Refinance Bill Drastically Alters Market

[Huckleberry]

pri_dk,

Seriously!?!?! Ignore income and credit history!?!?!

Give me a break!

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk]
Is it the government’s job to decide who should win and lose in the marketplace, or is the government’s job to use taxpayer money optimally?

We are in a situation where the financially optimal alternative is not the most “fair.” What sucks about it is that it is impossible to do anything to make it fair – the damage is already done. But that’s where we are, and we have to make the tough decisions.

[And this is *not* a left/right D/R thing. It’s about making the right decisions based upon objective facts.[/quote]

You make some real good points here. I think the government’s job is to maintain a stable dollar and to help maintain a stable economy. A stable residential real estate market contributes to both. This policy would help provide stability to the market. (I’m sure there are those that will argue that it only puts off the inevitable. Maybe so. But it also could help delay enough foreclosures until the more inevitable employment paradigm shift occurs, and the inevitable next severe residential real estate drop never happens.)

And of course it shouldn’t be a partisan thing, but of course it is, because so few will evaluate the actual proposed policy before looking at who proposed it.

The example you outlined also makes sense for the lender, (whether a GSE or not) except that I would take exception to some of your wording here:

[quote=pri_dk]So by doing the loan mod, you are down at most $100K, and likely less than that.[/quote]

Not wrong, but I think the wording is a bit awkward. The lender is already down more than $100K before the mod. If the mod is successful, that loss is cut in half. It’s good, logical, sound, business strategy. But having dealt with lender asset management departments through three real estate cycles, I doubt it will ever gain much traction.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk]
Is it the government’s job to decide who should win and lose in the marketplace, or is the government’s job to use taxpayer money optimally?

We are in a situation where the financially optimal alternative is not the most “fair.” What sucks about it is that it is impossible to do anything to make it fair – the damage is already done. But that’s where we are, and we have to make the tough decisions.

[And this is *not* a left/right D/R thing. It’s about making the right decisions based upon objective facts.[/quote]

You make some real good points here. I think the government’s job is to maintain a stable dollar and to help maintain a stable economy. A stable residential real estate market contributes to both. This policy would help provide stability to the market. (I’m sure there are those that will argue that it only puts off the inevitable. Maybe so. But it also could help delay enough foreclosures until the more inevitable employment paradigm shift occurs, and the inevitable next severe residential real estate drop never happens.)

And of course it shouldn’t be a partisan thing, but of course it is, because so few will evaluate the actual proposed policy before looking at who proposed it.

The example you outlined also makes sense for the lender, (whether a GSE or not) except that I would take exception to some of your wording here:

[quote=pri_dk]So by doing the loan mod, you are down at most $100K, and likely less than that.[/quote]

Not wrong, but I think the wording is a bit awkward. The lender is already down more than $100K before the mod. If the mod is successful, that loss is cut in half. It’s good, logical, sound, business strategy. But having dealt with lender asset management departments through three real estate cycles, I doubt it will ever gain much traction.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk]
Is it the government’s job to decide who should win and lose in the marketplace, or is the government’s job to use taxpayer money optimally?

We are in a situation where the financially optimal alternative is not the most “fair.” What sucks about it is that it is impossible to do anything to make it fair – the damage is already done. But that’s where we are, and we have to make the tough decisions.

[And this is *not* a left/right D/R thing. It’s about making the right decisions based upon objective facts.[/quote]

You make some real good points here. I think the government’s job is to maintain a stable dollar and to help maintain a stable economy. A stable residential real estate market contributes to both. This policy would help provide stability to the market. (I’m sure there are those that will argue that it only puts off the inevitable. Maybe so. But it also could help delay enough foreclosures until the more inevitable employment paradigm shift occurs, and the inevitable next severe residential real estate drop never happens.)

And of course it shouldn’t be a partisan thing, but of course it is, because so few will evaluate the actual proposed policy before looking at who proposed it.

The example you outlined also makes sense for the lender, (whether a GSE or not) except that I would take exception to some of your wording here:

[quote=pri_dk]So by doing the loan mod, you are down at most $100K, and likely less than that.[/quote]

Not wrong, but I think the wording is a bit awkward. The lender is already down more than $100K before the mod. If the mod is successful, that loss is cut in half. It’s good, logical, sound, business strategy. But having dealt with lender asset management departments through three real estate cycles, I doubt it will ever gain much traction.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk]
Is it the government’s job to decide who should win and lose in the marketplace, or is the government’s job to use taxpayer money optimally?

We are in a situation where the financially optimal alternative is not the most “fair.” What sucks about it is that it is impossible to do anything to make it fair – the damage is already done. But that’s where we are, and we have to make the tough decisions.

[And this is *not* a left/right D/R thing. It’s about making the right decisions based upon objective facts.[/quote]

You make some real good points here. I think the government’s job is to maintain a stable dollar and to help maintain a stable economy. A stable residential real estate market contributes to both. This policy would help provide stability to the market. (I’m sure there are those that will argue that it only puts off the inevitable. Maybe so. But it also could help delay enough foreclosures until the more inevitable employment paradigm shift occurs, and the inevitable next severe residential real estate drop never happens.)

And of course it shouldn’t be a partisan thing, but of course it is, because so few will evaluate the actual proposed policy before looking at who proposed it.

The example you outlined also makes sense for the lender, (whether a GSE or not) except that I would take exception to some of your wording here:

[quote=pri_dk]So by doing the loan mod, you are down at most $100K, and likely less than that.[/quote]

Not wrong, but I think the wording is a bit awkward. The lender is already down more than $100K before the mod. If the mod is successful, that loss is cut in half. It’s good, logical, sound, business strategy. But having dealt with lender asset management departments through three real estate cycles, I doubt it will ever gain much traction.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk]
Is it the government’s job to decide who should win and lose in the marketplace, or is the government’s job to use taxpayer money optimally?

We are in a situation where the financially optimal alternative is not the most “fair.” What sucks about it is that it is impossible to do anything to make it fair – the damage is already done. But that’s where we are, and we have to make the tough decisions.

[And this is *not* a left/right D/R thing. It’s about making the right decisions based upon objective facts.[/quote]

You make some real good points here. I think the government’s job is to maintain a stable dollar and to help maintain a stable economy. A stable residential real estate market contributes to both. This policy would help provide stability to the market. (I’m sure there are those that will argue that it only puts off the inevitable. Maybe so. But it also could help delay enough foreclosures until the more inevitable employment paradigm shift occurs, and the inevitable next severe residential real estate drop never happens.)

And of course it shouldn’t be a partisan thing, but of course it is, because so few will evaluate the actual proposed policy before looking at who proposed it.

The example you outlined also makes sense for the lender, (whether a GSE or not) except that I would take exception to some of your wording here:

[quote=pri_dk]So by doing the loan mod, you are down at most $100K, and likely less than that.[/quote]

Not wrong, but I think the wording is a bit awkward. The lender is already down more than $100K before the mod. If the mod is successful, that loss is cut in half. It’s good, logical, sound, business strategy. But having dealt with lender asset management departments through three real estate cycles, I doubt it will ever gain much traction.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Huckleberry]pri_dk,

Seriously!?!?! Ignore income and credit history!?!?!

Give me a break![/quote]

I gave you a sincere, detailed, answer to your question and you respond with a weak insult.

Classy.

Do you have an alternative plan?

Not a criticism of other ideas, but an actual, specific, course of action?

Or did you start this thread just to make a cheap, useless, partisan jab? Exactly what Rich has asked us *not* to do, many times over.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Huckleberry]pri_dk,

Seriously!?!?! Ignore income and credit history!?!?!

Give me a break![/quote]

I gave you a sincere, detailed, answer to your question and you respond with a weak insult.

Classy.

Do you have an alternative plan?

Not a criticism of other ideas, but an actual, specific, course of action?

Or did you start this thread just to make a cheap, useless, partisan jab? Exactly what Rich has asked us *not* to do, many times over.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Huckleberry]pri_dk,

Seriously!?!?! Ignore income and credit history!?!?!

Give me a break![/quote]

I gave you a sincere, detailed, answer to your question and you respond with a weak insult.

Classy.

Do you have an alternative plan?

Not a criticism of other ideas, but an actual, specific, course of action?

Or did you start this thread just to make a cheap, useless, partisan jab? Exactly what Rich has asked us *not* to do, many times over.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Huckleberry]pri_dk,

Seriously!?!?! Ignore income and credit history!?!?!

Give me a break![/quote]

I gave you a sincere, detailed, answer to your question and you respond with a weak insult.

Classy.

Do you have an alternative plan?

Not a criticism of other ideas, but an actual, specific, course of action?

Or did you start this thread just to make a cheap, useless, partisan jab? Exactly what Rich has asked us *not* to do, many times over.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Huckleberry]pri_dk,

Seriously!?!?! Ignore income and credit history!?!?!

Give me a break![/quote]

I gave you a sincere, detailed, answer to your question and you respond with a weak insult.

Classy.

Do you have an alternative plan?

Not a criticism of other ideas, but an actual, specific, course of action?

Or did you start this thread just to make a cheap, useless, partisan jab? Exactly what Rich has asked us *not* to do, many times over.

[SD Realtor]

I can understand the logic… it is simply a kick the can down the road policy and is yet a continuation of policy that will not resolve the problem and simply hopes/waits for inflation to lift valuations.

The real answer lies in letting pricing adjust to an encumbered, unmanipulated price level. This will allow housing to form a proper healthy base which is the foundation of our economy (unfortunately).

Repossession of the homes and putting them on the free market will be painful but in the end will be the best. All of the hundreds of billions and by now even trillions of dollars that have been wasted could be used to subsidize families with help for rent.

SK as a side note I do not see how the actions of either president, Bush or Obama have done anything to promote a stronger dollar. It appears to me that if anything both of their policies have severely weakened the dollar. Perhaps as you stated the intent of congress is to promote a strong dollar but I am not so sure I believe that.

[SD Realtor]

I can understand the logic… it is simply a kick the can down the road policy and is yet a continuation of policy that will not resolve the problem and simply hopes/waits for inflation to lift valuations.

The real answer lies in letting pricing adjust to an encumbered, unmanipulated price level. This will allow housing to form a proper healthy base which is the foundation of our economy (unfortunately).

Repossession of the homes and putting them on the free market will be painful but in the end will be the best. All of the hundreds of billions and by now even trillions of dollars that have been wasted could be used to subsidize families with help for rent.

SK as a side note I do not see how the actions of either president, Bush or Obama have done anything to promote a stronger dollar. It appears to me that if anything both of their policies have severely weakened the dollar. Perhaps as you stated the intent of congress is to promote a strong dollar but I am not so sure I believe that.

[SD Realtor]

I can understand the logic… it is simply a kick the can down the road policy and is yet a continuation of policy that will not resolve the problem and simply hopes/waits for inflation to lift valuations.

The real answer lies in letting pricing adjust to an encumbered, unmanipulated price level. This will allow housing to form a proper healthy base which is the foundation of our economy (unfortunately).

Repossession of the homes and putting them on the free market will be painful but in the end will be the best. All of the hundreds of billions and by now even trillions of dollars that have been wasted could be used to subsidize families with help for rent.

SK as a side note I do not see how the actions of either president, Bush or Obama have done anything to promote a stronger dollar. It appears to me that if anything both of their policies have severely weakened the dollar. Perhaps as you stated the intent of congress is to promote a strong dollar but I am not so sure I believe that.

[SD Realtor]

I can understand the logic… it is simply a kick the can down the road policy and is yet a continuation of policy that will not resolve the problem and simply hopes/waits for inflation to lift valuations.

The real answer lies in letting pricing adjust to an encumbered, unmanipulated price level. This will allow housing to form a proper healthy base which is the foundation of our economy (unfortunately).

Repossession of the homes and putting them on the free market will be painful but in the end will be the best. All of the hundreds of billions and by now even trillions of dollars that have been wasted could be used to subsidize families with help for rent.

SK as a side note I do not see how the actions of either president, Bush or Obama have done anything to promote a stronger dollar. It appears to me that if anything both of their policies have severely weakened the dollar. Perhaps as you stated the intent of congress is to promote a strong dollar but I am not so sure I believe that.

[Author]

Posts