PIGs chime IN!!!

[NotCranky]

I agree with you critter but only if the buyer is foreclosed on and the agent didn’t warn them about the possibility of being upside down. Maybe that should be a new required in writing disclosure.
Bubble are you or were you in RE financing?

[sdrealtor]

Critter, Lets look at an example. x buys home for 400K in 1997 and sells for 950K in 2005. Each agent made 17K, loan officer made about 3 to 5K. Seller made 500K. A good agent making HUGE commissions might have made 150K to 200K after expenses if they were able to do this at least once a month. Only a very small percentage of agents earn that much. I believe that good loan officers were making 150 to 250K during the boom. Lots of homeowners that sold had much larger capital gains than agents or loan officers earned during the boom on a single transaction. Again, I am not advocating a bailout but I just find it ironic that there are plenty of folks "who got bailed out" by the housing bubble in the form of a couple hundred grand windfall only to find the idea that the people who provided them their windfall are a bunch of dopes who deserved what they got and are unworthy of assistance.

[sdrealtor]

Critter, Lets look at an example. x buys home for 400K in 1997 and sells for 950K in 2005. Each agent made 17K, loan officer made about 3 to 5K. Seller made 500K. A good agent making HUGE commissions might have made 150K to 200K after expenses if they were able to do this at least once a month. Only a very small percentage of agents earn that much. I believe that good loan officers were making 150 to 250K during the boom. Lots of homeowners that sold had much larger capital gains than agents or loan officers earned during the boom on a single transaction. Again, I am not advocating a bailout but I just find it ironic that there are plenty of folks "who got bailed out" by the housing bubble in the form of a couple hundred grand windfall only to find the idea that the people who provided them their windfall are a bunch of dopes who deserved what they got and are unworthy of assistance.

[sdrealtor]

Critter, Lets look at an example. x buys home for 400K in 1997 and sells for 950K in 2005. Each agent made 17K, loan officer made about 3 to 5K. Seller made 500K. A good agent making HUGE commissions might have made 150K to 200K after expenses if they were able to do this at least once a month. Only a very small percentage of agents earn that much. I believe that good loan officers were making 150 to 250K during the boom. Lots of homeowners that sold had much larger capital gains than agents or loan officers earned during the boom on a single transaction. Again, I am not advocating a bailout but I just find it ironic that there are plenty of folks "who got bailed out" by the housing bubble in the form of a couple hundred grand windfall only to find the idea that the people who provided them their windfall are a bunch of dopes who deserved what they got and are unworthy of assistance.

[sdrealtor]

lbc,
Nice of you to assume that I was talking about illegals but what about all the legal immigrants who would gladly come over and take over your job for the much less if there werent quota’s.

Also, my comment wasn’t directed to the population at large but rather a vocal group of piggingtons who did.

[sdrealtor]

lbc,
Nice of you to assume that I was talking about illegals but what about all the legal immigrants who would gladly come over and take over your job for the much less if there werent quota’s.

Also, my comment wasn’t directed to the population at large but rather a vocal group of piggingtons who did.

[sdrealtor]

lbc,
Nice of you to assume that I was talking about illegals but what about all the legal immigrants who would gladly come over and take over your job for the much less if there werent quota’s.

Also, my comment wasn’t directed to the population at large but rather a vocal group of piggingtons who did.

[kicksavedave]

Hey wait, isn’t the number of people who sold at the top, absolutely identical to the number of people who bought at the top??? Or were there some sales without a buyer?

Some people are looking for a government handout because they gambled and lost, perhaps even un-knowingly. Some others are looking for natural forces to be allowed to work, because they didn’t gamble, and lost. A whole lotta people gambled and won. Most of them don’t post here, it seems.

[kicksavedave]

Hey wait, isn’t the number of people who sold at the top, absolutely identical to the number of people who bought at the top??? Or were there some sales without a buyer?

Some people are looking for a government handout because they gambled and lost, perhaps even un-knowingly. Some others are looking for natural forces to be allowed to work, because they didn’t gamble, and lost. A whole lotta people gambled and won. Most of them don’t post here, it seems.

[kicksavedave]

Hey wait, isn’t the number of people who sold at the top, absolutely identical to the number of people who bought at the top??? Or were there some sales without a buyer?

Some people are looking for a government handout because they gambled and lost, perhaps even un-knowingly. Some others are looking for natural forces to be allowed to work, because they didn’t gamble, and lost. A whole lotta people gambled and won. Most of them don’t post here, it seems.

[LA_Renter]

Form our friend wiki

“Moral hazard in finance

Financial bail-outs of lending institutions by governments, central banks or other institutions can encourage risky lending in the future, if those that take the risks come to believe that they will not have to carry the full burden of losses. Lending institutions need to take risks by making loans, and usually the most risky loans have the potential for making the most money. A moral hazard arises if lending institutions believe that they can make risky loans that will pay handsomely if the investment turns out well but they will not have to fully pay for losses if the investment turns out badly. Taxpayers, depositors, other creditors have often had to shoulder at least part of the burden of risky financial decisions made by lending institutions.

Moral hazard can also occur with borrowers. Borrowers may not act prudently in the view of the lender when they invest or spend funds recklessly due to the belief that they have access to a large line of credit. For example, credit card companies often limit the amount borrowers can spend using their cards, because without such limits those borrowers may spend borrowed funds recklessly.”

Personally I don’t care who won or lost in this last boom. If you made a ton of money,,,,good for you, if you lost…I’m sorry to hear that. What I am concerned about is having the market correct and move forward without putting additional people or the entire US economy in harms way. The degree that we bail people out equals the same degree of risk artificially removed from the market and thus no longer a free market. The bailout whether from the central bank or federal government will only prolong the slump and create inefficiencies in the market…..remember the soviet bloc countries.

Now I do agree with the argument that perhaps each and every foreclosure be put under the microscope and investigated for fraud from the borrower to the mortgage broker to the lender. If fraud is found then we can turn over to the law of the land.

[LA_Renter]

Form our friend wiki

“Moral hazard in finance

Financial bail-outs of lending institutions by governments, central banks or other institutions can encourage risky lending in the future, if those that take the risks come to believe that they will not have to carry the full burden of losses. Lending institutions need to take risks by making loans, and usually the most risky loans have the potential for making the most money. A moral hazard arises if lending institutions believe that they can make risky loans that will pay handsomely if the investment turns out well but they will not have to fully pay for losses if the investment turns out badly. Taxpayers, depositors, other creditors have often had to shoulder at least part of the burden of risky financial decisions made by lending institutions.

Moral hazard can also occur with borrowers. Borrowers may not act prudently in the view of the lender when they invest or spend funds recklessly due to the belief that they have access to a large line of credit. For example, credit card companies often limit the amount borrowers can spend using their cards, because without such limits those borrowers may spend borrowed funds recklessly.”

Personally I don’t care who won or lost in this last boom. If you made a ton of money,,,,good for you, if you lost…I’m sorry to hear that. What I am concerned about is having the market correct and move forward without putting additional people or the entire US economy in harms way. The degree that we bail people out equals the same degree of risk artificially removed from the market and thus no longer a free market. The bailout whether from the central bank or federal government will only prolong the slump and create inefficiencies in the market…..remember the soviet bloc countries.

Now I do agree with the argument that perhaps each and every foreclosure be put under the microscope and investigated for fraud from the borrower to the mortgage broker to the lender. If fraud is found then we can turn over to the law of the land.

[LA_Renter]

Form our friend wiki

“Moral hazard in finance

Financial bail-outs of lending institutions by governments, central banks or other institutions can encourage risky lending in the future, if those that take the risks come to believe that they will not have to carry the full burden of losses. Lending institutions need to take risks by making loans, and usually the most risky loans have the potential for making the most money. A moral hazard arises if lending institutions believe that they can make risky loans that will pay handsomely if the investment turns out well but they will not have to fully pay for losses if the investment turns out badly. Taxpayers, depositors, other creditors have often had to shoulder at least part of the burden of risky financial decisions made by lending institutions.

Moral hazard can also occur with borrowers. Borrowers may not act prudently in the view of the lender when they invest or spend funds recklessly due to the belief that they have access to a large line of credit. For example, credit card companies often limit the amount borrowers can spend using their cards, because without such limits those borrowers may spend borrowed funds recklessly.”

Personally I don’t care who won or lost in this last boom. If you made a ton of money,,,,good for you, if you lost…I’m sorry to hear that. What I am concerned about is having the market correct and move forward without putting additional people or the entire US economy in harms way. The degree that we bail people out equals the same degree of risk artificially removed from the market and thus no longer a free market. The bailout whether from the central bank or federal government will only prolong the slump and create inefficiencies in the market…..remember the soviet bloc countries.

Now I do agree with the argument that perhaps each and every foreclosure be put under the microscope and investigated for fraud from the borrower to the mortgage broker to the lender. If fraud is found then we can turn over to the law of the land.

[lendingbubblecontinues]

Yes. I, too, am all for investigation of EVERY mortgage app/real estate transaction where NINJA or stated income was used, foreclosed upon or not.

Also, I am in favor of RECAPTURE in the form of disgorging ill-gotten gains in the entire food-chain, buyer/seller/appraiser/broker/realtor where fraud was involved.

Let the government use THESE funds to help out the legitimate FEW who may be in need of a “bailout”.

Sorry sdr- I mistakenly took your “close the borders to immigration” to mean illegal immigrants.

[lendingbubblecontinues]

Yes. I, too, am all for investigation of EVERY mortgage app/real estate transaction where NINJA or stated income was used, foreclosed upon or not.

Also, I am in favor of RECAPTURE in the form of disgorging ill-gotten gains in the entire food-chain, buyer/seller/appraiser/broker/realtor where fraud was involved.

Let the government use THESE funds to help out the legitimate FEW who may be in need of a “bailout”.

Sorry sdr- I mistakenly took your “close the borders to immigration” to mean illegal immigrants.

[Author]

Posts