‘We’re in the Middle of a Crash’: Black Swan

[jficquette]

XBoxBoy,

I say let them all go bankrupt.

John

[equalizer]

[quote=XBoxBoy]
Bottom line here is there is no free lunch that’s going to make things better. And “experts” like Taleb need to stop proposing things as if they will.

XBoxBoy

[/quote]
Good points.
However flawed the part ownership, it is better than outright principal reduction. Do you have any better ideas short of foreclosure? Foreclosure may be right idea in San Diego with high demand but in Modesto, Bakersfield, Detroit it may be a disaster.

[equalizer]

[quote=XBoxBoy]
Bottom line here is there is no free lunch that’s going to make things better. And “experts” like Taleb need to stop proposing things as if they will.

XBoxBoy

[/quote]
Good points.
However flawed the part ownership, it is better than outright principal reduction. Do you have any better ideas short of foreclosure? Foreclosure may be right idea in San Diego with high demand but in Modesto, Bakersfield, Detroit it may be a disaster.

[equalizer]

[quote=XBoxBoy]
Bottom line here is there is no free lunch that’s going to make things better. And “experts” like Taleb need to stop proposing things as if they will.

XBoxBoy

[/quote]
Good points.
However flawed the part ownership, it is better than outright principal reduction. Do you have any better ideas short of foreclosure? Foreclosure may be right idea in San Diego with high demand but in Modesto, Bakersfield, Detroit it may be a disaster.

[equalizer]

[quote=XBoxBoy]
Bottom line here is there is no free lunch that’s going to make things better. And “experts” like Taleb need to stop proposing things as if they will.

XBoxBoy

[/quote]
Good points.
However flawed the part ownership, it is better than outright principal reduction. Do you have any better ideas short of foreclosure? Foreclosure may be right idea in San Diego with high demand but in Modesto, Bakersfield, Detroit it may be a disaster.

[equalizer]

[quote=XBoxBoy]
Bottom line here is there is no free lunch that’s going to make things better. And “experts” like Taleb need to stop proposing things as if they will.

XBoxBoy

[/quote]
Good points.
However flawed the part ownership, it is better than outright principal reduction. Do you have any better ideas short of foreclosure? Foreclosure may be right idea in San Diego with high demand but in Modesto, Bakersfield, Detroit it may be a disaster.

[moneymaker]

Like a reverse mortgage?

[moneymaker]

Like a reverse mortgage?

[moneymaker]

Like a reverse mortgage?

[moneymaker]

Like a reverse mortgage?

[moneymaker]

Like a reverse mortgage?

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=equalizer]However flawed the part ownership, it is better than outright principal reduction. [/quote]

While I’m not exactly sure of the details of Taleb’s plan I think it’s straightforward principal reduction in exchange for a part ownership that has little if any value and potentially lots of administrative headaches. If that’s better than outright principal reduction it is only a very small amount better.

[quote=equalizer] Do you have any better ideas short of foreclosure? [/quote]

Back up a second. The problem is that the banks hold loans that due to falling prices are no longer sufficiently collateralized. If the borrower continues to pay the mortgage, the bank does not have a problem. However, if the borrower stops paying the mortgage, the bank has three choices:

1) Take their losses either with a foreclosure or short sale.

2) Outright principal reduction. This is a particularly bad option because doing this for one person only encourages others to go into default hoping to get their principal reduced.

3) Try some scheme that kicks the payments down the road, hoping that some time in the future somehow the borrower coughs up more money. My perspective is that virtually all the schemes put forward, including this one from Mr. Taleb, are nothing more than a fancy cover for this option. They are not a fix, just a postponement of the problem.

Notice that before I listed the bank’s options, I made clear that if the borrower continued to make payments there was no problem. So, if the bank was thinking things through they would realize that a very high priority is to make sure that people keep paying in full at the agreed upon terms. Option 2 and 3 undermine that. (As we’ve discussed in a number of threads here on piggington)

So, regardless of the area I think it’s pretty clear foreclosure and/or short sales are the best answer.

In regards to your comments about areas where the economy is collapsing. (Modesto, Bakersfield, Detroit) In these areas, it’s the broad economic issues that need to be addressed first before housing can be addressed. (ie, what are people in these areas going to produce/sell that will generate the cash coming into the community so that it can grow) Since these issues are not being addressed seriously, I doubt that any kicking the problem down the road will work, only postpone the problem.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=equalizer]However flawed the part ownership, it is better than outright principal reduction. [/quote]

While I’m not exactly sure of the details of Taleb’s plan I think it’s straightforward principal reduction in exchange for a part ownership that has little if any value and potentially lots of administrative headaches. If that’s better than outright principal reduction it is only a very small amount better.

[quote=equalizer] Do you have any better ideas short of foreclosure? [/quote]

Back up a second. The problem is that the banks hold loans that due to falling prices are no longer sufficiently collateralized. If the borrower continues to pay the mortgage, the bank does not have a problem. However, if the borrower stops paying the mortgage, the bank has three choices:

1) Take their losses either with a foreclosure or short sale.

2) Outright principal reduction. This is a particularly bad option because doing this for one person only encourages others to go into default hoping to get their principal reduced.

3) Try some scheme that kicks the payments down the road, hoping that some time in the future somehow the borrower coughs up more money. My perspective is that virtually all the schemes put forward, including this one from Mr. Taleb, are nothing more than a fancy cover for this option. They are not a fix, just a postponement of the problem.

Notice that before I listed the bank’s options, I made clear that if the borrower continued to make payments there was no problem. So, if the bank was thinking things through they would realize that a very high priority is to make sure that people keep paying in full at the agreed upon terms. Option 2 and 3 undermine that. (As we’ve discussed in a number of threads here on piggington)

So, regardless of the area I think it’s pretty clear foreclosure and/or short sales are the best answer.

In regards to your comments about areas where the economy is collapsing. (Modesto, Bakersfield, Detroit) In these areas, it’s the broad economic issues that need to be addressed first before housing can be addressed. (ie, what are people in these areas going to produce/sell that will generate the cash coming into the community so that it can grow) Since these issues are not being addressed seriously, I doubt that any kicking the problem down the road will work, only postpone the problem.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=equalizer]However flawed the part ownership, it is better than outright principal reduction. [/quote]

While I’m not exactly sure of the details of Taleb’s plan I think it’s straightforward principal reduction in exchange for a part ownership that has little if any value and potentially lots of administrative headaches. If that’s better than outright principal reduction it is only a very small amount better.

[quote=equalizer] Do you have any better ideas short of foreclosure? [/quote]

Back up a second. The problem is that the banks hold loans that due to falling prices are no longer sufficiently collateralized. If the borrower continues to pay the mortgage, the bank does not have a problem. However, if the borrower stops paying the mortgage, the bank has three choices:

1) Take their losses either with a foreclosure or short sale.

2) Outright principal reduction. This is a particularly bad option because doing this for one person only encourages others to go into default hoping to get their principal reduced.

3) Try some scheme that kicks the payments down the road, hoping that some time in the future somehow the borrower coughs up more money. My perspective is that virtually all the schemes put forward, including this one from Mr. Taleb, are nothing more than a fancy cover for this option. They are not a fix, just a postponement of the problem.

Notice that before I listed the bank’s options, I made clear that if the borrower continued to make payments there was no problem. So, if the bank was thinking things through they would realize that a very high priority is to make sure that people keep paying in full at the agreed upon terms. Option 2 and 3 undermine that. (As we’ve discussed in a number of threads here on piggington)

So, regardless of the area I think it’s pretty clear foreclosure and/or short sales are the best answer.

In regards to your comments about areas where the economy is collapsing. (Modesto, Bakersfield, Detroit) In these areas, it’s the broad economic issues that need to be addressed first before housing can be addressed. (ie, what are people in these areas going to produce/sell that will generate the cash coming into the community so that it can grow) Since these issues are not being addressed seriously, I doubt that any kicking the problem down the road will work, only postpone the problem.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=equalizer]However flawed the part ownership, it is better than outright principal reduction. [/quote]

While I’m not exactly sure of the details of Taleb’s plan I think it’s straightforward principal reduction in exchange for a part ownership that has little if any value and potentially lots of administrative headaches. If that’s better than outright principal reduction it is only a very small amount better.

[quote=equalizer] Do you have any better ideas short of foreclosure? [/quote]

Back up a second. The problem is that the banks hold loans that due to falling prices are no longer sufficiently collateralized. If the borrower continues to pay the mortgage, the bank does not have a problem. However, if the borrower stops paying the mortgage, the bank has three choices:

1) Take their losses either with a foreclosure or short sale.

2) Outright principal reduction. This is a particularly bad option because doing this for one person only encourages others to go into default hoping to get their principal reduced.

3) Try some scheme that kicks the payments down the road, hoping that some time in the future somehow the borrower coughs up more money. My perspective is that virtually all the schemes put forward, including this one from Mr. Taleb, are nothing more than a fancy cover for this option. They are not a fix, just a postponement of the problem.

Notice that before I listed the bank’s options, I made clear that if the borrower continued to make payments there was no problem. So, if the bank was thinking things through they would realize that a very high priority is to make sure that people keep paying in full at the agreed upon terms. Option 2 and 3 undermine that. (As we’ve discussed in a number of threads here on piggington)

So, regardless of the area I think it’s pretty clear foreclosure and/or short sales are the best answer.

In regards to your comments about areas where the economy is collapsing. (Modesto, Bakersfield, Detroit) In these areas, it’s the broad economic issues that need to be addressed first before housing can be addressed. (ie, what are people in these areas going to produce/sell that will generate the cash coming into the community so that it can grow) Since these issues are not being addressed seriously, I doubt that any kicking the problem down the road will work, only postpone the problem.

XBoxBoy

[Author]

Posts