- This topic has 20 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 5 months ago by
patientrenter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 29, 2009 at 9:59 PM #15958June 29, 2009 at 11:53 PM #422228
SK in CV
ParticipantThey are not wrong. They’re exactly right, from every angle.
But having watched banks and other lenders screw up through 3 down cycles, both in negotiating with borrowers with impaired collateral and in managing REO inventory, I’m pretty confident it won’t happen on any significant scale. Lenders are terrified of setting any kind of precedent in negotiating loan modifications. So they lose. And borrowers lose. Which further damages market stability. They will never learn.
June 29, 2009 at 11:53 PM #422961ParticipantThey are not wrong. They’re exactly right, from every angle.
But having watched banks and other lenders screw up through 3 down cycles, both in negotiating with borrowers with impaired collateral and in managing REO inventory, I’m pretty confident it won’t happen on any significant scale. Lenders are terrified of setting any kind of precedent in negotiating loan modifications. So they lose. And borrowers lose. Which further damages market stability. They will never learn.
June 29, 2009 at 11:53 PM #422457ParticipantThey are not wrong. They’re exactly right, from every angle.
But having watched banks and other lenders screw up through 3 down cycles, both in negotiating with borrowers with impaired collateral and in managing REO inventory, I’m pretty confident it won’t happen on any significant scale. Lenders are terrified of setting any kind of precedent in negotiating loan modifications. So they lose. And borrowers lose. Which further damages market stability. They will never learn.
June 29, 2009 at 11:53 PM #422731ParticipantThey are not wrong. They’re exactly right, from every angle.
But having watched banks and other lenders screw up through 3 down cycles, both in negotiating with borrowers with impaired collateral and in managing REO inventory, I’m pretty confident it won’t happen on any significant scale. Lenders are terrified of setting any kind of precedent in negotiating loan modifications. So they lose. And borrowers lose. Which further damages market stability. They will never learn.
June 29, 2009 at 11:53 PM #422799ParticipantThey are not wrong. They’re exactly right, from every angle.
But having watched banks and other lenders screw up through 3 down cycles, both in negotiating with borrowers with impaired collateral and in managing REO inventory, I’m pretty confident it won’t happen on any significant scale. Lenders are terrified of setting any kind of precedent in negotiating loan modifications. So they lose. And borrowers lose. Which further damages market stability. They will never learn.
June 30, 2009 at 8:22 AM #422801UCGal
ParticipantThis is the classic conflict between Moral Hazard and Business Bottom line.
It makes sense for the banks to limit their losses. If I were a shareholder of the bank I would hope they were considering that option.
But the moral hazard is there – rewarding people who bought inflated assets. No rewards for people who were more prudent with their purchases or who sat on the sidelines.
Interesting problem.
June 30, 2009 at 8:22 AM #423031ParticipantThis is the classic conflict between Moral Hazard and Business Bottom line.
It makes sense for the banks to limit their losses. If I were a shareholder of the bank I would hope they were considering that option.
But the moral hazard is there – rewarding people who bought inflated assets. No rewards for people who were more prudent with their purchases or who sat on the sidelines.
Interesting problem.
June 30, 2009 at 8:22 AM #422869ParticipantThis is the classic conflict between Moral Hazard and Business Bottom line.
It makes sense for the banks to limit their losses. If I were a shareholder of the bank I would hope they were considering that option.
But the moral hazard is there – rewarding people who bought inflated assets. No rewards for people who were more prudent with their purchases or who sat on the sidelines.
Interesting problem.
June 30, 2009 at 8:22 AM #422527ParticipantThis is the classic conflict between Moral Hazard and Business Bottom line.
It makes sense for the banks to limit their losses. If I were a shareholder of the bank I would hope they were considering that option.
But the moral hazard is there – rewarding people who bought inflated assets. No rewards for people who were more prudent with their purchases or who sat on the sidelines.
Interesting problem.
June 30, 2009 at 8:22 AM #422298ParticipantThis is the classic conflict between Moral Hazard and Business Bottom line.
It makes sense for the banks to limit their losses. If I were a shareholder of the bank I would hope they were considering that option.
But the moral hazard is there – rewarding people who bought inflated assets. No rewards for people who were more prudent with their purchases or who sat on the sidelines.
Interesting problem.
June 30, 2009 at 8:59 AM #422557
svelteParticipantWait…Roubini, the very person that many on this board worshipped just a few short months ago, is touting a position (reducing principal) that many on this board think is the work of the devil?
Blasphemy!
June 30, 2009 at 8:59 AM #422832svelteParticipantWait…Roubini, the very person that many on this board worshipped just a few short months ago, is touting a position (reducing principal) that many on this board think is the work of the devil?
Blasphemy!
June 30, 2009 at 8:59 AM #422899svelteParticipantWait…Roubini, the very person that many on this board worshipped just a few short months ago, is touting a position (reducing principal) that many on this board think is the work of the devil?
Blasphemy!
June 30, 2009 at 8:59 AM #422328svelteParticipantWait…Roubini, the very person that many on this board worshipped just a few short months ago, is touting a position (reducing principal) that many on this board think is the work of the devil?
Blasphemy!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.