Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Ex-SD
ParticipantSHILOH: You and I of the same mindset. Especially when you said: “It took Japan about 16 years to recover from their bubble.”
I think it will take at least 16-20+ years to recover from this bubble. There are simply too many factors that will inhibit the return to “The Good Ole Days” in the housing industry in the bubble markets. There are lots of markets that will probably chug right along in many parts of the country where houses are appropriately priced to the incomes of the buyers. You can rest assured that there will be a bunch of new regulations concerning buyer qualification, appraisals, etc. that will prevent this foolishness from happening again.ParticipantSHILOH: You and I of the same mindset. Especially when you said: “It took Japan about 16 years to recover from their bubble.”
I think it will take at least 16-20+ years to recover from this bubble. There are simply too many factors that will inhibit the return to “The Good Ole Days” in the housing industry in the bubble markets. There are lots of markets that will probably chug right along in many parts of the country where houses are appropriately priced to the incomes of the buyers. You can rest assured that there will be a bunch of new regulations concerning buyer qualification, appraisals, etc. that will prevent this foolishness from happening again.ParticipantSHILOH: You and I of the same mindset. Especially when you said: “It took Japan about 16 years to recover from their bubble.”
I think it will take at least 16-20+ years to recover from this bubble. There are simply too many factors that will inhibit the return to “The Good Ole Days” in the housing industry in the bubble markets. There are lots of markets that will probably chug right along in many parts of the country where houses are appropriately priced to the incomes of the buyers. You can rest assured that there will be a bunch of new regulations concerning buyer qualification, appraisals, etc. that will prevent this foolishness from happening again.ParticipantSHILOH: You and I of the same mindset. Especially when you said: “It took Japan about 16 years to recover from their bubble.”
I think it will take at least 16-20+ years to recover from this bubble. There are simply too many factors that will inhibit the return to “The Good Ole Days” in the housing industry in the bubble markets. There are lots of markets that will probably chug right along in many parts of the country where houses are appropriately priced to the incomes of the buyers. You can rest assured that there will be a bunch of new regulations concerning buyer qualification, appraisals, etc. that will prevent this foolishness from happening again.ParticipantI agree with DWCAP.
ParticipantI agree with DWCAP.
ParticipantI agree with DWCAP.
ParticipantI agree with DWCAP.
ParticipantI agree with DWCAP.
March 19, 2008 at 1:08 PM in reply to: JPM offers to buy Bear for $2/shared; Fed cuts discount rate #173182ParticipantVolcker questions Fed’s Bear Stearns bailout
(From the LA Times Real Estate Blog by Peter Viles)Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker is raising questions about the Fed’s rescue of Bear Stearns.
Volcker’s chief questions: Why is the Fed rescuing a non-bank that it does not regulate? Isn’t that a job for Congress? Why is the Fed guaranteeing bad loans? The Fed regulates — and lends to — banks, not investment houses.
Volcker calls the Bear bailout “… a new departure. And at some point, the government ought to — in my view, the government ought to be taking responsibility for that kind of action, not the Federal Reserve, which is an independent agency designed to provide an ample supply of liquidity to the economy but not too much, protect against inflation, not to protect particular sectors of the economy from bad loans.
In other words, rescuing companies other than banks, and guaranteeing bad loans, is a job for Congress and the White House. You want to bail out Carlyle Capital, or Chrysler or K-Mart? Go ahead, knock yourself out. Just don’t ask the Fed to do it, because it’s not their job.
Of course, potentially catastrophic failure was imminent and the Fed evidently felt it couldn’t wait. Volcker: “… They stepped into a vacuum, and I think quite appropriately, it’s a judgment they had to make. But is this what you want for the longstanding regulatory support system? My answer is no.”
March 19, 2008 at 1:08 PM in reply to: JPM offers to buy Bear for $2/shared; Fed cuts discount rate #173522ParticipantVolcker questions Fed’s Bear Stearns bailout
(From the LA Times Real Estate Blog by Peter Viles)Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker is raising questions about the Fed’s rescue of Bear Stearns.
Volcker’s chief questions: Why is the Fed rescuing a non-bank that it does not regulate? Isn’t that a job for Congress? Why is the Fed guaranteeing bad loans? The Fed regulates — and lends to — banks, not investment houses.
Volcker calls the Bear bailout “… a new departure. And at some point, the government ought to — in my view, the government ought to be taking responsibility for that kind of action, not the Federal Reserve, which is an independent agency designed to provide an ample supply of liquidity to the economy but not too much, protect against inflation, not to protect particular sectors of the economy from bad loans.
In other words, rescuing companies other than banks, and guaranteeing bad loans, is a job for Congress and the White House. You want to bail out Carlyle Capital, or Chrysler or K-Mart? Go ahead, knock yourself out. Just don’t ask the Fed to do it, because it’s not their job.
Of course, potentially catastrophic failure was imminent and the Fed evidently felt it couldn’t wait. Volcker: “… They stepped into a vacuum, and I think quite appropriately, it’s a judgment they had to make. But is this what you want for the longstanding regulatory support system? My answer is no.”
March 19, 2008 at 1:08 PM in reply to: JPM offers to buy Bear for $2/shared; Fed cuts discount rate #173524ParticipantVolcker questions Fed’s Bear Stearns bailout
(From the LA Times Real Estate Blog by Peter Viles)Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker is raising questions about the Fed’s rescue of Bear Stearns.
Volcker’s chief questions: Why is the Fed rescuing a non-bank that it does not regulate? Isn’t that a job for Congress? Why is the Fed guaranteeing bad loans? The Fed regulates — and lends to — banks, not investment houses.
Volcker calls the Bear bailout “… a new departure. And at some point, the government ought to — in my view, the government ought to be taking responsibility for that kind of action, not the Federal Reserve, which is an independent agency designed to provide an ample supply of liquidity to the economy but not too much, protect against inflation, not to protect particular sectors of the economy from bad loans.
In other words, rescuing companies other than banks, and guaranteeing bad loans, is a job for Congress and the White House. You want to bail out Carlyle Capital, or Chrysler or K-Mart? Go ahead, knock yourself out. Just don’t ask the Fed to do it, because it’s not their job.
Of course, potentially catastrophic failure was imminent and the Fed evidently felt it couldn’t wait. Volcker: “… They stepped into a vacuum, and I think quite appropriately, it’s a judgment they had to make. But is this what you want for the longstanding regulatory support system? My answer is no.”
March 19, 2008 at 1:08 PM in reply to: JPM offers to buy Bear for $2/shared; Fed cuts discount rate #173544ParticipantVolcker questions Fed’s Bear Stearns bailout
(From the LA Times Real Estate Blog by Peter Viles)Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker is raising questions about the Fed’s rescue of Bear Stearns.
Volcker’s chief questions: Why is the Fed rescuing a non-bank that it does not regulate? Isn’t that a job for Congress? Why is the Fed guaranteeing bad loans? The Fed regulates — and lends to — banks, not investment houses.
Volcker calls the Bear bailout “… a new departure. And at some point, the government ought to — in my view, the government ought to be taking responsibility for that kind of action, not the Federal Reserve, which is an independent agency designed to provide an ample supply of liquidity to the economy but not too much, protect against inflation, not to protect particular sectors of the economy from bad loans.
In other words, rescuing companies other than banks, and guaranteeing bad loans, is a job for Congress and the White House. You want to bail out Carlyle Capital, or Chrysler or K-Mart? Go ahead, knock yourself out. Just don’t ask the Fed to do it, because it’s not their job.
Of course, potentially catastrophic failure was imminent and the Fed evidently felt it couldn’t wait. Volcker: “… They stepped into a vacuum, and I think quite appropriately, it’s a judgment they had to make. But is this what you want for the longstanding regulatory support system? My answer is no.”
March 19, 2008 at 1:08 PM in reply to: JPM offers to buy Bear for $2/shared; Fed cuts discount rate #173626ParticipantVolcker questions Fed’s Bear Stearns bailout
(From the LA Times Real Estate Blog by Peter Viles)Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker is raising questions about the Fed’s rescue of Bear Stearns.
Volcker’s chief questions: Why is the Fed rescuing a non-bank that it does not regulate? Isn’t that a job for Congress? Why is the Fed guaranteeing bad loans? The Fed regulates — and lends to — banks, not investment houses.
Volcker calls the Bear bailout “… a new departure. And at some point, the government ought to — in my view, the government ought to be taking responsibility for that kind of action, not the Federal Reserve, which is an independent agency designed to provide an ample supply of liquidity to the economy but not too much, protect against inflation, not to protect particular sectors of the economy from bad loans.
In other words, rescuing companies other than banks, and guaranteeing bad loans, is a job for Congress and the White House. You want to bail out Carlyle Capital, or Chrysler or K-Mart? Go ahead, knock yourself out. Just don’t ask the Fed to do it, because it’s not their job.
Of course, potentially catastrophic failure was imminent and the Fed evidently felt it couldn’t wait. Volcker: “… They stepped into a vacuum, and I think quite appropriately, it’s a judgment they had to make. But is this what you want for the longstanding regulatory support system? My answer is no.”
-
AuthorPosts
