NOW’s THE TIME TO BUY!

[DWCAP]

The democrats tried to get something like this going before their break a few weeks ago. The Reb’s were having none of it in the senate and they have enough votes to kill it if necessary. That being said, the banks, the bleeding heart types, the relators, the builders, the Wall Steet investment houses and certain portions of the media are turning up the heat on everyone to do something. Remember, this is an election year and nobody wants to be seen as lazy or cruel. So something will get passed. This? maybe not, but something similar. Maybe itll have a cap, where only people who have a conforming loan will qualify. That would still hurt the bubble zones while turning around Detriots problems. The Banks can survive the bubble zones popping, they could survive the rust belt colapse, they can survive the current “crunch” we are in. They cant survive all three at once. (the rep’s care about the banks)

[JPJones]

Sandi Egan wrote:
“Currently popular bailout plan works like this:
The bank rewrites your mortgage agreement, lowering your debt from $1M to 85% of home’s current value, 680K. In exchange government insures your mortgage, meaning that if you default on it again the taxpayers will carry any losses, not the bank.

This way the bank benefits from not having to go through foreclosure process and possibly facing less write downs. The FB benefits, because his enormous loan was just forgiven. Effectively, he bought the house on the peak for $680K, 15% below TODAYS market value. The RE market benefits, because there is one less distressed property on the market. The only people who don’t benefit are the taxpayers, who are exposed to (somewhat lessened) risk of the FB defaulting again, without any prospects for any gain.”

I’m a tax paying, joe6p renter saving to buy. My gut tells me that this is a plan that I could live with for several reasons.

-The banks still have to write down the difference between the original loan and the rewrite. Taxpayers are not footing that bill, which is what my main fear is whenever I hear “bail-out”.

-Government is slow, and I’m assuming by “TODAYS market” that the new loan value would be 15% lower than the value at the time of the re-write. I doubt any plan makes it down the pipe before the downward trend we’re in loses a lot of momentum naturally.

-The longer it takes to implement, the less risk there is to the taxpayer. By the time the loans get processed and re-written, the home will have likely already been through a major correction. The home value would have to fall an additional 15% to reintroduce the temptation for an FB to walk away.

If the plan sprouts wings and takes off tomorrow, then yeah, it’ll suck. What are the odds of that, though? If the plan drags through congress and doesn’t take root for 6 months to a year, I think it would be in a better place to succeed without screwing over us savers. Keep in mind also that this only helps, but doesn’t completely solve, 1 part of the equation: foreclosures. 12+ months of inventory still have to be cleared out in addition to foreclosure rates returning to a sane level before the market can bottom.

As several of you have said over and over again, some sort of bail-out is a sure thing. I feel that this suggested plan would be a good compromise that ultimately would cost taxpayers a lot less than a full bailout of banks and FBs, with banks fielding the bulk of the losses as they should be.

One question that remains unanswered from the summary, though, is how a loan would qualify for a rewrite from this program? Are non-primary residences excluded? Does the FB have to qualify (full doc!) for the rewritten loan? If the answer is yes to both of those questions, we might have ourselves a real winner.

[JPJones]

Sandi Egan wrote:
“Currently popular bailout plan works like this:
The bank rewrites your mortgage agreement, lowering your debt from $1M to 85% of home’s current value, 680K. In exchange government insures your mortgage, meaning that if you default on it again the taxpayers will carry any losses, not the bank.

This way the bank benefits from not having to go through foreclosure process and possibly facing less write downs. The FB benefits, because his enormous loan was just forgiven. Effectively, he bought the house on the peak for $680K, 15% below TODAYS market value. The RE market benefits, because there is one less distressed property on the market. The only people who don’t benefit are the taxpayers, who are exposed to (somewhat lessened) risk of the FB defaulting again, without any prospects for any gain.”

I’m a tax paying, joe6p renter saving to buy. My gut tells me that this is a plan that I could live with for several reasons.

-The banks still have to write down the difference between the original loan and the rewrite. Taxpayers are not footing that bill, which is what my main fear is whenever I hear “bail-out”.

-Government is slow, and I’m assuming by “TODAYS market” that the new loan value would be 15% lower than the value at the time of the re-write. I doubt any plan makes it down the pipe before the downward trend we’re in loses a lot of momentum naturally.

-The longer it takes to implement, the less risk there is to the taxpayer. By the time the loans get processed and re-written, the home will have likely already been through a major correction. The home value would have to fall an additional 15% to reintroduce the temptation for an FB to walk away.

If the plan sprouts wings and takes off tomorrow, then yeah, it’ll suck. What are the odds of that, though? If the plan drags through congress and doesn’t take root for 6 months to a year, I think it would be in a better place to succeed without screwing over us savers. Keep in mind also that this only helps, but doesn’t completely solve, 1 part of the equation: foreclosures. 12+ months of inventory still have to be cleared out in addition to foreclosure rates returning to a sane level before the market can bottom.

As several of you have said over and over again, some sort of bail-out is a sure thing. I feel that this suggested plan would be a good compromise that ultimately would cost taxpayers a lot less than a full bailout of banks and FBs, with banks fielding the bulk of the losses as they should be.

One question that remains unanswered from the summary, though, is how a loan would qualify for a rewrite from this program? Are non-primary residences excluded? Does the FB have to qualify (full doc!) for the rewritten loan? If the answer is yes to both of those questions, we might have ourselves a real winner.

[JPJones]

Sandi Egan wrote:
“Currently popular bailout plan works like this:
The bank rewrites your mortgage agreement, lowering your debt from $1M to 85% of home’s current value, 680K. In exchange government insures your mortgage, meaning that if you default on it again the taxpayers will carry any losses, not the bank.

This way the bank benefits from not having to go through foreclosure process and possibly facing less write downs. The FB benefits, because his enormous loan was just forgiven. Effectively, he bought the house on the peak for $680K, 15% below TODAYS market value. The RE market benefits, because there is one less distressed property on the market. The only people who don’t benefit are the taxpayers, who are exposed to (somewhat lessened) risk of the FB defaulting again, without any prospects for any gain.”

I’m a tax paying, joe6p renter saving to buy. My gut tells me that this is a plan that I could live with for several reasons.

-The banks still have to write down the difference between the original loan and the rewrite. Taxpayers are not footing that bill, which is what my main fear is whenever I hear “bail-out”.

-Government is slow, and I’m assuming by “TODAYS market” that the new loan value would be 15% lower than the value at the time of the re-write. I doubt any plan makes it down the pipe before the downward trend we’re in loses a lot of momentum naturally.

-The longer it takes to implement, the less risk there is to the taxpayer. By the time the loans get processed and re-written, the home will have likely already been through a major correction. The home value would have to fall an additional 15% to reintroduce the temptation for an FB to walk away.

If the plan sprouts wings and takes off tomorrow, then yeah, it’ll suck. What are the odds of that, though? If the plan drags through congress and doesn’t take root for 6 months to a year, I think it would be in a better place to succeed without screwing over us savers. Keep in mind also that this only helps, but doesn’t completely solve, 1 part of the equation: foreclosures. 12+ months of inventory still have to be cleared out in addition to foreclosure rates returning to a sane level before the market can bottom.

As several of you have said over and over again, some sort of bail-out is a sure thing. I feel that this suggested plan would be a good compromise that ultimately would cost taxpayers a lot less than a full bailout of banks and FBs, with banks fielding the bulk of the losses as they should be.

One question that remains unanswered from the summary, though, is how a loan would qualify for a rewrite from this program? Are non-primary residences excluded? Does the FB have to qualify (full doc!) for the rewritten loan? If the answer is yes to both of those questions, we might have ourselves a real winner.

[JPJones]

Sandi Egan wrote:
“Currently popular bailout plan works like this:
The bank rewrites your mortgage agreement, lowering your debt from $1M to 85% of home’s current value, 680K. In exchange government insures your mortgage, meaning that if you default on it again the taxpayers will carry any losses, not the bank.

This way the bank benefits from not having to go through foreclosure process and possibly facing less write downs. The FB benefits, because his enormous loan was just forgiven. Effectively, he bought the house on the peak for $680K, 15% below TODAYS market value. The RE market benefits, because there is one less distressed property on the market. The only people who don’t benefit are the taxpayers, who are exposed to (somewhat lessened) risk of the FB defaulting again, without any prospects for any gain.”

I’m a tax paying, joe6p renter saving to buy. My gut tells me that this is a plan that I could live with for several reasons.

-The banks still have to write down the difference between the original loan and the rewrite. Taxpayers are not footing that bill, which is what my main fear is whenever I hear “bail-out”.

-Government is slow, and I’m assuming by “TODAYS market” that the new loan value would be 15% lower than the value at the time of the re-write. I doubt any plan makes it down the pipe before the downward trend we’re in loses a lot of momentum naturally.

-The longer it takes to implement, the less risk there is to the taxpayer. By the time the loans get processed and re-written, the home will have likely already been through a major correction. The home value would have to fall an additional 15% to reintroduce the temptation for an FB to walk away.

If the plan sprouts wings and takes off tomorrow, then yeah, it’ll suck. What are the odds of that, though? If the plan drags through congress and doesn’t take root for 6 months to a year, I think it would be in a better place to succeed without screwing over us savers. Keep in mind also that this only helps, but doesn’t completely solve, 1 part of the equation: foreclosures. 12+ months of inventory still have to be cleared out in addition to foreclosure rates returning to a sane level before the market can bottom.

As several of you have said over and over again, some sort of bail-out is a sure thing. I feel that this suggested plan would be a good compromise that ultimately would cost taxpayers a lot less than a full bailout of banks and FBs, with banks fielding the bulk of the losses as they should be.

One question that remains unanswered from the summary, though, is how a loan would qualify for a rewrite from this program? Are non-primary residences excluded? Does the FB have to qualify (full doc!) for the rewritten loan? If the answer is yes to both of those questions, we might have ourselves a real winner.

[JPJones]

Sandi Egan wrote:
“Currently popular bailout plan works like this:
The bank rewrites your mortgage agreement, lowering your debt from $1M to 85% of home’s current value, 680K. In exchange government insures your mortgage, meaning that if you default on it again the taxpayers will carry any losses, not the bank.

This way the bank benefits from not having to go through foreclosure process and possibly facing less write downs. The FB benefits, because his enormous loan was just forgiven. Effectively, he bought the house on the peak for $680K, 15% below TODAYS market value. The RE market benefits, because there is one less distressed property on the market. The only people who don’t benefit are the taxpayers, who are exposed to (somewhat lessened) risk of the FB defaulting again, without any prospects for any gain.”

I’m a tax paying, joe6p renter saving to buy. My gut tells me that this is a plan that I could live with for several reasons.

-The banks still have to write down the difference between the original loan and the rewrite. Taxpayers are not footing that bill, which is what my main fear is whenever I hear “bail-out”.

-Government is slow, and I’m assuming by “TODAYS market” that the new loan value would be 15% lower than the value at the time of the re-write. I doubt any plan makes it down the pipe before the downward trend we’re in loses a lot of momentum naturally.

-The longer it takes to implement, the less risk there is to the taxpayer. By the time the loans get processed and re-written, the home will have likely already been through a major correction. The home value would have to fall an additional 15% to reintroduce the temptation for an FB to walk away.

If the plan sprouts wings and takes off tomorrow, then yeah, it’ll suck. What are the odds of that, though? If the plan drags through congress and doesn’t take root for 6 months to a year, I think it would be in a better place to succeed without screwing over us savers. Keep in mind also that this only helps, but doesn’t completely solve, 1 part of the equation: foreclosures. 12+ months of inventory still have to be cleared out in addition to foreclosure rates returning to a sane level before the market can bottom.

As several of you have said over and over again, some sort of bail-out is a sure thing. I feel that this suggested plan would be a good compromise that ultimately would cost taxpayers a lot less than a full bailout of banks and FBs, with banks fielding the bulk of the losses as they should be.

One question that remains unanswered from the summary, though, is how a loan would qualify for a rewrite from this program? Are non-primary residences excluded? Does the FB have to qualify (full doc!) for the rewritten loan? If the answer is yes to both of those questions, we might have ourselves a real winner.

[Coronita]

You folks really didn't think the bailout absurdity would stop did you? Again, take a look at what the current candidates are preaching about bailout, (Clinton is the scariest). Me thinks Democrats are going to try to push a lot of bailout initiatives. Again, not trying to turn this into a political issue. BUT, like I said, imho the best government is one that can't get anything done. Having a democrat controlled congress and executive I fear is going to be a bad thing for most of us that don't want to see bailouts. It's only going to get worse. I'm not a big McCain fan, but imho he has to win for this purpose alone. Congress will be a landslide victory for the Dem's I'm afraid.

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

You folks really didn't think the bailout absurdity would stop did you? Again, take a look at what the current candidates are preaching about bailout, (Clinton is the scariest). Me thinks Democrats are going to try to push a lot of bailout initiatives. Again, not trying to turn this into a political issue. BUT, like I said, imho the best government is one that can't get anything done. Having a democrat controlled congress and executive I fear is going to be a bad thing for most of us that don't want to see bailouts. It's only going to get worse. I'm not a big McCain fan, but imho he has to win for this purpose alone. Congress will be a landslide victory for the Dem's I'm afraid.

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

You folks really didn't think the bailout absurdity would stop did you? Again, take a look at what the current candidates are preaching about bailout, (Clinton is the scariest). Me thinks Democrats are going to try to push a lot of bailout initiatives. Again, not trying to turn this into a political issue. BUT, like I said, imho the best government is one that can't get anything done. Having a democrat controlled congress and executive I fear is going to be a bad thing for most of us that don't want to see bailouts. It's only going to get worse. I'm not a big McCain fan, but imho he has to win for this purpose alone. Congress will be a landslide victory for the Dem's I'm afraid.

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

You folks really didn't think the bailout absurdity would stop did you? Again, take a look at what the current candidates are preaching about bailout, (Clinton is the scariest). Me thinks Democrats are going to try to push a lot of bailout initiatives. Again, not trying to turn this into a political issue. BUT, like I said, imho the best government is one that can't get anything done. Having a democrat controlled congress and executive I fear is going to be a bad thing for most of us that don't want to see bailouts. It's only going to get worse. I'm not a big McCain fan, but imho he has to win for this purpose alone. Congress will be a landslide victory for the Dem's I'm afraid.

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

You folks really didn't think the bailout absurdity would stop did you? Again, take a look at what the current candidates are preaching about bailout, (Clinton is the scariest). Me thinks Democrats are going to try to push a lot of bailout initiatives. Again, not trying to turn this into a political issue. BUT, like I said, imho the best government is one that can't get anything done. Having a democrat controlled congress and executive I fear is going to be a bad thing for most of us that don't want to see bailouts. It's only going to get worse. I'm not a big McCain fan, but imho he has to win for this purpose alone. Congress will be a landslide victory for the Dem's I'm afraid.

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Alex_angel]

Will a fmaily that has been making the payments also get the option to have their loan written down 15-30%? Seriously, shouldn’t every american who bought in the last 3-4 years get bailed out whether they can afford it or not?

[Alex_angel]

Will a fmaily that has been making the payments also get the option to have their loan written down 15-30%? Seriously, shouldn’t every american who bought in the last 3-4 years get bailed out whether they can afford it or not?

[Alex_angel]

Will a fmaily that has been making the payments also get the option to have their loan written down 15-30%? Seriously, shouldn’t every american who bought in the last 3-4 years get bailed out whether they can afford it or not?

[Alex_angel]

Will a fmaily that has been making the payments also get the option to have their loan written down 15-30%? Seriously, shouldn’t every american who bought in the last 3-4 years get bailed out whether they can afford it or not?

[Author]

Posts