Seems like every time you turn around there's another hard-luck story that you're gonna hear…
… and today's comes from The New York Times, which describes why you should not take financial advice from The New York Times. Our heroine is 63-year-old laid-off office assistant Eileen Ulery, who demands in the name of all that's sacred that her mortgage lenders (Bank of American by way of Countrywide) haircut the $143,000 she owes them.
What supposedly makes Ulery the "face of the latest wave of troubled American homeowners" is that she wasn't just some arrogant house-flipper. The Times goes to great lengths to establish her Yankee frugality. (Do they have Yankee frugality in Arizona?) She visits yard sales. She has a "round face" and "staccato laugh." She drinks $6 screwtop merlot -- a mark of thrift in the eyes of the apparently Fred Franzia-hating Paper of Record. She "tracks her monthly expenses on a color-coded spreadsheet." (Does she dot the i in "debit" with a frowny face?). And the clean living doesn't end there:
Far from being one of those who used easy-money loans to speculate on homes proliferating across the desert soil of greater Phoenix, she has lived in the same modest, stucco-sided condo in suburban Mesa for a dozen years. She bought the two-bedroom home in 1997 for $77,500.
But somehow she now owes $143,000 on the dump, which after ballooning above $200,000, now assesses around $122,000. Where did the money go?
Like tens of millions of other American homeowners, she added to her mortgage balance as the value of her condo swelled, at one point exceeding $200,000. She refinanced to pay off some credit cards and settle into a 30-year, fixed-rate loan. Later, she took out a home equity line of credit to buy a new Hyundai. She refinanced again in 2007, borrowing $20,000, mostly for a new roof.
I think we need to see one of those color-coded spread sheets. Subtracting the current $143,000 mortgage from the closing price of $77,500, I get $65,000. According to HyundaiUSA.com, the MSRP for the most expensive Hyundai in the lot, the four-door Genesis, is a cool $32,250. Even if we assume the humble-as-Uriah Heep Ms. Ulery bought that top-line model, and we add that to the cost of the roof, there's still $13,250 unaccounted for. And I say it all went right up Ulery's nose!
I hope Ulery gets out of her predicament, but it is offensive to the proud tradition of true cheapskate-hood to see Times reporter Peter S. Goodman build this person up as a model of thrift who became a victim of circumstance. (Or not even that: Thanks to the inevitable "stress-related illness," Ulery has chosen not to "pursue another paycheck.") This is a protagonist who, after all her bargain-hunting and spreasheeting, looks in the mirror and realizes the true villain is the bank that lent her all that money when she asked for it:
As she sees it, the same banks that generated the mortgage crisis are now getting public money to fix it, while doing little more than seeking new fees.
"I don't think the government gets it," she said. "These are the same people you couldn't trust before."
Well, she's right about that last part; just not in the way she thinks.
I know there's nothing as inescapable as blogs that are indefatigably called "indispensable," but this link is courtesy of the truly indispensable Calculated Risk, which nicely explains the madness of leveraging your most valuable asset to pay your most insignificant debts -- which of course is the real story the Grey Lady buried here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Not really sure about the up her nose comment, but other than that.... amen and good night!
"I don't think the government gets it," she said.
If by "government", you mean "you," then yes, I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly.
"These are the same people you couldn't trust before."
Well, DUH. Ohhhhh, you meant the lenders.
Tim, you didn't explore the part about the $20,000 that went "mostly" to a new roof on a "modest, stucco-sided" two-bedroom condo. I spend about a tenth of that on a new roof for my modest, three bedroom ranch.
I can't wait until irresponsible mortgagees get bailed out with an increase of MY taxes, causing me to be unable to afford any longer the mortgage i've been paying responsibly all along. Then i'll be eligible for a bailout too!
P.S. Any replies to this comment will most likely consist of ad homs, as libertarians concede my points and show their childish, anti-intellectual nature.
I don't, just don't understand how these people can get themselves into debt and then blame everyone else. The spreadsheet thing is a joke, just because I can highlight rows in excel does not make me financially competent.
You bought shit, you bought more shit than your income could support. You used the house you live in as collateral to buy that shit. You have shit for brains.
I guess it really depends on just HOW MANY of those $6 bottles* of screw-top merlot she bought. ;P
*($13,250/$6 per bottle = 2216 bottles/32 years = 69 bottles/year or about 1&1/3 per week.)
Shut the fuck up Xeones!
just because I can highlight rows in excel does not make me financially competent
Don't sell yourself short. It makes you overqualified to run GM.
I didn't notice the bit about "deciding not to pursue a paycheck". What was her long-term plan? That her house would eventually go to 1,000,000? What a leech.
Dear President Obama:
My 1st mortgage is 90% of the last appraisal of the house and the 2nd mortagage is another 25%.
My total credit card balance is more than 75% of my annual income.
The economy sucks and my income is down this year.
Hurry up and fuck over all those rich guys at Reason H&R and send me my stimulus check {oh, and if you can push splintery sticks up the assess of all those guys at Chase Home Finance -- that would be nice too}.
Best Regards,
UT
Yes, "mostly for a new roof" and, earlier, to "pay off some credit cards." Those pesky credit cards! Sometimes, they can drive a body to distraction! Or at least to a $6 screwtop Merlot! I love them screwtops 'cause I'm just too shaky to handle a corkscrew these days! Damn banks!
*($13,250/$6 per bottle = 2216 bottles/32 years = 69 bottles/year or about 1&1/3 per week.)
Why 32 years? She's only been in the house for 12. Typo?
When you use 12 years, she's downing 3.5 $6 bottles/week. But, since she did the HELOC and re-fi'ing more recently, that number is likely *much* higher.
Now we know why she has a staccato laugh.
If you're blowing through much wine, you're foolish for not buying it in boxes. I don't drink wine like a snob: I drink it like I'm French, so boxes it is for me.
When my husband opened his business a couple years ago, we poured our cash into it and our credit card debt ballooned. We refinanced our house on a fifteen year mortgage and took out money to pay off the credit card debt, so that now we owe more on the house than what we originally purchased it for. We intend to die in that house, and it should be paid off in 14 years. And it's still valued at 90K more than the purchase price. If we sold it tomorrow, we'd have money left over.
Know what? It was a decision we made. Was running up the credit cards the right thing to do? Maybe not. Should we have waited a few years to build up savings before opening the business? Maybe, but an opportunity fell in our laps and we thought we might not get another one like it.
We made choices. That's what happens when you're a grown up. You do stuff, and stuff follows. It's called consquences. My 7 year old is familiar with the concept, but a lot of adults are not.
Poor old lady. Her house only appreciated a mere 60% over 12 years. How can those evil banks let this happen?
Ms. Ulery is among that unhappy cohort - her house is worth about $122,000, and she owes $143,000 - but walking away is not for her.
"In my family, we don't do that," she said. "You pay your bills. And I wanted my home."
Assuming she's being forthright about this, good for her. Give credit where it's due.
That said, she still just doesn't fucking get it.
I'm probably going to be buying a house within the year. I will, shockingly, buy something I can afford, and live frugally for awhile as I'm paying it off. Is this so counterintuitive?
Somewhere is Phoenix, there is another woman who paid the same original amount for her house, makes the same annual income, and is ready to pay off her mortgage by living within her means. I think the Times writing is missing the key facts here on why she is losing her home! Not surprising.
Where is The Wine Commonsewer when you need him?
Anyone who drinks screw-top merlot deserves the hell they invite upon themselves.
Ah fuck it - anyone who takes out a 30-year mortgage deserves the hell they invite upon themselves. The 30-year mortgage is THE STUPIDEST financial instrument a house-dreamer can use. If you can't afford a 15-year fixed, you shouldn't be buying.
I can see some sudden, uncommon circumstances may force people into a 30-year, but job loss, a new car, and a new roof ain't those circumstances. Job loss happens often, plan for it. Roofs need to be replaced, plan for it. Cars need to be replaced, plan for it and buy used if necessary. Or be up shits creek. Your choice.
1) Bitch spent more than she earned (pay off credit cards, huh....).
2) Got deep in a hole.
3) Didn't think past her nose (what, you mean roofs need to be replaced every so often? You mean I should set aside $$$ every year for maintenance?)
Foreclosure follows as night follows day.
Yet she is "responsible". Riiiiigggggtttttt.
Enjoy the cat food you sponge.
$6 screwtop Merlot
Was the store out of Wild Irish Rose?
Alan needs to have his exclamation point privileges revoked. It's only the 3rd and he's already exhausted his monthly quota.
Enjoy the cat food you sponge.
In 19/8 time!
"If you're blowing through much wine, you're foolish for not buying it in boxes. I don't drink wine like a snob: I drink it like I'm French, so boxes it is for me."
Me too. There are some very good French wines that come in a box.
Dear Ms. Ulery,
Go fuck yourself. I've made less than the median income my entire goddamned adult life, yet I am debt-free and have a couple year's salary in the bank. Oh, and I'm a renter, too, because I can't afford to buy a house. (I can get a mortgage, but I understand that is not the same thing.)
Do you know why I am "debt free?" Because -- work with me here, dollface -- I DID NOT TAKE OUT ANY DEBT! (Except my student loans, and I lived beneath my means until I could pay the goddamned things off.)
I too shop at thrift stores, but -- work with me here, dollface -- I only spend money I've already earned rather than borrow against money I don't fucking have yet. If, by contrast, I borrowed tens of thousands of dollars, I'd still be a spendthrift jackass even if I spent all that money in thrift stores and overstock outlets.
Also, given your age, taking out a 30-year mortgage suggests your main repayment plan was "drop dead before the bills come due." You should seriously consider doing so; sounds a hell of a lot better than expecting ME to pay higher taxes out of my pathetically tiny paycheck to bail your prodigal ass out.
P.S. I don't track my monthly expenses on a spreadsheet, either. Never have. Yet I still manage to live within my means and bank money each month. How the hell do I work this benign magic without cute color-coded computer programs? Like this: "Don't spend money until you've already earned it."
P.P.S. Seriously, go fuck yourself.
Jennifer, that was full of ad homs. I think you may have conceded her points with your childish anti-intellectualism.
Jennifer wrote a good comment. Please die New York Times.
"How the hell do I work this benign magic without cute color-coded computer programs?"
I think it's because you're a witch.
I think you may have conceded her points with your childish anti-intellectualism.
Telling her to go fuck herself concedes her point that her problems are not her fault and the taxpayers should bail her out? Pray do explain why.
I'll check this comment board for your answer in a few minutes; first, I have to plaster a sincere-looking smile on my face and nod in faux sympathy while some local people complain about how my state government wants to reduce its enormous budget deficit by -- the horror! -- reducing the amount of taxpayer money it hands out to people who have done exactly jack-shit to earn it.
Side note: even with the allegedly inhumane budget cuts, I've figured out that, provided I took all my money out of the bank and hid it somewhere untraceable, I would make more money each month if I quit my job, caught pregnant, pooped out a kid in nine months and then said "Whaaa, I am an unemployed single mommy!" The free health insurance alone would almost make it worthwhile. But I"m not going to do that; I'll just continue paying for those who do.
So yeah, I'll admit, I have zero goddamned sympathy right now for anyone who insists THEIR stupid decisions are somehow MY responsibility to clean up.
Also, someone should tell Ms. Elery that a car-- especially a Hyundai -- is a depreciating asset, and anyone who would borrow against their HOME for a depreciating asset is a dumbass.
P.S. to Ms. Ulery:
If you don't want to fuck yourself (I understand your generation might be squickier about such things than mine), then impale yourself on your Hyundai's gearshift instead. Get something worthwhile out of your bullshit debt.
Warty--I was going to tell you that I don't think Jennifer is in on the meta-joke, but alas, I am too late.
goddammit, that's just inexcusable.
I understand your generation might be squickier about such things than mine
Nah, she's a child of the free-love 1960's.
I get the feeling Ms. Ulery has responsibility issues somewhat similar to Jennifer's mother.
Sorry Jennifer, I guess not everyone has the time to mock Lonewacko with us all day. He's been ending his posts with
It makes me giggle like a schoolgirl.
Not to pour more fuel on the fire, but wouldn't making 12 years of payments at least make a dent on the principal? And $20,000 would cover at least 57 squares of the most expensive roofing. (5700 square feet - modest 2 bedroom?).
I figure at least $30k RIGHT UP HER NOSE....
P.S.: shut the fuck up, Mrs. Ulery, you spinster.
I figure at least $30k RIGHT UP HER NOSE....
Poolboys, dude. They don't come cheap, and have you seen the price of baby oil lately?
"the madness of leveraging your most valuable asset to pay your most insignificant debts"
But that's what "freedom" is -- the ability to ignore reality in favor of personal pretense!
In other words, it's okay to to use your home as a credit card and then not pay it back, as long as you buy a cheap car, load up on two buck Chuck, and blow the rest on yard sales....
@ JW @ 5:10PM
OOPS. Read the purchase year as 1977.
You are correct.
My point was essentially that a very modest excess of expenditure over income can add up to big debts over time. (Try calculating the balance owning for a $10 weekly deficit over 10 years at a credit card rate of interest. Ms. Ulery and many like her get themselves into a hole in tiny increments and can avoid it by relatively modest adjustments to their lifestyle.)
Ah, a Lonewacko reference. I'm clearly behind on my posting activities, which is why I no longer get all the Hit and Run in-jokes. I would like to post more, but I have no time for it because I have to work my full-time job AND whatever freelance gigs I can grab so I can afford to pay the higher taxes to bail out irresponsible jackholes who spent the last several years making considerably more than me but decided to piss it all away, which is apparently my fault so I have to pay for it.
Note to self: work harder. Eileen Ulery needs my money.
One's home, in particular, and real estate, in general, are depreciating assets themselves. In fact, the very quintessence of a depreciating asset.
Just gotta tell it like it is, as it has been for the past 24-36 months and as it will continue to be for quite some time.
My point was essentially that a very modest excess of expenditure over income can add up to big debts over time.
Point taken. I was kinda blown away by how a small number of bottles/week added up to such a large number.
We probably drink about a bottle/week in my house, plus a few beers and/or disilled beverages, on average. I never stopped before to thik what that adds up to over time. Yikes!
Cela va sans dire, my last post is not to be construed as empathy or sympathy or as an endorsement of our protagonist's pocketbook practices. Just sayin' that trillions of real estate depreciation is the reality.
BTW, Jennifer is better than Suze Orman.
So yeah, I'll admit, I have zero goddamned sympathy right now for anyone who insists THEIR stupid decisions are somehow MY responsibility to clean up.
Jennifer if I wasn't already married you WOULD be the next Mrs. Imprudent (whether that offends you or not).
Fortunately, you're quite safe. The incumbent Mrs. Imprudent has no plans to relinquish her hold on my balls position.
Jennifer--Right off the bat, I am in 100% agreement with you on your rant, but I am in debt, through no one's fault but my own. Why? Children.
Only 2 of them equals a sizable chunk of our paychecks. I equate each of them to a 7-series Beemer payment every month. I'm probably low-balling it even then.
Saving up for their college, putting away for our 401K's as much as possible (we got a surprise from the IRS this year when, after already taking about 25% of our money, said we still owed them another $3K!--onto the credit card that went.) We need to have 2 cars and we live in a modest house with a low mortgage. We have no HELOC out on it. Still, we needed new windows for the house; the old ones were falling apart: credit card. The back gutter just fell of the house: $600 -- maybe cash. Summer camp is coming up for the kids: $4300. That's on top of the $600/month for after-care at the school, since both me and missus work full-time jobs.
Still, our debt is manageable and I pay it down as fast as possible. My student loans were paid off a couple months ago (WOO-HOO!) and my car is about 15 months away from being paid off. We shop at Wal-Mart and thrift stores for the kids' clothing. Shop at Costco for the bulk supplies. We don't eat out much and overall live fairly frugally (OK, I did just blow $149 on an LCD montor for the computer -- it was a good deal! Ya gotta spend to save! Honest, honey!).
BUT, classes for both kids: art and clarinet classes for daughter, hockey lessons for son, swimming lessons for both and I'm not even talking about toys (whoever runs LEGO should be running the world--they're fucking geniuses at generating revenue) and entertainment costs for kids (movies, etc.). It adds up.
After our little present from the IRS, I decdied to max out our tax-deferred savings, so up goes the 401K contribution and we'll start contributing to a flexible spending plan for the kids' day-care costs. I want to screw the feds out of as much revenue as possible, at least for the time being.
So, thank your childless stars (and prudence) for your finacial situation.
Reminds me of a recent NPR man-on-the-street interview with a retired auto worker who invested everything in GM stock. I feel bad for him, but I gotta say, "Dude, that that was a really bad idea."
"whoever runs LEGO should be running the world--they're fucking geniuses at generating revenue"
It's the Danish elves. They've figured out step two.
Hah! Walmart has $2 merlots and they even come with a fake rubber cork! I get to be 3x as drunk as this dumbass while popping fake corks and shrinking my debt by living frugally!
It's the Danish elves. They've figured out step two.
Dude, have you ever been to a LEGO convention? It's truly mind-boggling all the different ways they have managed to move and position their products. Schools would pay real money to get a 1/10 of the level of intensity the kids there show on their projects.
There was a room where they simply had thousands and thousands of LEGO peices all over the room and dozens of kids at a time happily building whatever floats their boat. You have to bow to LEGO's genius and ingenuity (and the kids too).
A couple of points on how frugal this woman in Arizona is.
(a) $20,000 for a roof seems excessive. I live in high-priced southern California, and we got a new roof several years ago for under $5000 on our home.
My store is part of a building with 6 units, and the entire roof was redone about 5 years ago for $12000.
(b) shopping yard sales seems "cheap" but she is shopping yard sales for collectibles, which may be cheap but are in addition to her living expenses. She is not saving on living expenses by shopping at yard sales.
Anyway, expect MANY more stories like this as the overmortgaged newspaper business tries to milk sympather from their readers - or just fill space.
Gene:
I've found that point (b) is really relevant to living within your means. A lot of people will go on about how they always buy stuff on sale and wonder why they are up to their eyeballs in debt. It's because they always buy stuff thats on sale, even if they don't need it.
Standard libertarian disclaimer applies regarding people being allowed to spend their money on whatever they want. Just don't make me bail out your sorry ass when you can't afford the bill at Wal-Mart because you added a bunch of frivolous bullshit.
The 30-year mortgage is THE STUPIDEST financial instrument a house-dreamer can use. If you can't afford a 15-year fixed, you shouldn't be buying.
Why the fuck would I want a 15 year note when the 30 year note is less than 50 basis points more? Hell, last time I refi'ed they were within 25 bp of each other.
Dr. K @ 10:51 PM
Well, if the interest rate for both terms was 4.5%, the interest cost and payments for a $250,000 mortgage would be as follows:
30 Years
Interest $206,016.78 Payment $1,266.71
15 Years
Interest $94,246.98 Payment $1,912.48
Now, it is possible that you can invest the $645.77/month difference and come out with a sum larger than the balance still owing at the end of the first 15 years, but you are still going to be stuck with payments for another 15 years.
I guess "concede" doesn't mean what I thought it meant.
Maybe she was mugged in an alley and forced to sign a contract for a HELOC.
Equally stupid and culpable in this story is the bank staffed by mouth-breathing morons which extended a 30-year-mortgage to a 52-year-old woman and then let her stack a few home equity loans on top of that.
Further down the list of participants in this clusterfuck you can include any of that bank's depositors, who provided it with the funds to lend, as well as the FDIC, which promised those depositors they would never lose money no matter how goddamned recklessly their bank threw it around.
Back in the nineteenth century, when the FDIC and federal bailouts had not yet run every banker with a brain out of the business, most of them wouldn't lend against real estate at all.
BTW this thread is really short on snooty assholes explaining that the reason libertarians will never win elections is that we think that frugal people who avoided Ulery's debt trap actually made better decisions than she did, and may actually even be better people.
I mean, the nerve! Really!
Not quite true.
Bankers in the 19th century would advance mortgage money, but only to borrowers who had a high percentage of equity (50% or more) in their property.
It was also the "golden age" of predatory lending when mortgage terms were extremely onerous and minor defaults were used as an excuse to deprive people of their interest in their property. (e.g. Being one day late on a payment was used as an excuse to foreclose and take full possession, even if the mortgage was a miniscule percentage of the value of the property.)
"She drinks $6 screwtop merlot -- a mark of thrift "
If you aren't drinking $2 buck Chuck you aren't really economizing.
Now, it is possible that you can invest the $645.77/month difference and come out with a sum larger than the balance still owing at the end of the first 15 years, but you are still going to be stuck with payments for another 15 years.
I'm going to take this bet 10 out of 10 times. It's like doubling down on 11 to a dealer's 6. You're not going to win 100% of the time, but the odds are heavily in your favor.
Hell, if you assume discount rates comparable to conservative bond and equity returns of the 20th century, then the net present cost of the 30 year note is significantly LESS than that of the 15.
Aresen, one thing that's puzzled me in this debacle was whether there's a mortgage bust-out king somewhere out there: somebody who intentionally provides a mortgage to a high-risk borrower, with an eye toward collecting a few payments and then taking possession of the house when the borrower goes south.
This business model would require you to have lending infrastructure plus flipping and reselling infrastructure for when you take possession, but it seems like it could be done.
In this golden age of no money down, the numbers probably wouldn't work: As a lender you'd just end up paying full price for the house. But in the 50% equity situation you describe, or even when the borrower has much less than 50%, you could really make a killing.
I keep hearing that banks don't want to own your house, and I believe it. But then I keep seeing these commercials where old people talk about how glad they are that they took a reverse mortgage. So I have to wonder: Hasn't somebody out there figured out how to combine the two?
Tim
The reverse-mortgage business works by a using actuarial formulas to determine the present value of a stream of payments or the present discounted value of the estimated value of the property at the time of the decease of the homeowner. (Some may include clauses where the property transfers when the owner moves out, say to a nursing home.)
Thus, if you take out a reverse mortgage when your life expectancy is 15 years, the lender will calculate what the property is expected to be worth in 15 years, discount the value by the desired rate of return and either give you a lump sum or an annuity based on that discounted value.
The lenders make generous allowances in their favor in the discounted value. You have to beat the actuarial tables by a wide margin to come out ahead.
The business is especially lucrative in a time of rising prices as the lenders usually assume the future value of the home is equal to the current appraised value.
An important point in favor of the reverse mortgage is that the homeowner gets to enjoy the value of his property at a younger age in lieu of having a larger sum at a time when he may not be able to do many of the activities he now enjoys.
As for the "predatory lenders" of the 19th century, the high equity requirements tended to keep lower income people - who would also tend to be less sophisticated - out of the mortgage market. One of the justifiable regulatory reforms, in most jurisdictions, was a requirement that, in the event of a forced sale, any sale proceeds in excess of the amount required to reimburse the lenders and their costs had to go back to the owner. Also, lenders were required to dispose of the property at fair market value and provide information to support the value.
Hmmmmm
Ms. Ulery is currently 63 and living off of "her university pension" with a 30 year mortgage that she "refinanced again in 2007" and "she owes $143,000" on.
Lets see in 2007 she would have been 60-61, so a 30 year mortgage would have put the payoff when she was 90-91. Well past her expected life span.
"For two decades, she worked as an executive assistant at nearby Arizona State University". So we can assume either she was at or nearly at the number of years to retire outright, so we can assume she was planning on retiring between 5-10 years after she refinanced. And since she negotiated "to have her university pension begin earlier" and as the story states it isn't enough to cover her mortgage payments and living expenses, we have to assume that she knew her income at retirement wouldn't be enough.
Sounds to me that her plan was to work a few more years, retire, sell her house for a profit and move somewhere else. So she is one of the "people in financial danger" "because of reckless gambling on real estate". Gambling that housing prices would either stay at their 2007 prices or go up when the predicted "loss of income" occured. It's just that whooops, the value of her house fell below what she owed on it and now she is reversed in her house.
To paraphrase the final two paragraphs.
"What sort of deal is it for the American taxpayer" to bail her out. As I see it, the same people that generated the mortgage crisis are now getting clamoring for public money to fix their mistakes, while doing little more than whining about having to pay for benefits they already received.
The 30-year mortgage is THE STUPIDEST financial instrument a house-dreamer can use. If you can't afford a 15-year fixed, you shouldn't be buying.
When we refinanced the 30 year and 15 year carried the same interest rate. For us it made sense to take the 30 year and make 15 year payments so we had a buffer should anything happen to our income.
Four years ago I borrowed over $12,000 on my home equity loan. I payed off car repair bills, medical bills, bought a new car and a shiny red motorcycle! But after 24 months of eating baloney sandwiches, clipping coupons, and selling household items on Ebay, I'll be paying off that loan next month. No one really realizes how difficult it is to pay back just a few thousand borrowed dollars when your income is around 35 thou a year. Sure it was difficult and took a while but I borrowed it and I paid it back.
This article is fantastic.
I love you, Reason!!
Dude, have you ever been to a LEGO convention? It's truly mind-boggling all the different ways they have managed to move and position their products.
I met the General Counsel of Lego America several years ago. One of the very few people I would trade jobs with.
The NYT economic reporting continues to blow chunks. This story can be summarized as "Housing market corrects, women, elderly hardest hit."
She must have replaced her condo roof with some kind of platinum-plated eterna-shingle to pay that kind of money for it. Or she got royally ripped off.
I've got a thirty-year loan on my house, even though I could easily afford a fifteen year loan, both to have lower cash flow demands in case of career catastrophe, and because I think that the after-tax interest rate is so ridiculously low that the arbitrage is irresistable. I also make 13 payments a year (one of those every other week deals), so its really something like a 22 year loan.
Re: roof
How does someone in Mesa spend $20K on a new roof? Easy, she had a tile roof. An 1800 sq ft house would have approx. 2400 sq ft roof or 24 squares. A tile square would run $600 to $1,600 installed.
JW,
Big mistake bringing your kids into a discussion with Jennifer. She wishes she'd never been born. I believe "crotch snotling" is her epithet of choice. She'd never deign to "poop" out a kid, but doesn't mind crapping from a great height. Look out below!
I believe "crotch snotling" is her epithet of choice.
I believe you are badly mistaken; I have never once used that particular turn of phrase,nor anything close. Get your facts straight before embarking on a sneerfest.
How does someone in Mesa spend $20K on a new roof? Easy, she had a tile roof.
Tile roofing lasts practically forever. Estimated useful life is at least 50 years. No way does her condo need to have its entire tile roof replaced (absent, of course, catastrophically shoddy construction).
Now, if she had a shingle roof, the time frame for replacement is about right.
Still, thanks mucho to the NYT for giving us the facts on this. Not.
I can't believe I forgot their orthodontia! About $1500 per kid after insurance coverage. That comes out of our bank account every month on an installment plan from the orthodontist.
I blame the wife for this, with her genetically poor dental structure. I never had braces.
Many consumers think of lenders as the enemy. They are the ones charging expensive fees, giving borrowers high interest rates and, when it comes to reverse mortgages, taking advantage of seniors. Fortunately, this could not be further from the truth.
http://www.reversemortgagelend.....s-it-work/
http://www.reversemortgagelend.....dvantages/