<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: re:</title>
	<atom:link href="http://kaiyen.com/blog/2009/01/07/re/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://kaiyen.com/blog/2009/01/07/re/</link>
	<description>Why have 10 blogs on specific topics when you can have just 1 with all kinds of random topics?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 13:47:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: kaiyen</title>
		<link>http://kaiyen.com/blog/2009/01/07/re/comment-page-1/#comment-373</link>
		<dc:creator>kaiyen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:19:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kaiyen.com/blog/?p=298#comment-373</guid>
		<description>At one point, the idea was thrown out that a fund be setup that loaned only to people with good FICO scores.  Which you think would be how...loans were determined and meted out in the first place, but apparently not.  

re: ARMS - average person?  Probably not.  This was an economist talking :-).  But over the last 30 years, rates have apparently dropped from 14% to even 6% or a bit more, right?  So technically they would have worked out in the long run no matter what.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At one point, the idea was thrown out that a fund be setup that loaned only to people with good FICO scores.  Which you think would be how&#8230;loans were determined and meted out in the first place, but apparently not.  </p>
<p>re: ARMS &#8211; average person?  Probably not.  This was an economist talking <img src='http://kaiyen.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> .  But over the last 30 years, rates have apparently dropped from 14% to even 6% or a bit more, right?  So technically they would have worked out in the long run no matter what.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Debbie</title>
		<link>http://kaiyen.com/blog/2009/01/07/re/comment-page-1/#comment-372</link>
		<dc:creator>Debbie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:20:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kaiyen.com/blog/?p=298#comment-372</guid>
		<description>You wrote:  &quot;...BUT that the incredibly low rates the government is aiming for are not likely (4%?  something like that) unless the banks decide to lend and take on that kind of risk again.&quot;

4%? I hadn&#039;t heard that number as a goal.  And I agree, rates are NOT going to get that low (and if they do - heck if they get to 4.75% - I&#039;ll be looking into a re-fi myself!).

You also wrote:  &quot;Banks are scared of people with FICO scores of 800, since that just represents past credit stability.  What if that person loses his job tomorrow because of the economy?  Well, that would make that 800 pretty meaningless.&quot;

Nope - gotta disagree here.  FICO is a measure of more than stability.  It measures available credit versus used credit and repayment history, among other (somewhat) mysterious criteria.  So someone with a FICO of 800 (I&#039;m not there, but darn close!) has a HISTORY of responsible payments, reasonable use of credit, and sound financial judgment that most likely transcends any one particular financial setback.  These are the people to whom banks most WANT to lend because the relative risk is so low with that kind of proven track record.

And you wrote about ARMs: &quot;The funny thing about people going with adjustable rate mortgages is that mortgage rates in the..80s? or so were around 14%.  So if you took an ARM back then, and gambled that rates would go down at all, then you’d win out.  It’s funny how that is.&quot;

But ARMs readjust frequently, often every 5 years depending on the terms.  So yes, mortgage rates might have been 14% in the 1980&#039;s, but did they really drop drastically enough over that short time span for the average person to profit significantly from the adjustment?  Not only that, but that person needs to know when to get OUT of the ARM into a fixed rate, or their short-term gains get quickly eaten by long-term losses.

I still think ARMs are like trying to make money by timing the stock market or winning in Vegas: you might get lucky, but you&#039;re much more likely to lose your shirt (or house), even if you do know what you&#039;re doing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You wrote:  &#8220;&#8230;BUT that the incredibly low rates the government is aiming for are not likely (4%?  something like that) unless the banks decide to lend and take on that kind of risk again.&#8221;</p>
<p>4%? I hadn&#8217;t heard that number as a goal.  And I agree, rates are NOT going to get that low (and if they do &#8211; heck if they get to 4.75% &#8211; I&#8217;ll be looking into a re-fi myself!).</p>
<p>You also wrote:  &#8220;Banks are scared of people with FICO scores of 800, since that just represents past credit stability.  What if that person loses his job tomorrow because of the economy?  Well, that would make that 800 pretty meaningless.&#8221;</p>
<p>Nope &#8211; gotta disagree here.  FICO is a measure of more than stability.  It measures available credit versus used credit and repayment history, among other (somewhat) mysterious criteria.  So someone with a FICO of 800 (I&#8217;m not there, but darn close!) has a HISTORY of responsible payments, reasonable use of credit, and sound financial judgment that most likely transcends any one particular financial setback.  These are the people to whom banks most WANT to lend because the relative risk is so low with that kind of proven track record.</p>
<p>And you wrote about ARMs: &#8220;The funny thing about people going with adjustable rate mortgages is that mortgage rates in the..80s? or so were around 14%.  So if you took an ARM back then, and gambled that rates would go down at all, then you’d win out.  It’s funny how that is.&#8221;</p>
<p>But ARMs readjust frequently, often every 5 years depending on the terms.  So yes, mortgage rates might have been 14% in the 1980&#8242;s, but did they really drop drastically enough over that short time span for the average person to profit significantly from the adjustment?  Not only that, but that person needs to know when to get OUT of the ARM into a fixed rate, or their short-term gains get quickly eaten by long-term losses.</p>
<p>I still think ARMs are like trying to make money by timing the stock market or winning in Vegas: you might get lucky, but you&#8217;re much more likely to lose your shirt (or house), even if you do know what you&#8217;re doing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stocks and Bonds &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Elimination of Rising Credit Card Interest Rates</title>
		<link>http://kaiyen.com/blog/2009/01/07/re/comment-page-1/#comment-356</link>
		<dc:creator>Stocks and Bonds &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Elimination of Rising Credit Card Interest Rates</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 07:14:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kaiyen.com/blog/?p=298#comment-356</guid>
		<description>[...] blog of kaiyen » re: [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] blog of kaiyen » re: [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

