Someone put a leash on Aguirre

[temeculaguy]

Georgia tried something similar in 2003, their anti predatory lending law resulted in all of the major lenders refusing to business there. Even the VA/FHA/Fannie/Freddie curbed their dealings with anything in Georgia. They created a credit crunch and eventually reversed themselves. Perfect example of the law of unintended consequences.

Aguirre will not be successful, but on the off chance that he is, all it will accomplish is a complete implosion of the market. He will be personally responsible for causing the inability of anyone to get a loan, driving prices down further, faster, thus creating more foreclosures. Good luck Mike, it is going to be hillarious to watch. Either he effectively burns the market and the local economy to the ground or he fails and looks like an uninformed buffoon, entertaining either way and the first scenario will probably result in the first actual “tar and feather” incident in my lifetime. I can’t wait.

[urbanrealtor]

Lets assume some sort of intervention is the most politically viable option. Lets assume that because people who are really hurting tend to un-elect those who would make such decisions.

Lets assume some of the government intervention has to be implemented locally. Lets assume that part would be required since real estate markets have a large local component.

Considering that politics works on some of the same supply and demand logic as everything else, it is likely that an innovative politician will exploit this whether or not it is Aguirre.

A better question is what would be a less irritating or offensive relief measure look like?

Here’s my version:
Require any bank with loans on property in the city limits to cooperate with short sales (in a timely manner) if the situation met a certain set of criteria.

It would just mean a modest change to their SOP and would likely create minor changes in the inventory. What it would mean (that would be good) is that fewer agents would blacklist shortsales.
Maybe it would make competition more robust than it is now.

This is just an idea. I would appreciate feedback (including from those who disagree).

Does anybody have a better idea that Mr. Mike?

Not being rhetorical. Really. Does anybody have a more desirable version of intervention?

[urbanrealtor]

Lets assume some sort of intervention is the most politically viable option. Lets assume that because people who are really hurting tend to un-elect those who would make such decisions.

Lets assume some of the government intervention has to be implemented locally. Lets assume that part would be required since real estate markets have a large local component.

Considering that politics works on some of the same supply and demand logic as everything else, it is likely that an innovative politician will exploit this whether or not it is Aguirre.

A better question is what would be a less irritating or offensive relief measure look like?

Here’s my version:
Require any bank with loans on property in the city limits to cooperate with short sales (in a timely manner) if the situation met a certain set of criteria.

It would just mean a modest change to their SOP and would likely create minor changes in the inventory. What it would mean (that would be good) is that fewer agents would blacklist shortsales.
Maybe it would make competition more robust than it is now.

This is just an idea. I would appreciate feedback (including from those who disagree).

Does anybody have a better idea that Mr. Mike?

Not being rhetorical. Really. Does anybody have a more desirable version of intervention?

[urbanrealtor]

Lets assume some sort of intervention is the most politically viable option. Lets assume that because people who are really hurting tend to un-elect those who would make such decisions.

Lets assume some of the government intervention has to be implemented locally. Lets assume that part would be required since real estate markets have a large local component.

Considering that politics works on some of the same supply and demand logic as everything else, it is likely that an innovative politician will exploit this whether or not it is Aguirre.

A better question is what would be a less irritating or offensive relief measure look like?

Here’s my version:
Require any bank with loans on property in the city limits to cooperate with short sales (in a timely manner) if the situation met a certain set of criteria.

It would just mean a modest change to their SOP and would likely create minor changes in the inventory. What it would mean (that would be good) is that fewer agents would blacklist shortsales.
Maybe it would make competition more robust than it is now.

This is just an idea. I would appreciate feedback (including from those who disagree).

Does anybody have a better idea that Mr. Mike?

Not being rhetorical. Really. Does anybody have a more desirable version of intervention?

[urbanrealtor]

Lets assume some sort of intervention is the most politically viable option. Lets assume that because people who are really hurting tend to un-elect those who would make such decisions.

Lets assume some of the government intervention has to be implemented locally. Lets assume that part would be required since real estate markets have a large local component.

Considering that politics works on some of the same supply and demand logic as everything else, it is likely that an innovative politician will exploit this whether or not it is Aguirre.

A better question is what would be a less irritating or offensive relief measure look like?

Here’s my version:
Require any bank with loans on property in the city limits to cooperate with short sales (in a timely manner) if the situation met a certain set of criteria.

It would just mean a modest change to their SOP and would likely create minor changes in the inventory. What it would mean (that would be good) is that fewer agents would blacklist shortsales.
Maybe it would make competition more robust than it is now.

This is just an idea. I would appreciate feedback (including from those who disagree).

Does anybody have a better idea that Mr. Mike?

Not being rhetorical. Really. Does anybody have a more desirable version of intervention?

[urbanrealtor]

Lets assume some sort of intervention is the most politically viable option. Lets assume that because people who are really hurting tend to un-elect those who would make such decisions.

Lets assume some of the government intervention has to be implemented locally. Lets assume that part would be required since real estate markets have a large local component.

Considering that politics works on some of the same supply and demand logic as everything else, it is likely that an innovative politician will exploit this whether or not it is Aguirre.

A better question is what would be a less irritating or offensive relief measure look like?

Here’s my version:
Require any bank with loans on property in the city limits to cooperate with short sales (in a timely manner) if the situation met a certain set of criteria.

It would just mean a modest change to their SOP and would likely create minor changes in the inventory. What it would mean (that would be good) is that fewer agents would blacklist shortsales.
Maybe it would make competition more robust than it is now.

This is just an idea. I would appreciate feedback (including from those who disagree).

Does anybody have a better idea that Mr. Mike?

Not being rhetorical. Really. Does anybody have a more desirable version of intervention?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]Lets assume some sort of intervention is the most politically viable option. Lets assume that because people who are really hurting tend to un-elect those who would make such decisions.[/quote]
I mean like they vote opponents to relief out of office. Sleepy. Sorry.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]Lets assume some sort of intervention is the most politically viable option. Lets assume that because people who are really hurting tend to un-elect those who would make such decisions.[/quote]
I mean like they vote opponents to relief out of office. Sleepy. Sorry.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]Lets assume some sort of intervention is the most politically viable option. Lets assume that because people who are really hurting tend to un-elect those who would make such decisions.[/quote]
I mean like they vote opponents to relief out of office. Sleepy. Sorry.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]Lets assume some sort of intervention is the most politically viable option. Lets assume that because people who are really hurting tend to un-elect those who would make such decisions.[/quote]
I mean like they vote opponents to relief out of office. Sleepy. Sorry.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]Lets assume some sort of intervention is the most politically viable option. Lets assume that because people who are really hurting tend to un-elect those who would make such decisions.[/quote]
I mean like they vote opponents to relief out of office. Sleepy. Sorry.

[temeculaguy]

It makes some sense to go after that component or that particular breakdown in the system but you can’t interfere with an existing legal contract between two parties. You cannot force these things, you need to make them voluntary and offer incentives to make the voluntary loss of money more palatable. banks should process short sales faster but you cant force them to lose money faster, they hate losing money and it is their money so they have every right to take their sweet time in losing it. I don’t need politicians to tell me “yes we can” I need them to acknowledge that “can’t” is a nessecary vocabulary word. You “can’t” have peace in the middle east, you “can’t” buy or keep a home if you can’t afford it, you “can’t” have free money, you “can’t” have a trophy if you don’t win, you “can’t” have a BMW if you don’t have a job, you “can’t” buy things you “can’t” afford and if you aren’t smart or savvy or “can’t” resist temptation, you “can’t” be rich. My message to mike or any ambitious politician, start using the word “can’t” and use it often.

Any law passed would only be in effect for loans made after the law was enacted, loans today don’t need the protection of 2005 loans and they are full doc with downpayments at lower prices, 2009 loans wont default like the earlier vintages. So it’s all just noise for the election and do we really need more regulation, more bail outs, more government. What we need is for a politician to stand up and say, “this is the greatest system of economics ever created, intervention distorts it, the sooner this plays out the sooner we can enjoy the recovery. We “can’t” save people from themselves, for every winner there must be a loser and in this case the lenders are losers along with the borrowers, the winner sold and we “can’t” go back and take their profits, both losers will be rich with wisdom and that is how is supposed to be.”

This lesson is nothing new, it can be found in the writings of Lao Tzu many years B.C., it can be found in the christian bible and it is clear as day in the writings of the architect of capatalism, check out “The Wealth of Nations” circa 1776 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations

I saw batman this week, and while Heath Ledger’s Joker exceeded Nicholson’s, the previous joker had an applicable quote, “This town needs an enema.”

Or if I may quote Judge Smails as I have done many times before “The world needs ditch diggers too.” If Ted was alive today, that line could be rewritten “the world needs renters too.”

[temeculaguy]

It makes some sense to go after that component or that particular breakdown in the system but you can’t interfere with an existing legal contract between two parties. You cannot force these things, you need to make them voluntary and offer incentives to make the voluntary loss of money more palatable. banks should process short sales faster but you cant force them to lose money faster, they hate losing money and it is their money so they have every right to take their sweet time in losing it. I don’t need politicians to tell me “yes we can” I need them to acknowledge that “can’t” is a nessecary vocabulary word. You “can’t” have peace in the middle east, you “can’t” buy or keep a home if you can’t afford it, you “can’t” have free money, you “can’t” have a trophy if you don’t win, you “can’t” have a BMW if you don’t have a job, you “can’t” buy things you “can’t” afford and if you aren’t smart or savvy or “can’t” resist temptation, you “can’t” be rich. My message to mike or any ambitious politician, start using the word “can’t” and use it often.

Any law passed would only be in effect for loans made after the law was enacted, loans today don’t need the protection of 2005 loans and they are full doc with downpayments at lower prices, 2009 loans wont default like the earlier vintages. So it’s all just noise for the election and do we really need more regulation, more bail outs, more government. What we need is for a politician to stand up and say, “this is the greatest system of economics ever created, intervention distorts it, the sooner this plays out the sooner we can enjoy the recovery. We “can’t” save people from themselves, for every winner there must be a loser and in this case the lenders are losers along with the borrowers, the winner sold and we “can’t” go back and take their profits, both losers will be rich with wisdom and that is how is supposed to be.”

This lesson is nothing new, it can be found in the writings of Lao Tzu many years B.C., it can be found in the christian bible and it is clear as day in the writings of the architect of capatalism, check out “The Wealth of Nations” circa 1776 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations

I saw batman this week, and while Heath Ledger’s Joker exceeded Nicholson’s, the previous joker had an applicable quote, “This town needs an enema.”

Or if I may quote Judge Smails as I have done many times before “The world needs ditch diggers too.” If Ted was alive today, that line could be rewritten “the world needs renters too.”

[temeculaguy]

It makes some sense to go after that component or that particular breakdown in the system but you can’t interfere with an existing legal contract between two parties. You cannot force these things, you need to make them voluntary and offer incentives to make the voluntary loss of money more palatable. banks should process short sales faster but you cant force them to lose money faster, they hate losing money and it is their money so they have every right to take their sweet time in losing it. I don’t need politicians to tell me “yes we can” I need them to acknowledge that “can’t” is a nessecary vocabulary word. You “can’t” have peace in the middle east, you “can’t” buy or keep a home if you can’t afford it, you “can’t” have free money, you “can’t” have a trophy if you don’t win, you “can’t” have a BMW if you don’t have a job, you “can’t” buy things you “can’t” afford and if you aren’t smart or savvy or “can’t” resist temptation, you “can’t” be rich. My message to mike or any ambitious politician, start using the word “can’t” and use it often.

Any law passed would only be in effect for loans made after the law was enacted, loans today don’t need the protection of 2005 loans and they are full doc with downpayments at lower prices, 2009 loans wont default like the earlier vintages. So it’s all just noise for the election and do we really need more regulation, more bail outs, more government. What we need is for a politician to stand up and say, “this is the greatest system of economics ever created, intervention distorts it, the sooner this plays out the sooner we can enjoy the recovery. We “can’t” save people from themselves, for every winner there must be a loser and in this case the lenders are losers along with the borrowers, the winner sold and we “can’t” go back and take their profits, both losers will be rich with wisdom and that is how is supposed to be.”

This lesson is nothing new, it can be found in the writings of Lao Tzu many years B.C., it can be found in the christian bible and it is clear as day in the writings of the architect of capatalism, check out “The Wealth of Nations” circa 1776 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations

I saw batman this week, and while Heath Ledger’s Joker exceeded Nicholson’s, the previous joker had an applicable quote, “This town needs an enema.”

Or if I may quote Judge Smails as I have done many times before “The world needs ditch diggers too.” If Ted was alive today, that line could be rewritten “the world needs renters too.”

[temeculaguy]

It makes some sense to go after that component or that particular breakdown in the system but you can’t interfere with an existing legal contract between two parties. You cannot force these things, you need to make them voluntary and offer incentives to make the voluntary loss of money more palatable. banks should process short sales faster but you cant force them to lose money faster, they hate losing money and it is their money so they have every right to take their sweet time in losing it. I don’t need politicians to tell me “yes we can” I need them to acknowledge that “can’t” is a nessecary vocabulary word. You “can’t” have peace in the middle east, you “can’t” buy or keep a home if you can’t afford it, you “can’t” have free money, you “can’t” have a trophy if you don’t win, you “can’t” have a BMW if you don’t have a job, you “can’t” buy things you “can’t” afford and if you aren’t smart or savvy or “can’t” resist temptation, you “can’t” be rich. My message to mike or any ambitious politician, start using the word “can’t” and use it often.

Any law passed would only be in effect for loans made after the law was enacted, loans today don’t need the protection of 2005 loans and they are full doc with downpayments at lower prices, 2009 loans wont default like the earlier vintages. So it’s all just noise for the election and do we really need more regulation, more bail outs, more government. What we need is for a politician to stand up and say, “this is the greatest system of economics ever created, intervention distorts it, the sooner this plays out the sooner we can enjoy the recovery. We “can’t” save people from themselves, for every winner there must be a loser and in this case the lenders are losers along with the borrowers, the winner sold and we “can’t” go back and take their profits, both losers will be rich with wisdom and that is how is supposed to be.”

This lesson is nothing new, it can be found in the writings of Lao Tzu many years B.C., it can be found in the christian bible and it is clear as day in the writings of the architect of capatalism, check out “The Wealth of Nations” circa 1776 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations

I saw batman this week, and while Heath Ledger’s Joker exceeded Nicholson’s, the previous joker had an applicable quote, “This town needs an enema.”

Or if I may quote Judge Smails as I have done many times before “The world needs ditch diggers too.” If Ted was alive today, that line could be rewritten “the world needs renters too.”

[Author]

Posts