[SD Realtor]

Like everything else in life, individual risk tolerance varies greatly. I would urge all individuals to simply understand what they do or do not have. Quite simply most people vastly overestimate the coverage of any and all policies, however those with condos are at the high end of the bell curve. I find with my rentals that cash flow is secondary to risk tolerance. However that is just me.

[SD Realtor]

Like everything else in life, individual risk tolerance varies greatly. I would urge all individuals to simply understand what they do or do not have. Quite simply most people vastly overestimate the coverage of any and all policies, however those with condos are at the high end of the bell curve. I find with my rentals that cash flow is secondary to risk tolerance. However that is just me.

[SD Realtor]

Like everything else in life, individual risk tolerance varies greatly. I would urge all individuals to simply understand what they do or do not have. Quite simply most people vastly overestimate the coverage of any and all policies, however those with condos are at the high end of the bell curve. I find with my rentals that cash flow is secondary to risk tolerance. However that is just me.

[SD Realtor]

Like everything else in life, individual risk tolerance varies greatly. I would urge all individuals to simply understand what they do or do not have. Quite simply most people vastly overestimate the coverage of any and all policies, however those with condos are at the high end of the bell curve. I find with my rentals that cash flow is secondary to risk tolerance. However that is just me.

[SD Realtor]

I would agree that in this instance, we had a gordian knot like problem that made the S/L problem of the 90s seem like a cakewalk. In this instance the securitization of the debt instruments with almost geometric leveraging made it close to impossible to even find a starting point.

Thus an RTC like solution would have only been one part of a much much more complex solution.

The hard part is that we had/have everyday municipal and state investments in these instruments and the immediate loss of them would have resulted in the virtual halt of society. No that could not have been allowed to happen, I agree.

However I do believe a slower more orderly takeover and liquidation could have been achieved. That is, rather then the government pushing hundreds of billions to these entities, that money could have been earmarked to make the interest payments on the investments to keep all of the investors cash flow alive. I think that we have been conditioned that the survival of the investment banks is essential to the survival of the economy. I used to really belive that but I am not so sure anymore. I think that there WAS tremendous opportunity for midlevel banks who were actually prudent through the bubble and those guys all got CRUSHED by this bailout.

So yes this would have been an extremely tough one to solve or resolve HOWEVER I do think that it could have been possible.

Going back to the subject I am not comfortable with the govt being my loan originator, and the secondary market provider, and the entity I pay my taxes to. Again, I guess some people are quite comfortable with the expansion of govt. I am not. I dont think the private market is perfect at all and I think some regulatory measures when enacted correctly are beneficial. It is a hard line to walk.

[SD Realtor]

I would agree that in this instance, we had a gordian knot like problem that made the S/L problem of the 90s seem like a cakewalk. In this instance the securitization of the debt instruments with almost geometric leveraging made it close to impossible to even find a starting point.

Thus an RTC like solution would have only been one part of a much much more complex solution.

The hard part is that we had/have everyday municipal and state investments in these instruments and the immediate loss of them would have resulted in the virtual halt of society. No that could not have been allowed to happen, I agree.

However I do believe a slower more orderly takeover and liquidation could have been achieved. That is, rather then the government pushing hundreds of billions to these entities, that money could have been earmarked to make the interest payments on the investments to keep all of the investors cash flow alive. I think that we have been conditioned that the survival of the investment banks is essential to the survival of the economy. I used to really belive that but I am not so sure anymore. I think that there WAS tremendous opportunity for midlevel banks who were actually prudent through the bubble and those guys all got CRUSHED by this bailout.

So yes this would have been an extremely tough one to solve or resolve HOWEVER I do think that it could have been possible.

Going back to the subject I am not comfortable with the govt being my loan originator, and the secondary market provider, and the entity I pay my taxes to. Again, I guess some people are quite comfortable with the expansion of govt. I am not. I dont think the private market is perfect at all and I think some regulatory measures when enacted correctly are beneficial. It is a hard line to walk.

[SD Realtor]

I would agree that in this instance, we had a gordian knot like problem that made the S/L problem of the 90s seem like a cakewalk. In this instance the securitization of the debt instruments with almost geometric leveraging made it close to impossible to even find a starting point.

Thus an RTC like solution would have only been one part of a much much more complex solution.

The hard part is that we had/have everyday municipal and state investments in these instruments and the immediate loss of them would have resulted in the virtual halt of society. No that could not have been allowed to happen, I agree.

However I do believe a slower more orderly takeover and liquidation could have been achieved. That is, rather then the government pushing hundreds of billions to these entities, that money could have been earmarked to make the interest payments on the investments to keep all of the investors cash flow alive. I think that we have been conditioned that the survival of the investment banks is essential to the survival of the economy. I used to really belive that but I am not so sure anymore. I think that there WAS tremendous opportunity for midlevel banks who were actually prudent through the bubble and those guys all got CRUSHED by this bailout.

So yes this would have been an extremely tough one to solve or resolve HOWEVER I do think that it could have been possible.

Going back to the subject I am not comfortable with the govt being my loan originator, and the secondary market provider, and the entity I pay my taxes to. Again, I guess some people are quite comfortable with the expansion of govt. I am not. I dont think the private market is perfect at all and I think some regulatory measures when enacted correctly are beneficial. It is a hard line to walk.

[SD Realtor]

I would agree that in this instance, we had a gordian knot like problem that made the S/L problem of the 90s seem like a cakewalk. In this instance the securitization of the debt instruments with almost geometric leveraging made it close to impossible to even find a starting point.

Thus an RTC like solution would have only been one part of a much much more complex solution.

The hard part is that we had/have everyday municipal and state investments in these instruments and the immediate loss of them would have resulted in the virtual halt of society. No that could not have been allowed to happen, I agree.

However I do believe a slower more orderly takeover and liquidation could have been achieved. That is, rather then the government pushing hundreds of billions to these entities, that money could have been earmarked to make the interest payments on the investments to keep all of the investors cash flow alive. I think that we have been conditioned that the survival of the investment banks is essential to the survival of the economy. I used to really belive that but I am not so sure anymore. I think that there WAS tremendous opportunity for midlevel banks who were actually prudent through the bubble and those guys all got CRUSHED by this bailout.

So yes this would have been an extremely tough one to solve or resolve HOWEVER I do think that it could have been possible.

Going back to the subject I am not comfortable with the govt being my loan originator, and the secondary market provider, and the entity I pay my taxes to. Again, I guess some people are quite comfortable with the expansion of govt. I am not. I dont think the private market is perfect at all and I think some regulatory measures when enacted correctly are beneficial. It is a hard line to walk.

[SD Realtor]

I would agree that in this instance, we had a gordian knot like problem that made the S/L problem of the 90s seem like a cakewalk. In this instance the securitization of the debt instruments with almost geometric leveraging made it close to impossible to even find a starting point.

Thus an RTC like solution would have only been one part of a much much more complex solution.

The hard part is that we had/have everyday municipal and state investments in these instruments and the immediate loss of them would have resulted in the virtual halt of society. No that could not have been allowed to happen, I agree.

However I do believe a slower more orderly takeover and liquidation could have been achieved. That is, rather then the government pushing hundreds of billions to these entities, that money could have been earmarked to make the interest payments on the investments to keep all of the investors cash flow alive. I think that we have been conditioned that the survival of the investment banks is essential to the survival of the economy. I used to really belive that but I am not so sure anymore. I think that there WAS tremendous opportunity for midlevel banks who were actually prudent through the bubble and those guys all got CRUSHED by this bailout.

So yes this would have been an extremely tough one to solve or resolve HOWEVER I do think that it could have been possible.

Going back to the subject I am not comfortable with the govt being my loan originator, and the secondary market provider, and the entity I pay my taxes to. Again, I guess some people are quite comfortable with the expansion of govt. I am not. I dont think the private market is perfect at all and I think some regulatory measures when enacted correctly are beneficial. It is a hard line to walk.

[SD Realtor]

Econ, HOA insurance coverage is woefully inadequate. I would bet that 90% of condo owners never have even bothered to read their insurance policy. If you actually read the policy of what is really covered verses a standard hazard insurance policy that you have if you owned a single family home, there are substantial differences, none of them for the better. Furthermore if you have a rental property the insurance coverage you get should be tailored to your non owner occupancy. Otherwise if something happens and you do not have the correct policy you get bubkas.

[SD Realtor]

Econ, HOA insurance coverage is woefully inadequate. I would bet that 90% of condo owners never have even bothered to read their insurance policy. If you actually read the policy of what is really covered verses a standard hazard insurance policy that you have if you owned a single family home, there are substantial differences, none of them for the better. Furthermore if you have a rental property the insurance coverage you get should be tailored to your non owner occupancy. Otherwise if something happens and you do not have the correct policy you get bubkas.

[SD Realtor]

Econ, HOA insurance coverage is woefully inadequate. I would bet that 90% of condo owners never have even bothered to read their insurance policy. If you actually read the policy of what is really covered verses a standard hazard insurance policy that you have if you owned a single family home, there are substantial differences, none of them for the better. Furthermore if you have a rental property the insurance coverage you get should be tailored to your non owner occupancy. Otherwise if something happens and you do not have the correct policy you get bubkas.

[SD Realtor]

Econ, HOA insurance coverage is woefully inadequate. I would bet that 90% of condo owners never have even bothered to read their insurance policy. If you actually read the policy of what is really covered verses a standard hazard insurance policy that you have if you owned a single family home, there are substantial differences, none of them for the better. Furthermore if you have a rental property the insurance coverage you get should be tailored to your non owner occupancy. Otherwise if something happens and you do not have the correct policy you get bubkas.

[SD Realtor]

Econ, HOA insurance coverage is woefully inadequate. I would bet that 90% of condo owners never have even bothered to read their insurance policy. If you actually read the policy of what is really covered verses a standard hazard insurance policy that you have if you owned a single family home, there are substantial differences, none of them for the better. Furthermore if you have a rental property the insurance coverage you get should be tailored to your non owner occupancy. Otherwise if something happens and you do not have the correct policy you get bubkas.

[SD Realtor]

Yes and the best way for the private market to learn the lessons of the past would have been to let the private market deal with the consequences of their stupid behavior rather then bail them out.

A private market will not operate efficiently if there are no consequences for the poor operating practices.

The govt had a chance to teach the private market a lesson and the govt blinked.

[Author]

Posts