- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 11/12/25 at 9:22 pm to 10thyrsr
quote:
This is because of my previous point. Blackrock and other investors are buying up homes quickly because they know people need a place to live. The investors know they can buy a home with cash, bypassing banks. Buy a home at 250k, charge 2k rent a month. They know they can recover the cost of the home in 10 years or less by renting. Then, they STILL have the asset after they have recovered their investment.
This is the issue the admin needs to work on
Posted on 11/12/25 at 9:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
Apologies. I stated Blackrock and meant Blackstone instead. Blackstone owns 274,000 rental units.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 9:54 pm to BigGreenTiger
quote:
If this was to happen, it would be incredible. Seems like it would be difficult for banks to underwrite.
Yes. But if it did, I'm moving tomorrow
Posted on 11/12/25 at 11:02 pm to Kjnstkmn
More jobs for bean counters and lawyers. That won't increase national productivity nor will it cause more things to be made for export.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 11:05 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
No need. The cheap gimmick speaks for itself.
As always you are a buffoon
Posted on 11/12/25 at 11:44 pm to Kjnstkmn
That would actually be incredible for me.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 5:46 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
The banks would never allow this. Anyone with a mortgage would be locked into a low rate for life.
The banks would not have a choice, but I could envision banks being much more hesitant to lower rates in the future.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 5:58 am to Kjnstkmn
Pretty cool but seem anti-capitalism huh?
Posted on 11/13/25 at 6:00 am to Penrod
quote:
The banks would not have a choice, but I could envision banks being much more hesitant to lower rates in the future.
Yeah if they start this, only new mortgages could apply I reckon, so banks can price in this risk. It doesn't make sense to force old loans under the old calculation onto them.
I could see two rates, with a normal non-transferrable rate and a higher transferrable rate. THAT could work.
And people understand this, that's why you saw the "community bank" socialist bullshite earlier ITT to make it work, b/c only the government could absorb that irrational market position and the inherent risk.
This post was edited on 11/13/25 at 6:01 am
Posted on 11/13/25 at 6:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Yeah if they start this, only new mortgages could apply I reckon, so banks can price in this risk. It doesn't make sense to force old loans under the old calculation onto them.
If they do this it will apply to old mortgages. The only reason they would do it is to kickstart the home buying/building/financing industry. My guess is that the government will subsidize the one-time cost for the old mortgages. So, another pyramid scheme.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 6:08 am to billjamin
quote:
I'm not sure how you could securitize something like that with ever changing asset tied to the loan.
The bank lobby will demand conditions so strict that few properties would qualify.
The bank lobby is strong like bull.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 6:09 am to Penrod
This whole RE stuff is so weird. The answer is obvious, that prices (not costs) are the issue. Keep rates high for another 5-7 years and watch the RE prices fall. That solves the problem and gets RE back to a price scenario reflective of the market.
All of these policies are just ways to lower costs, which will ultimately inflate prices even more, which negates the strategy overall in the long-term, leaving us back at square 1 in the future (with even more inflated prices).
Economic-left policies in a nutshell
All of these policies are just ways to lower costs, which will ultimately inflate prices even more, which negates the strategy overall in the long-term, leaving us back at square 1 in the future (with even more inflated prices).
Economic-left policies in a nutshell
Posted on 11/13/25 at 6:16 am to Penrod
quote:
My guess is that the government will subsidize the one-time cost for the old mortgages. So, another pyramid scheme.
Yep. Too big to fail.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 6:22 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
All of these policies are just ways to lower costs, which will ultimately inflate prices even more, which negates the strategy overall in the long-term, leaving us back at square 1 in the future (with even more inflated prices).
That is true. It is always going to be a problem, though, when you have low interest rates that zoom up. The folks with the low rates just don’t want to lose them. Even if they decide to move there is an incentive to rent the old house rather than sell it. That is always going to create a sluggish market, and incumbent politicians will be unfairly blamed for it, ergo…
Posted on 11/13/25 at 6:35 am to BigGreenTiger
Then, itl's a frick job overall
Now you have 2 mortgages instead of one at different rates.
Pulte looking at ways to get his family and friends more business.
Now you have 2 mortgages instead of one at different rates.
Pulte looking at ways to get his family and friends more business.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 7:01 am to Kjnstkmn
quote:
new state credit unions
Will there also be state run grocery stores and free bus rides?
Posted on 11/13/25 at 8:00 am to billjamin
quote:
I'm not sure how you could securitize something like that with ever changing asset tied to the loan.
This is the issue with the portable mortgage.
The bank owns the asset. The bank assessed the risk on the individual person and property. What if bank says no bueno on the new asset and persons present credit risk? How do you force a bank into a business venture they now deem unsound?
This post was edited on 11/13/25 at 8:02 am
Posted on 11/13/25 at 8:56 am to rltiger
quote:
This is the issue with the portable mortgage. The bank owns the asset. The bank assessed the risk on the individual person and property. What if bank says no bueno on the new asset and persons present credit risk? How do you force a bank into a business venture they now deem unsound?
You don’t — banks are almost always going to say no, and contract law is firmly on their side. Honestly, in the long run, banks should move away from fixed-rate mortgages and focus on adjustable-rate products instead. Fixed rates were a major factor in the failures of SVB and First Republic, and shifting away from them would create a much healthier housing market overall.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 9:03 am to IMSA_Fan
quote:
banks should move away from fixed-rate mortgages and focus on adjustable-rate products instead. Fixed rates were a major factor in the failures of SVB and First Republic, and shifting away from them would create a much healthier housing market overall.
Wasn't this a major issue with the 2009 crash? On the consumer end. I understand your point from the bank POV
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News