- 28,485
- 53,912
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2007
LoL
Says the dude that sold his LTC ATH.
I should of have follow suit and started over.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
LoL
Says the dude that sold his LTC ATH.
I should of have follow suit and started over.
I feel for those who bought ltc in the $300s /QUOTE]
Raises hand in shame.
So is anyone else BUYING right now? On reddit, it seems everyone is jumping ship, but to me this screams buy everything. The goal for me was to get 10 neo asap and with it dropping every day, i'm grabbing more and more.
This has been reiterated plenty times in thread during the boom.See, this is what I don't get. Either you cash out and take your losses or you stay in? Unless you have to put food on the table or something, why not wait and see if it goes back up? People on Reddit talk about dumping all the time when their 50k is worth 4. I thought we were supposed to only invest the money we are willing to lose?
Please explain.
It's nothing remotely close to the 2000's. Back then you could have a 450 credit score and not be able to prove any income and buy a house with no money down. Now a couple banks are going down to 550-560 or so (keep in mind FHA goes to 580 so 560 isn't THAT low). The difference is now the income/asset requirements are very strict. Their credit profile may show it's a risk but at least they have the income to pay it. Doesn't mean they will, but we know they can. In the 2000's people got loans they couldn't pay for from day 1. There's a local shop here that started doing it in the last year. They require 20% down on every purchase (Fannie/Freddie is 5% and FHA is 3.5%), 12 months cash reserves (12 months house payments), and will only go to 45% DTI (Fannie/Freddie/FHA go to 50%). They'll go to 550 credit score if you can show all of that. The risk on that loan is very very low. Lower than a 620 with 5% down on a conventional mortgage. If it goes bad in a year, they still have the 20% down payment to make up for any losses they incur selling the house.They’re [banks] still exposing themselves to subprime loans. Might not be in the same fashion [direct lending] or amount as in 2008, but it’s still happening. Here’s an article from a couple months ago: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/big...to-stay-in-the-subprime-lending-business.html.
It's nothing remotely close to the 2000's. Back then you could have a 450 credit score and not be able to prove any income and buy a house with no money down. Now a couple banks are going down to 550-560 or so (keep in mind FHA goes to 580 so 560 isn't THAT low). The difference is now the income/asset requirements are very strict. Their credit profile may show it's a risk but at least they have the income to pay it. Doesn't mean they will, but we know they can. In the 2000's people got loans they couldn't pay for from day 1. There's a local shop here that started doing it in the last year. They require 20% down on every purchase (Fannie/Freddie is 5% and FHA is 3.5%), 12 months cash reserves (12 months house payments), and will only go to 45% DTI (Fannie/Freddie/FHA go to 50%). They'll go to 550 credit score if you can show all of that. The risk on that loan is very very low. Lower than a 620 with 5% down on a conventional mortgage. If it goes bad in a year, they still have the 20% down payment to make up for any losses they incur selling the house.
In summary, subprime loans aren't a bad investment if the proper risk management is taken. It's no income/no assets on a 450 with 0% down that was the issue.
There's no opinion here, it's actual fact. There's nothing to disagree with. Credit score is not the sole risk factor. If you mitigate in other areas, credit score doesn't matter. Grading risk on a file solely off credit score is beyond dumb.We can agree to disagree.
It's silly to think that small market is going to bring the market down, especially when you factor in there's zero risk for the bank bc they have 20% down to mitigate any losses they incur if the loan goes bad.
But they ARE being extra careful. That's the part you aren't grasping. You, like most people that aren't in the business, think credit score is all that matters. It's not. There's several other factors that can make a credit score moot. It's all about mitigating risk and the banks are doing that now.No one even stated or implied this. All I’m saying is there IS a housing bubble and people that have no business getting loans for houses are getting them. I even said it’s not as big as the 2008 one, but to ignore the risk or act like these banks are being EXTRA careful is laughable. That’s all I’m saying on this. Back to the crypto talk, please.
But they ARE being extra careful. That's the part you aren't grasping. You, like most people that aren't in the business, think credit score is all that matters.
Your responded to this post:Where did I say this?
Housing bubble is people buying houses, artificially inflating the value because of the access of easy loans with no credit or down payment and not having the money to keep it. I don’t see that being the case here.
by saying it was happening bc you read a few articles on the internet that said banks are doing subprime loans. All subprime loans aren't equal. That's what you can't grasp.