AN example of what might happen to you if you DONT shop around properly for a morgage .
nothing is free
how many of you have of have been offered one of these type of morgages ???
http//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070325/ap_on_bi_ge/house_of_cards
Is this one of those mortgages where you pay only interest? It was a long article, I couldn't read it all, it rambled.
We have a lot of foreclosures here in California with this new mortgage where the rate of interest just doubles every now and then, but here in Santa Clara our main problem is people move in and then find out the property tax rates equal their mortgage payment.
Mind, I know many Americans who won't buy, they see no reason and reckon it ties them down. Not that any of them have left the area in the ten years I've known them, but they seem to believe that owning property in Ca. is a fools game.
Also, if any of you have Capital One credit cards, please note that one default will now take you up to 19.9% or even 27%. Bloody English that rate and not to be borne, switch cards.
AN example of what might happen to you if you DONT shop around properly for a morgage .
nothing is free
how many of you have of have been offered one of these type of morgages ???
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070325/ap_o...e_of_cards
It isn't an issue of not shopping around John. Its an issue of people having no choices at all and grabbing what is availble to them. Arguably they should have kept renting, but low cost renting is usually very poor housing.
This is why we have Housing Associations in England and better regulation of mortgage lenders (and a very different approach to foreclosures as well).
Such sad stories are inevitable in poorly regulated capitalism.
We bought a home last year, we were renting a really nice condo for $2000 a month. We bought another condo that was ok but only 1300 sq ft. We had to get an interest only loan to afford the hous payment as we still owned our house in Utah. My payment is $4000 a month and that includes $600 a month for property taxes. We are now looking at a house and for 1800 sq ft we need to spend about $720,000....nice.
AN example of what might happen to you if you DONT shop around properly for a morgage .
nothing is free
how many of you have of have been offered one of these type of morgages ???
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070325/ap_o...e_of_cards
It isn't an issue of not shopping around John. Its an issue of people having no choices at all and grabbing what is availble to them. Arguably they should have kept renting, but low cost renting is usually very poor housing.
This is why we have Housing Associations in England and better regulation of mortgage lenders (and a very different approach to foreclosures as well).
Such sad stories are inevitable in poorly regulated capitalism.
sure its mostly there fault .
given these low end lenders ( if you can call them that )look out for customers like the searcys .but as they admitted themselves they should have asked more questions, backed out , shopped more intelligently and stayed within there means .
the falling real estate market didnt work in there favour at all ,mostly with these type of loans by the time the interest gets to unpayable rates there is enought equity in the home to either refinace or sell and buy elsewhere
. it gives some borrowers a change they might not otherwise have and in this instance the gamble didnt pay of ...
of course under capitalism everything isnt perfect .. what system is ??
The snearys ( owners ) lost out so did the share holders of the subprime company (sebring capital )
most folks who take out a loan to buy a home acude equity , in this case with this type of loans a lot of folks didnt .
laws /regulations regarding finance should always be under scrutiny and changes made when nessasary , this bad example dose,nt make the whole system a failure .
up to 70% of american households own there own property.
cant be such a bad idea renting cost ulmost the same theses days .
and yes most of the low rental property is poor housing but it stil has to offer a certain standard by law .
there are always going to be a whole range of choices in any commodity we buy ( horray for that ) look at cars even the cheaper car by law have to be up to standard and offer safe transportation ..
If 70% of americans own there own property it is because a large number of them have little alternative.
Moreover, a significant number of them shouldn't own, they can't afford or, more often, there incomes are erratic and insecure.
Those with poor educations or english as a second language are over represented amongst such groups.
Sub prime lenders prey on such people, offering them inflated interest rates that only exacerbate the original problems (lack of money and erratic income).
The broader effect of this is that the lenders collapse and thi sripples out to damage the rest of the economy - including the business of realtors such as yourself. (people like me tend to do somewhat better, conflict leads to litigation and a need for trial lawyers).
The underlying problem is that the market has failed and that a reliance on inadequately regulated capitalism has damaged the economy.
By contrast in England and Wales, banks are more closely regulated and the procedure for repossessing homes requires the bank to go to Court and get a "possession Order" - in my experience, Court will not issue these if the bank behaves inequitably. The result is that the banks tend to be more cautious in who they lend to and to behave better when things go wrong.
A little regulation makes the market work.
Just my 2c People might be a lot less likely to jump into a huge mortgage they can't afford if this wasn't referred to as "owning your home". It's a misnoma -you don't own it, the bank does, at least until your mortgage is for less than 50% of the value. If we could coin a whole new term for it like "self-renting" or something, people might be less likely to ruin their lives grasping for that piece of the American/British/Bahamian/Whatever dream before they are ready.
/soapbox
Just my 2c: People might be a lot less likely to jump into a huge mortgage they can't afford if this wasn't referred to as "owning your home". It's a misnoma -you don't own it, the bank does, at least until your mortgage is for less than 50% of the value. If we could coin a whole new term for it like "self-renting" or something, people might be less likely to ruin their lives grasping for that piece of the American/British/Bahamian/Whatever dream before they are ready.
/soapbox
Agreed.
In truth, it makes no sense for many people to "own" there own home and to tie up so much of there "savings" in such an investment.
Ther eis a presumption in the US and UK that this is the ideal. In fact in many european countries it isn't.
(people like me tend to do somewhat better, conflict leads to litigation and a need for trial lawyers).
.
.
hehehe ROB there is always work for attorneys in the US and if conflicts get a little scarce you can always go ambulance chasing .... . JJ im sure you dont do that :roll: :smile:
(people like me tend to do somewhat better, conflict leads to litigation and a need for trial lawyers).
.
.
hehehe ROB there is always work for attorneys in the US and if conflicts get a little scarce you can always go ambulance chasing .... . JJ im sure you dont do that :roll: :smile:
I don't do Personal Injury, so no ambulance chasing for me.
Divorce and Crime.... the nearest you can find to guaranteed employment.
Just my 2c: People might be a lot less likely to jump into a huge mortgage they can't afford if this wasn't referred to as "owning your home". It's a misnoma -you don't own it, the bank does, at least until your mortgage is for less than 50% of the value. If we could coin a whole new term for it like "self-renting" or something, people might be less likely to ruin their lives grasping for that piece of the American/British/Bahamian/Whatever dream before they are ready.
/soapbox
Agreed.
In truth, it makes no sense for many people to "own" there own home and to tie up so much of there "savings" in such an investment.
Ther eis a presumption in the US and UK that this is the ideal. In fact in many european countries it isn't.
So Rob is it your contention that you ,me and others like us on this board who *own * there home *.have made a bad discision ???? and the ideal would be not to and rely on the STATE TO ALLOCATE YOU ONE ???
what would you suggest we *invest * our saving in ...???
ROB are you part of this communism /loooney left crazyness .??.. your posts seems to say you agree
One of the sickest stories I've ever read about the left-wing, socialist indoctrination of our kids
L'Eggo My Lego
A ban was initiated at the Hilltop Children's Center in Seattle. According to an article in the winter 2006-07 issue of "Rethinking Schools" magazine, the teachers at the private school wanted their students to learn that PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP IS EVIL .
...
So they first explored with the children the issue of ownership. Not all of the students shared the teachers' anathema to private property ownership. "If I buy it, I own it," one child is quoted saying. The teachers then explored with the students concepts of fairness, equity, power, and other issues over a period of several months.
At the end of that time, Legos returned to the classroom after the children agreed to several guiding principles framed by the teachers, including that "All structures are public structures" and "All structures will be standard sizes." The teachers quote the children
"A house is good because it is a community house."
"We should have equal houses. They should be standard sizes."
"It's important to have the same amount of power as other people over your building."
These teachers' houses are community houses. I can go there and take whatever I want and they can't stop me. Sounds good to me!
For most of us owning property is a wise move if its your principle residence and can afford the downpayment along with the monthly costs to own.
However it's quite obvious that many are not really in a position to buy. Those people are being preyed upon ( in the US ) by criminals and there should be regulations governing the industry so that these type of transactions are overseen.
Thats not socialism its common sense.
Just my 2c: People might be a lot less likely to jump into a huge mortgage they can't afford if this wasn't referred to as "owning your home". It's a misnoma -you don't own it, the bank does, at least until your mortgage is for less than 50% of the value. If we could coin a whole new term for it like "self-renting" or something, people might be less likely to ruin their lives grasping for that piece of the American/British/Bahamian/Whatever dream before they are ready.
/soapbox
Agreed.
In truth, it makes no sense for many people to "own" there own home and to tie up so much of there "savings" in such an investment.
Ther eis a presumption in the US and UK that this is the ideal. In fact in many european countries it isn't.
So Rob is it your contention that you ,me and others like us on this board who *own * there home *.have made a bad discision ???? and the ideal would be not to and rely on the STATE TO ALLOCATE YOU ONE ???
what would you suggest we *invest * our saving in ...???
Do you understand his post to suggest that, or are you just playing devil's advocate? :???:
Just my 2c: People might be a lot less likely to jump into a huge mortgage they can't afford if this wasn't referred to as "owning your home". It's a misnoma -you don't own it, the bank does, at least until your mortgage is for less than 50% of the value. If we could coin a whole new term for it like "self-renting" or something, people might be less likely to ruin their lives grasping for that piece of the American/British/Bahamian/Whatever dream before they are ready.
/soapbox
Agreed.
In truth, it makes no sense for many people to "own" there own home and to tie up so much of there "savings" in such an investment.
Ther eis a presumption in the US and UK that this is the ideal. In fact in many european countries it isn't.
So Rob is it your contention that you ,me and others like us on this board who *own * there home *.have made a bad discision ???? and the ideal would be not to and rely on the STATE TO ALLOCATE YOU ONE ???
what would you suggest we *invest * our saving in ...???
Do you understand his post to suggest that, or are you just playing devil's advocate? :???:
Monster how long have you known me ..do i ever play devils advocate ??? :twisted: :razz: :wink: