[DWCAP]

Having said that, sd_r if you can play the game the way the rules are written, all the more power to you. Dont hate the player, hate the game. I blame the voters who keep voting idiots into congress who keeps making this game dumber and dumber.

[DWCAP]

Having said that, sd_r if you can play the game the way the rules are written, all the more power to you. Dont hate the player, hate the game. I blame the voters who keep voting idiots into congress who keeps making this game dumber and dumber.

[DWCAP]

Wow that was a long chicken and the egg debate. Was it loose lending, with the addition of some extra froth from flipping, that made the bubble so damaging? Or was it loose lending allowing flipping to drive costs to a bubble? Does it really matter? Both played this bubble. Do we really care if it was 60/40 or 40/60? Flipping wont work without loose lending, and loose lending will induce flipping in illiquid market like RE.

I prefer to think of it differently. Loose lending is like a gun, and flipping like a bullet. It was the bullet that killed someone, but only after being aimed and fired by the gun. Which one is to blame?
– Id argue the person who pulled the trigger. (Fannie/Freddie/Congress everyone is looking at you)

[DWCAP]

Wow that was a long chicken and the egg debate. Was it loose lending, with the addition of some extra froth from flipping, that made the bubble so damaging? Or was it loose lending allowing flipping to drive costs to a bubble? Does it really matter? Both played this bubble. Do we really care if it was 60/40 or 40/60? Flipping wont work without loose lending, and loose lending will induce flipping in illiquid market like RE.

I prefer to think of it differently. Loose lending is like a gun, and flipping like a bullet. It was the bullet that killed someone, but only after being aimed and fired by the gun. Which one is to blame?
– Id argue the person who pulled the trigger. (Fannie/Freddie/Congress everyone is looking at you)

[DWCAP]

Wow that was a long chicken and the egg debate. Was it loose lending, with the addition of some extra froth from flipping, that made the bubble so damaging? Or was it loose lending allowing flipping to drive costs to a bubble? Does it really matter? Both played this bubble. Do we really care if it was 60/40 or 40/60? Flipping wont work without loose lending, and loose lending will induce flipping in illiquid market like RE.

I prefer to think of it differently. Loose lending is like a gun, and flipping like a bullet. It was the bullet that killed someone, but only after being aimed and fired by the gun. Which one is to blame?
– Id argue the person who pulled the trigger. (Fannie/Freddie/Congress everyone is looking at you)

[DWCAP]

Wow that was a long chicken and the egg debate. Was it loose lending, with the addition of some extra froth from flipping, that made the bubble so damaging? Or was it loose lending allowing flipping to drive costs to a bubble? Does it really matter? Both played this bubble. Do we really care if it was 60/40 or 40/60? Flipping wont work without loose lending, and loose lending will induce flipping in illiquid market like RE.

I prefer to think of it differently. Loose lending is like a gun, and flipping like a bullet. It was the bullet that killed someone, but only after being aimed and fired by the gun. Which one is to blame?
– Id argue the person who pulled the trigger. (Fannie/Freddie/Congress everyone is looking at you)

[DWCAP]

Wow that was a long chicken and the egg debate. Was it loose lending, with the addition of some extra froth from flipping, that made the bubble so damaging? Or was it loose lending allowing flipping to drive costs to a bubble? Does it really matter? Both played this bubble. Do we really care if it was 60/40 or 40/60? Flipping wont work without loose lending, and loose lending will induce flipping in illiquid market like RE.

I prefer to think of it differently. Loose lending is like a gun, and flipping like a bullet. It was the bullet that killed someone, but only after being aimed and fired by the gun. Which one is to blame?
– Id argue the person who pulled the trigger. (Fannie/Freddie/Congress everyone is looking at you)

[DWCAP]

[quote=SK in CV]Another way to look at this.
No argument, but there still is no immediate give away to the homeowner. He simply reverts to exactly the same place he was when he originally bought the house with no money down. And the lender has less a valuable, but performing loan.

I know many wouldn’t be happy with this kind of false reward to buyers who made bad decisions, but it’s what lenders should have been doing for the last year in cases with qualifieed borrowers, modifying loans to current market value of the collateral, rather than foreclosing and flooding the market with properties, driving values down further.

I know why they don’t do it. But they should.[/quote]

Why? Why should they have? Your statement about ‘driving houses down further’ doesnt hold too much water. By just about any reasonable metric housing prices are either ‘fair’ or ‘over’ priced in the majority of the USA, with the possible exception of Detroit which has been on a downwards sprial for 40-50 years now. In SD they are flying off the shelf. So the argument is that banks should have done mass modifications so that prices could have stayed overpriced and the people who would have benifited the most from increasing prices/leverage can also benifit from decreasing prices/leverage too?

Please define the reasons for “should”.

[DWCAP]

[quote=SK in CV]Another way to look at this.
No argument, but there still is no immediate give away to the homeowner. He simply reverts to exactly the same place he was when he originally bought the house with no money down. And the lender has less a valuable, but performing loan.

I know many wouldn’t be happy with this kind of false reward to buyers who made bad decisions, but it’s what lenders should have been doing for the last year in cases with qualifieed borrowers, modifying loans to current market value of the collateral, rather than foreclosing and flooding the market with properties, driving values down further.

I know why they don’t do it. But they should.[/quote]

Why? Why should they have? Your statement about ‘driving houses down further’ doesnt hold too much water. By just about any reasonable metric housing prices are either ‘fair’ or ‘over’ priced in the majority of the USA, with the possible exception of Detroit which has been on a downwards sprial for 40-50 years now. In SD they are flying off the shelf. So the argument is that banks should have done mass modifications so that prices could have stayed overpriced and the people who would have benifited the most from increasing prices/leverage can also benifit from decreasing prices/leverage too?

Please define the reasons for “should”.

[DWCAP]

[quote=SK in CV]Another way to look at this.
No argument, but there still is no immediate give away to the homeowner. He simply reverts to exactly the same place he was when he originally bought the house with no money down. And the lender has less a valuable, but performing loan.

I know many wouldn’t be happy with this kind of false reward to buyers who made bad decisions, but it’s what lenders should have been doing for the last year in cases with qualifieed borrowers, modifying loans to current market value of the collateral, rather than foreclosing and flooding the market with properties, driving values down further.

I know why they don’t do it. But they should.[/quote]

Why? Why should they have? Your statement about ‘driving houses down further’ doesnt hold too much water. By just about any reasonable metric housing prices are either ‘fair’ or ‘over’ priced in the majority of the USA, with the possible exception of Detroit which has been on a downwards sprial for 40-50 years now. In SD they are flying off the shelf. So the argument is that banks should have done mass modifications so that prices could have stayed overpriced and the people who would have benifited the most from increasing prices/leverage can also benifit from decreasing prices/leverage too?

Please define the reasons for “should”.

[DWCAP]

[quote=SK in CV]Another way to look at this.
No argument, but there still is no immediate give away to the homeowner. He simply reverts to exactly the same place he was when he originally bought the house with no money down. And the lender has less a valuable, but performing loan.

I know many wouldn’t be happy with this kind of false reward to buyers who made bad decisions, but it’s what lenders should have been doing for the last year in cases with qualifieed borrowers, modifying loans to current market value of the collateral, rather than foreclosing and flooding the market with properties, driving values down further.

I know why they don’t do it. But they should.[/quote]

Why? Why should they have? Your statement about ‘driving houses down further’ doesnt hold too much water. By just about any reasonable metric housing prices are either ‘fair’ or ‘over’ priced in the majority of the USA, with the possible exception of Detroit which has been on a downwards sprial for 40-50 years now. In SD they are flying off the shelf. So the argument is that banks should have done mass modifications so that prices could have stayed overpriced and the people who would have benifited the most from increasing prices/leverage can also benifit from decreasing prices/leverage too?

Please define the reasons for “should”.

[DWCAP]

[quote=SK in CV]Another way to look at this.
No argument, but there still is no immediate give away to the homeowner. He simply reverts to exactly the same place he was when he originally bought the house with no money down. And the lender has less a valuable, but performing loan.

I know many wouldn’t be happy with this kind of false reward to buyers who made bad decisions, but it’s what lenders should have been doing for the last year in cases with qualifieed borrowers, modifying loans to current market value of the collateral, rather than foreclosing and flooding the market with properties, driving values down further.

I know why they don’t do it. But they should.[/quote]

Why? Why should they have? Your statement about ‘driving houses down further’ doesnt hold too much water. By just about any reasonable metric housing prices are either ‘fair’ or ‘over’ priced in the majority of the USA, with the possible exception of Detroit which has been on a downwards sprial for 40-50 years now. In SD they are flying off the shelf. So the argument is that banks should have done mass modifications so that prices could have stayed overpriced and the people who would have benifited the most from increasing prices/leverage can also benifit from decreasing prices/leverage too?

Please define the reasons for “should”.

[DWCAP]

What in the world are you talking about CA Renter? The city slashed its expenses 50%, and dont tell me there wasnt some kinda waste, the city’s bid was 900k less for the services it already provides. That is $1.5million that can be used to hire teachers, police, lifeguards, etc etc etc (or not fire them). That is $1.5 million that can be used to fill budget holes and/or not have to raise taxes. Are city services to never see any kind of financial reality placed upon them, ever?

In my opinion they need to do alot more of this. Monopolies are some of the worst run buisness models, competition is good for all of us.

[DWCAP]

What in the world are you talking about CA Renter? The city slashed its expenses 50%, and dont tell me there wasnt some kinda waste, the city’s bid was 900k less for the services it already provides. That is $1.5million that can be used to hire teachers, police, lifeguards, etc etc etc (or not fire them). That is $1.5 million that can be used to fill budget holes and/or not have to raise taxes. Are city services to never see any kind of financial reality placed upon them, ever?

In my opinion they need to do alot more of this. Monopolies are some of the worst run buisness models, competition is good for all of us.

[DWCAP]

What in the world are you talking about CA Renter? The city slashed its expenses 50%, and dont tell me there wasnt some kinda waste, the city’s bid was 900k less for the services it already provides. That is $1.5million that can be used to hire teachers, police, lifeguards, etc etc etc (or not fire them). That is $1.5 million that can be used to fill budget holes and/or not have to raise taxes. Are city services to never see any kind of financial reality placed upon them, ever?

In my opinion they need to do alot more of this. Monopolies are some of the worst run buisness models, competition is good for all of us.

[Author]

Posts