Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
patientrenter
Participant[quote=patb]…..
Because Bob doesn’t have 100 or 300 or 600K sitting there.69 Year old Bob has money sitting there. 35 year old or 45 year old
Bob is just the caretaker for 69 year old bob.Why aren’t companies in trouble allowed to use the pension funds to
pay salaries for all staff? After all, it’s just sitting there, and isn’t
it important the firmIf Bob uses that money now to settle his underwater house,
he won’t have a pension.Bankers are supposed to be smart with money.
Shouldn’t the bank managers who got big bonuses for this mortgage
pay those back first?(I do not understand republicans who weep for billionaires and rage
at poor people)[/quote]Let’s see. I can afford either a nice retirement OR an overpriced home. Oh, I deserve both.
I agree that making sure you save enough when you are 40 to retire when you are 70 is a higher priority than buying an overpriced home. But the people getting loan mods without giving up their retirement money don’t have to give up anything. After all, they were the victims of predatory lenders. It’s good to be a victim in the USA today.
Participant[quote=patb]…..
Because Bob doesn’t have 100 or 300 or 600K sitting there.69 Year old Bob has money sitting there. 35 year old or 45 year old
Bob is just the caretaker for 69 year old bob.Why aren’t companies in trouble allowed to use the pension funds to
pay salaries for all staff? After all, it’s just sitting there, and isn’t
it important the firmIf Bob uses that money now to settle his underwater house,
he won’t have a pension.Bankers are supposed to be smart with money.
Shouldn’t the bank managers who got big bonuses for this mortgage
pay those back first?(I do not understand republicans who weep for billionaires and rage
at poor people)[/quote]Let’s see. I can afford either a nice retirement OR an overpriced home. Oh, I deserve both.
I agree that making sure you save enough when you are 40 to retire when you are 70 is a higher priority than buying an overpriced home. But the people getting loan mods without giving up their retirement money don’t have to give up anything. After all, they were the victims of predatory lenders. It’s good to be a victim in the USA today.
Participant[quote=patb]…..
Because Bob doesn’t have 100 or 300 or 600K sitting there.69 Year old Bob has money sitting there. 35 year old or 45 year old
Bob is just the caretaker for 69 year old bob.Why aren’t companies in trouble allowed to use the pension funds to
pay salaries for all staff? After all, it’s just sitting there, and isn’t
it important the firmIf Bob uses that money now to settle his underwater house,
he won’t have a pension.Bankers are supposed to be smart with money.
Shouldn’t the bank managers who got big bonuses for this mortgage
pay those back first?(I do not understand republicans who weep for billionaires and rage
at poor people)[/quote]Let’s see. I can afford either a nice retirement OR an overpriced home. Oh, I deserve both.
I agree that making sure you save enough when you are 40 to retire when you are 70 is a higher priority than buying an overpriced home. But the people getting loan mods without giving up their retirement money don’t have to give up anything. After all, they were the victims of predatory lenders. It’s good to be a victim in the USA today.
ParticipantI doesn’t matter what happens at the end of 40 years. Either the house price is way above the loan, and the homeowner has huge gains to pocket, thanks to taxpayers, or the house price is below the loan, and they walk away and don’t pay the balloon payment.
Taxpayers are a very easy mark.
ParticipantI doesn’t matter what happens at the end of 40 years. Either the house price is way above the loan, and the homeowner has huge gains to pocket, thanks to taxpayers, or the house price is below the loan, and they walk away and don’t pay the balloon payment.
Taxpayers are a very easy mark.
ParticipantI doesn’t matter what happens at the end of 40 years. Either the house price is way above the loan, and the homeowner has huge gains to pocket, thanks to taxpayers, or the house price is below the loan, and they walk away and don’t pay the balloon payment.
Taxpayers are a very easy mark.
ParticipantI doesn’t matter what happens at the end of 40 years. Either the house price is way above the loan, and the homeowner has huge gains to pocket, thanks to taxpayers, or the house price is below the loan, and they walk away and don’t pay the balloon payment.
Taxpayers are a very easy mark.
ParticipantI doesn’t matter what happens at the end of 40 years. Either the house price is way above the loan, and the homeowner has huge gains to pocket, thanks to taxpayers, or the house price is below the loan, and they walk away and don’t pay the balloon payment.
Taxpayers are a very easy mark.
ParticipantWhy do I think the pols are mostly following the voters’ wishes? Do I have any examples?
Yes, house prices. Most people want house prices to be higher. Who benefits the most? If a home goes up by $500,000, who gets most of that? The homeowner. Yes, the real estate agents make 6% of that $500,000 more ($30,000), and the mortgage broker makes 2% ($10,000), and the banker makes another few %, and so on. But $400,000 or more goes to the owner. So sure, the RE and banker types really want the bubble reflated, but the bulk of the dollars go to homeowners, and the homeowners will scream if the pols don’t make every effort to let them hold onto the benefits they expect from past and future inflation of their house prices.
Banks would be perfectly happy with a solution that dropped house prices and forgave debts, as long as they got bailed out. But notice how the primary effort has actually been to pour truly vast amounts into more cheap and easy (<5% rate, 3.5% down, tax credits...) loans to buy homes - to keep the prices high. That's for voters.
ParticipantWhy do I think the pols are mostly following the voters’ wishes? Do I have any examples?
Yes, house prices. Most people want house prices to be higher. Who benefits the most? If a home goes up by $500,000, who gets most of that? The homeowner. Yes, the real estate agents make 6% of that $500,000 more ($30,000), and the mortgage broker makes 2% ($10,000), and the banker makes another few %, and so on. But $400,000 or more goes to the owner. So sure, the RE and banker types really want the bubble reflated, but the bulk of the dollars go to homeowners, and the homeowners will scream if the pols don’t make every effort to let them hold onto the benefits they expect from past and future inflation of their house prices.
Banks would be perfectly happy with a solution that dropped house prices and forgave debts, as long as they got bailed out. But notice how the primary effort has actually been to pour truly vast amounts into more cheap and easy (<5% rate, 3.5% down, tax credits...) loans to buy homes - to keep the prices high. That's for voters.
ParticipantWhy do I think the pols are mostly following the voters’ wishes? Do I have any examples?
Yes, house prices. Most people want house prices to be higher. Who benefits the most? If a home goes up by $500,000, who gets most of that? The homeowner. Yes, the real estate agents make 6% of that $500,000 more ($30,000), and the mortgage broker makes 2% ($10,000), and the banker makes another few %, and so on. But $400,000 or more goes to the owner. So sure, the RE and banker types really want the bubble reflated, but the bulk of the dollars go to homeowners, and the homeowners will scream if the pols don’t make every effort to let them hold onto the benefits they expect from past and future inflation of their house prices.
Banks would be perfectly happy with a solution that dropped house prices and forgave debts, as long as they got bailed out. But notice how the primary effort has actually been to pour truly vast amounts into more cheap and easy (<5% rate, 3.5% down, tax credits...) loans to buy homes - to keep the prices high. That's for voters.
ParticipantWhy do I think the pols are mostly following the voters’ wishes? Do I have any examples?
Yes, house prices. Most people want house prices to be higher. Who benefits the most? If a home goes up by $500,000, who gets most of that? The homeowner. Yes, the real estate agents make 6% of that $500,000 more ($30,000), and the mortgage broker makes 2% ($10,000), and the banker makes another few %, and so on. But $400,000 or more goes to the owner. So sure, the RE and banker types really want the bubble reflated, but the bulk of the dollars go to homeowners, and the homeowners will scream if the pols don’t make every effort to let them hold onto the benefits they expect from past and future inflation of their house prices.
Banks would be perfectly happy with a solution that dropped house prices and forgave debts, as long as they got bailed out. But notice how the primary effort has actually been to pour truly vast amounts into more cheap and easy (<5% rate, 3.5% down, tax credits...) loans to buy homes - to keep the prices high. That's for voters.
ParticipantWhy do I think the pols are mostly following the voters’ wishes? Do I have any examples?
Yes, house prices. Most people want house prices to be higher. Who benefits the most? If a home goes up by $500,000, who gets most of that? The homeowner. Yes, the real estate agents make 6% of that $500,000 more ($30,000), and the mortgage broker makes 2% ($10,000), and the banker makes another few %, and so on. But $400,000 or more goes to the owner. So sure, the RE and banker types really want the bubble reflated, but the bulk of the dollars go to homeowners, and the homeowners will scream if the pols don’t make every effort to let them hold onto the benefits they expect from past and future inflation of their house prices.
Banks would be perfectly happy with a solution that dropped house prices and forgave debts, as long as they got bailed out. But notice how the primary effort has actually been to pour truly vast amounts into more cheap and easy (<5% rate, 3.5% down, tax credits...) loans to buy homes - to keep the prices high. That's for voters.
ParticipantChris, you have a lot more expertise in equity markets than I do, and you’ve made a couple of smart calls, so I listen carefully when you give advice to the fellow Piggs.
I have to admit I am dumbfounded by the rise in equity markets since March. They appear to be levitating well above the underlying economics.
But I am curious. What do you think of the argument, made by Paul Krugman and others, that the world is still awash in excess savings? If that were true, couldn’t that lead to equity values well above what they “should” be based on traditional measures of fundamental value, together with very low interest rates? I am not trying to start a tired endless debate here. I am just curious what you think.
-
AuthorPosts
