GatewayRedbirds.com

TimeForGuinness wrote:

lukethedrifter wrote:

TimeForGuinness wrote:My area: Princeton Heights

BTW...I bought in October of 2006...right in that dip.

and I thought you were SoHa cool.


Check out the new Billy Goat Chip Factory and fried chicken joint yet?

I am not SoHa cool...by about 4 blocks. Funny story, there is a salon at the end of my block called SoHa (even though it is in Princeton Heights)...she's gotten angry calls from people in the South Hampton neighborhood complaining that she technically isn't in SoHa so she should change her name. Amazing.

I haven't checked out the Billy Goat Chip Factory and fried chicken joint yet...where are they at?

ghostrunner wrote:We actually played it rather conservative considering what many people were willing to loan us.

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:

Popeye_Card wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
Why are they buying a house if they are month to month on their bills? That's a horrible idea. If someone bought a house in 05 and got laid off in 08 and has a year of mortgage payments built up and in 09 runs out of money, then that i understand.....however, that's not what is going on. a lot of people bought thinking they'd make a quick buck, then foreclosed when they realized they couldn't/couldn't afford their mortgage.

Just b/c a lot of people did it doesn't make it any less dumb.

Well define "month to month on their bills". Like I said, I have a stable income, savings, etc. And I own a house. But if I lose my job--and in the current job market it's no sure thing that you'll find a new one soon--I would look to put my house on the market about 1 month after being jobless. Because right now, it'll take several months to move a house unless you absolutely slash the price. And while my savings can last me a little while, without dipping into my 401k etc., I can't afford to make house payments for over a year.

If nobody bought houses unless they could cover the payments for over a year in case of emergency, hardly anyone would be buying a house.

Not month to month: (Savings + Unemployment for a year)/12 - Monthly Bills > 0

I guess that doesn't really define "not month to month" and it ignores a lot of stuff. But, back to my original point, that's how I would approach any loan, not just a mortgage.

lukethedrifter wrote:

TimeForGuinness wrote:

lukethedrifter wrote:

TimeForGuinness wrote:My area: Princeton Heights

BTW...I bought in October of 2006...right in that dip.

and I thought you were SoHa cool.


Check out the new Billy Goat Chip Factory and fried chicken joint yet?

I am not SoHa cool...by about 4 blocks. Funny story, there is a salon at the end of my block called SoHa (even though it is in Princeton Heights)...she's gotten angry calls from people in the South Hampton neighborhood complaining that she technically isn't in SoHa so she should change her name. Amazing.

I haven't checked out the Billy Goat Chip Factory and fried chicken joint yet...where are they at?

Loughborough and Macklind where there was a BBQ joint for awhile.

Popeye_Card wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:

Popeye_Card wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
Why are they buying a house if they are month to month on their bills? That's a horrible idea. If someone bought a house in 05 and got laid off in 08 and has a year of mortgage payments built up and in 09 runs out of money, then that i understand.....however, that's not what is going on. a lot of people bought thinking they'd make a quick buck, then foreclosed when they realized they couldn't/couldn't afford their mortgage.

Just b/c a lot of people did it doesn't make it any less dumb.

Well define "month to month on their bills". Like I said, I have a stable income, savings, etc. And I own a house. But if I lose my job--and in the current job market it's no sure thing that you'll find a new one soon--I would look to put my house on the market about 1 month after being jobless. Because right now, it'll take several months to move a house unless you absolutely slash the price. And while my savings can last me a little while, without dipping into my 401k etc., I can't afford to make house payments for over a year.

If nobody bought houses unless they could cover the payments for over a year in case of emergency, hardly anyone would be buying a house.

Not month to month: (Savings + Unemployment for a year)/12 - Monthly Bills > 0

I guess that doesn't really define "not month to month" and it ignores a lot of stuff. But, back to my original point, that's how I would approach any loan, not just a mortgage.

I don't know how realistic that is for a good majority of Americans. For a $200k loan, you're talking about ~$20k just for the mortgage over a year. Plus utilities (another ~$5k a year). Plus any car payments. Plus any other bills. Most financial advisors aren't going to advise you to keep over $20k in liquid savings.

Yes, it's obvious that we live in a pretty debt-driven society. But I keep pretty darn good control of my finances and save pretty well, and even I would struggle mightily with being out of work for 12 months. Maybe not declare bankruptcy, but it would pretty much wipe me out.

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:Then perhaps Americans shouldn't feel they're entitled to live in $200K houses. I think that has more than been proven.

ghostrunner wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:

Popeye_Card wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
Why are they buying a house if they are month to month on their bills? That's a horrible idea. If someone bought a house in 05 and got laid off in 08 and has a year of mortgage payments built up and in 09 runs out of money, then that i understand.....however, that's not what is going on. a lot of people bought thinking they'd make a quick buck, then foreclosed when they realized they couldn't/couldn't afford their mortgage.

Just b/c a lot of people did it doesn't make it any less dumb.

Well define "month to month on their bills". Like I said, I have a stable income, savings, etc. And I own a house. But if I lose my job--and in the current job market it's no sure thing that you'll find a new one soon--I would look to put my house on the market about 1 month after being jobless. Because right now, it'll take several months to move a house unless you absolutely slash the price. And while my savings can last me a little while, without dipping into my 401k etc., I can't afford to make house payments for over a year.

If nobody bought houses unless they could cover the payments for over a year in case of emergency, hardly anyone would be buying a house.

Not month to month: (Savings + Unemployment for a year)/12 - Monthly Bills > 0

I guess that doesn't really define "not month to month" and it ignores a lot of stuff. But, back to my original point, that's how I would approach any loan, not just a mortgage.

I think you're expecting a lot. Most people were told to treat a house payment rather differently than other loans because they were supposed to think of them as assets which would appreciate and could even be used to secure additional loans. We got a home equity line of credit in order to make some improvements on the house, which now doesn't look so smart. My father is pretty smart about this stuff and he had no objection to it. My bank, which is pretty well respected and still in decent shape (and I'm very pleased with on the whole), was marketing this as though it were a good idea. Even Dave Ramsey makes homes an exception to his debt-free spiel. So homes have been treated as something different than other loans. I didn't know much about it at the time, and I trusted what other people said I could afford. We actually played it rather conservative considering what many people were willing to loan us.

That all may seem to go against common sense, but the word from most experts was that common sense didn't apply in this area.

Hungary Jack wrote: And then there are those who speculated by borrowing at 5% on a teaser rate in anticipation of a 20% increase in value followed by a quick flip. I have zero sympathy for these people.

Freed Roger wrote:

Hungary Jack wrote: And then there are those who speculated by borrowing at 5% on a teaser rate in anticipation of a 20% increase in value followed by a quick flip. I have zero sympathy for these people.

speaking of this, whatever happened to the house flipping shows that used to be on TLC etc? I don't notice them on at all anymore, -am I missing them? I would watch those with Mrs. Freed (-brain dead veg-out TV) most of it was West Coast centered - the LA area or Vegas. many of the house flippers would be clueless, yet managed to come out ok in spite of their stupidity, so it was a happy ending. I'm guessing that shows not on anymore because its no fun to watch anymore without a happy ending.