Menu

Home › Forums › Housing › ‘We’re in the Middle of a Crash’: Black Swan

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 106 total)
1 2 3 … 6 7 8
  • Author
    Posts
  • July 2, 2009 at 9:10 PM #15980
    equalizer
    Participant

    We’re in the middle of a crash,” Taleb said. “So if I’m going to forecast something, it is that it’s going to get worse, not better.”

    The government needs to deleverage debt and not try stimulus packages that will inflate assets, he said.

    “What makes me very pessimistic in not seeing any leadership or awareness on parts of government on what has to be done, which is deleverage $40-to-$70 trillion,” Taleb said.

    “The monkey on our back is debt,” he added.

    As an example, Taleb said banks should not be sending demands for larger and larger sums from homeowner in arrears on their mortgage. Instead the bank should offer to lower the monthly payments in return for part-ownership of the property.

    “People would be able to start from scratch on a healthy basis. You don’t want to wait for foreclosure,” he said.

    Good idea about the homes, some programs already have the option built in for loan modifications. And you wont have complete moral hazard.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/31706523

    July 2, 2009 at 9:37 PM #424430
    XBoxBoy
    Participant

    [quote]
    As an example, Taleb said banks should not be sending demands for larger and larger sums from homeowner in arrears on their mortgage. Instead the bank should offer to lower the monthly payments in return for part-ownership of the property.
    [/quote]

    When I see comments like this I just shake my head. Doesn’t Taleb understand that the bank already owns 100% of the house since the mortgage is more than the house’s market value? How can the bank take part-ownership when they already own 100% of the house?

    I agree that it’s disheartening that our government leaders don’t know what’s going on, but it’s just as disheartening to see “experts” who also don’t get it.

    XBoxBoy

    July 2, 2009 at 9:37 PM #424663
    XBoxBoy
    Participant

    [quote]
    As an example, Taleb said banks should not be sending demands for larger and larger sums from homeowner in arrears on their mortgage. Instead the bank should offer to lower the monthly payments in return for part-ownership of the property.
    [/quote]

    When I see comments like this I just shake my head. Doesn’t Taleb understand that the bank already owns 100% of the house since the mortgage is more than the house’s market value? How can the bank take part-ownership when they already own 100% of the house?

    I agree that it’s disheartening that our government leaders don’t know what’s going on, but it’s just as disheartening to see “experts” who also don’t get it.

    XBoxBoy

    July 2, 2009 at 9:37 PM #424944
    XBoxBoy
    Participant

    [quote]
    As an example, Taleb said banks should not be sending demands for larger and larger sums from homeowner in arrears on their mortgage. Instead the bank should offer to lower the monthly payments in return for part-ownership of the property.
    [/quote]

    When I see comments like this I just shake my head. Doesn’t Taleb understand that the bank already owns 100% of the house since the mortgage is more than the house’s market value? How can the bank take part-ownership when they already own 100% of the house?

    I agree that it’s disheartening that our government leaders don’t know what’s going on, but it’s just as disheartening to see “experts” who also don’t get it.

    XBoxBoy

    July 2, 2009 at 9:37 PM #425014
    XBoxBoy
    Participant

    [quote]
    As an example, Taleb said banks should not be sending demands for larger and larger sums from homeowner in arrears on their mortgage. Instead the bank should offer to lower the monthly payments in return for part-ownership of the property.
    [/quote]

    When I see comments like this I just shake my head. Doesn’t Taleb understand that the bank already owns 100% of the house since the mortgage is more than the house’s market value? How can the bank take part-ownership when they already own 100% of the house?

    I agree that it’s disheartening that our government leaders don’t know what’s going on, but it’s just as disheartening to see “experts” who also don’t get it.

    XBoxBoy

    July 2, 2009 at 9:37 PM #425178
    XBoxBoy
    Participant

    [quote]
    As an example, Taleb said banks should not be sending demands for larger and larger sums from homeowner in arrears on their mortgage. Instead the bank should offer to lower the monthly payments in return for part-ownership of the property.
    [/quote]

    When I see comments like this I just shake my head. Doesn’t Taleb understand that the bank already owns 100% of the house since the mortgage is more than the house’s market value? How can the bank take part-ownership when they already own 100% of the house?

    I agree that it’s disheartening that our government leaders don’t know what’s going on, but it’s just as disheartening to see “experts” who also don’t get it.

    XBoxBoy

    July 2, 2009 at 11:16 PM #424460
    CA renter
    Participant

    I’m thinking he’s referring to the lender taking a stake in any appreciation — up to the point that the mortgage is paid off (with interest, I’d hope).

    This, as opposed to principal reductions, would be my guess.

    July 2, 2009 at 11:16 PM #424693
    CA renter
    Participant

    I’m thinking he’s referring to the lender taking a stake in any appreciation — up to the point that the mortgage is paid off (with interest, I’d hope).

    This, as opposed to principal reductions, would be my guess.

    July 2, 2009 at 11:16 PM #424974
    CA renter
    Participant

    I’m thinking he’s referring to the lender taking a stake in any appreciation — up to the point that the mortgage is paid off (with interest, I’d hope).

    This, as opposed to principal reductions, would be my guess.

    July 2, 2009 at 11:16 PM #425044
    CA renter
    Participant

    I’m thinking he’s referring to the lender taking a stake in any appreciation — up to the point that the mortgage is paid off (with interest, I’d hope).

    This, as opposed to principal reductions, would be my guess.

    July 2, 2009 at 11:16 PM #425209
    CA renter
    Participant

    I’m thinking he’s referring to the lender taking a stake in any appreciation — up to the point that the mortgage is paid off (with interest, I’d hope).

    This, as opposed to principal reductions, would be my guess.

    July 3, 2009 at 8:13 AM #424525
    jficquette
    Participant

    [quote=XBoxBoy][quote]
    As an example, Taleb said banks should not be sending demands for larger and larger sums from homeowner in arrears on their mortgage. Instead the bank should offer to lower the monthly payments in return for part-ownership of the property.
    [/quote]

    When I see comments like this I just shake my head. Doesn’t Taleb understand that the bank already owns 100% of the house since the mortgage is more than the house’s market value? How can the bank take part-ownership when they already own 100% of the house?

    I agree that it’s disheartening that our government leaders don’t know what’s going on, but it’s just as disheartening to see “experts” who also don’t get it.

    XBoxBoy
    [/quote]

    They have 100% of the risk now but no ownership until they take the property.

    He is saying take part ownership now in exchange for loan modifications.

    Basically selling part of the property to the Bank.

    It would change the accounting treatment of how the loans are valued.

    John

    July 3, 2009 at 8:13 AM #424758
    jficquette
    Participant

    [quote=XBoxBoy][quote]
    As an example, Taleb said banks should not be sending demands for larger and larger sums from homeowner in arrears on their mortgage. Instead the bank should offer to lower the monthly payments in return for part-ownership of the property.
    [/quote]

    When I see comments like this I just shake my head. Doesn’t Taleb understand that the bank already owns 100% of the house since the mortgage is more than the house’s market value? How can the bank take part-ownership when they already own 100% of the house?

    I agree that it’s disheartening that our government leaders don’t know what’s going on, but it’s just as disheartening to see “experts” who also don’t get it.

    XBoxBoy
    [/quote]

    They have 100% of the risk now but no ownership until they take the property.

    He is saying take part ownership now in exchange for loan modifications.

    Basically selling part of the property to the Bank.

    It would change the accounting treatment of how the loans are valued.

    John

    July 3, 2009 at 8:13 AM #425041
    jficquette
    Participant

    [quote=XBoxBoy][quote]
    As an example, Taleb said banks should not be sending demands for larger and larger sums from homeowner in arrears on their mortgage. Instead the bank should offer to lower the monthly payments in return for part-ownership of the property.
    [/quote]

    When I see comments like this I just shake my head. Doesn’t Taleb understand that the bank already owns 100% of the house since the mortgage is more than the house’s market value? How can the bank take part-ownership when they already own 100% of the house?

    I agree that it’s disheartening that our government leaders don’t know what’s going on, but it’s just as disheartening to see “experts” who also don’t get it.

    XBoxBoy
    [/quote]

    They have 100% of the risk now but no ownership until they take the property.

    He is saying take part ownership now in exchange for loan modifications.

    Basically selling part of the property to the Bank.

    It would change the accounting treatment of how the loans are valued.

    John

    July 3, 2009 at 8:13 AM #425109
    jficquette
    Participant

    [quote=XBoxBoy][quote]
    As an example, Taleb said banks should not be sending demands for larger and larger sums from homeowner in arrears on their mortgage. Instead the bank should offer to lower the monthly payments in return for part-ownership of the property.
    [/quote]

    When I see comments like this I just shake my head. Doesn’t Taleb understand that the bank already owns 100% of the house since the mortgage is more than the house’s market value? How can the bank take part-ownership when they already own 100% of the house?

    I agree that it’s disheartening that our government leaders don’t know what’s going on, but it’s just as disheartening to see “experts” who also don’t get it.

    XBoxBoy
    [/quote]

    They have 100% of the risk now but no ownership until they take the property.

    He is saying take part ownership now in exchange for loan modifications.

    Basically selling part of the property to the Bank.

    It would change the accounting treatment of how the loans are valued.

    John

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 106 total)
1 2 3 … 6 7 8
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.