California lenders agree to freeze rates

[betting on fall]

We are looking at this backwards. These mortgage companies wouldn’t do this unless it was in THEIR interest. They are not charities. They are all on the edge of bankrupcy and need every dime they can get. And their shareholders would sue in a second if they were giving something away.

The companies are agreeing to this because taking a 15% lower monthly payment for the next few years creates a lot smaller loss then foreclosing today and showing an immediate 50% loss on the loan.

What the governator has really is locked a bunch of FBs into debt servitude for a little longer. Folks with bad loans on overprices properties should walk away. Maybe fewer will now.

[34f3f3f]

More properties in foreclosure mean less tax for the state, which means police and fire services are reduced.

But haven’t state coffers seen a windfall due to exorbitant prices over the last few years, well in excess of what they normally budget for?

[34f3f3f]

More properties in foreclosure mean less tax for the state, which means police and fire services are reduced.

But haven’t state coffers seen a windfall due to exorbitant prices over the last few years, well in excess of what they normally budget for?

[34f3f3f]

More properties in foreclosure mean less tax for the state, which means police and fire services are reduced.

But haven’t state coffers seen a windfall due to exorbitant prices over the last few years, well in excess of what they normally budget for?

[34f3f3f]

More properties in foreclosure mean less tax for the state, which means police and fire services are reduced.

But haven’t state coffers seen a windfall due to exorbitant prices over the last few years, well in excess of what they normally budget for?

[34f3f3f]

More properties in foreclosure mean less tax for the state, which means police and fire services are reduced.

But haven’t state coffers seen a windfall due to exorbitant prices over the last few years, well in excess of what they normally budget for?

[betting on fall]

qwerty-
You have not visited the den of wolves that is the California legislature. A dollar falling from the sky will be spent a couple times over before it even can hit the ground.
So, no surplus. Its all been spent. Aside from irresponsible spending, part of the reason is that various taxes and fees (for example income tax and car registration fees) were cut in “good” times.
I am in no way advocating a tax hike, but few people realize that state taxes were higher back when Ronald Reagan was governor.
Don’t be surprised to see the “Reagan Tax Restoration Act of 2008” proposed to re-fill state coffers.

[betting on fall]

qwerty-
You have not visited the den of wolves that is the California legislature. A dollar falling from the sky will be spent a couple times over before it even can hit the ground.
So, no surplus. Its all been spent. Aside from irresponsible spending, part of the reason is that various taxes and fees (for example income tax and car registration fees) were cut in “good” times.
I am in no way advocating a tax hike, but few people realize that state taxes were higher back when Ronald Reagan was governor.
Don’t be surprised to see the “Reagan Tax Restoration Act of 2008” proposed to re-fill state coffers.

[betting on fall]

qwerty-
You have not visited the den of wolves that is the California legislature. A dollar falling from the sky will be spent a couple times over before it even can hit the ground.
So, no surplus. Its all been spent. Aside from irresponsible spending, part of the reason is that various taxes and fees (for example income tax and car registration fees) were cut in “good” times.
I am in no way advocating a tax hike, but few people realize that state taxes were higher back when Ronald Reagan was governor.
Don’t be surprised to see the “Reagan Tax Restoration Act of 2008” proposed to re-fill state coffers.

[betting on fall]

qwerty-
You have not visited the den of wolves that is the California legislature. A dollar falling from the sky will be spent a couple times over before it even can hit the ground.
So, no surplus. Its all been spent. Aside from irresponsible spending, part of the reason is that various taxes and fees (for example income tax and car registration fees) were cut in “good” times.
I am in no way advocating a tax hike, but few people realize that state taxes were higher back when Ronald Reagan was governor.
Don’t be surprised to see the “Reagan Tax Restoration Act of 2008” proposed to re-fill state coffers.

[betting on fall]

qwerty-
You have not visited the den of wolves that is the California legislature. A dollar falling from the sky will be spent a couple times over before it even can hit the ground.
So, no surplus. Its all been spent. Aside from irresponsible spending, part of the reason is that various taxes and fees (for example income tax and car registration fees) were cut in “good” times.
I am in no way advocating a tax hike, but few people realize that state taxes were higher back when Ronald Reagan was governor.
Don’t be surprised to see the “Reagan Tax Restoration Act of 2008” proposed to re-fill state coffers.

[DaCounselor]

“Mish says rate freeze will fail

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/11/freezing-mortgage-rat…”
___________________________

Is it really black and white, succeed or fail? If failure means that a freeze will not stop home values from dropping a penny more, then I agree that this measure will fail. I would disagree with anyone who thinks that freeze’s, modifications and the like will have no impact on housing values if they are accomplished in significant numbers.

Where I get confused with Mish on this one is that he advocates a “free market” scenario and implies that the Governator’s “plan” is decidedly not free market. Correct me if I misunderstand, but this freeze is not a mandate. The lenders merely agreed to freeze, and upon their own terms. The insinuation is that anything other than abiding by the original terms of the loan and a fast-track to foreclosure is not “free market”. I couldn’t disagree more. If, at the end of the day, the lenders are permitted to foreclose, short sell, modify, freeze, etc etc., then it’s free market as far as I’m concerned. And I think that’s where we still are today.

[DaCounselor]

“Mish says rate freeze will fail

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/11/freezing-mortgage-rat…”
___________________________

Is it really black and white, succeed or fail? If failure means that a freeze will not stop home values from dropping a penny more, then I agree that this measure will fail. I would disagree with anyone who thinks that freeze’s, modifications and the like will have no impact on housing values if they are accomplished in significant numbers.

Where I get confused with Mish on this one is that he advocates a “free market” scenario and implies that the Governator’s “plan” is decidedly not free market. Correct me if I misunderstand, but this freeze is not a mandate. The lenders merely agreed to freeze, and upon their own terms. The insinuation is that anything other than abiding by the original terms of the loan and a fast-track to foreclosure is not “free market”. I couldn’t disagree more. If, at the end of the day, the lenders are permitted to foreclose, short sell, modify, freeze, etc etc., then it’s free market as far as I’m concerned. And I think that’s where we still are today.

[DaCounselor]

“Mish says rate freeze will fail

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/11/freezing-mortgage-rat…”
___________________________

Is it really black and white, succeed or fail? If failure means that a freeze will not stop home values from dropping a penny more, then I agree that this measure will fail. I would disagree with anyone who thinks that freeze’s, modifications and the like will have no impact on housing values if they are accomplished in significant numbers.

Where I get confused with Mish on this one is that he advocates a “free market” scenario and implies that the Governator’s “plan” is decidedly not free market. Correct me if I misunderstand, but this freeze is not a mandate. The lenders merely agreed to freeze, and upon their own terms. The insinuation is that anything other than abiding by the original terms of the loan and a fast-track to foreclosure is not “free market”. I couldn’t disagree more. If, at the end of the day, the lenders are permitted to foreclose, short sell, modify, freeze, etc etc., then it’s free market as far as I’m concerned. And I think that’s where we still are today.

[DaCounselor]

“Mish says rate freeze will fail

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/11/freezing-mortgage-rat…”
___________________________

Is it really black and white, succeed or fail? If failure means that a freeze will not stop home values from dropping a penny more, then I agree that this measure will fail. I would disagree with anyone who thinks that freeze’s, modifications and the like will have no impact on housing values if they are accomplished in significant numbers.

Where I get confused with Mish on this one is that he advocates a “free market” scenario and implies that the Governator’s “plan” is decidedly not free market. Correct me if I misunderstand, but this freeze is not a mandate. The lenders merely agreed to freeze, and upon their own terms. The insinuation is that anything other than abiding by the original terms of the loan and a fast-track to foreclosure is not “free market”. I couldn’t disagree more. If, at the end of the day, the lenders are permitted to foreclose, short sell, modify, freeze, etc etc., then it’s free market as far as I’m concerned. And I think that’s where we still are today.

[Author]

Posts