Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 4, 2008 at 6:21 PM in reply to: Bailout – What does it mean for real estate for us waiting? #281089
CA renter
ParticipantIf you watch some of the Congressional hearings with banks & various players in the financial industry (not the bailout hearings, but other ones that occurred before those) you’ll see that the banks/lenders place the H4H (Hope for Homeowners) plan at the very bottom of their preferred list. They have also admitted to holding off on foreclosures as they await more action from the government. Yes, they actually admitted that…saw them with my very own eyes.
The H4H program forces them to reduce principal amounts on the loans. They said they’d rather monkey around with rates and terms than write-down the principal amounts. They were VERY opposed to this plan, which makes me think it’s the best plan out there.
BTW, it’s not the borrower that would have to come in with the 10%, it’s the lenders. The lending industry already had this reduced from the original proposal which required 15% below current market price.
In my cynical view, the bailout was enacted because nobody was willing to do this. Best for the govt to buy the loans from the lenders, then the GOVERNMENT will be writing-down the principal amounts (and the taxpayers are stuck with the losses, not the banks). IMHO, this was one of the main components of this plan, and it’s written-in the bailout that the govt will do this.
October 4, 2008 at 6:21 PM in reply to: Bailout – What does it mean for real estate for us waiting? #281364ParticipantIf you watch some of the Congressional hearings with banks & various players in the financial industry (not the bailout hearings, but other ones that occurred before those) you’ll see that the banks/lenders place the H4H (Hope for Homeowners) plan at the very bottom of their preferred list. They have also admitted to holding off on foreclosures as they await more action from the government. Yes, they actually admitted that…saw them with my very own eyes.
The H4H program forces them to reduce principal amounts on the loans. They said they’d rather monkey around with rates and terms than write-down the principal amounts. They were VERY opposed to this plan, which makes me think it’s the best plan out there.
BTW, it’s not the borrower that would have to come in with the 10%, it’s the lenders. The lending industry already had this reduced from the original proposal which required 15% below current market price.
In my cynical view, the bailout was enacted because nobody was willing to do this. Best for the govt to buy the loans from the lenders, then the GOVERNMENT will be writing-down the principal amounts (and the taxpayers are stuck with the losses, not the banks). IMHO, this was one of the main components of this plan, and it’s written-in the bailout that the govt will do this.
October 4, 2008 at 6:21 PM in reply to: Bailout – What does it mean for real estate for us waiting? #281368ParticipantIf you watch some of the Congressional hearings with banks & various players in the financial industry (not the bailout hearings, but other ones that occurred before those) you’ll see that the banks/lenders place the H4H (Hope for Homeowners) plan at the very bottom of their preferred list. They have also admitted to holding off on foreclosures as they await more action from the government. Yes, they actually admitted that…saw them with my very own eyes.
The H4H program forces them to reduce principal amounts on the loans. They said they’d rather monkey around with rates and terms than write-down the principal amounts. They were VERY opposed to this plan, which makes me think it’s the best plan out there.
BTW, it’s not the borrower that would have to come in with the 10%, it’s the lenders. The lending industry already had this reduced from the original proposal which required 15% below current market price.
In my cynical view, the bailout was enacted because nobody was willing to do this. Best for the govt to buy the loans from the lenders, then the GOVERNMENT will be writing-down the principal amounts (and the taxpayers are stuck with the losses, not the banks). IMHO, this was one of the main components of this plan, and it’s written-in the bailout that the govt will do this.
October 4, 2008 at 6:21 PM in reply to: Bailout – What does it mean for real estate for us waiting? #281410ParticipantIf you watch some of the Congressional hearings with banks & various players in the financial industry (not the bailout hearings, but other ones that occurred before those) you’ll see that the banks/lenders place the H4H (Hope for Homeowners) plan at the very bottom of their preferred list. They have also admitted to holding off on foreclosures as they await more action from the government. Yes, they actually admitted that…saw them with my very own eyes.
The H4H program forces them to reduce principal amounts on the loans. They said they’d rather monkey around with rates and terms than write-down the principal amounts. They were VERY opposed to this plan, which makes me think it’s the best plan out there.
BTW, it’s not the borrower that would have to come in with the 10%, it’s the lenders. The lending industry already had this reduced from the original proposal which required 15% below current market price.
In my cynical view, the bailout was enacted because nobody was willing to do this. Best for the govt to buy the loans from the lenders, then the GOVERNMENT will be writing-down the principal amounts (and the taxpayers are stuck with the losses, not the banks). IMHO, this was one of the main components of this plan, and it’s written-in the bailout that the govt will do this.
October 4, 2008 at 6:21 PM in reply to: Bailout – What does it mean for real estate for us waiting? #281421ParticipantIf you watch some of the Congressional hearings with banks & various players in the financial industry (not the bailout hearings, but other ones that occurred before those) you’ll see that the banks/lenders place the H4H (Hope for Homeowners) plan at the very bottom of their preferred list. They have also admitted to holding off on foreclosures as they await more action from the government. Yes, they actually admitted that…saw them with my very own eyes.
The H4H program forces them to reduce principal amounts on the loans. They said they’d rather monkey around with rates and terms than write-down the principal amounts. They were VERY opposed to this plan, which makes me think it’s the best plan out there.
BTW, it’s not the borrower that would have to come in with the 10%, it’s the lenders. The lending industry already had this reduced from the original proposal which required 15% below current market price.
In my cynical view, the bailout was enacted because nobody was willing to do this. Best for the govt to buy the loans from the lenders, then the GOVERNMENT will be writing-down the principal amounts (and the taxpayers are stuck with the losses, not the banks). IMHO, this was one of the main components of this plan, and it’s written-in the bailout that the govt will do this.
ParticipantMine, too.
BTW, SD RE Bear also registered a domain name to oust Boxer/Feinstein.
We need to work together to fight the banking/Wall Street lobbyists.
I was thinking it might be time to form a taxpayers’ lobby. Nothing nutty-sounding like eliminating all taxes. Just a moderate stance that focuses more on fixing the spending side vs. the taxing side.
Many people wouldn’t mind paying more taxes if we could actually get some real return on our investments (excellent infrastructure, health care, national security — not in foreign countries, etc.)
Ultimately, we could just do something that focused on being the anti-lobby lobbying group; we could even narrow our focus to just RE and the credit markets/Wall Street/banks.
Let me know what you need, too. And once a plan is formulated, we should post it all over the econ/housing blogs.
ParticipantMine, too.
BTW, SD RE Bear also registered a domain name to oust Boxer/Feinstein.
We need to work together to fight the banking/Wall Street lobbyists.
I was thinking it might be time to form a taxpayers’ lobby. Nothing nutty-sounding like eliminating all taxes. Just a moderate stance that focuses more on fixing the spending side vs. the taxing side.
Many people wouldn’t mind paying more taxes if we could actually get some real return on our investments (excellent infrastructure, health care, national security — not in foreign countries, etc.)
Ultimately, we could just do something that focused on being the anti-lobby lobbying group; we could even narrow our focus to just RE and the credit markets/Wall Street/banks.
Let me know what you need, too. And once a plan is formulated, we should post it all over the econ/housing blogs.
ParticipantMine, too.
BTW, SD RE Bear also registered a domain name to oust Boxer/Feinstein.
We need to work together to fight the banking/Wall Street lobbyists.
I was thinking it might be time to form a taxpayers’ lobby. Nothing nutty-sounding like eliminating all taxes. Just a moderate stance that focuses more on fixing the spending side vs. the taxing side.
Many people wouldn’t mind paying more taxes if we could actually get some real return on our investments (excellent infrastructure, health care, national security — not in foreign countries, etc.)
Ultimately, we could just do something that focused on being the anti-lobby lobbying group; we could even narrow our focus to just RE and the credit markets/Wall Street/banks.
Let me know what you need, too. And once a plan is formulated, we should post it all over the econ/housing blogs.
ParticipantMine, too.
BTW, SD RE Bear also registered a domain name to oust Boxer/Feinstein.
We need to work together to fight the banking/Wall Street lobbyists.
I was thinking it might be time to form a taxpayers’ lobby. Nothing nutty-sounding like eliminating all taxes. Just a moderate stance that focuses more on fixing the spending side vs. the taxing side.
Many people wouldn’t mind paying more taxes if we could actually get some real return on our investments (excellent infrastructure, health care, national security — not in foreign countries, etc.)
Ultimately, we could just do something that focused on being the anti-lobby lobbying group; we could even narrow our focus to just RE and the credit markets/Wall Street/banks.
Let me know what you need, too. And once a plan is formulated, we should post it all over the econ/housing blogs.
ParticipantMine, too.
BTW, SD RE Bear also registered a domain name to oust Boxer/Feinstein.
We need to work together to fight the banking/Wall Street lobbyists.
I was thinking it might be time to form a taxpayers’ lobby. Nothing nutty-sounding like eliminating all taxes. Just a moderate stance that focuses more on fixing the spending side vs. the taxing side.
Many people wouldn’t mind paying more taxes if we could actually get some real return on our investments (excellent infrastructure, health care, national security — not in foreign countries, etc.)
Ultimately, we could just do something that focused on being the anti-lobby lobbying group; we could even narrow our focus to just RE and the credit markets/Wall Street/banks.
Let me know what you need, too. And once a plan is formulated, we should post it all over the econ/housing blogs.
ParticipantWhile Encinitas won’t always be overpriced, it will always be expensive.
——————Yes, just as Beverly Hills, Malibu, La Jolla, etc. will always be more expensive than O’side, Escondido, Van Nuys, etc. They always were, and probably will always be more expensive.
The point some are trying to make (I’m in this camp) is that the ratio between high/low-priced areas should not significantly change over time. Right now, the spread is very high, and unlikely to stay there.
The lower end has probably seen the greatest portion of its decline (though will likely see more, just at a slower pace). The high end is just beginning. These things **roll.** It does not happen to all places at exactly the same time.
BTW, it’s much more difficult to replace a $100K+++ job than a $25K job — especially in a **global** recession/depression where the stock markets and credit markets are constrained (less capital to fund new ventures, among other things). People will always need to shop at Wal-Mart. They will not always need to upgrade their software. The high end of the job market is more dependent on “wants” while the low end is more concentrated around “needs”.
The money from starter homes (not uncommon to see $200K+ down payments received from the sale of a crapshack in O’side during the peak) will no longer be able to prop up the next tier…
We have a long way to go, but, “to the patient go the spoils.”
ParticipantWhile Encinitas won’t always be overpriced, it will always be expensive.
——————Yes, just as Beverly Hills, Malibu, La Jolla, etc. will always be more expensive than O’side, Escondido, Van Nuys, etc. They always were, and probably will always be more expensive.
The point some are trying to make (I’m in this camp) is that the ratio between high/low-priced areas should not significantly change over time. Right now, the spread is very high, and unlikely to stay there.
The lower end has probably seen the greatest portion of its decline (though will likely see more, just at a slower pace). The high end is just beginning. These things **roll.** It does not happen to all places at exactly the same time.
BTW, it’s much more difficult to replace a $100K+++ job than a $25K job — especially in a **global** recession/depression where the stock markets and credit markets are constrained (less capital to fund new ventures, among other things). People will always need to shop at Wal-Mart. They will not always need to upgrade their software. The high end of the job market is more dependent on “wants” while the low end is more concentrated around “needs”.
The money from starter homes (not uncommon to see $200K+ down payments received from the sale of a crapshack in O’side during the peak) will no longer be able to prop up the next tier…
We have a long way to go, but, “to the patient go the spoils.”
ParticipantWhile Encinitas won’t always be overpriced, it will always be expensive.
——————Yes, just as Beverly Hills, Malibu, La Jolla, etc. will always be more expensive than O’side, Escondido, Van Nuys, etc. They always were, and probably will always be more expensive.
The point some are trying to make (I’m in this camp) is that the ratio between high/low-priced areas should not significantly change over time. Right now, the spread is very high, and unlikely to stay there.
The lower end has probably seen the greatest portion of its decline (though will likely see more, just at a slower pace). The high end is just beginning. These things **roll.** It does not happen to all places at exactly the same time.
BTW, it’s much more difficult to replace a $100K+++ job than a $25K job — especially in a **global** recession/depression where the stock markets and credit markets are constrained (less capital to fund new ventures, among other things). People will always need to shop at Wal-Mart. They will not always need to upgrade their software. The high end of the job market is more dependent on “wants” while the low end is more concentrated around “needs”.
The money from starter homes (not uncommon to see $200K+ down payments received from the sale of a crapshack in O’side during the peak) will no longer be able to prop up the next tier…
We have a long way to go, but, “to the patient go the spoils.”
ParticipantWhile Encinitas won’t always be overpriced, it will always be expensive.
——————Yes, just as Beverly Hills, Malibu, La Jolla, etc. will always be more expensive than O’side, Escondido, Van Nuys, etc. They always were, and probably will always be more expensive.
The point some are trying to make (I’m in this camp) is that the ratio between high/low-priced areas should not significantly change over time. Right now, the spread is very high, and unlikely to stay there.
The lower end has probably seen the greatest portion of its decline (though will likely see more, just at a slower pace). The high end is just beginning. These things **roll.** It does not happen to all places at exactly the same time.
BTW, it’s much more difficult to replace a $100K+++ job than a $25K job — especially in a **global** recession/depression where the stock markets and credit markets are constrained (less capital to fund new ventures, among other things). People will always need to shop at Wal-Mart. They will not always need to upgrade their software. The high end of the job market is more dependent on “wants” while the low end is more concentrated around “needs”.
The money from starter homes (not uncommon to see $200K+ down payments received from the sale of a crapshack in O’side during the peak) will no longer be able to prop up the next tier…
We have a long way to go, but, “to the patient go the spoils.”
-
AuthorPosts
