Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply US-PHARMACIES UGL OZ
Raptor Labs UGFREAK OxygenPharm
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplyUS-PHARMACIES UGL OZUGFREAKRaptor LabsOxygenPharm

just a little heads-up...

...for those of you that disagreed with me on the "fair market value" of real estate in california (and other places where the prices are still well above the true fair market value)...the fed agrees with me...nana-nana boo-boo, stick your head in doo-doo :lmao:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/business/11housing.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

One would have to think there is going to be a range to houses that are in trouble in the jumbo market.

Let's face it, once you get above let's say $1.5 or $2 million for a home, I doubt you are looking for financing anyway.
 
Just about every loan I did on homes worth that much had about 60% down. Even when the market was strong they were difficult loans to get through.
 
doesn't really prove anything. the gov isn't making a judgment about value. A house worth 100 million, but selling for only 1 million, would still be affected.
 
doesn't really prove anything. the gov isn't making a judgment about value. A house worth 100 million, but selling for only 1 million, would still be affected.
no judgement in value, but the fed backing large loans provides a security blanket which in turn artificially inflates home values.

This is a great step towards market correction that has been in the works, but not quite finished.
 
doesn't really prove anything. the gov isn't making a judgment about value. A house worth 100 million, but selling for only 1 million, would still be affected.

sure it does...if the fed believed that the value was there, they wouldn't have a problem with it...under today's (post-meltdown) lending terms, unless you can exhibit an historic wherewithal to pay, you won't get a loan...the risk of forfeiture has already been addressed...now the fed is addressing the issue of over-inflated values that don't reflect economic reality, by extracting themselves from that situation...there's now a certain strata (price-wise) that the fed isn't interested in being involved with because that market hasn't found its bottom yet.
 
no judgement in value, but the fed backing large loans provides a security blanket which in turn artificially inflates home values.

This is a great step towards market correction that has been in the works, but not quite finished.

omigod ^^^^^ stat lives in cali and he gets it anyway :)

market correction is another term for letting the prices slide/crash/what-have-you down to something resembling true fair market value.
 
sure it does...if the fed believed that the value was there, they wouldn't have a problem with it...under today's (post-meltdown) lending terms, unless you can exhibit an historic wherewithal to pay, you won't get a loan...the risk of forfeiture has already been addressed...now the fed is addressing the issue of over-inflated values that don't reflect economic reality, by extracting themselves from that situation...there's now a certain strata (price-wise) that the fed isn't interested in being involved with because that market hasn't found its bottom yet.

the way lestat describes it; i'm buying it. you are taking it a bit too far tho imo
 
no judgement in value, but the fed backing large loans provides a security blanket which in turn artificially inflates home values.

This is a great step towards market correction that has been in the works, but not quite finished.

interesting man; that def sounds plausible. imma look into it more thx
 
interesting man; that def sounds plausible. imma look into it more thx

here's the way i see it...throughout all of the 80's and most of the 90's the mantra was "real estate will double in value every 10 years" my feeling was that this could only be possible if...

1) everyone in the u.s. made a LOT more money every 10 years than they did the 10 years before OR

2) wild, unchecked, uninformed overspending, fueled by low interest rates coupled with a period of relative prosperity would act to devalue the dollar to such an extent that it takes a LOT more of them to buy the same thing that you bought 10 years ago with a LOT less of them.

now, the real estate values have come crashing down across the country and (imho) the bottom of this trend is still not presently in sight (the values are still artificially inflated by the lowest interest rates in the history of the fed)...that said, which of the two scenarios above appears to make more sense??

you may give me some of your karma now.
 
Just about every loan I did on homes worth that much had about 60% down. Even when the market was strong they were difficult loans to get through.

I wonder if Code's huge white elephant McMansion ever sold?
 
Gov never should have been involved in the first place.

well, they (the fed) set the interest (i.e., risk) rate(s), so they kinda have to be involved to some extent...but, they are definitely in over their head at this point...i'm sure that they are merely trying to manufacture a soft-landing, but at what cost? the next couple of generations will be doing hard time for this crap sammich, me thinks...and they ain't gonna have no bread :worried:
 
Top Bottom