Goomba > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> In New York, sure. In California, nobody uses a lawyer for
>> an uncomplicated house purchase.

>Well, that's nuts.

Not really, the system has worked well.

>Thankfully the states where I've purchased homes have all required them.
>And sure, I've balked at paying their fee along with all the numerous
>other settlement costs....but I am glad I've always had one.

Most of the detail work is done by the title company and
escrow agent here. In New York State you do not have very
strong escrow procedures. That's the main reason you need
a lawyer there to close.

Essentially all the same things are done, just by people who
are not lawyers.

Steve

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 20:35:29 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd
> wrote:

>In SoCal, certainly, folks began looking at owning a home as an
>investment instead of someplace to live. The folks who bought houses
>to flip, then got stuck with mortgages they a) should never have been
>offered, and b) should never have accepted, get no sympathy from me.

When I talk about this mess, I'm not talking about house flippers.
They gambled and lost. BTDT, and not in the current market.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 22:51:21 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>It was still under extended warranty. Sometimes it pays to buy one.

I did that with my old upright freezer. The motor went bad shortly
after it was out of regular warranty, so everything was covered and it
was stuffed with meat. My insurance had to pay off big time!
Fortunately the meat wasn't entirely thawed when I discovered the
problem, so I was able to donate it to a local soup kitchen.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

blake murphy wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:34:58 -0400, Goomba wrote:
>
> > sf wrote:
> >
> >>> And did these predatory practices start in 2000, or perhaps, before?
> >>> And how much responsibility did the borrowers hold here? Were they all
> >>> helpless, clueless victims?
> >>
> >> So, you want to play Blame the Victim?
> >>
> > And do you want to pretend they don't have any responsibility here?
>
> when someone offers you a home loan with little or not money down on the
> property and no serious effort to determine your ability to pay, it's not
> surprising many people accepted the offer.


Even if they were Democrats...???


--
Best
Greg

" I find Greg Morrow lowbrow, witless, and obnoxious. For him to claim that
we are some
kind of comedy team turns my stomach."
- "cybercat" to me on rec.food.cooking

On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 21:53:50 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>
><sf> wrote in message
>> Lenders certainly are to blame. If they were still as strict with
>> their lending requirements as they were when we first bought our
>> homes, you can bet housing prices wouldn't have gotten so far out of
>> hand.
>>
>
>
>You have a good point, but you left out "partially" to blame. The buyers
>that were out bidding each other for more than the asking price certainly
>are at fault too. They just have to say "no, I can't afford this" and walk
>away.
>

Frankly, I don't think any buyers who were in bidding wars are a very
big percentage of this mess - if any (you have to qualify first). The
people who are stuck in this quagmire are those who tried to buy a
piece of the American Dream the "regular way" and got the wrong loan
advice (if any).


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:03:06 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
wrote:

>blake murphy wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 22:55:04 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>>> The guideline I went by was don't get a mortgage more than 1 1/2
>>> times your annual income. 2 times was stretching it. Whatever, at
>>> least you knew not to go house shopping in the expensive part of
>>> town thinking you could get it for no money down.
>
>> because no bank would give it to you. in the recent past, they did.
>
>I would not have gone for that. Simple as that. I specifically made
>sure I didn't buy too much house.
>
You also had experience, which first time buyers don't.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

Goomba wrote:

> sf wrote:
>
> >> Read the fine print-does Balloon Mortgage mean anything to you idiots?
> >> So someone spending more money on a home than they can afford-can't be
their
> >> fault-it's Bush's fault.
> >>
> >
> > So, it's ok for institutions to engage in predatory lending practices.
> >
> Doesn't a LOT of that fall under "Let the buyer beware" ?
>


It was all a Republican PLOT, Goomba...


--
Best
Greg

In article >, sf wrote:

<snip lots>

> Blame the victim... it's the American way.

Caveat Emptor. It's got us through to this point. The bailout is
unsettling and unfortunate.

Since I was born dumb and free
Congress ran through sixty sessions
Woe is me

leo

The big picture is that there's a lot of misery created out of this for
the guys losing everything they got, you and I will be paying for this
mess, a few guys made out with some bucks, and America will be weaker.
All this was driven by greed which I consider to be evil, but it seems
that the only thing the average Joe out there wants is that the
conservative ideals of personal responsibility be upheld. How shortsighted!

Sorry for top posting. I don't know what your stand is on this "issue"
but I'm tired of freaking scrolling and scrolling on my stupid laptop
just because some old dudes a couple of decades ago thought this was
proper etiquette. Please don't hassle me. Anyway, the Google Groups
monster sorta makes the top/bottom posting issue pretty much irrelevant,
don't it? :-)

modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 15:11:20 -1000, dsi1 >
> wrote:
>> This is true. People should be responsible for themselves and I
>> subscribe to most all those things that a good conservative believes in.
>> The reality is that I don't really care if an inexperienced buyer get
>> burned - just as long as it doesn't affect me. I don't care much if most
>> people get into an ungodly amount of debt - just as long as it doesn't
>> affect me. Guess I'm a horrible person.
>>
> The trouble is that the crummy loans have affected quite a few of us.
> I've seen a not inconsequential chunk of my retirement investments go
> away because one mutual fund in my portfolio owned the likes of WaMu,
> Citigroup, Fannie Mae, and a bunch of other financial stocks.
>
> All those bad loans are connected to other bits and pieces of the
> financial system via derivatives and complex financial instruments the
> smart guys have been selling each other in increasing numbers over the
> past decade.
>
> At the end of last month Merrill Lynch unloaded a buttload of
> collateralized debt obligations -- derivatives whose value is tied
> ultimately to real estate loans-- for 22 cents on the dollar. The
> really smart guys who know more that I do about financial machinations
> sold CDOs originally valued at $30.6 billion to a Texas private equity
> fund for $6.7 billion. Four weeks prior to the sale Merrill valued
> the CDOs at $11.7 billion. Their estimate of the value of their
> investment declined $5 billion in four weeks. They can't tell what
> the damned things are worth anymore. The sale price is just a best
> guess at value.
>
> And there are more buttloads of CDOs out there weighing on the balance
> sheets of Wachovia et al. So far the housing/mortgage meltdown has
> led to an estimated $400 billion in write-downs across the financial
> industry. If a dollar's worth of CDOs is now worth 22 cents, then one
> analyst I've read believes there's gonna be more than twice that
> amount lost before the fat lady sings in this opera.
>
> When some dummy buys a house he can't afford and defaults on his ARM
> when it balloons on him, he's out. But that bad debt, secured by real
> estate that's worth less than the loan now that the bubble's burst,
> has legs. It walks with others of its kind through Byzantine webs of
> interconnected derivatives. When enough defaults happen, when paper,
> which is valued on the projection that (say) 90% of mortgage payments
> arrive on time, faces a world in which (say) 80% is a more realistic
> number, the CDOs and their kin don't look so tasty anymore.
>
> It's no wonder that no less an investing wizard than Warren Buffett
> called derivatives "financial weapons of mass destruction." In the
> current credit crisis nobody can tell what they're worth anymore. And
> the so-called over-the-counter trade in derivatives is largely
> un-regulated. The really smart guys who dealt them turned out to be
> just as clueless as the schlub who lost his house. They got Monopoly
> money mixed in with the real stuff and can't sort it back out.
>
> The S&P financials index has fallen 32% this year. So far. I've seen
> two years of gains in my retirement investments disappear. So far.
>
> There's a reason for regulations in the financial markets. Bush said
> the other day that Wall Street got drunk and now it has a hangover.
> I'd say it's time to find a bartender willing to cut the drunks off in
> time.
>
> --
> modom
>
> I have long maintained that Texans are not easy to love: we are, like anchovies, an acquired taste.
> -- Molly Ivins
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:03:06 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
> wrote:
>
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 22:55:04 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>>>> The guideline I went by was don't get a mortgage more than 1 1/2
>>>> times your annual income. 2 times was stretching it. Whatever, at
>>>> least you knew not to go house shopping in the expensive part of
>>>> town thinking you could get it for no money down.
>>
>>> because no bank would give it to you. in the recent past, they did.
>>
>> I would not have gone for that. Simple as that. I specifically made
>> sure I didn't buy too much house.
>>
> You also had experience, which first time buyers don't.

Are you saying I was never a first time buyer?

nancy

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 08:02:44 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
wrote:

>> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:03:06 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> blake murphy wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 22:55:04 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The guideline I went by was don't get a mortgage more than 1 1/2
>>>>> times your annual income. 2 times was stretching it. Whatever, at
>>>>> least you knew not to go house shopping in the expensive part of
>>>>> town thinking you could get it for no money down.
>>>
>>>> because no bank would give it to you. in the recent past, they did.
>>>
>>> I would not have gone for that. Simple as that. I specifically made
>>> sure I didn't buy too much house.
>>>
>> You also had experience, which first time buyers don't.
>
>Are you saying I was never a first time buyer?
>
I'm saying the guidelines were a lot stricter when we bought our first
homes.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 08:02:44 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
> wrote:
>
>>> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:03:06 -0400, "Nancy Young"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> blake murphy wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 22:55:04 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The guideline I went by was don't get a mortgage more than 1 1/2
>>>>>> times your annual income. 2 times was stretching it. Whatever,
>>>>>> at least you knew not to go house shopping in the expensive part
>>>>>> of town thinking you could get it for no money down.
>>>>
>>>>> because no bank would give it to you. in the recent past, they
>>>>> did.
>>>>
>>>> I would not have gone for that. Simple as that. I specifically
>>>> made sure I didn't buy too much house.
>>>>
>>> You also had experience, which first time buyers don't.
>>
>> Are you saying I was never a first time buyer?
>>
> I'm saying the guidelines were a lot stricter when we bought our first
> homes.

Okay, and I'm saying I followed the guidelines, no more mortgage
then 1 1/2 times annual income and didn't look at houses more
than that because I didn't want to overextend myself. The bank
didn't have to tell me, and we could have afforded more house
than we bought.

nancy

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
>
> Okay, and I'm saying I followed the guidelines, no more mortgage
> then 1 1/2 times annual income and didn't look at houses more than that
> because I didn't want to overextend myself. The bank didn't have to tell
> me, and we could have afforded more house than we bought.
>
> nancy

Along the same lines, I bought a new car about 18 months ago. I looked at
some higher priced models and decided against them. It was just a decision
to not put out an additional $100 to $200 a month more. Now that my
heating bill is up $250 a month next season, it was a good decision.

Used to be if you bought as much house as you could afford, a year or two
later you were making more money and it was easier to pay the mortgage.
With other cost rising so fast, that is no longer a very likely scenario.
Given the crazy rate of home inflation, I'm not so sure I could afford to
buy my house today in spite of the fact my income is triple what is was when
I bought it 27 years ago.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Nancy Young" > wrote in message
>>
>> Okay, and I'm saying I followed the guidelines, no more mortgage
>> then

Ahhh!! I can't believe my fingers typed 'then' ... for shame.

>>1 1/2 times annual income and didn't look at houses more than
>> that because I didn't want to overextend myself. The bank didn't
>> have to tell me, and we could have afforded more house than we
>> bought.

> Along the same lines, I bought a new car about 18 months ago. I
> looked at some higher priced models and decided against them. It was
> just a decision to not put out an additional $100 to $200 a month
> more. Now that my heating bill is up $250 a month next season, it
> was a good decision.

I've had debt over the years, nothing major, but it made every time
rif talks sprang up very stressful. It was much more relaxing not
worrying my job would go away in a few months and I couldn't pay
my Visa.

> Used to be if you bought as much house as you could afford, a year or
> two later you were making more money and it was easier to pay the
> mortgage. With other cost rising so fast, that is no longer a very
> likely scenario. Given the crazy rate of home inflation, I'm not so
> sure I could afford to buy my house today in spite of the fact my
> income is triple what is was when I bought it 27 years ago.

I haven't the vaguest idea how people are paying these mortgages
of hundreds of thousands. Then you find out that they work at the
supermarket. Dang.

nancy

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 00:37:09 -0500, Gregory Morrow wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:34:58 -0400, Goomba wrote:
>>
>>> sf wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And did these predatory practices start in 2000, or perhaps, before?
>>>>> And how much responsibility did the borrowers hold here? Were they all
>>>>> helpless, clueless victims?
>>>>
>>>> So, you want to play Blame the Victim?
>>>>
>>> And do you want to pretend they don't have any responsibility here?
>>
>> when someone offers you a home loan with little or not money down on the
>> property and no serious effort to determine your ability to pay, it's not
>> surprising many people accepted the offer.
>
>
> Even if they were Democrats...???

is this supposed to mean something?

blake

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 12:13:11 GMT, Michael "Dog3" wrote:

> blake murphy >
> : in rec.food.cooking
>
>>
>> she is also one of the victims of the sub-prime mess. lenders are
>> notorious for swinging from lending to everybody, and then when the
>> credit market goes sour, lending to nobody. ask her if she votes
>> republican.
>
> She has 2 Obama '08 signs on her front lawn. I would imagine she's a Dem.
>
> Michael

good for her, then.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 20:50:19 -0400, Goomba wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 22:29:49 -0400, Goomba wrote:
>>
>>> sf wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And do you want to pretend they don't have any responsibility here?
>>>> So, you're blaming the fish for being caught with a very good lure?
>>>>
>>> Yup. They hold as much blame as anyone else here. It took two to tango, eh?
>>
>> the lenders don't have any resposibility to point out potential pitfalls of
>> a variable rate, or even explain it adequately?
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> Mine always did, and lord knows we always had to sign a gazillion
> documents stating we understood risks and responsibities. Even way back
> in the 80s. We basically had one on the second home we owned, but at the
> time it was called a "builder's buy down" because he paid the difference
> in interest on our behalf and our interest rate was scheduled to rise a
> total of 2 more times after the initial sale rate. We actually
> refinanced after the first rate hike because set rates were reasonable.
> I don't know if ARMs were new then but there was always consumer
> education available as to who shouldn't get one (people who couldn't
> risk the increase or tolerate the unknown) and whom they might work well
> for (someone who knew they were not going to be in the house for long,
> or someone whose income was assured of going up).

the eighties had an entire different climate and set of regulations.

your pal,
blake

modom (palindrome guy) > wrote:

>The trouble is that the crummy loans have affected quite a few of us.
>I've seen a not inconsequential chunk of my retirement investments go
>away because one mutual fund in my portfolio owned the likes of WaMu,
>Citigroup, Fannie Mae, and a bunch of other financial stocks.
>
>All those bad loans are connected to other bits and pieces of the
>financial system via derivatives and complex financial instruments the
>smart guys have been selling each other in increasing numbers over the
>past decade.
>
>At the end of last month Merrill Lynch unloaded a buttload of
>collateralized debt obligations -- derivatives whose value is tied
>ultimately to real estate loans-- for 22 cents on the dollar. The
>really smart guys who know more that I do about financial machinations
>sold CDOs originally valued at $30.6 billion to a Texas private equity
>fund for $6.7 billion. Four weeks prior to the sale Merrill valued
>the CDOs at $11.7 billion. Their estimate of the value of their
>investment declined $5 billion in four weeks. They can't tell what
>the damned things are worth anymore. The sale price is just a best
>guess at value.
>
>And there are more buttloads of CDOs out there weighing on the balance
>sheets of Wachovia et al. So far the housing/mortgage meltdown has
>led to an estimated $400 billion in write-downs across the financial
>industry. If a dollar's worth of CDOs is now worth 22 cents, then one
>analyst I've read believes there's gonna be more than twice that
>amount lost before the fat lady sings in this opera.
>
>When some dummy buys a house he can't afford and defaults on his ARM
>when it balloons on him, he's out. But that bad debt, secured by real
>estate that's worth less than the loan now that the bubble's burst,
>has legs. It walks with others of its kind through Byzantine webs of
>interconnected derivatives. When enough defaults happen, when paper,
>which is valued on the projection that (say) 90% of mortgage payments
>arrive on time, faces a world in which (say) 80% is a more realistic
>number, the CDOs and their kin don't look so tasty anymore.
>
>It's no wonder that no less an investing wizard than Warren Buffett
>called derivatives "financial weapons of mass destruction." In the
>current credit crisis nobody can tell what they're worth anymore. And
>the so-called over-the-counter trade in derivatives is largely
>un-regulated. The really smart guys who dealt them turned out to be
>just as clueless as the schlub who lost his house. They got Monopoly
>money mixed in with the real stuff and can't sort it back out.
>
>The S&P financials index has fallen 32% this year. So far. I've seen
>two years of gains in my retirement investments disappear. So far.
>
>There's a reason for regulations in the financial markets.

This is as succinct a description of the problem as I've seen.
I hope your retirement savings recover some of these losses.
I'm seeing a similar issue, although for me the still-mounting losses
have not yet wiped out the previous year's gains.

> Bush said the other day that Wall Street got drunk and now it
> has a hangover. I'd say it's time to find a bartender willing
> to cut the drunks off in time.

The problem is that most recovery proposals involve taking
actions that will prop up the value of U.S. residential properties
(mostly, by providing yet more money for real estate loans).
The idea is the property values need to be propped up, not
only to protect what's left of the CDO values, but so that
local governments have enough of a tax base. This is a particular
problem in California.

A secondary problem is that, since the federal government did
drop the ball on regulating this thing, the foreign investors
from Emirates or Singapore do not feel they should take a total
loss and the feds should step in with some cushion. I can't
exactly blame them for this. After all the feds were supposed
to be regulating loan originators and borrowers and they weren't.

Steve

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
. ..
> Kswck wrote:
>> "Nancy Young" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> Kswck wrote:
>>>
>>>> Read the fine print-does Balloon Mortgage mean anything to you
>>>> idiots? So someone spending more money on a home than they can
>>>> afford-can't be their fault-it's Bush's fault.
>>>
>>> There is plenty of blame to go around, from the majority of the
>>> buyers to the lenders who knew they'd just bundle the paper and
>>> sell it up the line, what did they care if people defaulted?
>>> The whole mess reeks. Some people got rich.
>
>> Ah, then. Just wait till Obama gets into the WH, raises taxes to bail
>> out these institutions, and pass a windfall profits tax to
>> redistribute the wealth.
>
> Heh. That might be a good idea if they hit up the oil companies.
>
> nancy

Ya think the oil companies are going to just accept that? They are going to
pass that along and raise prices again. And we'll be back to the same place
in a couple of years.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:


> Used to be if you bought as much house as you could afford, a year or two
> later you were making more money and it was easier to pay the mortgage.
> With other cost rising so fast, that is no longer a very likely scenario.
> Given the crazy rate of home inflation, I'm not so sure I could afford to
> buy my house today in spite of the fact my income is triple what is was when
> I bought it 27 years ago.
>
I live well, yet far below my potential means, because I choose to only
work 24 hours a week. If I choose to I can pick up more shifts readily
and do when I want to buy something special, but it is my choice rather
than my commitment. I don't want to work more just to buy a fancier
<fill in the blank>.

"Goomba" > wrote in message
...
>
> I bought my first house in 1981, when nationally interest rates were 17%!
> I didn't have to put down 20% because of qualifying for a "first time"
> home loan at 9.35%. That rate would be unheard of today in the 5-6.5ish
> range. For a 40k house, my mortgage payment was $369 (taxes and PMI
> included) I was barely out of my teens yet *I* managed to study the papers
> and ask questions and learn about mortgages. Even back then they warned
> people not to spend more than x percent of their income on housing. I
> believe it was no more than 30%.
>

I bought my first home (current home) in 2000 and the rate was 9%. That was
a sign of a decent economy. Within 1 year the rate started dropping and I
refinanced at 6.875%. I remembered the rule about letting the rate drop 2%
before refinancing again to cover points/closing costs, and while it got
close, it didn't get quite there, plus I didn't want to get into something I
didn't understand or couldn't get out of. So I haven't refinanced since
then. Of course now it's too late. I hope I don't have to refinance again
until I can get it down to a 15 year or less mortgage. The real thing about
the housing market is the property taxes. My home assessed for more than
triple what I bought it for, yet I probably couldn't even sell it for enough
to break even.

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 17:06:01 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
Pope) wrote:

>modom (palindrome guy) > wrote:

>>It's no wonder that no less an investing wizard than Warren Buffett
>>called derivatives "financial weapons of mass destruction." In the
>>current credit crisis nobody can tell what they're worth anymore. And
>>the so-called over-the-counter trade in derivatives is largely
>>un-regulated. The really smart guys who dealt them turned out to be
>>just as clueless as the schlub who lost his house. They got Monopoly
>>money mixed in with the real stuff and can't sort it back out.
>>
>>The S&P financials index has fallen 32% this year. So far. I've seen
>>two years of gains in my retirement investments disappear. So far.
>>
>>There's a reason for regulations in the financial markets.
>
>This is as succinct a description of the problem as I've seen.
>I hope your retirement savings recover some of these losses.
>I'm seeing a similar issue, although for me the still-mounting losses
>have not yet wiped out the previous year's gains.
>
We're in it for the long haul -- ten more years, at least. And I
misspoke in my anger: the loss of two years' gains applied only to the
one mutual fund, not to the whole shebang. The whole portfolio has
taken a hit, but not as bad as that.

I'm about to do some serious rebalancing -- keep putting it off
because of inertia and a vague hope that financials will rebound.
Overall that's a dumb idea; nobody times the market right. But man,
am I kicking myself when I KNEW there was a housing bubble and didn't
connect the dots to my exposure to banks. I knew the speculators and
house flippers were going to get creamed and failed to see that I was
positioned for a hit from the fallout.

When we bought our current house about four years ago, a real estate
agent friend told us she'd seen people getting mortgages for 110% of
the appraised value of the property. In retrospect, big loud clanging
bells should have tolled in my head. I already knew that
loan-originating banks nowadays sell mortgages, so they don't
necessarily have as much of an interest in the quality of the loans as
they once did.

Ah, hindsight.

>> Bush said the other day that Wall Street got drunk and now it
>> has a hangover. I'd say it's time to find a bartender willing
>> to cut the drunks off in time.
>
>The problem is that most recovery proposals involve taking
>actions that will prop up the value of U.S. residential properties
>(mostly, by providing yet more money for real estate loans).
>The idea is the property values need to be propped up, not
>only to protect what's left of the CDO values, but so that
>local governments have enough of a tax base. This is a particular
>problem in California.
>
>A secondary problem is that, since the federal government did
>drop the ball on regulating this thing, the foreign investors
>from Emirates or Singapore do not feel they should take a total
>loss and the feds should step in with some cushion. I can't
>exactly blame them for this. After all the feds were supposed
>to be regulating loan originators and borrowers and they weren't.
>
Yeah, the debt issued by Fannie and Freddie to help them buy their $15
trillion in mortgages is held all over the world. This means that
even investments in the European market and Asia are at risk for more
losses because of bad loans in Florida etc.

Our taxes are paying to guarentee that debt now. The alternative, it
appears, is unthinkable.

Maybe rebalancing should include a bean can (OBFood) buried in the
back yard.

--
modom

I have long maintained that Texans are not easy to love: we are, like anchovies, an acquired taste.
-- Molly Ivins
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"Cheryl" > wrote


> I bought my first home (current home) in 2000 and the rate was 9%. That
> was a sign of a decent economy. Within 1 year the rate started dropping
> and I refinanced at 6.875%. I remembered the rule about letting the rate
> drop 2% before refinancing again to cover points/closing costs, and while
> it got close, it didn't get quite there, plus I didn't want to get into
> something I didn't understand or couldn't get out of. So I haven't
> refinanced since then. Of course now it's too late. I hope I don't have to
> refinance again until I can get it down to a 15 year or less mortgage.
> The real thing about the housing market is the property taxes. My home
> assessed for more than triple what I bought it for, yet I probably
> couldn't even sell it for enough to break even.

We bought in 1998 when rates were "the lowest ever." Our interest rate, in
an ARM, was 4.6%. Rates went up, way down, then up, and now down a point
again, so our mortgage dropped $100 a month. The highest our rate has ever
been was 7.6%. Our house just assessed for double what we paid and we could
get that for it, or a bit more if the current sales of neighborhood houses
is any evidence. It's amazing the difference a couple of years can make.

modom (palindrome guy) > wrote:

>>I hope your retirement savings recover some of these losses.
>>I'm seeing a similar issue, although for me the still-mounting losses
>>have not yet wiped out the previous year's gains.

>We're in it for the long haul -- ten more years, at least. And I
>misspoke in my anger: the loss of two years' gains applied only to the
>one mutual fund, not to the whole shebang. The whole portfolio has
>taken a hit, but not as bad as that.

Well that's good to hear.

>I'm about to do some serious rebalancing -- keep putting it off
>because of inertia and a vague hope that financials will rebound.
>Overall that's a dumb idea; nobody times the market right. But man,
>am I kicking myself when I KNEW there was a housing bubble and didn't
>connect the dots to my exposure to banks.

One can never time markets. There are almost no asset classes I
like right now, but who knows.

Steve

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 22:47:38 -0700, Leonard Blaisdell
> fired up random neurons and synapses to
opine:

>In article >, sf wrote:
>
><snip lots>
>
>> Blame the victim... it's the American way.
>
>Caveat Emptor. It's got us through to this point. The bailout is
>unsettling and unfortunate.
>
>Since I was born dumb and free
>Congress ran through sixty sessions
>Woe is me

I have read yet another article today regarding the current crop of
Congressional snooze jobs' work product: according to Taxpayers for
Common Sense, the current congress passed eggsackly 260 laws - 74 of
which were to rename post offices. In order to look as if they're
actually doing something besides dining with lobbyists, scratching
constituent corporations' backs and yellow highlighting the
Congressional Perks, Freebies and Benefits menu, they have passed
hundreds of "resolutions," which include congratulating the UC-Irvine
volleyball team and one that recognizes soil as an "essential
resource."

Rep. John Shimkus (R.,Ill.) sez, "It's probably not the best use of
our time, but we do have to do something. These resolutions make it
look like we're working." Jesus wept.

OTOH, as someone blogs in the below link, if TIIC are busy drafting
resolutions of absolutely no merit whatsoever, they're not busy
drafting more serious crap.

http://www.taxpayer.net/search_by_ca...t&type=Project

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "meatloaf" with "cox"

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 14:30:31 -0400, Goomba wrote:

> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
>
>> Used to be if you bought as much house as you could afford, a year or two
>> later you were making more money and it was easier to pay the mortgage.
>> With other cost rising so fast, that is no longer a very likely scenario.
>> Given the crazy rate of home inflation, I'm not so sure I could afford to
>> buy my house today in spite of the fact my income is triple what is was when
>> I bought it 27 years ago.
>>
> I live well, yet far below my potential means, because I choose to only
> work 24 hours a week. If I choose to I can pick up more shifts readily
> and do when I want to buy something special, but it is my choice rather
> than my commitment. I don't want to work more just to buy a fancier
> <fill in the blank>.

man?

your pal,
blake
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

In article >,
(Terry) wrote:

> What "exactly" does this post have to do with cooking?

Houses have kitchens in them used for cooking.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

blake murphy wrote:

>> I live well, yet far below my potential means, because I choose to only
>> work 24 hours a week. If I choose to I can pick up more shifts readily
>> and do when I want to buy something special, but it is my choice rather
>> than my commitment. I don't want to work more just to buy a fancier
>> <fill in the blank>.
>
> man?
>
> your pal,
> blake

Oh absolutely! My little pin money goes towards a lot of traveling and
other splurges. I just LOVE to travel...

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:08:03 GMT, Michael "Dog3" wrote:

> Goomba > :
> in rec.food.cooking
>
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>>>> I live well, yet far below my potential means, because I choose to
>>>> only work 24 hours a week. If I choose to I can pick up more shifts
>>>> readily and do when I want to buy something special, but it is my
>>>> choice rather than my commitment. I don't want to work more just to
>>>> buy a fancier <fill in the blank>.
>>>
>>> man?
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake
>>
>> Oh absolutely! My little pin money goes towards a lot of traveling and
>> other splurges. I just LOVE to travel...
>
> All my extra loot is going into the house right now. IMO it is well
> worth it to drag this place out of the 70s
>
> Michael

the seventies weren't so bad except for the music, fashion, and the people.

your pal,
blake