Mortgage modifications fail to stop defaults

[gn]

Previously, there was a thread discussing the “shadow inventory” & the effects of the mortgage modifications.

Here’s an article regarding this subject:

http://www.filife.com/stories/mortgage-modifying-fails-to-halt-defaults

[carlsbadworker]

I find people on this board routinely under-estimate the power of delaying the inventory hitting the market. So what if it fails to stop defaults? The normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now. If they can spread the “shadow inventory” into many many years, the effect of this inventory on the housing price (which we care most) is going to be rather negligible.
In the end, procrastination is like masturbation. It looks like you’re just screwing yourself, but it also has many hidden benefits that people just don’t advertise about it.

[carlsbadworker]

I find people on this board routinely under-estimate the power of delaying the inventory hitting the market. So what if it fails to stop defaults? The normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now. If they can spread the “shadow inventory” into many many years, the effect of this inventory on the housing price (which we care most) is going to be rather negligible.
In the end, procrastination is like masturbation. It looks like you’re just screwing yourself, but it also has many hidden benefits that people just don’t advertise about it.

[carlsbadworker]

I find people on this board routinely under-estimate the power of delaying the inventory hitting the market. So what if it fails to stop defaults? The normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now. If they can spread the “shadow inventory” into many many years, the effect of this inventory on the housing price (which we care most) is going to be rather negligible.
In the end, procrastination is like masturbation. It looks like you’re just screwing yourself, but it also has many hidden benefits that people just don’t advertise about it.

[carlsbadworker]

I find people on this board routinely under-estimate the power of delaying the inventory hitting the market. So what if it fails to stop defaults? The normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now. If they can spread the “shadow inventory” into many many years, the effect of this inventory on the housing price (which we care most) is going to be rather negligible.
In the end, procrastination is like masturbation. It looks like you’re just screwing yourself, but it also has many hidden benefits that people just don’t advertise about it.

[carlsbadworker]

I find people on this board routinely under-estimate the power of delaying the inventory hitting the market. So what if it fails to stop defaults? The normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now. If they can spread the “shadow inventory” into many many years, the effect of this inventory on the housing price (which we care most) is going to be rather negligible.
In the end, procrastination is like masturbation. It looks like you’re just screwing yourself, but it also has many hidden benefits that people just don’t advertise about it.

[Arraya]

The normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now.

You need to find some economic growth for you population growth or it does not mean anything except additional burden on a society. That is the crux of the problem.

[Arraya]

The normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now.

You need to find some economic growth for you population growth or it does not mean anything except additional burden on a society. That is the crux of the problem.

[Arraya]

The normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now.

You need to find some economic growth for you population growth or it does not mean anything except additional burden on a society. That is the crux of the problem.

[Arraya]

The normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now.

You need to find some economic growth for you population growth or it does not mean anything except additional burden on a society. That is the crux of the problem.

[Arraya]

The normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now.

You need to find some economic growth for you population growth or it does not mean anything except additional burden on a society. That is the crux of the problem.

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]The normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now.

You need to find some economic growth for you population growth or it does not mean anything except additional burden on a society. That is the crux of the problem. [/quote]

GDP = C + I + G + (X-Imp)
The percentage change in GDP will reflect the changes in the above inputs. The percentage change in GDP over the long term will ALSO equal Population Growth + Productivity Growth. This relationship is axiomatic.

So, you see, GDP growth is partly a function of population growth, not vice versa. I think (re: hope) what you’re trying to say is that we need growth in productivity and innovation to create jobs that will take up the current slack in the job market. Otherwise, you’re confused on how the pieces fit together.

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]The normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now.

You need to find some economic growth for you population growth or it does not mean anything except additional burden on a society. That is the crux of the problem. [/quote]

GDP = C + I + G + (X-Imp)
The percentage change in GDP will reflect the changes in the above inputs. The percentage change in GDP over the long term will ALSO equal Population Growth + Productivity Growth. This relationship is axiomatic.

So, you see, GDP growth is partly a function of population growth, not vice versa. I think (re: hope) what you’re trying to say is that we need growth in productivity and innovation to create jobs that will take up the current slack in the job market. Otherwise, you’re confused on how the pieces fit together.

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]The normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now.

You need to find some economic growth for you population growth or it does not mean anything except additional burden on a society. That is the crux of the problem. [/quote]

GDP = C + I + G + (X-Imp)
The percentage change in GDP will reflect the changes in the above inputs. The percentage change in GDP over the long term will ALSO equal Population Growth + Productivity Growth. This relationship is axiomatic.

So, you see, GDP growth is partly a function of population growth, not vice versa. I think (re: hope) what you’re trying to say is that we need growth in productivity and innovation to create jobs that will take up the current slack in the job market. Otherwise, you’re confused on how the pieces fit together.

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]The normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now.

You need to find some economic growth for you population growth or it does not mean anything except additional burden on a society. That is the crux of the problem. [/quote]

GDP = C + I + G + (X-Imp)
The percentage change in GDP will reflect the changes in the above inputs. The percentage change in GDP over the long term will ALSO equal Population Growth + Productivity Growth. This relationship is axiomatic.

So, you see, GDP growth is partly a function of population growth, not vice versa. I think (re: hope) what you’re trying to say is that we need growth in productivity and innovation to create jobs that will take up the current slack in the job market. Otherwise, you’re confused on how the pieces fit together.

[Author]

Posts