Have the housing bears lost? S896 passes the Senate

[NotCranky]

[quote=jpinpb]Begs the question, but what if they HAVE to sell for whatever reason, divorce, job transfer, etc?

Gives new meaning to mortgage slave. [/quote]

Not enough. The people who would normally sell for lifestyle changes and such will not be doing much of that, unforced. Many people who would normally trade up will rent the house they are leaving behind.I am working with a couple like this right now. They would not have held on to the rental in a more average market situation. It’s foreclosures and short sales or drought for a while.

[NotCranky]

I really don’t see any possible way to see “housing bears have lost”, bills passing or no bills passing. I just don’t get that. Maybe it is just a problem of semantics. Perhaps, what is meant is that, “housing bears lose this round”?

[NotCranky]

I really don’t see any possible way to see “housing bears have lost”, bills passing or no bills passing. I just don’t get that. Maybe it is just a problem of semantics. Perhaps, what is meant is that, “housing bears lose this round”?

[NotCranky]

I really don’t see any possible way to see “housing bears have lost”, bills passing or no bills passing. I just don’t get that. Maybe it is just a problem of semantics. Perhaps, what is meant is that, “housing bears lose this round”?

[NotCranky]

I really don’t see any possible way to see “housing bears have lost”, bills passing or no bills passing. I just don’t get that. Maybe it is just a problem of semantics. Perhaps, what is meant is that, “housing bears lose this round”?

[NotCranky]

I really don’t see any possible way to see “housing bears have lost”, bills passing or no bills passing. I just don’t get that. Maybe it is just a problem of semantics. Perhaps, what is meant is that, “housing bears lose this round”?

[davelj]

[quote=Russell]I really don’t see any possible way to see “housing bears have lost”, bills passing or no bills passing. I just don’t get that. Maybe it is just a problem of semantics. Perhaps, what is meant is that, “housing bears lose this round”?

[/quote]

I agree. The housing bears have already won. Although perhaps the housing uber-uber bears will have to revise their outlook… a little bit. The govt can’t keep prices from reverting to the mean… but it can have an impact on how far prices over-correct.

[davelj]

[quote=Russell]I really don’t see any possible way to see “housing bears have lost”, bills passing or no bills passing. I just don’t get that. Maybe it is just a problem of semantics. Perhaps, what is meant is that, “housing bears lose this round”?

[/quote]

I agree. The housing bears have already won. Although perhaps the housing uber-uber bears will have to revise their outlook… a little bit. The govt can’t keep prices from reverting to the mean… but it can have an impact on how far prices over-correct.

[davelj]

[quote=Russell]I really don’t see any possible way to see “housing bears have lost”, bills passing or no bills passing. I just don’t get that. Maybe it is just a problem of semantics. Perhaps, what is meant is that, “housing bears lose this round”?

[/quote]

I agree. The housing bears have already won. Although perhaps the housing uber-uber bears will have to revise their outlook… a little bit. The govt can’t keep prices from reverting to the mean… but it can have an impact on how far prices over-correct.

[davelj]

[quote=Russell]I really don’t see any possible way to see “housing bears have lost”, bills passing or no bills passing. I just don’t get that. Maybe it is just a problem of semantics. Perhaps, what is meant is that, “housing bears lose this round”?

[/quote]

I agree. The housing bears have already won. Although perhaps the housing uber-uber bears will have to revise their outlook… a little bit. The govt can’t keep prices from reverting to the mean… but it can have an impact on how far prices over-correct.

[davelj]

[quote=Russell]I really don’t see any possible way to see “housing bears have lost”, bills passing or no bills passing. I just don’t get that. Maybe it is just a problem of semantics. Perhaps, what is meant is that, “housing bears lose this round”?

[/quote]

I agree. The housing bears have already won. Although perhaps the housing uber-uber bears will have to revise their outlook… a little bit. The govt can’t keep prices from reverting to the mean… but it can have an impact on how far prices over-correct.

[ucodegen]

Actually S896 is very bearish. Banks will now take into account that they may have to eat additional losses on what is a securitized loan. Their response will be to increase interest rates on all of these loans and treat them more like seconds than fully securitized. (risk adjustment to the interest rate)

It is short time bullish because the houses that are near NOD or at NOD will never make it to the market, drying up some of the potential inventory, but long term it may be a total disaster. I estimate that the amount it will cost in terms of interest is an additional 1% to 2% on the interest rate.

[ucodegen]

Actually S896 is very bearish. Banks will now take into account that they may have to eat additional losses on what is a securitized loan. Their response will be to increase interest rates on all of these loans and treat them more like seconds than fully securitized. (risk adjustment to the interest rate)

It is short time bullish because the houses that are near NOD or at NOD will never make it to the market, drying up some of the potential inventory, but long term it may be a total disaster. I estimate that the amount it will cost in terms of interest is an additional 1% to 2% on the interest rate.

[ucodegen]

Actually S896 is very bearish. Banks will now take into account that they may have to eat additional losses on what is a securitized loan. Their response will be to increase interest rates on all of these loans and treat them more like seconds than fully securitized. (risk adjustment to the interest rate)

It is short time bullish because the houses that are near NOD or at NOD will never make it to the market, drying up some of the potential inventory, but long term it may be a total disaster. I estimate that the amount it will cost in terms of interest is an additional 1% to 2% on the interest rate.

[ucodegen]

Actually S896 is very bearish. Banks will now take into account that they may have to eat additional losses on what is a securitized loan. Their response will be to increase interest rates on all of these loans and treat them more like seconds than fully securitized. (risk adjustment to the interest rate)

It is short time bullish because the houses that are near NOD or at NOD will never make it to the market, drying up some of the potential inventory, but long term it may be a total disaster. I estimate that the amount it will cost in terms of interest is an additional 1% to 2% on the interest rate.

[Author]

Posts