- This topic has 230 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 11 months ago by
gandalf.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 24, 2009 at 12:20 PM #486998November 24, 2009 at 1:24 PM #486179
CDMA ENG
ParticipantAs far as I know she was banned because of her very vocal, and constant, critism of Rich. It is one thing to debate him but another to openly bad mouth his analysis on his own site. She bit the hand that feeds. But also there was a general “nastiness” to anyone how disagreed with her. She left a wave of negativity that wasn’t good for anyone on this site.
As for her being right or wrong there have been many people who have made calls (really just educated guess) that have been off on timing or amplituded. So what! That is what this site is about. Make a guess and see if your theory pans out. If not… Then learn from the mistakes…
Powayseller was just intolerant and that was what seperated her from the rest of you (and yes I realize there have been many heated arguements here) but don’t think anyone here had the same god complex she did.
CE
November 24, 2009 at 1:24 PM #486346ParticipantAs far as I know she was banned because of her very vocal, and constant, critism of Rich. It is one thing to debate him but another to openly bad mouth his analysis on his own site. She bit the hand that feeds. But also there was a general “nastiness” to anyone how disagreed with her. She left a wave of negativity that wasn’t good for anyone on this site.
As for her being right or wrong there have been many people who have made calls (really just educated guess) that have been off on timing or amplituded. So what! That is what this site is about. Make a guess and see if your theory pans out. If not… Then learn from the mistakes…
Powayseller was just intolerant and that was what seperated her from the rest of you (and yes I realize there have been many heated arguements here) but don’t think anyone here had the same god complex she did.
CE
November 24, 2009 at 1:24 PM #486720ParticipantAs far as I know she was banned because of her very vocal, and constant, critism of Rich. It is one thing to debate him but another to openly bad mouth his analysis on his own site. She bit the hand that feeds. But also there was a general “nastiness” to anyone how disagreed with her. She left a wave of negativity that wasn’t good for anyone on this site.
As for her being right or wrong there have been many people who have made calls (really just educated guess) that have been off on timing or amplituded. So what! That is what this site is about. Make a guess and see if your theory pans out. If not… Then learn from the mistakes…
Powayseller was just intolerant and that was what seperated her from the rest of you (and yes I realize there have been many heated arguements here) but don’t think anyone here had the same god complex she did.
CE
November 24, 2009 at 1:24 PM #486806ParticipantAs far as I know she was banned because of her very vocal, and constant, critism of Rich. It is one thing to debate him but another to openly bad mouth his analysis on his own site. She bit the hand that feeds. But also there was a general “nastiness” to anyone how disagreed with her. She left a wave of negativity that wasn’t good for anyone on this site.
As for her being right or wrong there have been many people who have made calls (really just educated guess) that have been off on timing or amplituded. So what! That is what this site is about. Make a guess and see if your theory pans out. If not… Then learn from the mistakes…
Powayseller was just intolerant and that was what seperated her from the rest of you (and yes I realize there have been many heated arguements here) but don’t think anyone here had the same god complex she did.
CE
November 24, 2009 at 1:24 PM #487038ParticipantAs far as I know she was banned because of her very vocal, and constant, critism of Rich. It is one thing to debate him but another to openly bad mouth his analysis on his own site. She bit the hand that feeds. But also there was a general “nastiness” to anyone how disagreed with her. She left a wave of negativity that wasn’t good for anyone on this site.
As for her being right or wrong there have been many people who have made calls (really just educated guess) that have been off on timing or amplituded. So what! That is what this site is about. Make a guess and see if your theory pans out. If not… Then learn from the mistakes…
Powayseller was just intolerant and that was what seperated her from the rest of you (and yes I realize there have been many heated arguements here) but don’t think anyone here had the same god complex she did.
CE
November 24, 2009 at 2:38 PM #486208DaCounselor
Participant“Are you suggesting that the Alt-As won’t “recast” like the Option ARMs? Because when the reset hits, it’s not just the interest rate. Nearly all of these borrorers are now well under water (See WSJ front page today). This means due to their decreasing LTV, monthly payment will still go up regardless of interest rate.”
____________________I think FSD’s general point on this issue is that lower LIBOR = lower reset payments = no payment shock = no forced default. Maybe an oversimplification but that’s the gist. I agree as I have for the past year.
Alot of the 3/1 and 5/1 ARMS in SD have 10 yr IO periods, so anyone in these loan products is probably paying less now than they were originally. If LIBOR had not fallen off a cliff but was still in the 5.5% range, we would probably have had a ton more defaults after reset than we have seen.
I believe a huge percentage of people underwater are not in default because their payments are so low right now. I think the mentality is to ride things out for awhile and see what happens down the road. This environment was created by LIBOR tanking – otherwise I thnk most of these people would have had their hand forced by a big payment spike on reset and many would have just defaulted.
November 24, 2009 at 2:38 PM #486376Participant“Are you suggesting that the Alt-As won’t “recast” like the Option ARMs? Because when the reset hits, it’s not just the interest rate. Nearly all of these borrorers are now well under water (See WSJ front page today). This means due to their decreasing LTV, monthly payment will still go up regardless of interest rate.”
____________________I think FSD’s general point on this issue is that lower LIBOR = lower reset payments = no payment shock = no forced default. Maybe an oversimplification but that’s the gist. I agree as I have for the past year.
Alot of the 3/1 and 5/1 ARMS in SD have 10 yr IO periods, so anyone in these loan products is probably paying less now than they were originally. If LIBOR had not fallen off a cliff but was still in the 5.5% range, we would probably have had a ton more defaults after reset than we have seen.
I believe a huge percentage of people underwater are not in default because their payments are so low right now. I think the mentality is to ride things out for awhile and see what happens down the road. This environment was created by LIBOR tanking – otherwise I thnk most of these people would have had their hand forced by a big payment spike on reset and many would have just defaulted.
November 24, 2009 at 2:38 PM #486749Participant“Are you suggesting that the Alt-As won’t “recast” like the Option ARMs? Because when the reset hits, it’s not just the interest rate. Nearly all of these borrorers are now well under water (See WSJ front page today). This means due to their decreasing LTV, monthly payment will still go up regardless of interest rate.”
____________________I think FSD’s general point on this issue is that lower LIBOR = lower reset payments = no payment shock = no forced default. Maybe an oversimplification but that’s the gist. I agree as I have for the past year.
Alot of the 3/1 and 5/1 ARMS in SD have 10 yr IO periods, so anyone in these loan products is probably paying less now than they were originally. If LIBOR had not fallen off a cliff but was still in the 5.5% range, we would probably have had a ton more defaults after reset than we have seen.
I believe a huge percentage of people underwater are not in default because their payments are so low right now. I think the mentality is to ride things out for awhile and see what happens down the road. This environment was created by LIBOR tanking – otherwise I thnk most of these people would have had their hand forced by a big payment spike on reset and many would have just defaulted.
November 24, 2009 at 2:38 PM #486836Participant“Are you suggesting that the Alt-As won’t “recast” like the Option ARMs? Because when the reset hits, it’s not just the interest rate. Nearly all of these borrorers are now well under water (See WSJ front page today). This means due to their decreasing LTV, monthly payment will still go up regardless of interest rate.”
____________________I think FSD’s general point on this issue is that lower LIBOR = lower reset payments = no payment shock = no forced default. Maybe an oversimplification but that’s the gist. I agree as I have for the past year.
Alot of the 3/1 and 5/1 ARMS in SD have 10 yr IO periods, so anyone in these loan products is probably paying less now than they were originally. If LIBOR had not fallen off a cliff but was still in the 5.5% range, we would probably have had a ton more defaults after reset than we have seen.
I believe a huge percentage of people underwater are not in default because their payments are so low right now. I think the mentality is to ride things out for awhile and see what happens down the road. This environment was created by LIBOR tanking – otherwise I thnk most of these people would have had their hand forced by a big payment spike on reset and many would have just defaulted.
November 24, 2009 at 2:38 PM #487068Participant“Are you suggesting that the Alt-As won’t “recast” like the Option ARMs? Because when the reset hits, it’s not just the interest rate. Nearly all of these borrorers are now well under water (See WSJ front page today). This means due to their decreasing LTV, monthly payment will still go up regardless of interest rate.”
____________________I think FSD’s general point on this issue is that lower LIBOR = lower reset payments = no payment shock = no forced default. Maybe an oversimplification but that’s the gist. I agree as I have for the past year.
Alot of the 3/1 and 5/1 ARMS in SD have 10 yr IO periods, so anyone in these loan products is probably paying less now than they were originally. If LIBOR had not fallen off a cliff but was still in the 5.5% range, we would probably have had a ton more defaults after reset than we have seen.
I believe a huge percentage of people underwater are not in default because their payments are so low right now. I think the mentality is to ride things out for awhile and see what happens down the road. This environment was created by LIBOR tanking – otherwise I thnk most of these people would have had their hand forced by a big payment spike on reset and many would have just defaulted.
November 24, 2009 at 2:48 PM #486213blahblahblah
ParticipantAnything that threatens to throw large numbers of people out of their homes (recasts, etc…) and more importantly *threatens to stop monthly debt payments to banks* will get a bailout. End of story. It has happened before, it will happen again.
And don’t worry about who will buy the debt instruments, the Fed will act as buyer of last resort.
How this all ends is anyone’s guess. It is clearly unsustainable, but this is a big country. It could take decades or it could end tomorrow.
November 24, 2009 at 2:48 PM #486381ParticipantAnything that threatens to throw large numbers of people out of their homes (recasts, etc…) and more importantly *threatens to stop monthly debt payments to banks* will get a bailout. End of story. It has happened before, it will happen again.
And don’t worry about who will buy the debt instruments, the Fed will act as buyer of last resort.
How this all ends is anyone’s guess. It is clearly unsustainable, but this is a big country. It could take decades or it could end tomorrow.
November 24, 2009 at 2:48 PM #486754ParticipantAnything that threatens to throw large numbers of people out of their homes (recasts, etc…) and more importantly *threatens to stop monthly debt payments to banks* will get a bailout. End of story. It has happened before, it will happen again.
And don’t worry about who will buy the debt instruments, the Fed will act as buyer of last resort.
How this all ends is anyone’s guess. It is clearly unsustainable, but this is a big country. It could take decades or it could end tomorrow.
November 24, 2009 at 2:48 PM #486841ParticipantAnything that threatens to throw large numbers of people out of their homes (recasts, etc…) and more importantly *threatens to stop monthly debt payments to banks* will get a bailout. End of story. It has happened before, it will happen again.
And don’t worry about who will buy the debt instruments, the Fed will act as buyer of last resort.
How this all ends is anyone’s guess. It is clearly unsustainable, but this is a big country. It could take decades or it could end tomorrow.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.