On 10/25/09 7:11 PM, Richard Casady wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 16:36:28 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:42:13 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:06:52 -0700, wrote:



It was the 3, 5 and 7 year adjustable rate mortgages that screwed most
of those mortgage holders. Those were institutionally pushed on
customers (suckers) in the same way tulips bulbs were sold.

Dangerous if you're in over your head, as most were with home price
inflated, and the job market ready to fail.
OTOH I re-fied from a 7% 15-year to a 3% ARM about 7 years ago.
The ARM saw a max of 6.5% and is currently 4%.

--Vic

Your luck will hold for a little while yet. I'm looking at 15 year
now. Rates are extraordinary.


I just re-fi'd from a nice, fixed rate 30 yr to an even better fixed 15 on
all my properties. My main mortgage increased by $150/mo, but it's 15
instead of 30 yrs. Also, I make an extra payment every yr, so that means
it'll pay off sooner.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Almost makes me wish i had a mortgage again.
In my day I had signed up for 11.25% back in the mid '70s.
When I sold that house and moved back into the city I lucked out at around
6%
This house has been paid for almost 10 years now.

I have always paid cash for everything, including houses.

Casady


Classy house you have there...

http://tinyurl.com/ykzcp5j

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 16:36:28 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:42:13 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:06:52 -0700, jps wrote:



It was the 3, 5 and 7 year adjustable rate mortgages that screwed most
of those mortgage holders. Those were institutionally pushed on
customers (suckers) in the same way tulips bulbs were sold.

Dangerous if you're in over your head, as most were with home price
inflated, and the job market ready to fail.
OTOH I re-fied from a 7% 15-year to a 3% ARM about 7 years ago.
The ARM saw a max of 6.5% and is currently 4%.

--Vic

Your luck will hold for a little while yet. I'm looking at 15 year
now. Rates are extraordinary.


I just re-fi'd from a nice, fixed rate 30 yr to an even better fixed 15
on
all my properties. My main mortgage increased by $150/mo, but it's 15
instead of 30 yrs. Also, I make an extra payment every yr, so that means
it'll pay off sooner.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Almost makes me wish i had a mortgage again.
In my day I had signed up for 11.25% back in the mid '70s.
When I sold that house and moved back into the city I lucked out at around
6%
This house has been paid for almost 10 years now.

I have always paid cash for everything, including houses.

Casady


That's fine if it doesn't drain your liquidity to a dangerous level. There's
nothing wrong with an affordable loan.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:42:13 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:06:52 -0700, jps wrote:



It was the 3, 5 and 7 year adjustable rate mortgages that screwed most
of those mortgage holders. Those were institutionally pushed on
customers (suckers) in the same way tulips bulbs were sold.

Dangerous if you're in over your head, as most were with home price
inflated, and the job market ready to fail.
OTOH I re-fied from a 7% 15-year to a 3% ARM about 7 years ago.
The ARM saw a max of 6.5% and is currently 4%.

--Vic

Your luck will hold for a little while yet. I'm looking at 15 year
now. Rates are extraordinary.


I just re-fi'd from a nice, fixed rate 30 yr to an even better fixed 15
on
all my properties. My main mortgage increased by $150/mo, but it's 15
instead of 30 yrs. Also, I make an extra payment every yr, so that means
it'll pay off sooner.

I just re-financed my mortgage, last spring from 6.25 to 4.5. I took the
30 year loan I will be living her another 10 years and will then move. I
have no desire to pay off this mortgage as long as I am earning an
income.


I certainly understand. I don't plan on leaving or selling my primary house.
It's just too nice.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...
One of the important things he did w/ the $$ was stablize the market and
restore some confidence. In a sense, the financial system is built and
sustained by confidence (not saying this is a good thing, but it's the
way
it is). If the giants went down, we would have seen what happened when
Lehman Bros. failed only on steroids.


The market should have been left alone to work and weed out the weak.
Bad businesses shouldn't be bailed out. Bad managers shouldn't be bailed
out.

The market decides who should survive and who should fail. The
government shouldn't be involved in these decisions.


Yes, well, that's easy to say, but the reality of it is lots and lots of
suffering. It's never worked right and even completely fascist dictators
didn't have the political stomach for it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...
One of the important things he did w/ the $$ was stablize the market and
restore some confidence. In a sense, the financial system is built and
sustained by confidence (not saying this is a good thing, but it's the
way
it is). If the giants went down, we would have seen what happened when
Lehman Bros. failed only on steroids.


The market should have been left alone to work and weed out the weak.
Bad businesses shouldn't be bailed out. Bad managers shouldn't be bailed
out.

The market decides who should survive and who should fail. The
government shouldn't be involved in these decisions.


Yes, well, that's easy to say, but the reality of it is lots and lots of
suffering. It's never worked right and even completely fascist dictators
didn't have the political stomach for it.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Nope, they postponed the complete disaster, and increased the intensity of
the disaster. Most of that Trillion bucks went to increase bonus money and
pay off campaign supporters and European governments who invested via greed.
It has not gone to make jobs, Give loans to buy affordable homes. It has
been wasted as a stimulus and stabilizing the financial markets. Friday the
100th bank of the year failed. Goldman-sacks failing would have been good
for the country. Thy have been one of the major creators of functional
bubbles and disasters for 90 years.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...
One of the important things he did w/ the $$ was stablize the market
and
restore some confidence. In a sense, the financial system is built and
sustained by confidence (not saying this is a good thing, but it's the
way
it is). If the giants went down, we would have seen what happened when
Lehman Bros. failed only on steroids.


The market should have been left alone to work and weed out the weak.
Bad businesses shouldn't be bailed out. Bad managers shouldn't be bailed
out.

The market decides who should survive and who should fail. The
government shouldn't be involved in these decisions.


Yes, well, that's easy to say, but the reality of it is lots and lots of
suffering. It's never worked right and even completely fascist dictators
didn't have the political stomach for it.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Nope, they postponed the complete disaster, and increased the intensity of
the disaster. Most of that Trillion bucks went to increase bonus money
and pay off campaign supporters and European governments who invested via
greed. It has not gone to make jobs, Give loans to buy affordable homes.
It has been wasted as a stimulus and stabilizing the financial markets.
Friday the 100th bank of the year failed. Goldman-sacks failing would
have been good for the country. Thy have been one of the major creators
of functional bubbles and disasters for 90 years.

It's certainly possible that it postponed a disaster, but the point is to
fix the system, now that the edge is no longer in sight.

If the gov't had done nothing, we would be now in the midst of another Great
Depression, and the last time this happened, a WW got us all the way out.

Bank failures are bad, but they're a resolveable issue, as long as there is
a reserve and as long as there's stability.

--
Nom=de=Plume

In article ,
says...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...
One of the important things he did w/ the $$ was stablize the market and
restore some confidence. In a sense, the financial system is built and
sustained by confidence (not saying this is a good thing, but it's the
way
it is). If the giants went down, we would have seen what happened when
Lehman Bros. failed only on steroids.


The market should have been left alone to work and weed out the weak.
Bad businesses shouldn't be bailed out. Bad managers shouldn't be bailed
out.

The market decides who should survive and who should fail. The
government shouldn't be involved in these decisions.


Yes, well, that's easy to say, but the reality of it is lots and lots of
suffering. It's never worked right and even completely fascist dictators
didn't have the political stomach for it.

Pain, physical or mental, often has a direct effect on behavior.

On 10/27/09 9:36 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

wrote in message
. ..
In ,
says...
One of the important things he did w/ the $$ was stablize the market and
restore some confidence. In a sense, the financial system is built and
sustained by confidence (not saying this is a good thing, but it's the
way
it is). If the giants went down, we would have seen what happened when
Lehman Bros. failed only on steroids.


The market should have been left alone to work and weed out the weak.
Bad businesses shouldn't be bailed out. Bad managers shouldn't be bailed
out.

The market decides who should survive and who should fail. The
government shouldn't be involved in these decisions.


Yes, well, that's easy to say, but the reality of it is lots and lots of
suffering. It's never worked right and even completely fascist dictators
didn't have the political stomach for it.

Pain, physical or mental, often has a direct effect on behavior.



Wow...Bertie is...a spartan!

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...
One of the important things he did w/ the $$ was stablize the market
and
restore some confidence. In a sense, the financial system is built and
sustained by confidence (not saying this is a good thing, but it's the
way
it is). If the giants went down, we would have seen what happened when
Lehman Bros. failed only on steroids.


The market should have been left alone to work and weed out the weak.
Bad businesses shouldn't be bailed out. Bad managers shouldn't be
bailed
out.

The market decides who should survive and who should fail. The
government shouldn't be involved in these decisions.


Yes, well, that's easy to say, but the reality of it is lots and lots of
suffering. It's never worked right and even completely fascist dictators
didn't have the political stomach for it.

Pain, physical or mental, often has a direct effect on behavior.



I have no idea what that means or what you're trying to say. While the
statement you made is factually accurate, it's got nothing much to do with
the discussion.

--
Nom=de=Plume

In article ,
says...
Almost makes me wish i had a mortgage again.
In my day I had signed up for 11.25% back in the mid '70s.
When I sold that house and moved back into the city I lucked out at around
6%
This house has been paid for almost 10 years now.

I have always paid cash for everything, including houses.

Casady


That's fine if it doesn't drain your liquidity to a dangerous level. There's
nothing wrong with an affordable loan.


For once we agree. How fast can you pull $250,000 out of your house or
$50,000?