[patientrenter]

[quote=garysears]…
I want to pay the prices the flippers are paying but I can’t due to unlevel playing field and preference for cash deals over financed deals.[/quote]

Garysears, I agree with everything you said. You made another excellent post. I would only move the emphasis a little bit to say that the FHA standards are ridiculously loose, and the resulting excess money being paid under FHA loans is a big part of the problem, and one that should be fixed by implementing a minimum 20% downpayment for FHA loans.

[patientrenter]

[quote=garysears]…
I want to pay the prices the flippers are paying but I can’t due to unlevel playing field and preference for cash deals over financed deals.[/quote]

Garysears, I agree with everything you said. You made another excellent post. I would only move the emphasis a little bit to say that the FHA standards are ridiculously loose, and the resulting excess money being paid under FHA loans is a big part of the problem, and one that should be fixed by implementing a minimum 20% downpayment for FHA loans.

[patientrenter]

[quote=garysears]…
I want to pay the prices the flippers are paying but I can’t due to unlevel playing field and preference for cash deals over financed deals.[/quote]

Garysears, I agree with everything you said. You made another excellent post. I would only move the emphasis a little bit to say that the FHA standards are ridiculously loose, and the resulting excess money being paid under FHA loans is a big part of the problem, and one that should be fixed by implementing a minimum 20% downpayment for FHA loans.

[patientrenter]

[quote=garysears]…
I want to pay the prices the flippers are paying but I can’t due to unlevel playing field and preference for cash deals over financed deals.[/quote]

Garysears, I agree with everything you said. You made another excellent post. I would only move the emphasis a little bit to say that the FHA standards are ridiculously loose, and the resulting excess money being paid under FHA loans is a big part of the problem, and one that should be fixed by implementing a minimum 20% downpayment for FHA loans.

[patientrenter]

[quote=Arraya]….
With the bubble you either think:

A: The banks did it for immense profits with no regard for consequences due to their rapacious and addictive nature.

or

B: The banks did it because of immense pressure from irresponsible borrowers and politicians who took advantage of the banks naivety and good nature

With the bailouts

A: The banks wanted to stay in business and are using every trick in the book to transfer losses to the tax payer and keep RE values as high as possible for their own survival purposes and to keep the billion dollar bonuses flowing

Or

B: The banks, continuing down their naive and trusting path, are under considerable pressure from irresponsible citizens and politicians to continue lending and make underwriting as loose as possible.

I pick A on both. You seem to pick B…….

[/quote]

I pick both A and B. Both are hugely important here. Any strong political action is successful only if:

1. It can enrich a small group of people enough to get them to lobby and contribute to our politicians

and

2. It can benefit enough voters that the politicians can gain votes from supporting it, with the help of their marketing campaign funded by the extra contributions

Both the bubble and the bailout got lots of both types of support, and would not have been possible without both.

[patientrenter]

[quote=Arraya]….
With the bubble you either think:

A: The banks did it for immense profits with no regard for consequences due to their rapacious and addictive nature.

or

B: The banks did it because of immense pressure from irresponsible borrowers and politicians who took advantage of the banks naivety and good nature

With the bailouts

A: The banks wanted to stay in business and are using every trick in the book to transfer losses to the tax payer and keep RE values as high as possible for their own survival purposes and to keep the billion dollar bonuses flowing

Or

B: The banks, continuing down their naive and trusting path, are under considerable pressure from irresponsible citizens and politicians to continue lending and make underwriting as loose as possible.

I pick A on both. You seem to pick B…….

[/quote]

I pick both A and B. Both are hugely important here. Any strong political action is successful only if:

1. It can enrich a small group of people enough to get them to lobby and contribute to our politicians

and

2. It can benefit enough voters that the politicians can gain votes from supporting it, with the help of their marketing campaign funded by the extra contributions

Both the bubble and the bailout got lots of both types of support, and would not have been possible without both.

[patientrenter]

[quote=Arraya]….
With the bubble you either think:

A: The banks did it for immense profits with no regard for consequences due to their rapacious and addictive nature.

or

B: The banks did it because of immense pressure from irresponsible borrowers and politicians who took advantage of the banks naivety and good nature

With the bailouts

A: The banks wanted to stay in business and are using every trick in the book to transfer losses to the tax payer and keep RE values as high as possible for their own survival purposes and to keep the billion dollar bonuses flowing

Or

B: The banks, continuing down their naive and trusting path, are under considerable pressure from irresponsible citizens and politicians to continue lending and make underwriting as loose as possible.

I pick A on both. You seem to pick B…….

[/quote]

I pick both A and B. Both are hugely important here. Any strong political action is successful only if:

1. It can enrich a small group of people enough to get them to lobby and contribute to our politicians

and

2. It can benefit enough voters that the politicians can gain votes from supporting it, with the help of their marketing campaign funded by the extra contributions

Both the bubble and the bailout got lots of both types of support, and would not have been possible without both.

[patientrenter]

[quote=Arraya]….
With the bubble you either think:

A: The banks did it for immense profits with no regard for consequences due to their rapacious and addictive nature.

or

B: The banks did it because of immense pressure from irresponsible borrowers and politicians who took advantage of the banks naivety and good nature

With the bailouts

A: The banks wanted to stay in business and are using every trick in the book to transfer losses to the tax payer and keep RE values as high as possible for their own survival purposes and to keep the billion dollar bonuses flowing

Or

B: The banks, continuing down their naive and trusting path, are under considerable pressure from irresponsible citizens and politicians to continue lending and make underwriting as loose as possible.

I pick A on both. You seem to pick B…….

[/quote]

I pick both A and B. Both are hugely important here. Any strong political action is successful only if:

1. It can enrich a small group of people enough to get them to lobby and contribute to our politicians

and

2. It can benefit enough voters that the politicians can gain votes from supporting it, with the help of their marketing campaign funded by the extra contributions

Both the bubble and the bailout got lots of both types of support, and would not have been possible without both.

[patientrenter]

[quote=Arraya]….
With the bubble you either think:

A: The banks did it for immense profits with no regard for consequences due to their rapacious and addictive nature.

or

B: The banks did it because of immense pressure from irresponsible borrowers and politicians who took advantage of the banks naivety and good nature

With the bailouts

A: The banks wanted to stay in business and are using every trick in the book to transfer losses to the tax payer and keep RE values as high as possible for their own survival purposes and to keep the billion dollar bonuses flowing

Or

B: The banks, continuing down their naive and trusting path, are under considerable pressure from irresponsible citizens and politicians to continue lending and make underwriting as loose as possible.

I pick A on both. You seem to pick B…….

[/quote]

I pick both A and B. Both are hugely important here. Any strong political action is successful only if:

1. It can enrich a small group of people enough to get them to lobby and contribute to our politicians

and

2. It can benefit enough voters that the politicians can gain votes from supporting it, with the help of their marketing campaign funded by the extra contributions

Both the bubble and the bailout got lots of both types of support, and would not have been possible without both.

[patientrenter]

[quote=SK in CV]….
And yes, I think the lenders should keep lending…. If I sent you a check for my net worth, I’d be as dumb as many of the lenders that made bad loans over the last 5 years…[/quote]

Either:

1. The lenders quit making dumb loans that allow less than 20% downpayments, or 30-40% in the areas that are still full of bubble air, and then cram down on the fully documented and justified hardship cases, or

2. The lenders continue lending at ridiculous levels of risk, with downpayments at levels that are much too low, in which case there should be no cramdowns, period.

We can’t have both cramdowns and a continuation of what led us to cramdowns.

Prices in vast swathes of Los Angeles are still way up in bubble territory, and lenders are still lending 80-100% of these prices, backed by the taxpayer. If we think that should continue, then we can’t turn around and say that the resulting risky loans are nonsensical and should be forgiven.

[patientrenter]

[quote=SK in CV]….
And yes, I think the lenders should keep lending…. If I sent you a check for my net worth, I’d be as dumb as many of the lenders that made bad loans over the last 5 years…[/quote]

Either:

1. The lenders quit making dumb loans that allow less than 20% downpayments, or 30-40% in the areas that are still full of bubble air, and then cram down on the fully documented and justified hardship cases, or

2. The lenders continue lending at ridiculous levels of risk, with downpayments at levels that are much too low, in which case there should be no cramdowns, period.

We can’t have both cramdowns and a continuation of what led us to cramdowns.

Prices in vast swathes of Los Angeles are still way up in bubble territory, and lenders are still lending 80-100% of these prices, backed by the taxpayer. If we think that should continue, then we can’t turn around and say that the resulting risky loans are nonsensical and should be forgiven.

[patientrenter]

[quote=SK in CV]….
And yes, I think the lenders should keep lending…. If I sent you a check for my net worth, I’d be as dumb as many of the lenders that made bad loans over the last 5 years…[/quote]

Either:

1. The lenders quit making dumb loans that allow less than 20% downpayments, or 30-40% in the areas that are still full of bubble air, and then cram down on the fully documented and justified hardship cases, or

2. The lenders continue lending at ridiculous levels of risk, with downpayments at levels that are much too low, in which case there should be no cramdowns, period.

We can’t have both cramdowns and a continuation of what led us to cramdowns.

Prices in vast swathes of Los Angeles are still way up in bubble territory, and lenders are still lending 80-100% of these prices, backed by the taxpayer. If we think that should continue, then we can’t turn around and say that the resulting risky loans are nonsensical and should be forgiven.

[patientrenter]

[quote=SK in CV]….
And yes, I think the lenders should keep lending…. If I sent you a check for my net worth, I’d be as dumb as many of the lenders that made bad loans over the last 5 years…[/quote]

Either:

1. The lenders quit making dumb loans that allow less than 20% downpayments, or 30-40% in the areas that are still full of bubble air, and then cram down on the fully documented and justified hardship cases, or

2. The lenders continue lending at ridiculous levels of risk, with downpayments at levels that are much too low, in which case there should be no cramdowns, period.

We can’t have both cramdowns and a continuation of what led us to cramdowns.

Prices in vast swathes of Los Angeles are still way up in bubble territory, and lenders are still lending 80-100% of these prices, backed by the taxpayer. If we think that should continue, then we can’t turn around and say that the resulting risky loans are nonsensical and should be forgiven.

[patientrenter]

[quote=SK in CV]….
And yes, I think the lenders should keep lending…. If I sent you a check for my net worth, I’d be as dumb as many of the lenders that made bad loans over the last 5 years…[/quote]

Either:

1. The lenders quit making dumb loans that allow less than 20% downpayments, or 30-40% in the areas that are still full of bubble air, and then cram down on the fully documented and justified hardship cases, or

2. The lenders continue lending at ridiculous levels of risk, with downpayments at levels that are much too low, in which case there should be no cramdowns, period.

We can’t have both cramdowns and a continuation of what led us to cramdowns.

Prices in vast swathes of Los Angeles are still way up in bubble territory, and lenders are still lending 80-100% of these prices, backed by the taxpayer. If we think that should continue, then we can’t turn around and say that the resulting risky loans are nonsensical and should be forgiven.

[patientrenter]

[quote=Arraya]Yes, PR the banks are responding to the will of the people. Just like with subprime. There was so many people that wanted loans the banks could not help themselves. See, the banks are super-trusting, pushovers in PRs eyes and evil strawberry picking Hummer drivers victimized the poor helpless banks.

Yeah, the banks benefit to loan modifications are not even considered. Right. It has nothing to do with trillions in bets they can’t pay as well as the easiest and quickest way to keep home prices high which their health depends on. Suurre…[/quote]

Like I say, Arraya, if you believe people with money should keep lending, and should also forgive loans, then just send me your check. When I don’t repay, I’d be happy to hear from you why that’s all for the best.

[Author]

Posts