- This topic has 203 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 3 months ago by
mgubnyc1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 24, 2007 at 8:35 AM #80459August 24, 2007 at 9:17 AM #80348
mgubnyc1
ParticipantYES I agree but you can’t get rid of the side effects until you stop doing what is that is causing them. So unless lenders stop loaning money to people and corporations that will never pay the loans back we will continue to go down, down and down, the US dollar will be worthless and we’ll be into deflation big time.
but so what, houses will be more affordable!
imo a house is a place to bring up your family, watch your kids grow up its not an investment you keep buying and selling. I wonder how all these families handle the moving so often. If you want to invest in real-estate then buy appartment buildings or comericial property, you’ll do much better!
August 24, 2007 at 9:17 AM #80479ParticipantYES I agree but you can’t get rid of the side effects until you stop doing what is that is causing them. So unless lenders stop loaning money to people and corporations that will never pay the loans back we will continue to go down, down and down, the US dollar will be worthless and we’ll be into deflation big time.
but so what, houses will be more affordable!
imo a house is a place to bring up your family, watch your kids grow up its not an investment you keep buying and selling. I wonder how all these families handle the moving so often. If you want to invest in real-estate then buy appartment buildings or comericial property, you’ll do much better!
August 24, 2007 at 9:17 AM #80501ParticipantYES I agree but you can’t get rid of the side effects until you stop doing what is that is causing them. So unless lenders stop loaning money to people and corporations that will never pay the loans back we will continue to go down, down and down, the US dollar will be worthless and we’ll be into deflation big time.
but so what, houses will be more affordable!
imo a house is a place to bring up your family, watch your kids grow up its not an investment you keep buying and selling. I wonder how all these families handle the moving so often. If you want to invest in real-estate then buy appartment buildings or comericial property, you’ll do much better!
August 24, 2007 at 9:32 AM #80360CardiffBaseball
Participantmgubnyc1 if you feel that way then don’t you also feel a home should not be some ridiculous multiple of the median wages? If this can’t be sustained homes must go down in price, it’s basic Asset Bubble Popping 101.
Something has to give, and the pain will be felt among the following:
– Fscked wholesale mortgage companies going out of business
– An entire career path (mortgage broker) getting wiped for all but the really sharp. Check Broker outpost which is starting to get infested by MLM recruiters.
– Investors tied to CDOs, or MBSs in any way
– Homeowners who were banking on continued appreciation, or for that matter any distressed seller.That last one we can’t avoid, just because you don’t want to see it happen. Also some of these “innocent” nurses were signing their names to fraudulent documents.
August 24, 2007 at 9:32 AM #80491Participantmgubnyc1 if you feel that way then don’t you also feel a home should not be some ridiculous multiple of the median wages? If this can’t be sustained homes must go down in price, it’s basic Asset Bubble Popping 101.
Something has to give, and the pain will be felt among the following:
– Fscked wholesale mortgage companies going out of business
– An entire career path (mortgage broker) getting wiped for all but the really sharp. Check Broker outpost which is starting to get infested by MLM recruiters.
– Investors tied to CDOs, or MBSs in any way
– Homeowners who were banking on continued appreciation, or for that matter any distressed seller.That last one we can’t avoid, just because you don’t want to see it happen. Also some of these “innocent” nurses were signing their names to fraudulent documents.
August 24, 2007 at 9:32 AM #80513Participantmgubnyc1 if you feel that way then don’t you also feel a home should not be some ridiculous multiple of the median wages? If this can’t be sustained homes must go down in price, it’s basic Asset Bubble Popping 101.
Something has to give, and the pain will be felt among the following:
– Fscked wholesale mortgage companies going out of business
– An entire career path (mortgage broker) getting wiped for all but the really sharp. Check Broker outpost which is starting to get infested by MLM recruiters.
– Investors tied to CDOs, or MBSs in any way
– Homeowners who were banking on continued appreciation, or for that matter any distressed seller.That last one we can’t avoid, just because you don’t want to see it happen. Also some of these “innocent” nurses were signing their names to fraudulent documents.
August 24, 2007 at 9:35 AM #80370temeculaguy
ParticipantMGU, see that wasn’t so hard. You made some decent arguments and supported them with a mix of fact and opinion. We do agree on many points with these exeptions: I’ll be paying 300k or sub 300k, I won’t profit from the downturn, I’ll just have a very comfortable and fixed mortgage payment so I may continue my hedonistic lifestyle. Your 401k and my 401k will be fine, well mine will be because I am at least 20 years from drawing on it and since I still make weekly deposits the cost averaging actually benefits me because nothing lasts forever, there are still more ups and downs to come in those 20 years. The only people who will realize losses in their 401k are those who are about to start drawing and most of them transitioned out of risk as they approached retirement. A drop in interest (note the spelling of this word, just a tip because you’ve never spelled it correctly) rates would actually hurt those people who are nearing retirement.
Yes, nothing will happen to the people that committed fraud as far as jail time goes but the invisible hand of economics is quite vengeful. Lenders that knowingly turned a blind eye to a borrower’s ability pay are losing money, losing their jobs or going bankrupt. Borrowers who lied about their ability to pay are finding they can’t pay and are losing their houses, the punishment fits the crime because most of it wasn’t really fraud.
There won’t be a real bail out, just talk.
We agree that these people shouldn’t have gotten these loans but regulations are not the answer. Lenders take the most risk in loaning money, some of them made some bad bets but the market will shake itself out, it always does.
Your final statement that it was all the lenders fault is akin to blaming the tobacco companies for people smoking or putting all the blame on drug dealers, just because they sell it doesn’t mean you are blameless for buying it.
August 24, 2007 at 9:35 AM #80499ParticipantMGU, see that wasn’t so hard. You made some decent arguments and supported them with a mix of fact and opinion. We do agree on many points with these exeptions: I’ll be paying 300k or sub 300k, I won’t profit from the downturn, I’ll just have a very comfortable and fixed mortgage payment so I may continue my hedonistic lifestyle. Your 401k and my 401k will be fine, well mine will be because I am at least 20 years from drawing on it and since I still make weekly deposits the cost averaging actually benefits me because nothing lasts forever, there are still more ups and downs to come in those 20 years. The only people who will realize losses in their 401k are those who are about to start drawing and most of them transitioned out of risk as they approached retirement. A drop in interest (note the spelling of this word, just a tip because you’ve never spelled it correctly) rates would actually hurt those people who are nearing retirement.
Yes, nothing will happen to the people that committed fraud as far as jail time goes but the invisible hand of economics is quite vengeful. Lenders that knowingly turned a blind eye to a borrower’s ability pay are losing money, losing their jobs or going bankrupt. Borrowers who lied about their ability to pay are finding they can’t pay and are losing their houses, the punishment fits the crime because most of it wasn’t really fraud.
There won’t be a real bail out, just talk.
We agree that these people shouldn’t have gotten these loans but regulations are not the answer. Lenders take the most risk in loaning money, some of them made some bad bets but the market will shake itself out, it always does.
Your final statement that it was all the lenders fault is akin to blaming the tobacco companies for people smoking or putting all the blame on drug dealers, just because they sell it doesn’t mean you are blameless for buying it.
August 24, 2007 at 9:35 AM #80522ParticipantMGU, see that wasn’t so hard. You made some decent arguments and supported them with a mix of fact and opinion. We do agree on many points with these exeptions: I’ll be paying 300k or sub 300k, I won’t profit from the downturn, I’ll just have a very comfortable and fixed mortgage payment so I may continue my hedonistic lifestyle. Your 401k and my 401k will be fine, well mine will be because I am at least 20 years from drawing on it and since I still make weekly deposits the cost averaging actually benefits me because nothing lasts forever, there are still more ups and downs to come in those 20 years. The only people who will realize losses in their 401k are those who are about to start drawing and most of them transitioned out of risk as they approached retirement. A drop in interest (note the spelling of this word, just a tip because you’ve never spelled it correctly) rates would actually hurt those people who are nearing retirement.
Yes, nothing will happen to the people that committed fraud as far as jail time goes but the invisible hand of economics is quite vengeful. Lenders that knowingly turned a blind eye to a borrower’s ability pay are losing money, losing their jobs or going bankrupt. Borrowers who lied about their ability to pay are finding they can’t pay and are losing their houses, the punishment fits the crime because most of it wasn’t really fraud.
There won’t be a real bail out, just talk.
We agree that these people shouldn’t have gotten these loans but regulations are not the answer. Lenders take the most risk in loaning money, some of them made some bad bets but the market will shake itself out, it always does.
Your final statement that it was all the lenders fault is akin to blaming the tobacco companies for people smoking or putting all the blame on drug dealers, just because they sell it doesn’t mean you are blameless for buying it.
August 24, 2007 at 9:46 AM #80382Bugs
ParticipantI want to know why it is always the people who made the WRONG decision to buy at the WRONG time and for the WRONG price who are being cast as victims and why its always the people who, for whatever reason, made the RIGHT decisions who get cast as the villains?
The bulls always seem to like to drag out the “didn’t buy = can’t buy = sour grapes” argument, as if the only reason 100% of the bears didn’t make stupid decisions was because they were financially unable to. It’s true that some people were completely priced out of the market and became bears by default; it’s also true that some of those same unqualified buyers went ahead and bought anyway even though they couldn’t afford it. Now those people are losing their homes as a result of their reality catching up with their lies and we’re somehow supposed to feel sorry for them?
From an economic standpoint, the virtues of a RE purchase are established at the time of purchase, not at the time of resale. If we buy well then it turns out well; if we buy poorly then it turns out poorly. If you want to blame someone other than the buyer who made the poor decision, how about pointing that finger at the seller who benefitted at that buyer’s expense?
BTW, prices were a lot lower in 1996 than they were in 1989, so it would be more accurate to say that most of the bears are looking for prices to make sense from the 1996 point. After accounting the effects of inflation on the dollar that might equal 1998 or 1999 prices. We’re already at early 2004 prices in some areas, so we’re getting there.
As a point of reference, we are observers in this drama; we’re not creating it and these people are not losing because of us. That makes us innocent of the charges of tyranny.
August 24, 2007 at 9:46 AM #80512ParticipantI want to know why it is always the people who made the WRONG decision to buy at the WRONG time and for the WRONG price who are being cast as victims and why its always the people who, for whatever reason, made the RIGHT decisions who get cast as the villains?
The bulls always seem to like to drag out the “didn’t buy = can’t buy = sour grapes” argument, as if the only reason 100% of the bears didn’t make stupid decisions was because they were financially unable to. It’s true that some people were completely priced out of the market and became bears by default; it’s also true that some of those same unqualified buyers went ahead and bought anyway even though they couldn’t afford it. Now those people are losing their homes as a result of their reality catching up with their lies and we’re somehow supposed to feel sorry for them?
From an economic standpoint, the virtues of a RE purchase are established at the time of purchase, not at the time of resale. If we buy well then it turns out well; if we buy poorly then it turns out poorly. If you want to blame someone other than the buyer who made the poor decision, how about pointing that finger at the seller who benefitted at that buyer’s expense?
BTW, prices were a lot lower in 1996 than they were in 1989, so it would be more accurate to say that most of the bears are looking for prices to make sense from the 1996 point. After accounting the effects of inflation on the dollar that might equal 1998 or 1999 prices. We’re already at early 2004 prices in some areas, so we’re getting there.
As a point of reference, we are observers in this drama; we’re not creating it and these people are not losing because of us. That makes us innocent of the charges of tyranny.
August 24, 2007 at 9:46 AM #80534ParticipantI want to know why it is always the people who made the WRONG decision to buy at the WRONG time and for the WRONG price who are being cast as victims and why its always the people who, for whatever reason, made the RIGHT decisions who get cast as the villains?
The bulls always seem to like to drag out the “didn’t buy = can’t buy = sour grapes” argument, as if the only reason 100% of the bears didn’t make stupid decisions was because they were financially unable to. It’s true that some people were completely priced out of the market and became bears by default; it’s also true that some of those same unqualified buyers went ahead and bought anyway even though they couldn’t afford it. Now those people are losing their homes as a result of their reality catching up with their lies and we’re somehow supposed to feel sorry for them?
From an economic standpoint, the virtues of a RE purchase are established at the time of purchase, not at the time of resale. If we buy well then it turns out well; if we buy poorly then it turns out poorly. If you want to blame someone other than the buyer who made the poor decision, how about pointing that finger at the seller who benefitted at that buyer’s expense?
BTW, prices were a lot lower in 1996 than they were in 1989, so it would be more accurate to say that most of the bears are looking for prices to make sense from the 1996 point. After accounting the effects of inflation on the dollar that might equal 1998 or 1999 prices. We’re already at early 2004 prices in some areas, so we’re getting there.
As a point of reference, we are observers in this drama; we’re not creating it and these people are not losing because of us. That makes us innocent of the charges of tyranny.
August 24, 2007 at 9:50 AM #80388(former)FormerSanDiegan
ParticipantIt doesn’t really matter what people think the “right” or “just” solution is for the players involved. The fact is that the housing market became overpriced. It will correct itself to an equilibrium one way or another, primarily by market forces. Regardless of government intervention to slow or suppress the changes.
It wasn’t fair for the people of Banda Aceh, that they were overcome by a tsunami. However, it was an irrepressible reaction to a magnitude 9.0 event. There will be similar consequences, fair or not, in the reaction to the magnitude 9.0 event known as the housing bubble.
August 24, 2007 at 9:50 AM #80517ParticipantIt doesn’t really matter what people think the “right” or “just” solution is for the players involved. The fact is that the housing market became overpriced. It will correct itself to an equilibrium one way or another, primarily by market forces. Regardless of government intervention to slow or suppress the changes.
It wasn’t fair for the people of Banda Aceh, that they were overcome by a tsunami. However, it was an irrepressible reaction to a magnitude 9.0 event. There will be similar consequences, fair or not, in the reaction to the magnitude 9.0 event known as the housing bubble.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.