biggest reason to come up with 20 percent down is that in today’s mortgage marketplace, many banks won’t give you a mortgage unless you come up with at least that much money prior to buying a house. The loan programs that once existed for 10, 5, and even zero percent down payments are far fewer now than in the past — and for good reason!"
This is coming from the uber liberal Huffington Post. Even they've got enough financial common sense to run articles like this. The fact it was posted 2 years ago makes it that much more relevant with today's idiotic financial thinking and blaming. They know, and full well accept this total lunacy of allowing people to obtain mortgages with little to nothing down is financial suicide for any real estate market. Just like it was for the Stock Market. They stopped allowing 5% margin purchasing of securities after the 1929 crash. They learned their lesson of just how volatile it makes any financial market when it's filled with 95% paper. People in today's real estate market obviously have not. They are too busy trying to blame everyone except ISIS for what happened to them.
Yet in spite of that simple, common sense fact, that anyone with an ounce of financial brains already knows, we still have posters on this forum who think 3% down payments are just dandy. They're all wrapped up in trying to "prove" how the government screwed everyone who can't read or add, and over borrowed in the process. That's where they want to believe the real blame should rest. Not on a volatile real estate market filled with nothing but paper and high hopes of penniless idiots.
At first I couldn't believe we would ever go through another housing collapse like we did. Now, I'm almost certain of it. All one has to do is read through this thread. After doing so it's apparent many people are in total denial of the fact, people who have little to nothing saved should NOT be shopping for a house. But like most who can't pay for anything else they own without borrowing, why should a home be any different? As George Santayana said many years ago, "Those who have not learned from history, are doomed to repeat it." People still trying to purchase homes with 3% down is just more proof of how true that statement has become.
Because California weather is the best in the country and drugs are plentiful, homeless people and junkies from all over head west. You can live on the streets from San Diego to San Francisco without freezing to death pretty easily. They have a crisis of good climate and being too friendly to homeless people which attracts them, on top of having the most expensive real estate in the country. So out of those factors, the most important ones have nothing to do with "liberalism" and "Dems" that you have on the brain.
I wonder how much the homeless have of their pensions invested in the stock market. Should have voted for Romney.
: think:
Well, voting for Obama and Democrats has done absolutely nothing for them. So maybe you're right.
Again, it depends on the borrower. As one who has never earned as much as $20k in a year, I understand that earning money is difficult for me. Therefore I try to conserve my money and not overspend.
If I owned a home, I would never choose to walk away from it as many underwater homeowners have done. I'd rent out rooms to obtain additional income. I've known several people who have done this successfully, and I have lived with many roommates for years (over the past 10 years, with 9, 7, and 6 roommates). So owning a house and renting to roommates would be a huge improvement for me since finally, I would be the decider.
Owning a home is where you lock in your P & I payment; renting is where your rent keeps going up and up and up.
No brainer for me.
No brain, for sure. You think home ownership is a set cost, and that your small salary and room rentals would cover your costs. Never once taking in to consideration taxes, maintenance, insurance, and the ever-present repairs and replacement of major items. When a new roof costs $10k, how would you pay for that?
No brain, for sure. You think home ownership is a set cost, and that your small salary and room rentals would cover your costs. Never once taking in to consideration taxes, maintenance, insurance, and the ever-present repairs and replacement of major items. When a new roof costs $10k, how would you pay for that?
Yep. And how about the cost of replacing a furnace/heat pump/air handler/boiler? Easily into the $6,000+ range, even for a very modest property.
No brain, for sure. You think home ownership is a set cost, and that your small salary and room rentals would cover your costs. Never once taking in to consideration taxes, maintenance, insurance, and the ever-present repairs and replacement of major items. When a new roof costs $10k, how would you pay for that?
Exactly. It reminds me of these people who buy $60,000.00+ new vehicles with big long term car loans. And then don't purchase the extended warranties because "they can't afford them". The thing goes out of warranty, and they're still making payments. Then, something breaks and they're scrambling around trying to come up with how to pay for the repairs, because their 3 digit bank account won't cover it.
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.
