So…why the difference in reaction on this board? When Congress was trying to assist the homeowner, everyone was up in arms and had smoke coming out their ears.
But when the Treasury Secretary outlines steps to prop up Fannie and Freddie or the Fed steps in to take over Indymac, not a peep out of the Hogs and Hogville – only guesses as to who is next.
Quite a difference in reactions. Somebody explain that to me.
First of all – bailing out the homeowner = bailing out the lending institutions. It’s pretty much the same thing. In fact, it kind of screws the homeowner into continuing to pay into a depreciating asset, while continuing the cash-flow into the banks’ coffers.
Second – Bear Sterns is not Freddie and Fannie. Backing F&F makes some sense to avoid panic. Not so sure about Sterns.
It would be great to let F&F fail but I don’t think anyone realistically believes that the Fed/SEC/Congress will allow it to happen.
First of all – bailing out the homeowner = bailing out the lending institutions. It’s pretty much the same thing. In fact, it kind of screws the homeowner into continuing to pay into a depreciating asset, while continuing the cash-flow into the banks’ coffers.
Second – Bear Sterns is not Freddie and Fannie. Backing F&F makes some sense to avoid panic. Not so sure about Sterns.
It would be great to let F&F fail but I don’t think anyone realistically believes that the Fed/SEC/Congress will allow it to happen.
First of all – bailing out the homeowner = bailing out the lending institutions. It’s pretty much the same thing. In fact, it kind of screws the homeowner into continuing to pay into a depreciating asset, while continuing the cash-flow into the banks’ coffers.
Second – Bear Sterns is not Freddie and Fannie. Backing F&F makes some sense to avoid panic. Not so sure about Sterns.
It would be great to let F&F fail but I don’t think anyone realistically believes that the Fed/SEC/Congress will allow it to happen.
First of all – bailing out the homeowner = bailing out the lending institutions. It’s pretty much the same thing. In fact, it kind of screws the homeowner into continuing to pay into a depreciating asset, while continuing the cash-flow into the banks’ coffers.
Second – Bear Sterns is not Freddie and Fannie. Backing F&F makes some sense to avoid panic. Not so sure about Sterns.
It would be great to let F&F fail but I don’t think anyone realistically believes that the Fed/SEC/Congress will allow it to happen.
First of all – bailing out the homeowner = bailing out the lending institutions. It’s pretty much the same thing. In fact, it kind of screws the homeowner into continuing to pay into a depreciating asset, while continuing the cash-flow into the banks’ coffers.
Second – Bear Sterns is not Freddie and Fannie. Backing F&F makes some sense to avoid panic. Not so sure about Sterns.
It would be great to let F&F fail but I don’t think anyone realistically believes that the Fed/SEC/Congress will allow it to happen.
