[DomoArigato]

This is just more of the same unholy union between our corrupt government and criminal banksters who work at the likes of Government Sachs. If there is any karma in this world, God will strike down the criminal banksters at Government Sachs, as well as those who enable and support them.

[DomoArigato]

This is just more of the same unholy union between our corrupt government and criminal banksters who work at the likes of Government Sachs. If there is any karma in this world, God will strike down the criminal banksters at Government Sachs, as well as those who enable and support them.

[DomoArigato]

This is just more of the same unholy union between our corrupt government and criminal banksters who work at the likes of Government Sachs. If there is any karma in this world, God will strike down the criminal banksters at Government Sachs, as well as those who enable and support them.

[DomoArigato]

This is just more of the same unholy union between our corrupt government and criminal banksters who work at the likes of Government Sachs. If there is any karma in this world, God will strike down the criminal banksters at Government Sachs, as well as those who enable and support them.

[DomoArigato]

[quote=AN]
You fail to see that a move in ready house attracts a lot more buyers, which would drive up the price. So, it’s simply about supply and demand. Although it might be the exact same house, the condition is different, which would attract different amount of interests.[/quote]

Supply and demand has nothing to do with the housing market. This is because the government is currently backing 97% of all mortgages. Remove that support and then we could talk about supply and demand (at much lower prices).

Here’s what I suspect is really happening. The banks can’t afford to put any money into their housing inventory because they don’t have any real money. All they have is an inflated mark on their balance sheet for each house. They are willing to sell their inventory at whatever price they can get because the government/taxpayers will cover their loss.

So the banks have a bunch of houses that can’t pass inspection and which they don’t want to put any money into. The banks are willing to sell at close to the real market price (i.e., what the house would sell for without the massive amount of govt/taxpayer support) to all-cash buyers who don’t have to worry about inspections.

The all-cash buyers then fix up the house so that it can pass inspection and then flip it back to the government via an FHA borrower who puts 3.5% down. The process then starts all over again with 50% of FHA FBs getting foreclosed upon within two years and the house going back to a bank.

So what we have is some type of massive, circular Ponzi scheme financed by the government/taxpayers that looks something like this:
bank-owned–>all-cash-buyer–>govt-backed-FB–>foreclosed-back-to-bank

The idea that there is this pool of frivolous borrowers out there who are waiting for the perfectly fixed up house is poppycock. The fact is that the government-backed FBs can’t get through the paperwork/inspections fast enough to beat the all-cash buyer. Further, the banks don’t care what price they get as the taxpayers are covering their losses.

It’s a huge shit sandwich and we are all taking a bite through continuous, forced taxpayer-financed bank bailouts.

[DomoArigato]

[quote=AN]
You fail to see that a move in ready house attracts a lot more buyers, which would drive up the price. So, it’s simply about supply and demand. Although it might be the exact same house, the condition is different, which would attract different amount of interests.[/quote]

Supply and demand has nothing to do with the housing market. This is because the government is currently backing 97% of all mortgages. Remove that support and then we could talk about supply and demand (at much lower prices).

Here’s what I suspect is really happening. The banks can’t afford to put any money into their housing inventory because they don’t have any real money. All they have is an inflated mark on their balance sheet for each house. They are willing to sell their inventory at whatever price they can get because the government/taxpayers will cover their loss.

So the banks have a bunch of houses that can’t pass inspection and which they don’t want to put any money into. The banks are willing to sell at close to the real market price (i.e., what the house would sell for without the massive amount of govt/taxpayer support) to all-cash buyers who don’t have to worry about inspections.

The all-cash buyers then fix up the house so that it can pass inspection and then flip it back to the government via an FHA borrower who puts 3.5% down. The process then starts all over again with 50% of FHA FBs getting foreclosed upon within two years and the house going back to a bank.

So what we have is some type of massive, circular Ponzi scheme financed by the government/taxpayers that looks something like this:
bank-owned–>all-cash-buyer–>govt-backed-FB–>foreclosed-back-to-bank

The idea that there is this pool of frivolous borrowers out there who are waiting for the perfectly fixed up house is poppycock. The fact is that the government-backed FBs can’t get through the paperwork/inspections fast enough to beat the all-cash buyer. Further, the banks don’t care what price they get as the taxpayers are covering their losses.

It’s a huge shit sandwich and we are all taking a bite through continuous, forced taxpayer-financed bank bailouts.

[DomoArigato]

[quote=AN]
You fail to see that a move in ready house attracts a lot more buyers, which would drive up the price. So, it’s simply about supply and demand. Although it might be the exact same house, the condition is different, which would attract different amount of interests.[/quote]

Supply and demand has nothing to do with the housing market. This is because the government is currently backing 97% of all mortgages. Remove that support and then we could talk about supply and demand (at much lower prices).

Here’s what I suspect is really happening. The banks can’t afford to put any money into their housing inventory because they don’t have any real money. All they have is an inflated mark on their balance sheet for each house. They are willing to sell their inventory at whatever price they can get because the government/taxpayers will cover their loss.

So the banks have a bunch of houses that can’t pass inspection and which they don’t want to put any money into. The banks are willing to sell at close to the real market price (i.e., what the house would sell for without the massive amount of govt/taxpayer support) to all-cash buyers who don’t have to worry about inspections.

The all-cash buyers then fix up the house so that it can pass inspection and then flip it back to the government via an FHA borrower who puts 3.5% down. The process then starts all over again with 50% of FHA FBs getting foreclosed upon within two years and the house going back to a bank.

So what we have is some type of massive, circular Ponzi scheme financed by the government/taxpayers that looks something like this:
bank-owned–>all-cash-buyer–>govt-backed-FB–>foreclosed-back-to-bank

The idea that there is this pool of frivolous borrowers out there who are waiting for the perfectly fixed up house is poppycock. The fact is that the government-backed FBs can’t get through the paperwork/inspections fast enough to beat the all-cash buyer. Further, the banks don’t care what price they get as the taxpayers are covering their losses.

It’s a huge shit sandwich and we are all taking a bite through continuous, forced taxpayer-financed bank bailouts.

[DomoArigato]

[quote=AN]
You fail to see that a move in ready house attracts a lot more buyers, which would drive up the price. So, it’s simply about supply and demand. Although it might be the exact same house, the condition is different, which would attract different amount of interests.[/quote]

Supply and demand has nothing to do with the housing market. This is because the government is currently backing 97% of all mortgages. Remove that support and then we could talk about supply and demand (at much lower prices).

Here’s what I suspect is really happening. The banks can’t afford to put any money into their housing inventory because they don’t have any real money. All they have is an inflated mark on their balance sheet for each house. They are willing to sell their inventory at whatever price they can get because the government/taxpayers will cover their loss.

So the banks have a bunch of houses that can’t pass inspection and which they don’t want to put any money into. The banks are willing to sell at close to the real market price (i.e., what the house would sell for without the massive amount of govt/taxpayer support) to all-cash buyers who don’t have to worry about inspections.

The all-cash buyers then fix up the house so that it can pass inspection and then flip it back to the government via an FHA borrower who puts 3.5% down. The process then starts all over again with 50% of FHA FBs getting foreclosed upon within two years and the house going back to a bank.

So what we have is some type of massive, circular Ponzi scheme financed by the government/taxpayers that looks something like this:
bank-owned–>all-cash-buyer–>govt-backed-FB–>foreclosed-back-to-bank

The idea that there is this pool of frivolous borrowers out there who are waiting for the perfectly fixed up house is poppycock. The fact is that the government-backed FBs can’t get through the paperwork/inspections fast enough to beat the all-cash buyer. Further, the banks don’t care what price they get as the taxpayers are covering their losses.

It’s a huge shit sandwich and we are all taking a bite through continuous, forced taxpayer-financed bank bailouts.

[DomoArigato]

[quote=AN]
You fail to see that a move in ready house attracts a lot more buyers, which would drive up the price. So, it’s simply about supply and demand. Although it might be the exact same house, the condition is different, which would attract different amount of interests.[/quote]

Supply and demand has nothing to do with the housing market. This is because the government is currently backing 97% of all mortgages. Remove that support and then we could talk about supply and demand (at much lower prices).

Here’s what I suspect is really happening. The banks can’t afford to put any money into their housing inventory because they don’t have any real money. All they have is an inflated mark on their balance sheet for each house. They are willing to sell their inventory at whatever price they can get because the government/taxpayers will cover their loss.

So the banks have a bunch of houses that can’t pass inspection and which they don’t want to put any money into. The banks are willing to sell at close to the real market price (i.e., what the house would sell for without the massive amount of govt/taxpayer support) to all-cash buyers who don’t have to worry about inspections.

The all-cash buyers then fix up the house so that it can pass inspection and then flip it back to the government via an FHA borrower who puts 3.5% down. The process then starts all over again with 50% of FHA FBs getting foreclosed upon within two years and the house going back to a bank.

So what we have is some type of massive, circular Ponzi scheme financed by the government/taxpayers that looks something like this:
bank-owned–>all-cash-buyer–>govt-backed-FB–>foreclosed-back-to-bank

The idea that there is this pool of frivolous borrowers out there who are waiting for the perfectly fixed up house is poppycock. The fact is that the government-backed FBs can’t get through the paperwork/inspections fast enough to beat the all-cash buyer. Further, the banks don’t care what price they get as the taxpayers are covering their losses.

It’s a huge shit sandwich and we are all taking a bite through continuous, forced taxpayer-financed bank bailouts.

[DomoArigato]

[quote=AN]
I always find it funny that those who are pro choice tend to be anti death penalty and those who are pro life tend to be pro death penalty.[/quote]

I always find it funny how people who are supposedly ‘pro life’ couldn’t give two shits about the 20+% of kids in the U.S. who are living in poverty. How many kids have you adopted?

The GOP uses ‘pro life’ as way to get clueless Evangelicals to vote for them. Their main goal is tax cuts and subsidiaries for the top 0.1%.

[DomoArigato]

[quote=AN]
I always find it funny that those who are pro choice tend to be anti death penalty and those who are pro life tend to be pro death penalty.[/quote]

I always find it funny how people who are supposedly ‘pro life’ couldn’t give two shits about the 20+% of kids in the U.S. who are living in poverty. How many kids have you adopted?

The GOP uses ‘pro life’ as way to get clueless Evangelicals to vote for them. Their main goal is tax cuts and subsidiaries for the top 0.1%.

[DomoArigato]

[quote=AN]
I always find it funny that those who are pro choice tend to be anti death penalty and those who are pro life tend to be pro death penalty.[/quote]

I always find it funny how people who are supposedly ‘pro life’ couldn’t give two shits about the 20+% of kids in the U.S. who are living in poverty. How many kids have you adopted?

The GOP uses ‘pro life’ as way to get clueless Evangelicals to vote for them. Their main goal is tax cuts and subsidiaries for the top 0.1%.

[DomoArigato]

[quote=AN]
I always find it funny that those who are pro choice tend to be anti death penalty and those who are pro life tend to be pro death penalty.[/quote]

I always find it funny how people who are supposedly ‘pro life’ couldn’t give two shits about the 20+% of kids in the U.S. who are living in poverty. How many kids have you adopted?

The GOP uses ‘pro life’ as way to get clueless Evangelicals to vote for them. Their main goal is tax cuts and subsidiaries for the top 0.1%.

[DomoArigato]

[quote=AN]
I always find it funny that those who are pro choice tend to be anti death penalty and those who are pro life tend to be pro death penalty.[/quote]

I always find it funny how people who are supposedly ‘pro life’ couldn’t give two shits about the 20+% of kids in the U.S. who are living in poverty. How many kids have you adopted?

The GOP uses ‘pro life’ as way to get clueless Evangelicals to vote for them. Their main goal is tax cuts and subsidiaries for the top 0.1%.

[DomoArigato]

[quote=walterwhite]
I ALWAYS vote for the loser.
[/quote]

This is actually a winning strategy. You have fulfilled your patriotic duties but at the same time you’ll always be able to complain about whatever sleazebag happens to slither into office. No one can blame you if the POTUS completely destroys the country. It’s all of the good with none of the inevitable bad.

[Author]

Posts