- This topic has 80 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 2 months ago by
eavesdropper.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 16, 2010 at 6:38 PM #619624October 17, 2010 at 11:00 AM #620081
eavesdropper
Participant[quote=equalizer]WSJ did report on this back in Feb, but story never made the big time. Time to follow Canadian model and force banks to hold their loans.
“Mortgage Bankers Association Sells Headquarters at Big Loss.”
Quote from the above-mentioned story:
“When the MBA announced the purchase of the building in early 2007, the trade group’s president at the time, Jonathan Kempner, said: “We have come to the inescapable conclusion that owning our own building was the smartest long-term investment for the association.”Huh?! 2007 ??? It gets better:
“In October 2009, however, the MBA informed its members that it had put the building up for sale. At that time, the MBA said that continued ownership of the building, which was financed with $75 million of variable-rate debt, would be ‘economically imprudent’.
“The MBA spokeswoman said some members have since then concluded that the trade group shouldn’t be in the business of owning real estate.”
Boy! Not much gets past these people. Of course, it begs the question of who, exactly, do they think should be in the business of owning real estate. Especially when you consider the highly improbable applicants for whom many of the members of the Mortgage Bankers Association were writing mortgages.
October 17, 2010 at 11:00 AM #619762Participant[quote=equalizer]WSJ did report on this back in Feb, but story never made the big time. Time to follow Canadian model and force banks to hold their loans.
“Mortgage Bankers Association Sells Headquarters at Big Loss.”
Quote from the above-mentioned story:
“When the MBA announced the purchase of the building in early 2007, the trade group’s president at the time, Jonathan Kempner, said: “We have come to the inescapable conclusion that owning our own building was the smartest long-term investment for the association.”Huh?! 2007 ??? It gets better:
“In October 2009, however, the MBA informed its members that it had put the building up for sale. At that time, the MBA said that continued ownership of the building, which was financed with $75 million of variable-rate debt, would be ‘economically imprudent’.
“The MBA spokeswoman said some members have since then concluded that the trade group shouldn’t be in the business of owning real estate.”
Boy! Not much gets past these people. Of course, it begs the question of who, exactly, do they think should be in the business of owning real estate. Especially when you consider the highly improbable applicants for whom many of the members of the Mortgage Bankers Association were writing mortgages.
October 17, 2010 at 11:00 AM #619643Participant[quote=equalizer]WSJ did report on this back in Feb, but story never made the big time. Time to follow Canadian model and force banks to hold their loans.
“Mortgage Bankers Association Sells Headquarters at Big Loss.”
Quote from the above-mentioned story:
“When the MBA announced the purchase of the building in early 2007, the trade group’s president at the time, Jonathan Kempner, said: “We have come to the inescapable conclusion that owning our own building was the smartest long-term investment for the association.”Huh?! 2007 ??? It gets better:
“In October 2009, however, the MBA informed its members that it had put the building up for sale. At that time, the MBA said that continued ownership of the building, which was financed with $75 million of variable-rate debt, would be ‘economically imprudent’.
“The MBA spokeswoman said some members have since then concluded that the trade group shouldn’t be in the business of owning real estate.”
Boy! Not much gets past these people. Of course, it begs the question of who, exactly, do they think should be in the business of owning real estate. Especially when you consider the highly improbable applicants for whom many of the members of the Mortgage Bankers Association were writing mortgages.
October 17, 2010 at 11:00 AM #619012Participant[quote=equalizer]WSJ did report on this back in Feb, but story never made the big time. Time to follow Canadian model and force banks to hold their loans.
“Mortgage Bankers Association Sells Headquarters at Big Loss.”
Quote from the above-mentioned story:
“When the MBA announced the purchase of the building in early 2007, the trade group’s president at the time, Jonathan Kempner, said: “We have come to the inescapable conclusion that owning our own building was the smartest long-term investment for the association.”Huh?! 2007 ??? It gets better:
“In October 2009, however, the MBA informed its members that it had put the building up for sale. At that time, the MBA said that continued ownership of the building, which was financed with $75 million of variable-rate debt, would be ‘economically imprudent’.
“The MBA spokeswoman said some members have since then concluded that the trade group shouldn’t be in the business of owning real estate.”
Boy! Not much gets past these people. Of course, it begs the question of who, exactly, do they think should be in the business of owning real estate. Especially when you consider the highly improbable applicants for whom many of the members of the Mortgage Bankers Association were writing mortgages.
October 17, 2010 at 11:00 AM #619094Participant[quote=equalizer]WSJ did report on this back in Feb, but story never made the big time. Time to follow Canadian model and force banks to hold their loans.
“Mortgage Bankers Association Sells Headquarters at Big Loss.”
Quote from the above-mentioned story:
“When the MBA announced the purchase of the building in early 2007, the trade group’s president at the time, Jonathan Kempner, said: “We have come to the inescapable conclusion that owning our own building was the smartest long-term investment for the association.”Huh?! 2007 ??? It gets better:
“In October 2009, however, the MBA informed its members that it had put the building up for sale. At that time, the MBA said that continued ownership of the building, which was financed with $75 million of variable-rate debt, would be ‘economically imprudent’.
“The MBA spokeswoman said some members have since then concluded that the trade group shouldn’t be in the business of owning real estate.”
Boy! Not much gets past these people. Of course, it begs the question of who, exactly, do they think should be in the business of owning real estate. Especially when you consider the highly improbable applicants for whom many of the members of the Mortgage Bankers Association were writing mortgages.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.