Jesus Hubert Christ

[b204dr]

celerity is correct- for most 1st time home buyers it would cost nearly 800k for a 270k house - i know thats what my first house was going to cost doing an interest only - never again i shall say!

my next house has 100k down on it from my first home equity - and its all in the bank and the house is sold already! yay

 

[Celerity]

Good for FUCKIN YOU ! YEAH baby !

I'm honestly excited about your decision.. It was smart thinking. Take a little hit in the front stretch, but then cash in intelligently and use it to move forward. Hopefully you got into an area with cheaper taxes too. It's great to ditch the pain-in-the-ass investment, move onto a better house, AND for less all around money.

Go you

 

[Bob Vila]

The key word is fucking INTEREST ONLY LOAN you morons of course it is going to cost you out the ass, its designed for people who plan on staying in the house less than 5 years and not gaining any god damn equity. Any CONVENTIONAL FIXED RATE MORTGAGE will NOT Cost near a damn million dollars on a 200k house.

Learn how to fucking read and comprehend before posting from now on.

 

[Celerity]

An interest-only loan is a good way for someone with credit to get into a loan. The interest-only loan puts 100% of the interest up front, with no principle coverage until the contracted interest is up. So, without financing, you would pay for about 3 years before even touching the principle. With a normal loan, you have the interest / principle ratios that start off very low (Like 10% princ, 90% interest, in a good case) and then the ratio slowly moves towards a 90% principle ratio.

The end cost is the same - The bank will give poor credit or risk buyers the interest-only option because if they default, they want maximum loan coverage, plus your house in the end. Which means that in 4 years if you default on the loan, they take the house back and make 100% on the house value, plus they banked your past 4 or so years payments as profits.

How about you calm down before posting from now on ?

 

[Bob Vila]

Because all you post is shit and all of it is misleading. You think you have a sound knowledge of everything and everything WE read of yours is untrue, not factual, and in most part inflated. You go on thinking what you want, and thats that, but I will be on you like flies on shit from now on.

Edit: And I first started noticing all your Bs from this post: Here you go

You'll notice my response to that on the second page which you never responded back to... My Post

 

[b204dr]

Originally posted by Bob Vila@Sep 14 2005, 01:00 PM
Because all you post is shit and all of it is misleading. You think you have a sound knowledge of everything and everything WE read of yours is untrue, not factual, and in most part inflated. You go on thinking what you want, and thats that, but I will be on you like flies on shit from now on.

[post=554331]Quoted post[/post]​

on a home unless you can down 20% you have to purchase mortgage insurance which would be a complete waste of money
or second option have an 80/20 which most people do and you have an adjusted rate which is a blended rate. On a non interest only loan the house would have costed me around 560 ish which is still outlandish speaking and that was at 6.7%
the other point of cost which isnt even being covered here is the property tax, and the additional monies you might have to pay to live in a particular neighborhood-
with all things added i think we would truelly pay near a million for a home !
Bob Im not aiming at you but there is so many factors in loans and cost that you would never take in to mind. And not to mention most people if they would stay in a home longer than the 5 years would refi and take the equity out of the home and start over when need be; whether it be repairs or vacation lol
**** the joys of being a home owner***
but on the other hand it is a great tax benefit at tax time !

 

[Celerity]

You're upset because I didn't write back to you a few months ago?

I'm sorry. Allow me to make amends.

Sarbanes Oxley requirements are stringent, and mostly prototypical - even today. When I took on the SOX project, I had to travel to New York to be educated for a weekend on how to make the department pass it's requirements for disaster recovery, documentation and the audits of corporate records in the form of Email.

I'm sorry man, Didn't mean to shut you out.

 

[Bob Vila]

No, I am not upset that you didn't respond, the fact is, is that you portrayed that you WORK for Sarbanes Oxley:

So currently my job is evaluated weekly by Sarbanes Oxley directly. He will do whatever it takes to crush you and then attempt to build you up the way he feels fit.

So far, Sarbanes Oxley is giving me raving reports, and he is announcing next week "Changes in staff" where he will announce a change in my role - Giving me more responsibility. He's tried twice to fire me, but upper executive has pulled together both times to save my job.

When if Fact Sarbanes / Oxley are two different people and is an act of congress.

My point in this matter is that you float around a bunch of BS on the boards and its starting to take its toll on the staff. I'm closing this topic, the original topic at hand (sorry about that) is covered and this thread is getting out of hand. If you want to address this further Celerity, then please PM.