Menu

Home › Forums › Housing › Latest: Negative Equity Certificates

Viewing 10 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • February 21, 2008 at 2:03 PM #11883
      contraman
      Participant

      OK. Is everyone sitting down for this one? This is the stuff smart people come up with right?

      Let's now securitize negative home equity and sell it on Wall Street? I mean have we lost our minds in this country?

      <http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/080221/housing_summit_steel_certificates.html?.v=2>

      I don't know how much more I can take…..also B of A wants to put a moratorium on foreclosures in CA that are owned by you guessed it, CountryWide and Fried…

      This is the stuff that makes Ron Paul look like he actually knows what the hell he is talking about….and the rest of the clowns..well look like clowns…..

      Here is my solution: National Foreclosure Day. Everyone mail their keys to the bank on April 1, 2008. Just get it over with with minimal tax dollars spent already…..

      HOUSES ARE TOO EXPENSIVE, THEY NEED TO DROP IN VALUE TO COME INTO LINE WITH FUNDAMENTALS AND INCOME…..

    • February 21, 2008 at 4:41 PM #157262
      bubba99
      Participant

      Read the attached link, and I cannot believe it.

      What are these folks smoking. The article is short on details like what is a negative equity certificate?, does it get larger as the morgages gets further underwater?, How does any principal or interest get paid on a negative equity certificate?, Does the FHA guarantee the negitive equity cert?, and . . .

      The only thing that is sure is that we the tax payers are left holding the bag for this certificate if it gets created.

      • February 21, 2008 at 9:29 PM #157380
        cr
        Participant

        Don’t worry guys, Obama will come to the rescuse with his gifts to the poor housing plan.

        All I can say is welcome to Socialism my friends. Elect Obama and it will only get worse. Unless of course you spend more money than you make, have a house you can’t afford and like paying higher taxes to support people too lazy to get jobs, and drive BMW’s to schools to drop their free lunch eating children.

        • February 22, 2008 at 10:53 AM #157638
          Arty
          Participant

          Don’t worry guys, Obama will come to the rescuse with his gifts to the poor housing plan.

          Don’t worry, Bush has already done a well good job at that :P.

        • February 22, 2008 at 10:53 AM #157928
          Arty
          Participant

          Don’t worry guys, Obama will come to the rescuse with his gifts to the poor housing plan.

          Don’t worry, Bush has already done a well good job at that :P.

        • February 22, 2008 at 10:53 AM #157941
          Arty
          Participant

          Don’t worry guys, Obama will come to the rescuse with his gifts to the poor housing plan.

          Don’t worry, Bush has already done a well good job at that :P.

        • February 22, 2008 at 10:53 AM #157947
          Arty
          Participant

          Don’t worry guys, Obama will come to the rescuse with his gifts to the poor housing plan.

          Don’t worry, Bush has already done a well good job at that :P.

        • February 22, 2008 at 10:53 AM #158021
          Arty
          Participant

          Don’t worry guys, Obama will come to the rescuse with his gifts to the poor housing plan.

          Don’t worry, Bush has already done a well good job at that :P.

      • February 21, 2008 at 9:29 PM #157671
        cr
        Participant

        Don’t worry guys, Obama will come to the rescuse with his gifts to the poor housing plan.

        All I can say is welcome to Socialism my friends. Elect Obama and it will only get worse. Unless of course you spend more money than you make, have a house you can’t afford and like paying higher taxes to support people too lazy to get jobs, and drive BMW’s to schools to drop their free lunch eating children.

      • February 21, 2008 at 9:29 PM #157685
        cr
        Participant

        Don’t worry guys, Obama will come to the rescuse with his gifts to the poor housing plan.

        All I can say is welcome to Socialism my friends. Elect Obama and it will only get worse. Unless of course you spend more money than you make, have a house you can’t afford and like paying higher taxes to support people too lazy to get jobs, and drive BMW’s to schools to drop their free lunch eating children.

      • February 21, 2008 at 9:29 PM #157693
        cr
        Participant

        Don’t worry guys, Obama will come to the rescuse with his gifts to the poor housing plan.

        All I can say is welcome to Socialism my friends. Elect Obama and it will only get worse. Unless of course you spend more money than you make, have a house you can’t afford and like paying higher taxes to support people too lazy to get jobs, and drive BMW’s to schools to drop their free lunch eating children.

      • February 21, 2008 at 9:29 PM #157766
        cr
        Participant

        Don’t worry guys, Obama will come to the rescuse with his gifts to the poor housing plan.

        All I can say is welcome to Socialism my friends. Elect Obama and it will only get worse. Unless of course you spend more money than you make, have a house you can’t afford and like paying higher taxes to support people too lazy to get jobs, and drive BMW’s to schools to drop their free lunch eating children.

    • February 21, 2008 at 4:41 PM #157552
      bubba99
      Participant

      Read the attached link, and I cannot believe it.

      What are these folks smoking. The article is short on details like what is a negative equity certificate?, does it get larger as the morgages gets further underwater?, How does any principal or interest get paid on a negative equity certificate?, Does the FHA guarantee the negitive equity cert?, and . . .

      The only thing that is sure is that we the tax payers are left holding the bag for this certificate if it gets created.

    • February 21, 2008 at 4:41 PM #157567
      bubba99
      Participant

      Read the attached link, and I cannot believe it.

      What are these folks smoking. The article is short on details like what is a negative equity certificate?, does it get larger as the morgages gets further underwater?, How does any principal or interest get paid on a negative equity certificate?, Does the FHA guarantee the negitive equity cert?, and . . .

      The only thing that is sure is that we the tax payers are left holding the bag for this certificate if it gets created.

    • February 21, 2008 at 4:41 PM #157575
      bubba99
      Participant

      Read the attached link, and I cannot believe it.

      What are these folks smoking. The article is short on details like what is a negative equity certificate?, does it get larger as the morgages gets further underwater?, How does any principal or interest get paid on a negative equity certificate?, Does the FHA guarantee the negitive equity cert?, and . . .

      The only thing that is sure is that we the tax payers are left holding the bag for this certificate if it gets created.

    • February 21, 2008 at 4:41 PM #157647
      bubba99
      Participant

      Read the attached link, and I cannot believe it.

      What are these folks smoking. The article is short on details like what is a negative equity certificate?, does it get larger as the morgages gets further underwater?, How does any principal or interest get paid on a negative equity certificate?, Does the FHA guarantee the negitive equity cert?, and . . .

      The only thing that is sure is that we the tax payers are left holding the bag for this certificate if it gets created.

    • February 21, 2008 at 9:41 PM #157390
      stansd
      Participant

      I’ll go on record saying this is the first good bailout idea I’ve seen. It will lubricate the market by allowing the banks to tap into some of the potential value they are giving up by writing down a loan. Why should a home buyer who got in over his or her head get a payment break now because they can’t afford it and have the potential to reap a large gain down the road.

      This increases the odds of a workout and also prevents a maverick borrower from excercising a put option from the bank while reaping all the upside.

      I think it’s a great idea-good for all. Too many on this board are out for pain in the market and pain for individuals with impunity. If there is a reasonable economic solution for all, it should be pursued.

      Where I do part company, however, is the part where the government buys the loan. I think the negative equity certificate is a nice idea to help the banks work things out., but that the government should avoid a bailout of the loan itself-nanny state versus market innovation.

      Stan

      • February 22, 2008 at 10:32 AM #157601
        cr
        Participant

        The problem with any bailout effort regardless of whether it truly helps the homeowner or bank, is it encourages people who can afford their payments to stop making them so they can get a handout.

        • February 22, 2008 at 10:37 AM #157613
          HereWeGo
          Participant

          I agree, Stan. It’s not a bad idea, if for no other reason than the judiciary is not newly injected into the market.

          Allowing cram-downs, on the other hand, is fine in theory, but given the current state of the credit markets and the MBS markets, not a real good idea at the current time. If the Congress continually looks askance at MBS investors, eventually those investors will take the hint.

        • February 22, 2008 at 10:59 AM #157643
          vagabondo
          Participant

          I think it is a bad idea. The sooner we flush these loans/homes out of the system, the sooner we hit bottom. Securitization (or whatever this idea is) seems to me to mask and delay the inevitable.

        • February 22, 2008 at 11:24 AM #157684
          Ash Housewares
          Participant

          This system would remove one of the largest incentives for home ownership- future capital gains. People with these certificates are really just renters since they will have no hope of making money, plus they are saddled with maintenance, taxes, etc., in other words they are paying above market rent. I would imagine that once they figure this out, they will let the home go.

        • February 22, 2008 at 11:24 AM #157972
          Ash Housewares
          Participant

          This system would remove one of the largest incentives for home ownership- future capital gains. People with these certificates are really just renters since they will have no hope of making money, plus they are saddled with maintenance, taxes, etc., in other words they are paying above market rent. I would imagine that once they figure this out, they will let the home go.

        • February 22, 2008 at 11:24 AM #157986
          Ash Housewares
          Participant

          This system would remove one of the largest incentives for home ownership- future capital gains. People with these certificates are really just renters since they will have no hope of making money, plus they are saddled with maintenance, taxes, etc., in other words they are paying above market rent. I would imagine that once they figure this out, they will let the home go.

        • February 22, 2008 at 11:24 AM #157992
          Ash Housewares
          Participant

          This system would remove one of the largest incentives for home ownership- future capital gains. People with these certificates are really just renters since they will have no hope of making money, plus they are saddled with maintenance, taxes, etc., in other words they are paying above market rent. I would imagine that once they figure this out, they will let the home go.

        • February 22, 2008 at 11:24 AM #158066
          Ash Housewares
          Participant

          This system would remove one of the largest incentives for home ownership- future capital gains. People with these certificates are really just renters since they will have no hope of making money, plus they are saddled with maintenance, taxes, etc., in other words they are paying above market rent. I would imagine that once they figure this out, they will let the home go.

        • February 22, 2008 at 10:59 AM #157933
          vagabondo
          Participant

          I think it is a bad idea. The sooner we flush these loans/homes out of the system, the sooner we hit bottom. Securitization (or whatever this idea is) seems to me to mask and delay the inevitable.

        • February 22, 2008 at 10:59 AM #157946
          vagabondo
          Participant

          I think it is a bad idea. The sooner we flush these loans/homes out of the system, the sooner we hit bottom. Securitization (or whatever this idea is) seems to me to mask and delay the inevitable.

        • February 22, 2008 at 10:59 AM #157953
          vagabondo
          Participant

          I think it is a bad idea. The sooner we flush these loans/homes out of the system, the sooner we hit bottom. Securitization (or whatever this idea is) seems to me to mask and delay the inevitable.

        • February 22, 2008 at 10:59 AM #158026
          vagabondo
          Participant

          I think it is a bad idea. The sooner we flush these loans/homes out of the system, the sooner we hit bottom. Securitization (or whatever this idea is) seems to me to mask and delay the inevitable.

        • February 22, 2008 at 10:37 AM #157902
          HereWeGo
          Participant

          I agree, Stan. It’s not a bad idea, if for no other reason than the judiciary is not newly injected into the market.

          Allowing cram-downs, on the other hand, is fine in theory, but given the current state of the credit markets and the MBS markets, not a real good idea at the current time. If the Congress continually looks askance at MBS investors, eventually those investors will take the hint.

        • February 22, 2008 at 10:37 AM #157915
          HereWeGo
          Participant

          I agree, Stan. It’s not a bad idea, if for no other reason than the judiciary is not newly injected into the market.

          Allowing cram-downs, on the other hand, is fine in theory, but given the current state of the credit markets and the MBS markets, not a real good idea at the current time. If the Congress continually looks askance at MBS investors, eventually those investors will take the hint.

        • February 22, 2008 at 10:37 AM #157922
          HereWeGo
          Participant

          I agree, Stan. It’s not a bad idea, if for no other reason than the judiciary is not newly injected into the market.

          Allowing cram-downs, on the other hand, is fine in theory, but given the current state of the credit markets and the MBS markets, not a real good idea at the current time. If the Congress continually looks askance at MBS investors, eventually those investors will take the hint.

        • February 22, 2008 at 10:37 AM #157996
          HereWeGo
          Participant

          I agree, Stan. It’s not a bad idea, if for no other reason than the judiciary is not newly injected into the market.

          Allowing cram-downs, on the other hand, is fine in theory, but given the current state of the credit markets and the MBS markets, not a real good idea at the current time. If the Congress continually looks askance at MBS investors, eventually those investors will take the hint.

      • February 22, 2008 at 10:32 AM #157892
        cr
        Participant

        The problem with any bailout effort regardless of whether it truly helps the homeowner or bank, is it encourages people who can afford their payments to stop making them so they can get a handout.

      • February 22, 2008 at 10:32 AM #157905
        cr
        Participant

        The problem with any bailout effort regardless of whether it truly helps the homeowner or bank, is it encourages people who can afford their payments to stop making them so they can get a handout.

      • February 22, 2008 at 10:32 AM #157913
        cr
        Participant

        The problem with any bailout effort regardless of whether it truly helps the homeowner or bank, is it encourages people who can afford their payments to stop making them so they can get a handout.

      • February 22, 2008 at 10:32 AM #157985
        cr
        Participant

        The problem with any bailout effort regardless of whether it truly helps the homeowner or bank, is it encourages people who can afford their payments to stop making them so they can get a handout.

    • February 21, 2008 at 9:41 PM #157681
      stansd
      Participant

      I’ll go on record saying this is the first good bailout idea I’ve seen. It will lubricate the market by allowing the banks to tap into some of the potential value they are giving up by writing down a loan. Why should a home buyer who got in over his or her head get a payment break now because they can’t afford it and have the potential to reap a large gain down the road.

      This increases the odds of a workout and also prevents a maverick borrower from excercising a put option from the bank while reaping all the upside.

      I think it’s a great idea-good for all. Too many on this board are out for pain in the market and pain for individuals with impunity. If there is a reasonable economic solution for all, it should be pursued.

      Where I do part company, however, is the part where the government buys the loan. I think the negative equity certificate is a nice idea to help the banks work things out., but that the government should avoid a bailout of the loan itself-nanny state versus market innovation.

      Stan

    • February 21, 2008 at 9:41 PM #157695
      stansd
      Participant

      I’ll go on record saying this is the first good bailout idea I’ve seen. It will lubricate the market by allowing the banks to tap into some of the potential value they are giving up by writing down a loan. Why should a home buyer who got in over his or her head get a payment break now because they can’t afford it and have the potential to reap a large gain down the road.

      This increases the odds of a workout and also prevents a maverick borrower from excercising a put option from the bank while reaping all the upside.

      I think it’s a great idea-good for all. Too many on this board are out for pain in the market and pain for individuals with impunity. If there is a reasonable economic solution for all, it should be pursued.

      Where I do part company, however, is the part where the government buys the loan. I think the negative equity certificate is a nice idea to help the banks work things out., but that the government should avoid a bailout of the loan itself-nanny state versus market innovation.

      Stan

    • February 21, 2008 at 9:41 PM #157704
      stansd
      Participant

      I’ll go on record saying this is the first good bailout idea I’ve seen. It will lubricate the market by allowing the banks to tap into some of the potential value they are giving up by writing down a loan. Why should a home buyer who got in over his or her head get a payment break now because they can’t afford it and have the potential to reap a large gain down the road.

      This increases the odds of a workout and also prevents a maverick borrower from excercising a put option from the bank while reaping all the upside.

      I think it’s a great idea-good for all. Too many on this board are out for pain in the market and pain for individuals with impunity. If there is a reasonable economic solution for all, it should be pursued.

      Where I do part company, however, is the part where the government buys the loan. I think the negative equity certificate is a nice idea to help the banks work things out., but that the government should avoid a bailout of the loan itself-nanny state versus market innovation.

      Stan

    • February 21, 2008 at 9:41 PM #157776
      stansd
      Participant

      I’ll go on record saying this is the first good bailout idea I’ve seen. It will lubricate the market by allowing the banks to tap into some of the potential value they are giving up by writing down a loan. Why should a home buyer who got in over his or her head get a payment break now because they can’t afford it and have the potential to reap a large gain down the road.

      This increases the odds of a workout and also prevents a maverick borrower from excercising a put option from the bank while reaping all the upside.

      I think it’s a great idea-good for all. Too many on this board are out for pain in the market and pain for individuals with impunity. If there is a reasonable economic solution for all, it should be pursued.

      Where I do part company, however, is the part where the government buys the loan. I think the negative equity certificate is a nice idea to help the banks work things out., but that the government should avoid a bailout of the loan itself-nanny state versus market innovation.

      Stan

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 10 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.