Sad day for America
in [Toyota]
|
From: Obveeus on 29 Mar 2010 13:05 "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > On 29/03/10 5:47 AM, Obveeus wrote: >> Apparently, many people think that the American citizen is not to blame >> even >> though the very root of the problem is that most people try to buy homes >> at >> the absolute limit of their purchasing capability...and once they do >> that, >> they keep spending money for phones, restaurant outings, HD TVs, etc... >> instead of buckling down and living like paupers since they have chosen >> to >> sign away all of their income towards a house payment. > > This is true, but that's where regulation is needed because these people > are easy prey for lenders that convinced them that they could afford these > homes. Very few people go first to a lender to get advise on what they can afford. Most home buyers are looking for and finding the home first, then going to the lender and asking 'how do we make this happen'. In many cases, the only way the lender can get them into that 'home of their dreams' is with some backended mortgage with an ARM and/or balloon payment. > A large proportion of the people losing their homes are not > highly-educated, and they believed the hype of lenders, developers, and > real estate people. I haven't seen any stats on education level of people that are currently in foreclosure. Do you have a cite for that? I would advise everyone to stay away from believing anything a new home developer says, as they are about on par in honestly level as used car salesmen. I would advise everyone to stay away from taking financial advise from a real estate agent says, as they are not particularly knowledgeable about anything. >> 2. There should never again be a loan system where 'no proof of income' >> borrowers are allowed to get loans unless they are forking over something >> like a 50% down payment (otherwise, those loans simply attract all the >> liars >> that deserve to be out in the street and hand them free housing). > > This is correct, but I expect that we won't learn any lessons, and this > whole mess will happen again in the next major recession. Look what's > happening now with all these bargain properties being snapped up by those > that didn't get sucked into buying at the peak. They have the cash to buy > houses in depressed areas, areas where banks are unlikely to lend (though > by many accounts they should be waiting another six months for the next > huge wave of foreclosures/short sales). When the market recovers and > overheats they'll unload these properties and the process will start over. Yep...such is the cycle of an economy. It will rise and fall no matter what amount of regulation is in place. The only thing regulation can do is nip off the extent of the peaks and valleys. I do think that government regulation should step in and make it less advantageous to buy a home that the buyer is not intending to live in...and to crack down on all the liars that claim that they will live in the home when they are really buying it for flipping/renting/investment opportunity. > We just sold my late mother's house in Florida. It's just amazing how > ridiculously low the prices are, but the banks aren't interested in > lending because values are still falling at about 2% a month (and of > course the fact that banks aren't lending helps contribute to the falling > values). Banks are perfectly willing to lend right now. What they don't want to do is lend to people with no/little downpayment when the current mental state of the populace is that a person should not have to make payments on a home if the home has no equity. I'm not sure why people have that mindset, especially in a world where people routinely buy new cars that lose 25%+ of their value the moment they drive off the lot. >> 1. People should learn to be more fiscally conservative. They should >> save >> up for a more significant down payment (say 10%-20% rather than 0%-3%) >> before trying to purchase any home. > > 20% used to be the norm. Then 10% with PMI. These zero-down loans are > insane. Agreed. Also insane is the ever increasing length of mortgages...10 year...then 15 years...then 20 years///then 30 years...and now 40 year loans are making their way towards becoming the new norm.
From: SMS on 29 Mar 2010 13:13 On 29/03/10 9:48 AM, Obveeus wrote: > "Mike Hunter"<Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote in message > news:4bb0d0b7$0$19650$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net... >> What color is the sky in YOUR world? Most 25 year old Toyotas are in the >> junk yards as rusted hulks LOL > > Very few of the Cash For Clunkers cars were 25 year old models, though many > of the newer Toyota models were not eligible simply because they already got > good gas mileage. In the end, 5 of the top 10 most junked cars were FORD, 3 > Mopar and 2 Chevy. Look at the most traded-in versus the most-purchased lists. This program was a boon for Toyota and Honda. At least most of the vehicles purchased were made in the U.S.. People used the program to get rid of their Ford, GM, and Chrysler vehicles, with five of the top ten vehicles traded in being Fords, three being Chrysler's, and two being GMs.
From: SMS on 29 Mar 2010 13:15 On 29/03/10 9:45 AM, C. E. White wrote: > Most of the Fords that people got rid of were older SUVs. Since during > the 90's Ford Explorers were by far the selling SUV is it any surpirse > that they were one of the leading vehicles that were traded in? Six of > the top ten vehicles traded in were old 12 to 16 year old Explorers. > Maybe that is a clue that Fords are pretty reliable. The most > pruchased clunker replacement car was a Ford Focus..... Actually it was a Corolla. The Focus was 4th. "http://jalopnik.com/5346040/its-over-ten-most-traded+in-purchased-cash-for-clunkers-cars/gallery/"
From: Mike Hunter on 29 Mar 2010 14:34 Get real, the most traded vehicles were 1980 to 1987 Ford Explorers, dummy "Obveeus" <Obveeus(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:hoqllr$ska$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote in message > news:4bb0d0b7$0$19650$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net... >> What color is the sky in YOUR world? Most 25 year old Toyotas are in >> the junk yards as rusted hulks LOL > > Very few of the Cash For Clunkers cars were 25 year old models, though > many of the newer Toyota models were not eligible simply because they > already got good gas mileage. In the end, 5 of the top 10 most junked > cars were FORD, 3 Mopar and 2 Chevy. >
From: Mike Hunter on 29 Mar 2010 14:50
You are forgetting the smaller 4Runner cost the buyer at least $1,200 more to drive home when new, than an Explorer, so the Explorer actually returned MORE of ones initial investment. ;) "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> wrote in message news:hoqlfj$tjq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > Most of the Fords that people got rid of were older SUVs. Since during the > 90's Ford Explorers were by far the selling SUV is it any surpirse that > they were one of the leading vehicles that were traded in? Six of the top > ten vehicles traded in were old 12 to 16 year old Explorers. Maybe that is > a clue that Fords are pretty reliable. The most pruchased clunker > replacement car was a Ford Focus..... > > http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1036/top-cash-for-clunkers-trade-ins-and-new-cars/ > >> Of course, if you wanted to get rid of an old Toyota you were likely out >> of luck since old Toyotas got such good gas mileage that you would have >> had to buy an electric/hybrid vehicle in order to see a 'clunkers' >> qualifying level of improvement. > > If you are trying to claim that there was a set improvement that you had > to achieve in order to qualify for the clash for clunkers program, then > you are wrong. There wasn't a qualifying level of imporvement. You just > had to trade in a vehicle on the list of qualifying clunkers and buy a > vehicle on the list of qualifying replacements. The improvement in gas > mileage between the two was irrelevant. So older Corollas wouldn't > qulaify, but older 4Runners would. The same was true with regards to > Focus' and Explorers. The only reason older Toyota trucks weren't on the > list of most tradde clunkers is becasue they sold so few in the first > place. If every 4Runner sold in 1996 had been traded in as a clunker, they > still wouldn't have made the top ten. There jsut weren't enough of them > left around to qualify. And of course, given the love some people have for > Toyotas, they might have been considered to valuable to trade in as a > clunker. A vehicle needed to be on the list AND be worth less than the > rebate. I suspect that many owners of 1994 4Runners might believe their > vehicles to be worth more than $4500. I doubt many 1994 Explorer owners > were so foolish. (for the record, kbb lists a 1994 Explorer with a trade > in value of around $700, a 1994 4Runner has a trade in value of a round > $1200). > > Ed > |