Paulson: Subprime help on the way

[lonestar2000]

“We are working aggressively and quickly, utilizing available tools and creating new ones, to help financially responsible but struggling homeowners.”

What about financially responsible but priced out renters? Why would I want to pay 6% interest when people are being given extensions on their 1% interest loans? I am a renter and wish to buy, but I am not willing to enter the market when others are getting a free lunch.

I fail to see how the bailout will help anyone at all!

http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/03/real_estate/Paulson_on_housing/index.htm?postversion=2007120315

[patientlywaiting]

Looks to me like Paulson is trying to help his buddies on Wall- Street. I’m sure his phone has been ringing off the hook since Wall Street got hammered.

[patientlywaiting]

Looks to me like Paulson is trying to help his buddies on Wall- Street. I’m sure his phone has been ringing off the hook since Wall Street got hammered.

[patientlywaiting]

Looks to me like Paulson is trying to help his buddies on Wall- Street. I’m sure his phone has been ringing off the hook since Wall Street got hammered.

[patientlywaiting]

Looks to me like Paulson is trying to help his buddies on Wall- Street. I’m sure his phone has been ringing off the hook since Wall Street got hammered.

[patientlywaiting]

Looks to me like Paulson is trying to help his buddies on Wall- Street. I’m sure his phone has been ringing off the hook since Wall Street got hammered.

[NeetaT]

Good point!!!!!

This is all about keeping property prices high so that more tax money can be usurped from the public. I rent also and will soon be renting in San Diego. I guess I should cry to the ACLU.

[nostradamus]

I have yet to hear any concrete details about how FB’s will be helped.

I don’t think it’s possible to keep prices high, but I didn’t think anything in the past couple RE years was possible. When I graduated UCSD in ’93 I thought SD was overpriced. Man oh man look at it now.

I think the likely “bailouts” will be bailing out the lender and shagging the FB. They’ll stay in “their” homes alright, shackled to some sort of recourse loan with lower interest and a longer term, as their home value goes down like a (_fill in the blank_). Anyone else care to speculate what the details of the bailout might involve?

[patientlywaiting]

” He said Hope Now is sending out the letters 120 days in advance of the resets so borrowers have plenty of time to act before foreclosure hits and the letters include a hot line number where the borrowers can obtain almost instant advice”

Does that mean that consumers’ loan information is being shared without their consents? Sounds link a privacy act violation to me.

Relate article. I want my arm frozen too.
http://gowest.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/12/03/i-want-my-arm-rate-frozen-too/

[no_such_reality]

The last analyst I saw at a touch before 2PM talking with Bartiromo said they could save hopefully 1/3rd of the foreclosures.

She was the bullish one on the deal.

Now ask yourself if slowing the foreclosures by 1/3rd is going diddly in SoCal. It isn’t.

The analysts said the big problem they have is everybody that isn’t in jeopardy is calling wanting their rates frozen.

[cr]

Somewhere in all the talk of Paulson’s plan it was whispered that these bailout efforts would be OPTIONAL for the lenders.

Has anyone else heard that? The government can’t force lenders to lower rates and lose money – we’re not that far socialist yet.

So at their discretion banks can help people stay in homes they can’t afford for a little while longer while their property value continues to decline until they are inevitably forced to sell, only later and at a lower price than if they sold at a loss today.

I read on Yahoo that the current 640,000 foreclosures (1 for every 500 Americans) is the highest in 30 years, and up to 2 million more are expected by 2009.

This hot air talk is little more than lip service for Wall Street.

[drunkle]

from what i recall of his speech today, this article jives:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/03/real_estate/left_out.moneymag/index.htm?postversion=2007120318

essentially, a very thin slice of bitter debtors are eligible.

[JerseyGrl]

Toots
essentially, a very thin slice of bitter debtors are eligible………probably so

From http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/12/paulsons-plan-is-nothing-but-lip.html

“The homeowner bailout sounds a lot better in the headlines than it does when you dig deeper. For instance, HomEq reports that for every 5,000 resets that come in every month, only 1,000 meet standards to even begin loan modification, and of those only 10% of borrowers actually begin the process. That’s 2% of all borrowers undergoing resets.

One of the problems is that in many cases, a W2 is required, and many of these homeowners are reluctant to provide one since they presumably lied about their income to qualify for a mortgage. Still others are in trouble not because of the reset, but because they can’t even afford their teaser rate. Many in foreclosure won’t pick up the phone when contacts are attempted from lenders.”

[JerseyGrl]

Toots
essentially, a very thin slice of bitter debtors are eligible………probably so

From http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/12/paulsons-plan-is-nothing-but-lip.html

“The homeowner bailout sounds a lot better in the headlines than it does when you dig deeper. For instance, HomEq reports that for every 5,000 resets that come in every month, only 1,000 meet standards to even begin loan modification, and of those only 10% of borrowers actually begin the process. That’s 2% of all borrowers undergoing resets.

One of the problems is that in many cases, a W2 is required, and many of these homeowners are reluctant to provide one since they presumably lied about their income to qualify for a mortgage. Still others are in trouble not because of the reset, but because they can’t even afford their teaser rate. Many in foreclosure won’t pick up the phone when contacts are attempted from lenders.”

[JerseyGrl]

Toots
essentially, a very thin slice of bitter debtors are eligible………probably so

From http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/12/paulsons-plan-is-nothing-but-lip.html

“The homeowner bailout sounds a lot better in the headlines than it does when you dig deeper. For instance, HomEq reports that for every 5,000 resets that come in every month, only 1,000 meet standards to even begin loan modification, and of those only 10% of borrowers actually begin the process. That’s 2% of all borrowers undergoing resets.

One of the problems is that in many cases, a W2 is required, and many of these homeowners are reluctant to provide one since they presumably lied about their income to qualify for a mortgage. Still others are in trouble not because of the reset, but because they can’t even afford their teaser rate. Many in foreclosure won’t pick up the phone when contacts are attempted from lenders.”

[JerseyGrl]

Toots
essentially, a very thin slice of bitter debtors are eligible………probably so

From http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/12/paulsons-plan-is-nothing-but-lip.html

“The homeowner bailout sounds a lot better in the headlines than it does when you dig deeper. For instance, HomEq reports that for every 5,000 resets that come in every month, only 1,000 meet standards to even begin loan modification, and of those only 10% of borrowers actually begin the process. That’s 2% of all borrowers undergoing resets.

One of the problems is that in many cases, a W2 is required, and many of these homeowners are reluctant to provide one since they presumably lied about their income to qualify for a mortgage. Still others are in trouble not because of the reset, but because they can’t even afford their teaser rate. Many in foreclosure won’t pick up the phone when contacts are attempted from lenders.”

[JerseyGrl]

Toots
essentially, a very thin slice of bitter debtors are eligible………probably so

From http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/12/paulsons-plan-is-nothing-but-lip.html

“The homeowner bailout sounds a lot better in the headlines than it does when you dig deeper. For instance, HomEq reports that for every 5,000 resets that come in every month, only 1,000 meet standards to even begin loan modification, and of those only 10% of borrowers actually begin the process. That’s 2% of all borrowers undergoing resets.

One of the problems is that in many cases, a W2 is required, and many of these homeowners are reluctant to provide one since they presumably lied about their income to qualify for a mortgage. Still others are in trouble not because of the reset, but because they can’t even afford their teaser rate. Many in foreclosure won’t pick up the phone when contacts are attempted from lenders.”

[drunkle]

from what i recall of his speech today, this article jives:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/03/real_estate/left_out.moneymag/index.htm?postversion=2007120318

essentially, a very thin slice of bitter debtors are eligible.

[drunkle]

from what i recall of his speech today, this article jives:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/03/real_estate/left_out.moneymag/index.htm?postversion=2007120318

essentially, a very thin slice of bitter debtors are eligible.

[drunkle]

from what i recall of his speech today, this article jives:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/03/real_estate/left_out.moneymag/index.htm?postversion=2007120318

essentially, a very thin slice of bitter debtors are eligible.

[drunkle]

from what i recall of his speech today, this article jives:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/03/real_estate/left_out.moneymag/index.htm?postversion=2007120318

essentially, a very thin slice of bitter debtors are eligible.

[rocket science]

The article I read also indicated it is optional

In addtion it pointed out

A major hurdle to the deal has yet to be overcome: getting agreement from investors in mortgage-backed securities, who have resisted modifying loans except on a case-by-case basis.

"There is a $64,000 question: Will investors go along with this plan? And if not, can they be compelled to?" asked Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of Congress' Joint Economic Committee.

rs

[bubba99]

So, given that the holder of an MBS will or can be compelled to take less than the contract rate, the MBS must be discounted for the lower return. The holder then still suffers a “big” loss. If the spread is even 4% for 5 years, the loss is at least 20% of the MBS – much more when the additional risk of future discounts, FAS157 kicks in, and the new S+P ratings are applied. Maybe as high as 50% discount over contract. Does the MBS insurer eat the loss, or CITI who gave buyback guarantees or . . . ?

And does the re-valuation of the CDOs and CMOs kick another round of dominos when “offsheet” liabilities like buyback guarantees are finally triggered.

The owner of the MBS still has a 50% hit. The homeowner is still paying for an overpriced asset, and nothing has been solved. Moreover, who is going to buy MBS or CDOs in the future. The financial market is still screwed, and we haves solved nothing. The MBS holder is actually better off taking the asset (house), and holding it at close to par for as long as possible.

[bubba99]

So, given that the holder of an MBS will or can be compelled to take less than the contract rate, the MBS must be discounted for the lower return. The holder then still suffers a “big” loss. If the spread is even 4% for 5 years, the loss is at least 20% of the MBS – much more when the additional risk of future discounts, FAS157 kicks in, and the new S+P ratings are applied. Maybe as high as 50% discount over contract. Does the MBS insurer eat the loss, or CITI who gave buyback guarantees or . . . ?

And does the re-valuation of the CDOs and CMOs kick another round of dominos when “offsheet” liabilities like buyback guarantees are finally triggered.

The owner of the MBS still has a 50% hit. The homeowner is still paying for an overpriced asset, and nothing has been solved. Moreover, who is going to buy MBS or CDOs in the future. The financial market is still screwed, and we haves solved nothing. The MBS holder is actually better off taking the asset (house), and holding it at close to par for as long as possible.

[bubba99]

So, given that the holder of an MBS will or can be compelled to take less than the contract rate, the MBS must be discounted for the lower return. The holder then still suffers a “big” loss. If the spread is even 4% for 5 years, the loss is at least 20% of the MBS – much more when the additional risk of future discounts, FAS157 kicks in, and the new S+P ratings are applied. Maybe as high as 50% discount over contract. Does the MBS insurer eat the loss, or CITI who gave buyback guarantees or . . . ?

And does the re-valuation of the CDOs and CMOs kick another round of dominos when “offsheet” liabilities like buyback guarantees are finally triggered.

The owner of the MBS still has a 50% hit. The homeowner is still paying for an overpriced asset, and nothing has been solved. Moreover, who is going to buy MBS or CDOs in the future. The financial market is still screwed, and we haves solved nothing. The MBS holder is actually better off taking the asset (house), and holding it at close to par for as long as possible.

[bubba99]

So, given that the holder of an MBS will or can be compelled to take less than the contract rate, the MBS must be discounted for the lower return. The holder then still suffers a “big” loss. If the spread is even 4% for 5 years, the loss is at least 20% of the MBS – much more when the additional risk of future discounts, FAS157 kicks in, and the new S+P ratings are applied. Maybe as high as 50% discount over contract. Does the MBS insurer eat the loss, or CITI who gave buyback guarantees or . . . ?

And does the re-valuation of the CDOs and CMOs kick another round of dominos when “offsheet” liabilities like buyback guarantees are finally triggered.

The owner of the MBS still has a 50% hit. The homeowner is still paying for an overpriced asset, and nothing has been solved. Moreover, who is going to buy MBS or CDOs in the future. The financial market is still screwed, and we haves solved nothing. The MBS holder is actually better off taking the asset (house), and holding it at close to par for as long as possible.

[bubba99]

So, given that the holder of an MBS will or can be compelled to take less than the contract rate, the MBS must be discounted for the lower return. The holder then still suffers a “big” loss. If the spread is even 4% for 5 years, the loss is at least 20% of the MBS – much more when the additional risk of future discounts, FAS157 kicks in, and the new S+P ratings are applied. Maybe as high as 50% discount over contract. Does the MBS insurer eat the loss, or CITI who gave buyback guarantees or . . . ?

And does the re-valuation of the CDOs and CMOs kick another round of dominos when “offsheet” liabilities like buyback guarantees are finally triggered.

The owner of the MBS still has a 50% hit. The homeowner is still paying for an overpriced asset, and nothing has been solved. Moreover, who is going to buy MBS or CDOs in the future. The financial market is still screwed, and we haves solved nothing. The MBS holder is actually better off taking the asset (house), and holding it at close to par for as long as possible.

[rocket science]

The article I read also indicated it is optional

In addtion it pointed out

A major hurdle to the deal has yet to be overcome: getting agreement from investors in mortgage-backed securities, who have resisted modifying loans except on a case-by-case basis.

"There is a $64,000 question: Will investors go along with this plan? And if not, can they be compelled to?" asked Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of Congress' Joint Economic Committee.

rs

[rocket science]

The article I read also indicated it is optional

In addtion it pointed out

A major hurdle to the deal has yet to be overcome: getting agreement from investors in mortgage-backed securities, who have resisted modifying loans except on a case-by-case basis.

"There is a $64,000 question: Will investors go along with this plan? And if not, can they be compelled to?" asked Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of Congress' Joint Economic Committee.

rs

[rocket science]

The article I read also indicated it is optional

In addtion it pointed out

A major hurdle to the deal has yet to be overcome: getting agreement from investors in mortgage-backed securities, who have resisted modifying loans except on a case-by-case basis.

"There is a $64,000 question: Will investors go along with this plan? And if not, can they be compelled to?" asked Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of Congress' Joint Economic Committee.

rs

[rocket science]

The article I read also indicated it is optional

In addtion it pointed out

A major hurdle to the deal has yet to be overcome: getting agreement from investors in mortgage-backed securities, who have resisted modifying loans except on a case-by-case basis.

"There is a $64,000 question: Will investors go along with this plan? And if not, can they be compelled to?" asked Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of Congress' Joint Economic Committee.

rs

[cr]

Somewhere in all the talk of Paulson’s plan it was whispered that these bailout efforts would be OPTIONAL for the lenders.

Has anyone else heard that? The government can’t force lenders to lower rates and lose money – we’re not that far socialist yet.

So at their discretion banks can help people stay in homes they can’t afford for a little while longer while their property value continues to decline until they are inevitably forced to sell, only later and at a lower price than if they sold at a loss today.

I read on Yahoo that the current 640,000 foreclosures (1 for every 500 Americans) is the highest in 30 years, and up to 2 million more are expected by 2009.

This hot air talk is little more than lip service for Wall Street.

[cr]

Somewhere in all the talk of Paulson’s plan it was whispered that these bailout efforts would be OPTIONAL for the lenders.

Has anyone else heard that? The government can’t force lenders to lower rates and lose money – we’re not that far socialist yet.

So at their discretion banks can help people stay in homes they can’t afford for a little while longer while their property value continues to decline until they are inevitably forced to sell, only later and at a lower price than if they sold at a loss today.

I read on Yahoo that the current 640,000 foreclosures (1 for every 500 Americans) is the highest in 30 years, and up to 2 million more are expected by 2009.

This hot air talk is little more than lip service for Wall Street.

[cr]

Somewhere in all the talk of Paulson’s plan it was whispered that these bailout efforts would be OPTIONAL for the lenders.

Has anyone else heard that? The government can’t force lenders to lower rates and lose money – we’re not that far socialist yet.

So at their discretion banks can help people stay in homes they can’t afford for a little while longer while their property value continues to decline until they are inevitably forced to sell, only later and at a lower price than if they sold at a loss today.

I read on Yahoo that the current 640,000 foreclosures (1 for every 500 Americans) is the highest in 30 years, and up to 2 million more are expected by 2009.

This hot air talk is little more than lip service for Wall Street.

[cr]

Somewhere in all the talk of Paulson’s plan it was whispered that these bailout efforts would be OPTIONAL for the lenders.

Has anyone else heard that? The government can’t force lenders to lower rates and lose money – we’re not that far socialist yet.

So at their discretion banks can help people stay in homes they can’t afford for a little while longer while their property value continues to decline until they are inevitably forced to sell, only later and at a lower price than if they sold at a loss today.

I read on Yahoo that the current 640,000 foreclosures (1 for every 500 Americans) is the highest in 30 years, and up to 2 million more are expected by 2009.

This hot air talk is little more than lip service for Wall Street.

[no_such_reality]

The last analyst I saw at a touch before 2PM talking with Bartiromo said they could save hopefully 1/3rd of the foreclosures.

She was the bullish one on the deal.

Now ask yourself if slowing the foreclosures by 1/3rd is going diddly in SoCal. It isn’t.

The analysts said the big problem they have is everybody that isn’t in jeopardy is calling wanting their rates frozen.

[no_such_reality]

The last analyst I saw at a touch before 2PM talking with Bartiromo said they could save hopefully 1/3rd of the foreclosures.

She was the bullish one on the deal.

Now ask yourself if slowing the foreclosures by 1/3rd is going diddly in SoCal. It isn’t.

The analysts said the big problem they have is everybody that isn’t in jeopardy is calling wanting their rates frozen.

[no_such_reality]

The last analyst I saw at a touch before 2PM talking with Bartiromo said they could save hopefully 1/3rd of the foreclosures.

She was the bullish one on the deal.

Now ask yourself if slowing the foreclosures by 1/3rd is going diddly in SoCal. It isn’t.

The analysts said the big problem they have is everybody that isn’t in jeopardy is calling wanting their rates frozen.

[no_such_reality]

The last analyst I saw at a touch before 2PM talking with Bartiromo said they could save hopefully 1/3rd of the foreclosures.

She was the bullish one on the deal.

Now ask yourself if slowing the foreclosures by 1/3rd is going diddly in SoCal. It isn’t.

The analysts said the big problem they have is everybody that isn’t in jeopardy is calling wanting their rates frozen.

[patientlywaiting]

” He said Hope Now is sending out the letters 120 days in advance of the resets so borrowers have plenty of time to act before foreclosure hits and the letters include a hot line number where the borrowers can obtain almost instant advice”

Does that mean that consumers’ loan information is being shared without their consents? Sounds link a privacy act violation to me.

Relate article. I want my arm frozen too.
http://gowest.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/12/03/i-want-my-arm-rate-frozen-too/

[patientlywaiting]

” He said Hope Now is sending out the letters 120 days in advance of the resets so borrowers have plenty of time to act before foreclosure hits and the letters include a hot line number where the borrowers can obtain almost instant advice”

Does that mean that consumers’ loan information is being shared without their consents? Sounds link a privacy act violation to me.

Relate article. I want my arm frozen too.
http://gowest.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/12/03/i-want-my-arm-rate-frozen-too/

[patientlywaiting]

” He said Hope Now is sending out the letters 120 days in advance of the resets so borrowers have plenty of time to act before foreclosure hits and the letters include a hot line number where the borrowers can obtain almost instant advice”

Does that mean that consumers’ loan information is being shared without their consents? Sounds link a privacy act violation to me.

Relate article. I want my arm frozen too.
http://gowest.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/12/03/i-want-my-arm-rate-frozen-too/

[patientlywaiting]

” He said Hope Now is sending out the letters 120 days in advance of the resets so borrowers have plenty of time to act before foreclosure hits and the letters include a hot line number where the borrowers can obtain almost instant advice”

Does that mean that consumers’ loan information is being shared without their consents? Sounds link a privacy act violation to me.

Relate article. I want my arm frozen too.
http://gowest.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/12/03/i-want-my-arm-rate-frozen-too/

[patientrenter]

nostradamus, if I am a homeowner and this bailout allows me to borrow at a lower rate, then I am definitely getting something of value. Furthermore, lowering borrowing rates for many homeowners can only help to support prices in general, and all homeowners will feel some benefit from that.

I disagree totally with bailouts, but this one definitely isn’t all about helping lenders. It will benefit many homeowners (= voters) too.

Patient renter in OC

[hipmatt]

Don’t panic piggs.. like many of the wise ones here have stated, this plan is merely a political stunt. It is to appear that the gov. is TRYING to do something about the correcting of the housing bubble.

Very few will benefit from this plan in reality. There is no way it can stop even 1/4 of the foreclosures, and it will affect socal even less. Here in socal, we have had bigger losses on values than most of the country. This means that FBs have zero or negative equity. They would rather pay a ridiculous mortgage with the hopes of making big equity, than pay a reduced mortgage and owe more than the home is worth. FBs will likely throw in the keys anyways, even if they do qualify (very unlikely since most loans were bases off of stated incomes), and the lender agrees to help them out.

This might prevent a few foreclosures in socal, but really, there will still be many more homes to hit the MLS in the next 12 months. Inventories are currently at record highs and climbing. Buyers will not benefit at all from this plan. If anything, the money used to help the few FBs will not be available to new 1st time buyers. Lending standards have returned, and the economy is slowing. Unemployment is rising slowly and will likely pick up pace in the next few years. Even thought home prices are falling, many other costs are rising. We are still in a huge bear market for RE. Don’t worry, prices will come down, but that still doesn’t make it right. We need to keep voicing our opinions, and telling our case for why government should stay out of the free markets.

I would still rather be a renter (with cash invested)than an FB with negative equity, (still)overpaying for a reduced mortgage payment.

[Jumby]

Well said hipmatt….

[Jumby]

Well said hipmatt….

[Jumby]

Well said hipmatt….

[Jumby]

Well said hipmatt….

[Jumby]

Well said hipmatt….

[hipmatt]

Don’t panic piggs.. like many of the wise ones here have stated, this plan is merely a political stunt. It is to appear that the gov. is TRYING to do something about the correcting of the housing bubble.

Very few will benefit from this plan in reality. There is no way it can stop even 1/4 of the foreclosures, and it will affect socal even less. Here in socal, we have had bigger losses on values than most of the country. This means that FBs have zero or negative equity. They would rather pay a ridiculous mortgage with the hopes of making big equity, than pay a reduced mortgage and owe more than the home is worth. FBs will likely throw in the keys anyways, even if they do qualify (very unlikely since most loans were bases off of stated incomes), and the lender agrees to help them out.

This might prevent a few foreclosures in socal, but really, there will still be many more homes to hit the MLS in the next 12 months. Inventories are currently at record highs and climbing. Buyers will not benefit at all from this plan. If anything, the money used to help the few FBs will not be available to new 1st time buyers. Lending standards have returned, and the economy is slowing. Unemployment is rising slowly and will likely pick up pace in the next few years. Even thought home prices are falling, many other costs are rising. We are still in a huge bear market for RE. Don’t worry, prices will come down, but that still doesn’t make it right. We need to keep voicing our opinions, and telling our case for why government should stay out of the free markets.

I would still rather be a renter (with cash invested)than an FB with negative equity, (still)overpaying for a reduced mortgage payment.

[hipmatt]

Don’t panic piggs.. like many of the wise ones here have stated, this plan is merely a political stunt. It is to appear that the gov. is TRYING to do something about the correcting of the housing bubble.

Very few will benefit from this plan in reality. There is no way it can stop even 1/4 of the foreclosures, and it will affect socal even less. Here in socal, we have had bigger losses on values than most of the country. This means that FBs have zero or negative equity. They would rather pay a ridiculous mortgage with the hopes of making big equity, than pay a reduced mortgage and owe more than the home is worth. FBs will likely throw in the keys anyways, even if they do qualify (very unlikely since most loans were bases off of stated incomes), and the lender agrees to help them out.

This might prevent a few foreclosures in socal, but really, there will still be many more homes to hit the MLS in the next 12 months. Inventories are currently at record highs and climbing. Buyers will not benefit at all from this plan. If anything, the money used to help the few FBs will not be available to new 1st time buyers. Lending standards have returned, and the economy is slowing. Unemployment is rising slowly and will likely pick up pace in the next few years. Even thought home prices are falling, many other costs are rising. We are still in a huge bear market for RE. Don’t worry, prices will come down, but that still doesn’t make it right. We need to keep voicing our opinions, and telling our case for why government should stay out of the free markets.

I would still rather be a renter (with cash invested)than an FB with negative equity, (still)overpaying for a reduced mortgage payment.

[hipmatt]

Don’t panic piggs.. like many of the wise ones here have stated, this plan is merely a political stunt. It is to appear that the gov. is TRYING to do something about the correcting of the housing bubble.

Very few will benefit from this plan in reality. There is no way it can stop even 1/4 of the foreclosures, and it will affect socal even less. Here in socal, we have had bigger losses on values than most of the country. This means that FBs have zero or negative equity. They would rather pay a ridiculous mortgage with the hopes of making big equity, than pay a reduced mortgage and owe more than the home is worth. FBs will likely throw in the keys anyways, even if they do qualify (very unlikely since most loans were bases off of stated incomes), and the lender agrees to help them out.

This might prevent a few foreclosures in socal, but really, there will still be many more homes to hit the MLS in the next 12 months. Inventories are currently at record highs and climbing. Buyers will not benefit at all from this plan. If anything, the money used to help the few FBs will not be available to new 1st time buyers. Lending standards have returned, and the economy is slowing. Unemployment is rising slowly and will likely pick up pace in the next few years. Even thought home prices are falling, many other costs are rising. We are still in a huge bear market for RE. Don’t worry, prices will come down, but that still doesn’t make it right. We need to keep voicing our opinions, and telling our case for why government should stay out of the free markets.

I would still rather be a renter (with cash invested)than an FB with negative equity, (still)overpaying for a reduced mortgage payment.

[hipmatt]

Don’t panic piggs.. like many of the wise ones here have stated, this plan is merely a political stunt. It is to appear that the gov. is TRYING to do something about the correcting of the housing bubble.

Very few will benefit from this plan in reality. There is no way it can stop even 1/4 of the foreclosures, and it will affect socal even less. Here in socal, we have had bigger losses on values than most of the country. This means that FBs have zero or negative equity. They would rather pay a ridiculous mortgage with the hopes of making big equity, than pay a reduced mortgage and owe more than the home is worth. FBs will likely throw in the keys anyways, even if they do qualify (very unlikely since most loans were bases off of stated incomes), and the lender agrees to help them out.

This might prevent a few foreclosures in socal, but really, there will still be many more homes to hit the MLS in the next 12 months. Inventories are currently at record highs and climbing. Buyers will not benefit at all from this plan. If anything, the money used to help the few FBs will not be available to new 1st time buyers. Lending standards have returned, and the economy is slowing. Unemployment is rising slowly and will likely pick up pace in the next few years. Even thought home prices are falling, many other costs are rising. We are still in a huge bear market for RE. Don’t worry, prices will come down, but that still doesn’t make it right. We need to keep voicing our opinions, and telling our case for why government should stay out of the free markets.

I would still rather be a renter (with cash invested)than an FB with negative equity, (still)overpaying for a reduced mortgage payment.

[patientrenter]

nostradamus, if I am a homeowner and this bailout allows me to borrow at a lower rate, then I am definitely getting something of value. Furthermore, lowering borrowing rates for many homeowners can only help to support prices in general, and all homeowners will feel some benefit from that.

I disagree totally with bailouts, but this one definitely isn’t all about helping lenders. It will benefit many homeowners (= voters) too.

Patient renter in OC

[patientrenter]

nostradamus, if I am a homeowner and this bailout allows me to borrow at a lower rate, then I am definitely getting something of value. Furthermore, lowering borrowing rates for many homeowners can only help to support prices in general, and all homeowners will feel some benefit from that.

I disagree totally with bailouts, but this one definitely isn’t all about helping lenders. It will benefit many homeowners (= voters) too.

Patient renter in OC

[patientrenter]

nostradamus, if I am a homeowner and this bailout allows me to borrow at a lower rate, then I am definitely getting something of value. Furthermore, lowering borrowing rates for many homeowners can only help to support prices in general, and all homeowners will feel some benefit from that.

I disagree totally with bailouts, but this one definitely isn’t all about helping lenders. It will benefit many homeowners (= voters) too.

Patient renter in OC

[patientrenter]

nostradamus, if I am a homeowner and this bailout allows me to borrow at a lower rate, then I am definitely getting something of value. Furthermore, lowering borrowing rates for many homeowners can only help to support prices in general, and all homeowners will feel some benefit from that.

I disagree totally with bailouts, but this one definitely isn’t all about helping lenders. It will benefit many homeowners (= voters) too.

Patient renter in OC

[nostradamus]

I have yet to hear any concrete details about how FB’s will be helped.

I don’t think it’s possible to keep prices high, but I didn’t think anything in the past couple RE years was possible. When I graduated UCSD in ’93 I thought SD was overpriced. Man oh man look at it now.

I think the likely “bailouts” will be bailing out the lender and shagging the FB. They’ll stay in “their” homes alright, shackled to some sort of recourse loan with lower interest and a longer term, as their home value goes down like a (_fill in the blank_). Anyone else care to speculate what the details of the bailout might involve?

[nostradamus]

I have yet to hear any concrete details about how FB’s will be helped.

I don’t think it’s possible to keep prices high, but I didn’t think anything in the past couple RE years was possible. When I graduated UCSD in ’93 I thought SD was overpriced. Man oh man look at it now.

I think the likely “bailouts” will be bailing out the lender and shagging the FB. They’ll stay in “their” homes alright, shackled to some sort of recourse loan with lower interest and a longer term, as their home value goes down like a (_fill in the blank_). Anyone else care to speculate what the details of the bailout might involve?

[nostradamus]

I have yet to hear any concrete details about how FB’s will be helped.

I don’t think it’s possible to keep prices high, but I didn’t think anything in the past couple RE years was possible. When I graduated UCSD in ’93 I thought SD was overpriced. Man oh man look at it now.

I think the likely “bailouts” will be bailing out the lender and shagging the FB. They’ll stay in “their” homes alright, shackled to some sort of recourse loan with lower interest and a longer term, as their home value goes down like a (_fill in the blank_). Anyone else care to speculate what the details of the bailout might involve?

[nostradamus]

I have yet to hear any concrete details about how FB’s will be helped.

I don’t think it’s possible to keep prices high, but I didn’t think anything in the past couple RE years was possible. When I graduated UCSD in ’93 I thought SD was overpriced. Man oh man look at it now.

I think the likely “bailouts” will be bailing out the lender and shagging the FB. They’ll stay in “their” homes alright, shackled to some sort of recourse loan with lower interest and a longer term, as their home value goes down like a (_fill in the blank_). Anyone else care to speculate what the details of the bailout might involve?

[NeetaT]

Good point!!!!!

This is all about keeping property prices high so that more tax money can be usurped from the public. I rent also and will soon be renting in San Diego. I guess I should cry to the ACLU.

[NeetaT]

Good point!!!!!

This is all about keeping property prices high so that more tax money can be usurped from the public. I rent also and will soon be renting in San Diego. I guess I should cry to the ACLU.

[NeetaT]

Good point!!!!!

This is all about keeping property prices high so that more tax money can be usurped from the public. I rent also and will soon be renting in San Diego. I guess I should cry to the ACLU.

[NeetaT]

Good point!!!!!

This is all about keeping property prices high so that more tax money can be usurped from the public. I rent also and will soon be renting in San Diego. I guess I should cry to the ACLU.

[Author]

Posts