Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 28, 2009 at 10:05 PM in reply to: Who got the better deal in this decline;l you or big money #450538August 28, 2009 at 10:05 PM in reply to: Who got the better deal in this decline;l you or big money #450874
patientrenter
ParticipantPatience, SDR. We can only be patient, and ready to pounce. It is very frustrating at times, but ya gotta distract yourself when that happens.
August 28, 2009 at 10:05 PM in reply to: Who got the better deal in this decline;l you or big money #450947patientrenter
ParticipantPatience, SDR. We can only be patient, and ready to pounce. It is very frustrating at times, but ya gotta distract yourself when that happens.
August 28, 2009 at 10:05 PM in reply to: Who got the better deal in this decline;l you or big money #451137patientrenter
ParticipantPatience, SDR. We can only be patient, and ready to pounce. It is very frustrating at times, but ya gotta distract yourself when that happens.
August 28, 2009 at 9:38 PM in reply to: Who got the better deal in this decline;l you or big money #450332patientrenter
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]…this is the government’s way of attempting a “soft landing” in terms of market valuation on those toxic assets.[/quote]
If I were not a cynic, Allan, I would believe this. My cynical side says that what’s really going on is redirecting the consequences of bad actions from the principal orchestraters and beneficiaries to the innocent bystanders. In other words, my cynical side tells me the soft landing is marketed as a rescue for us all, but it’s really a smokescreen for a painless escape by the primary perpretators.
August 28, 2009 at 9:38 PM in reply to: Who got the better deal in this decline;l you or big money #450523patientrenter
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]…this is the government’s way of attempting a “soft landing” in terms of market valuation on those toxic assets.[/quote]
If I were not a cynic, Allan, I would believe this. My cynical side says that what’s really going on is redirecting the consequences of bad actions from the principal orchestraters and beneficiaries to the innocent bystanders. In other words, my cynical side tells me the soft landing is marketed as a rescue for us all, but it’s really a smokescreen for a painless escape by the primary perpretators.
August 28, 2009 at 9:38 PM in reply to: Who got the better deal in this decline;l you or big money #450859patientrenter
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]…this is the government’s way of attempting a “soft landing” in terms of market valuation on those toxic assets.[/quote]
If I were not a cynic, Allan, I would believe this. My cynical side says that what’s really going on is redirecting the consequences of bad actions from the principal orchestraters and beneficiaries to the innocent bystanders. In other words, my cynical side tells me the soft landing is marketed as a rescue for us all, but it’s really a smokescreen for a painless escape by the primary perpretators.
August 28, 2009 at 9:38 PM in reply to: Who got the better deal in this decline;l you or big money #450932patientrenter
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]…this is the government’s way of attempting a “soft landing” in terms of market valuation on those toxic assets.[/quote]
If I were not a cynic, Allan, I would believe this. My cynical side says that what’s really going on is redirecting the consequences of bad actions from the principal orchestraters and beneficiaries to the innocent bystanders. In other words, my cynical side tells me the soft landing is marketed as a rescue for us all, but it’s really a smokescreen for a painless escape by the primary perpretators.
August 28, 2009 at 9:38 PM in reply to: Who got the better deal in this decline;l you or big money #451121patientrenter
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]…this is the government’s way of attempting a “soft landing” in terms of market valuation on those toxic assets.[/quote]
If I were not a cynic, Allan, I would believe this. My cynical side says that what’s really going on is redirecting the consequences of bad actions from the principal orchestraters and beneficiaries to the innocent bystanders. In other words, my cynical side tells me the soft landing is marketed as a rescue for us all, but it’s really a smokescreen for a painless escape by the primary perpretators.
patientrenter
Participant” will the removal of the Government guarantee (as is the suggestions) really provide incentives to ensure the underlying loans are good?”
Of course it would. As long as you didn’t replace it with another govt guarantee, like a govt guarantee against bank losses if banks take on the risk.
But this misses the whole point of FNM and FRE and FHA. They are there to funnel money into housing demand, to make home prices higher than they would otherwise be. Since most voters own homes, and most voters really want to see their home prices high, not low, pols direct various institutions to do things that increase house prices. If they pulled the guarantee from FHA loans, pols would replace it with something else. If they didn’t, home prices would really collapse, and voters and banks would besiege Congress.
patientrenter
Participant” will the removal of the Government guarantee (as is the suggestions) really provide incentives to ensure the underlying loans are good?”
Of course it would. As long as you didn’t replace it with another govt guarantee, like a govt guarantee against bank losses if banks take on the risk.
But this misses the whole point of FNM and FRE and FHA. They are there to funnel money into housing demand, to make home prices higher than they would otherwise be. Since most voters own homes, and most voters really want to see their home prices high, not low, pols direct various institutions to do things that increase house prices. If they pulled the guarantee from FHA loans, pols would replace it with something else. If they didn’t, home prices would really collapse, and voters and banks would besiege Congress.
patientrenter
Participant” will the removal of the Government guarantee (as is the suggestions) really provide incentives to ensure the underlying loans are good?”
Of course it would. As long as you didn’t replace it with another govt guarantee, like a govt guarantee against bank losses if banks take on the risk.
But this misses the whole point of FNM and FRE and FHA. They are there to funnel money into housing demand, to make home prices higher than they would otherwise be. Since most voters own homes, and most voters really want to see their home prices high, not low, pols direct various institutions to do things that increase house prices. If they pulled the guarantee from FHA loans, pols would replace it with something else. If they didn’t, home prices would really collapse, and voters and banks would besiege Congress.
patientrenter
Participant” will the removal of the Government guarantee (as is the suggestions) really provide incentives to ensure the underlying loans are good?”
Of course it would. As long as you didn’t replace it with another govt guarantee, like a govt guarantee against bank losses if banks take on the risk.
But this misses the whole point of FNM and FRE and FHA. They are there to funnel money into housing demand, to make home prices higher than they would otherwise be. Since most voters own homes, and most voters really want to see their home prices high, not low, pols direct various institutions to do things that increase house prices. If they pulled the guarantee from FHA loans, pols would replace it with something else. If they didn’t, home prices would really collapse, and voters and banks would besiege Congress.
patientrenter
Participant” will the removal of the Government guarantee (as is the suggestions) really provide incentives to ensure the underlying loans are good?”
Of course it would. As long as you didn’t replace it with another govt guarantee, like a govt guarantee against bank losses if banks take on the risk.
But this misses the whole point of FNM and FRE and FHA. They are there to funnel money into housing demand, to make home prices higher than they would otherwise be. Since most voters own homes, and most voters really want to see their home prices high, not low, pols direct various institutions to do things that increase house prices. If they pulled the guarantee from FHA loans, pols would replace it with something else. If they didn’t, home prices would really collapse, and voters and banks would besiege Congress.
August 28, 2009 at 8:39 PM in reply to: Who got the better deal in this decline;l you or big money #450828patientrenter
ParticipantIt’s a very good explanation in layman’s terms of how the PPIP is designed to overprice assets, whilst giving the impression that they are just helping to set the ‘right’ price.
I think the truth is that those who knew anything already knew that, and the rest of the public is unreachable, even with the best explanation. Besides, the public wants their homes to have as high a market value as possible, along with their equities. As the saying goes, “it’s hard to get a man to understand something when his salary [or wealth in this case] depends on him not understanding it”.
-
AuthorPosts
