- This topic has 90 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 17 years ago by NotCranky.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 8, 2007 at 8:23 AM #111869December 8, 2007 at 11:58 AM #112123rocket scienceParticipant
Another article in the LA Times today.
Tom PetrunoThe success of the Bush administration's plan to stem home foreclosures will hinge in large part on whether the investors who own sub-prime mortgages will play along and accept lower interest payments to keep people in their houses.He quotes one of the guys from the video link in the kev374 post above.
Josh Rosner, suggests that a rash of legal challenges to loan modificaions is inevitable.
rs
December 8, 2007 at 11:58 AM #112043rocket scienceParticipantAnother article in the LA Times today.
Tom PetrunoThe success of the Bush administration's plan to stem home foreclosures will hinge in large part on whether the investors who own sub-prime mortgages will play along and accept lower interest payments to keep people in their houses.He quotes one of the guys from the video link in the kev374 post above.
Josh Rosner, suggests that a rash of legal challenges to loan modificaions is inevitable.
rs
December 8, 2007 at 11:58 AM #111924rocket scienceParticipantAnother article in the LA Times today.
Tom PetrunoThe success of the Bush administration's plan to stem home foreclosures will hinge in large part on whether the investors who own sub-prime mortgages will play along and accept lower interest payments to keep people in their houses.He quotes one of the guys from the video link in the kev374 post above.
Josh Rosner, suggests that a rash of legal challenges to loan modificaions is inevitable.
rs
December 8, 2007 at 11:58 AM #112080rocket scienceParticipantAnother article in the LA Times today.
Tom PetrunoThe success of the Bush administration's plan to stem home foreclosures will hinge in large part on whether the investors who own sub-prime mortgages will play along and accept lower interest payments to keep people in their houses.He quotes one of the guys from the video link in the kev374 post above.
Josh Rosner, suggests that a rash of legal challenges to loan modificaions is inevitable.
rs
December 8, 2007 at 11:58 AM #112091rocket scienceParticipantAnother article in the LA Times today.
Tom PetrunoThe success of the Bush administration's plan to stem home foreclosures will hinge in large part on whether the investors who own sub-prime mortgages will play along and accept lower interest payments to keep people in their houses.He quotes one of the guys from the video link in the kev374 post above.
Josh Rosner, suggests that a rash of legal challenges to loan modificaions is inevitable.
rs
December 8, 2007 at 1:29 PM #111939ArrayaParticipantWhat is better for the investor to take posession of an asset that they could sell for 30-50% less or have some fool pay a lower interest rate on the full vaue. Those are the investor’s choices.
December 8, 2007 at 1:29 PM #112138ArrayaParticipantWhat is better for the investor to take posession of an asset that they could sell for 30-50% less or have some fool pay a lower interest rate on the full vaue. Those are the investor’s choices.
December 8, 2007 at 1:29 PM #112104ArrayaParticipantWhat is better for the investor to take posession of an asset that they could sell for 30-50% less or have some fool pay a lower interest rate on the full vaue. Those are the investor’s choices.
December 8, 2007 at 1:29 PM #112094ArrayaParticipantWhat is better for the investor to take posession of an asset that they could sell for 30-50% less or have some fool pay a lower interest rate on the full vaue. Those are the investor’s choices.
December 8, 2007 at 1:29 PM #112058ArrayaParticipantWhat is better for the investor to take posession of an asset that they could sell for 30-50% less or have some fool pay a lower interest rate on the full vaue. Those are the investor’s choices.
December 8, 2007 at 1:53 PM #112162bobbyParticipantyup. I agree with araya.
as long as it doesn’t involve tax money in this “bail out”, I don’t care if interest rate if frozen or vaporized.
the banks will be even more careful than needed when lending out money now. i.e less buyers and decreased price.
market forces are still at work.December 8, 2007 at 1:53 PM #112122bobbyParticipantyup. I agree with araya.
as long as it doesn’t involve tax money in this “bail out”, I don’t care if interest rate if frozen or vaporized.
the banks will be even more careful than needed when lending out money now. i.e less buyers and decreased price.
market forces are still at work.December 8, 2007 at 1:53 PM #112083bobbyParticipantyup. I agree with araya.
as long as it doesn’t involve tax money in this “bail out”, I don’t care if interest rate if frozen or vaporized.
the banks will be even more careful than needed when lending out money now. i.e less buyers and decreased price.
market forces are still at work.December 8, 2007 at 1:53 PM #112131bobbyParticipantyup. I agree with araya.
as long as it doesn’t involve tax money in this “bail out”, I don’t care if interest rate if frozen or vaporized.
the banks will be even more careful than needed when lending out money now. i.e less buyers and decreased price.
market forces are still at work. -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.