Recommended Posts
Freddie Mac also reported that the percent of cash-out refinances, in which homeowners cashed out some home equity, fell to a record low. Borrowers who increased their mortgage loan balance by at least 5 percent accounted for 16 percent of mortgage refinancing. The cash-out refinance share has averaged 62 percent over the past 25 years.
I'm not going to talk any further about it in this thread, which is focused on the subject of mortgage finance, and has little to do with your latest conspiracy whining. If you want to open a new thread for that, I'll say more. You would do well to not read every subject and look for the opportunity to rant, but actually read for subject and participate.
jimbrown 0
Freddie Mac also reported that the percent of cash-out refinances, in which homeowners cashed out some home equity, fell to a record low. Borrowers who increased their mortgage loan balance by at least 5 percent accounted for 16 percent of mortgage refinancing. The cash-out refinance share has averaged 62 percent over the past 25 years.
I'm not going to talk any further about it in this thread, which is focused on the subject of mortgage finance, and has little to do with your latest conspiracy whining. If you want to open a new thread for that, I'll say more. You would do well to not read every subject and look for the opportunity to rant, but actually read for subject and participate.
LOL! You do that !!!!
Funny that the quote you attributed to me wasn't anything I've ever written or posted!!
But that's the way it goes.
You'll get more and more paranoid until you are ready to release the lie or you make the decision to JUMP!!!
Peace,
Jim B
Funny that the quote you attributed to me wasn't anything I've ever written or posted!!
nor was it supposed to be. It was a factual note about the prevalence the cash out refi's.
I use {reply} when quoting someone's posting.
Not sure of the exact figure, but we Canadians do pay a portion of our taxes to keep the British Royals living the life of luxury they have.
WRONG!
When we invite royals over we pay to roll out the red carpet, but that is also true when we invite dignitaries from lower Elbonia.
But in SF, it's 4000/month or much more, and then 3000 or much more in deductions. But the deductions rarely get the monthly cost, even ignoring all the other costs of home ownership, down to the price of rent in a rent controlled city.
Living in the bay area I pay some attention to prices.
The least unreasonably priced properties someplace I'd want to live cost about 50% more to rent the money (assuming a 20% down payment and fully deductible interest) to buy than to rent an equivalent property.
The most unreasonably priced properties still cost 100% more to rent the money than to rent a similar property.
I can't decide whether that's unreasonable (places where people rely on salaries to buy homes the market wouldn't support such prices) or not (perhaps instant IPO millions are what buy the homes here)
The property I bought at the peak of the market in 2006 outside Seattle ran 0-20% more to rent the money than to rent a similar property (ignoring opportunity cost on the down payment when CDs still yielded 5%).
The property I bought in Boulder, CO circa 1999 cost less to rent the money than to rent a similar property.
I can't decide whether that's unreasonable (places where people rely on salaries to buy homes the market wouldn't support such prices) or not (perhaps instant IPO millions are what buy the homes here)
Lot of DINKs making 2 x 6 figure incomes. I think it's more about that then the IPO types, which are a bit rarer these days. Within SF, there's also a bit of foreign, or at least out of town, investing going on.
As a single earner, it's a stretch as a result. So far, the opportunity cost/risk of committing without a second income seems too high, I'd rather keep that money reachable, and me portable.
Obviously if one lives close to Vallejo, there are good prices to be had, but anything along the SJ->Marin corridor is nearly as expensive as ever.
mirage62 0
Why would anyone pay a $1,000 a month for a $100 deduction? Yea, I get it but if given the choice, I would much rather own my home outright
+1
It is there as a bonus, a "gift" from the gov to make it a better thing to have a house. It is of course not the reason to have one.
It should go away and use the moeny to pay down debt...but that wont happen
more rich parasites living off mummy and daddy's money...
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
rushmc 23
Dick is as Dick does
![:S :S](/uploads/emoticons/wacko.png)
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Its something you may have someday when you are all grown up, decide to settle down and marry a nice man.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites