govt intervention

[4plexowner]

Amherst Securities has done some research on the Option ARM resets and updated the mortgage reset chart to show that they are mostly a California problem

I have seen other articles suggesting that these Option ARMs are part of the reason Fannie and Freddie can now lose as much money as they want – dealing with the Option ARM resets over the next three years is going to be EXPENSIVE

[img_assist|nid=12621|title=Option ARM resets a CA issue|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=400|height=348]

California Housing Forecast for 2010: 5 Reasons why you Shouldn’t Buy a Home in California in 2010. 22 Percent unemployment and underemployment, home owned’ership, California Budget, Option ARMs, and Consumer Psychology.

[4plexowner]

In case anyone is thinking that I only write negative stuff, this is how I started my New Year’s letter on January 10th:

The economy is really picking up!

Over one hundred banks were closed in 2009 and only one in 2010!

[4plexowner]

In case anyone is thinking that I only write negative stuff, this is how I started my New Year’s letter on January 10th:

The economy is really picking up!

Over one hundred banks were closed in 2009 and only one in 2010!

[4plexowner]

In case anyone is thinking that I only write negative stuff, this is how I started my New Year’s letter on January 10th:

The economy is really picking up!

Over one hundred banks were closed in 2009 and only one in 2010!

[4plexowner]

In case anyone is thinking that I only write negative stuff, this is how I started my New Year’s letter on January 10th:

The economy is really picking up!

Over one hundred banks were closed in 2009 and only one in 2010!

[4plexowner]

In case anyone is thinking that I only write negative stuff, this is how I started my New Year’s letter on January 10th:

The economy is really picking up!

Over one hundred banks were closed in 2009 and only one in 2010!

[patientrenter]

[quote=SK in CV]….
And yes, I think the lenders should keep lending…. If I sent you a check for my net worth, I’d be as dumb as many of the lenders that made bad loans over the last 5 years…[/quote]

Either:

1. The lenders quit making dumb loans that allow less than 20% downpayments, or 30-40% in the areas that are still full of bubble air, and then cram down on the fully documented and justified hardship cases, or

2. The lenders continue lending at ridiculous levels of risk, with downpayments at levels that are much too low, in which case there should be no cramdowns, period.

We can’t have both cramdowns and a continuation of what led us to cramdowns.

Prices in vast swathes of Los Angeles are still way up in bubble territory, and lenders are still lending 80-100% of these prices, backed by the taxpayer. If we think that should continue, then we can’t turn around and say that the resulting risky loans are nonsensical and should be forgiven.

[patientrenter]

[quote=SK in CV]….
And yes, I think the lenders should keep lending…. If I sent you a check for my net worth, I’d be as dumb as many of the lenders that made bad loans over the last 5 years…[/quote]

Either:

1. The lenders quit making dumb loans that allow less than 20% downpayments, or 30-40% in the areas that are still full of bubble air, and then cram down on the fully documented and justified hardship cases, or

2. The lenders continue lending at ridiculous levels of risk, with downpayments at levels that are much too low, in which case there should be no cramdowns, period.

We can’t have both cramdowns and a continuation of what led us to cramdowns.

Prices in vast swathes of Los Angeles are still way up in bubble territory, and lenders are still lending 80-100% of these prices, backed by the taxpayer. If we think that should continue, then we can’t turn around and say that the resulting risky loans are nonsensical and should be forgiven.

[patientrenter]

[quote=SK in CV]….
And yes, I think the lenders should keep lending…. If I sent you a check for my net worth, I’d be as dumb as many of the lenders that made bad loans over the last 5 years…[/quote]

Either:

1. The lenders quit making dumb loans that allow less than 20% downpayments, or 30-40% in the areas that are still full of bubble air, and then cram down on the fully documented and justified hardship cases, or

2. The lenders continue lending at ridiculous levels of risk, with downpayments at levels that are much too low, in which case there should be no cramdowns, period.

We can’t have both cramdowns and a continuation of what led us to cramdowns.

Prices in vast swathes of Los Angeles are still way up in bubble territory, and lenders are still lending 80-100% of these prices, backed by the taxpayer. If we think that should continue, then we can’t turn around and say that the resulting risky loans are nonsensical and should be forgiven.

[patientrenter]

[quote=SK in CV]….
And yes, I think the lenders should keep lending…. If I sent you a check for my net worth, I’d be as dumb as many of the lenders that made bad loans over the last 5 years…[/quote]

Either:

1. The lenders quit making dumb loans that allow less than 20% downpayments, or 30-40% in the areas that are still full of bubble air, and then cram down on the fully documented and justified hardship cases, or

2. The lenders continue lending at ridiculous levels of risk, with downpayments at levels that are much too low, in which case there should be no cramdowns, period.

We can’t have both cramdowns and a continuation of what led us to cramdowns.

Prices in vast swathes of Los Angeles are still way up in bubble territory, and lenders are still lending 80-100% of these prices, backed by the taxpayer. If we think that should continue, then we can’t turn around and say that the resulting risky loans are nonsensical and should be forgiven.

[patientrenter]

[quote=SK in CV]….
And yes, I think the lenders should keep lending…. If I sent you a check for my net worth, I’d be as dumb as many of the lenders that made bad loans over the last 5 years…[/quote]

Either:

1. The lenders quit making dumb loans that allow less than 20% downpayments, or 30-40% in the areas that are still full of bubble air, and then cram down on the fully documented and justified hardship cases, or

2. The lenders continue lending at ridiculous levels of risk, with downpayments at levels that are much too low, in which case there should be no cramdowns, period.

We can’t have both cramdowns and a continuation of what led us to cramdowns.

Prices in vast swathes of Los Angeles are still way up in bubble territory, and lenders are still lending 80-100% of these prices, backed by the taxpayer. If we think that should continue, then we can’t turn around and say that the resulting risky loans are nonsensical and should be forgiven.

[patientrenter]

[quote=Arraya]….
With the bubble you either think:

A: The banks did it for immense profits with no regard for consequences due to their rapacious and addictive nature.

or

B: The banks did it because of immense pressure from irresponsible borrowers and politicians who took advantage of the banks naivety and good nature

With the bailouts

A: The banks wanted to stay in business and are using every trick in the book to transfer losses to the tax payer and keep RE values as high as possible for their own survival purposes and to keep the billion dollar bonuses flowing

Or

B: The banks, continuing down their naive and trusting path, are under considerable pressure from irresponsible citizens and politicians to continue lending and make underwriting as loose as possible.

I pick A on both. You seem to pick B…….

[/quote]

I pick both A and B. Both are hugely important here. Any strong political action is successful only if:

1. It can enrich a small group of people enough to get them to lobby and contribute to our politicians

and

2. It can benefit enough voters that the politicians can gain votes from supporting it, with the help of their marketing campaign funded by the extra contributions

Both the bubble and the bailout got lots of both types of support, and would not have been possible without both.

[patientrenter]

[quote=Arraya]….
With the bubble you either think:

A: The banks did it for immense profits with no regard for consequences due to their rapacious and addictive nature.

or

B: The banks did it because of immense pressure from irresponsible borrowers and politicians who took advantage of the banks naivety and good nature

With the bailouts

A: The banks wanted to stay in business and are using every trick in the book to transfer losses to the tax payer and keep RE values as high as possible for their own survival purposes and to keep the billion dollar bonuses flowing

Or

B: The banks, continuing down their naive and trusting path, are under considerable pressure from irresponsible citizens and politicians to continue lending and make underwriting as loose as possible.

I pick A on both. You seem to pick B…….

[/quote]

I pick both A and B. Both are hugely important here. Any strong political action is successful only if:

1. It can enrich a small group of people enough to get them to lobby and contribute to our politicians

and

2. It can benefit enough voters that the politicians can gain votes from supporting it, with the help of their marketing campaign funded by the extra contributions

Both the bubble and the bailout got lots of both types of support, and would not have been possible without both.

[patientrenter]

[quote=Arraya]….
With the bubble you either think:

A: The banks did it for immense profits with no regard for consequences due to their rapacious and addictive nature.

or

B: The banks did it because of immense pressure from irresponsible borrowers and politicians who took advantage of the banks naivety and good nature

With the bailouts

A: The banks wanted to stay in business and are using every trick in the book to transfer losses to the tax payer and keep RE values as high as possible for their own survival purposes and to keep the billion dollar bonuses flowing

Or

B: The banks, continuing down their naive and trusting path, are under considerable pressure from irresponsible citizens and politicians to continue lending and make underwriting as loose as possible.

I pick A on both. You seem to pick B…….

[/quote]

I pick both A and B. Both are hugely important here. Any strong political action is successful only if:

1. It can enrich a small group of people enough to get them to lobby and contribute to our politicians

and

2. It can benefit enough voters that the politicians can gain votes from supporting it, with the help of their marketing campaign funded by the extra contributions

Both the bubble and the bailout got lots of both types of support, and would not have been possible without both.

[patientrenter]

[quote=Arraya]….
With the bubble you either think:

A: The banks did it for immense profits with no regard for consequences due to their rapacious and addictive nature.

or

B: The banks did it because of immense pressure from irresponsible borrowers and politicians who took advantage of the banks naivety and good nature

With the bailouts

A: The banks wanted to stay in business and are using every trick in the book to transfer losses to the tax payer and keep RE values as high as possible for their own survival purposes and to keep the billion dollar bonuses flowing

Or

B: The banks, continuing down their naive and trusting path, are under considerable pressure from irresponsible citizens and politicians to continue lending and make underwriting as loose as possible.

I pick A on both. You seem to pick B…….

[/quote]

I pick both A and B. Both are hugely important here. Any strong political action is successful only if:

1. It can enrich a small group of people enough to get them to lobby and contribute to our politicians

and

2. It can benefit enough voters that the politicians can gain votes from supporting it, with the help of their marketing campaign funded by the extra contributions

Both the bubble and the bailout got lots of both types of support, and would not have been possible without both.

[Author]

Posts