Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
TheBreeze
ParticipantIMHO, the consequences will be allocated appropriately: his credit will be wrecked, and the lender (or CDO buyer) will get what they deserve, which is a huge loss due to their non-existent lending standards (or a huge loss on an investment they didn’t understand). The professionals in charge of managing the risk and who blew it will, appropriately, take almost all of the hit.
I doubt the consequences will be allocated appropriately. Some of these ridiculous mortgages were sold to hedge funds and in that case the risk is likely to be allocated appropriately. However, some mortgages were sold to pensions so it could be that some unsuspecting group of pensioners will have to take the hit on this. Possibly the pension manager will lose his job, but he won’t have to give back the salary and bonuses he made in previous years.
Another possibility is that one of the Federal Home Loan Banks is now holding this loan as collateral. The broker indicated somewhere in the linked thread that Countrywide wrote the original $800K mortgage. Countrywide has recently off-loaded hundreds of billions in mortgages that they owned to the Federal Home Loan Banks (the FHLBs have a quasi-governmental guarantee similar to Fannie and Freddie). If this loan was pledged to one of the FHLBs and Countrywide goes bankrupt, the American taxpayer now gets to take the loss on this loan. That’s not a fair allocation of risk at all.
Perhaps SD Realtor is right and mortgage loans in California need to be made recourse instead of non-recourse in order to better protect taxpayers. Personally, I would like to see 20% down become mandatory on all loans. If the borrower has a good chunk of skin in the game, he’s very unlikely to pull this crap and leave taxpayers holding the bag.
ParticipantIMHO, the consequences will be allocated appropriately: his credit will be wrecked, and the lender (or CDO buyer) will get what they deserve, which is a huge loss due to their non-existent lending standards (or a huge loss on an investment they didn’t understand). The professionals in charge of managing the risk and who blew it will, appropriately, take almost all of the hit.
I doubt the consequences will be allocated appropriately. Some of these ridiculous mortgages were sold to hedge funds and in that case the risk is likely to be allocated appropriately. However, some mortgages were sold to pensions so it could be that some unsuspecting group of pensioners will have to take the hit on this. Possibly the pension manager will lose his job, but he won’t have to give back the salary and bonuses he made in previous years.
Another possibility is that one of the Federal Home Loan Banks is now holding this loan as collateral. The broker indicated somewhere in the linked thread that Countrywide wrote the original $800K mortgage. Countrywide has recently off-loaded hundreds of billions in mortgages that they owned to the Federal Home Loan Banks (the FHLBs have a quasi-governmental guarantee similar to Fannie and Freddie). If this loan was pledged to one of the FHLBs and Countrywide goes bankrupt, the American taxpayer now gets to take the loss on this loan. That’s not a fair allocation of risk at all.
Perhaps SD Realtor is right and mortgage loans in California need to be made recourse instead of non-recourse in order to better protect taxpayers. Personally, I would like to see 20% down become mandatory on all loans. If the borrower has a good chunk of skin in the game, he’s very unlikely to pull this crap and leave taxpayers holding the bag.
ParticipantIMHO, the consequences will be allocated appropriately: his credit will be wrecked, and the lender (or CDO buyer) will get what they deserve, which is a huge loss due to their non-existent lending standards (or a huge loss on an investment they didn’t understand). The professionals in charge of managing the risk and who blew it will, appropriately, take almost all of the hit.
I doubt the consequences will be allocated appropriately. Some of these ridiculous mortgages were sold to hedge funds and in that case the risk is likely to be allocated appropriately. However, some mortgages were sold to pensions so it could be that some unsuspecting group of pensioners will have to take the hit on this. Possibly the pension manager will lose his job, but he won’t have to give back the salary and bonuses he made in previous years.
Another possibility is that one of the Federal Home Loan Banks is now holding this loan as collateral. The broker indicated somewhere in the linked thread that Countrywide wrote the original $800K mortgage. Countrywide has recently off-loaded hundreds of billions in mortgages that they owned to the Federal Home Loan Banks (the FHLBs have a quasi-governmental guarantee similar to Fannie and Freddie). If this loan was pledged to one of the FHLBs and Countrywide goes bankrupt, the American taxpayer now gets to take the loss on this loan. That’s not a fair allocation of risk at all.
Perhaps SD Realtor is right and mortgage loans in California need to be made recourse instead of non-recourse in order to better protect taxpayers. Personally, I would like to see 20% down become mandatory on all loans. If the borrower has a good chunk of skin in the game, he’s very unlikely to pull this crap and leave taxpayers holding the bag.
ParticipantIMHO, the consequences will be allocated appropriately: his credit will be wrecked, and the lender (or CDO buyer) will get what they deserve, which is a huge loss due to their non-existent lending standards (or a huge loss on an investment they didn’t understand). The professionals in charge of managing the risk and who blew it will, appropriately, take almost all of the hit.
I doubt the consequences will be allocated appropriately. Some of these ridiculous mortgages were sold to hedge funds and in that case the risk is likely to be allocated appropriately. However, some mortgages were sold to pensions so it could be that some unsuspecting group of pensioners will have to take the hit on this. Possibly the pension manager will lose his job, but he won’t have to give back the salary and bonuses he made in previous years.
Another possibility is that one of the Federal Home Loan Banks is now holding this loan as collateral. The broker indicated somewhere in the linked thread that Countrywide wrote the original $800K mortgage. Countrywide has recently off-loaded hundreds of billions in mortgages that they owned to the Federal Home Loan Banks (the FHLBs have a quasi-governmental guarantee similar to Fannie and Freddie). If this loan was pledged to one of the FHLBs and Countrywide goes bankrupt, the American taxpayer now gets to take the loss on this loan. That’s not a fair allocation of risk at all.
Perhaps SD Realtor is right and mortgage loans in California need to be made recourse instead of non-recourse in order to better protect taxpayers. Personally, I would like to see 20% down become mandatory on all loans. If the borrower has a good chunk of skin in the game, he’s very unlikely to pull this crap and leave taxpayers holding the bag.
ParticipantI don’t know anything about Cramer’s new book, but I do have subscription to his Web site (realmoney.com). Cramer definitely has a lot of knowledge about stocks and investing. He’s been in the money-running business since the late 70s I believe. I believe he started off at Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs as a broker after graduating from Harvard Law. He eventually started up a hedge fund with a partner and ran other people’s money for several years. Now, as far as I know, he has his TV show, his Web sites (realmoney.com, thestreet.com, etc.), and a “charity” portfolio that he manages. In any event, he definitely has a lot of financial-industry experience and knowledge.
With all that being said, you can pretty much find any stock he talks about on either the new 52-week high list or in the Investor’s Business Daily 100. Cramer is all about the momentum stocks. You also need to keep in mind that Cramer is a salesman. I doubt he could have had success as a stock broker or a hedge fund manager without being to sell himself. You can see his salemanship on his TV show with the way he’s excited about every stock he recommends.
I wouldn’t recommend Cramer for advice on long-term investing. I don’t believe that has ever been his forte. However, Cramer is worth reading/watching to learn about how the stock market works, how the financial industry works, and to just help yourself get acquainted with a variety of stocks.
For long-term investing, The Retire Early Home Page has some good articles on how various portfolios have done through various periods in history:
http://www.retireearlyhomepage.com/
It’s pretty tough to beat the market return, so probably the best thing you can do is to make regular contributions to an index fund (S&P 500, Total Market Index Fund, etc) and maybe some type of bond fund.
Making regular contributions to index funds can be pretty boring, so you can use resources like Cramer, financial Web sites, and Investor’s Business Daily or the Wall Street Journal to find individual stocks to invest in. There are also various stock-screening tools out there. Last time I looked, there were some decent screening tools on MSN Money. I generally invest in index funds through my 401(k) and individual stocks in my personal account.
ParticipantI don’t know anything about Cramer’s new book, but I do have subscription to his Web site (realmoney.com). Cramer definitely has a lot of knowledge about stocks and investing. He’s been in the money-running business since the late 70s I believe. I believe he started off at Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs as a broker after graduating from Harvard Law. He eventually started up a hedge fund with a partner and ran other people’s money for several years. Now, as far as I know, he has his TV show, his Web sites (realmoney.com, thestreet.com, etc.), and a “charity” portfolio that he manages. In any event, he definitely has a lot of financial-industry experience and knowledge.
With all that being said, you can pretty much find any stock he talks about on either the new 52-week high list or in the Investor’s Business Daily 100. Cramer is all about the momentum stocks. You also need to keep in mind that Cramer is a salesman. I doubt he could have had success as a stock broker or a hedge fund manager without being to sell himself. You can see his salemanship on his TV show with the way he’s excited about every stock he recommends.
I wouldn’t recommend Cramer for advice on long-term investing. I don’t believe that has ever been his forte. However, Cramer is worth reading/watching to learn about how the stock market works, how the financial industry works, and to just help yourself get acquainted with a variety of stocks.
For long-term investing, The Retire Early Home Page has some good articles on how various portfolios have done through various periods in history:
http://www.retireearlyhomepage.com/
It’s pretty tough to beat the market return, so probably the best thing you can do is to make regular contributions to an index fund (S&P 500, Total Market Index Fund, etc) and maybe some type of bond fund.
Making regular contributions to index funds can be pretty boring, so you can use resources like Cramer, financial Web sites, and Investor’s Business Daily or the Wall Street Journal to find individual stocks to invest in. There are also various stock-screening tools out there. Last time I looked, there were some decent screening tools on MSN Money. I generally invest in index funds through my 401(k) and individual stocks in my personal account.
ParticipantI don’t know anything about Cramer’s new book, but I do have subscription to his Web site (realmoney.com). Cramer definitely has a lot of knowledge about stocks and investing. He’s been in the money-running business since the late 70s I believe. I believe he started off at Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs as a broker after graduating from Harvard Law. He eventually started up a hedge fund with a partner and ran other people’s money for several years. Now, as far as I know, he has his TV show, his Web sites (realmoney.com, thestreet.com, etc.), and a “charity” portfolio that he manages. In any event, he definitely has a lot of financial-industry experience and knowledge.
With all that being said, you can pretty much find any stock he talks about on either the new 52-week high list or in the Investor’s Business Daily 100. Cramer is all about the momentum stocks. You also need to keep in mind that Cramer is a salesman. I doubt he could have had success as a stock broker or a hedge fund manager without being to sell himself. You can see his salemanship on his TV show with the way he’s excited about every stock he recommends.
I wouldn’t recommend Cramer for advice on long-term investing. I don’t believe that has ever been his forte. However, Cramer is worth reading/watching to learn about how the stock market works, how the financial industry works, and to just help yourself get acquainted with a variety of stocks.
For long-term investing, The Retire Early Home Page has some good articles on how various portfolios have done through various periods in history:
http://www.retireearlyhomepage.com/
It’s pretty tough to beat the market return, so probably the best thing you can do is to make regular contributions to an index fund (S&P 500, Total Market Index Fund, etc) and maybe some type of bond fund.
Making regular contributions to index funds can be pretty boring, so you can use resources like Cramer, financial Web sites, and Investor’s Business Daily or the Wall Street Journal to find individual stocks to invest in. There are also various stock-screening tools out there. Last time I looked, there were some decent screening tools on MSN Money. I generally invest in index funds through my 401(k) and individual stocks in my personal account.
ParticipantI don’t know anything about Cramer’s new book, but I do have subscription to his Web site (realmoney.com). Cramer definitely has a lot of knowledge about stocks and investing. He’s been in the money-running business since the late 70s I believe. I believe he started off at Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs as a broker after graduating from Harvard Law. He eventually started up a hedge fund with a partner and ran other people’s money for several years. Now, as far as I know, he has his TV show, his Web sites (realmoney.com, thestreet.com, etc.), and a “charity” portfolio that he manages. In any event, he definitely has a lot of financial-industry experience and knowledge.
With all that being said, you can pretty much find any stock he talks about on either the new 52-week high list or in the Investor’s Business Daily 100. Cramer is all about the momentum stocks. You also need to keep in mind that Cramer is a salesman. I doubt he could have had success as a stock broker or a hedge fund manager without being to sell himself. You can see his salemanship on his TV show with the way he’s excited about every stock he recommends.
I wouldn’t recommend Cramer for advice on long-term investing. I don’t believe that has ever been his forte. However, Cramer is worth reading/watching to learn about how the stock market works, how the financial industry works, and to just help yourself get acquainted with a variety of stocks.
For long-term investing, The Retire Early Home Page has some good articles on how various portfolios have done through various periods in history:
http://www.retireearlyhomepage.com/
It’s pretty tough to beat the market return, so probably the best thing you can do is to make regular contributions to an index fund (S&P 500, Total Market Index Fund, etc) and maybe some type of bond fund.
Making regular contributions to index funds can be pretty boring, so you can use resources like Cramer, financial Web sites, and Investor’s Business Daily or the Wall Street Journal to find individual stocks to invest in. There are also various stock-screening tools out there. Last time I looked, there were some decent screening tools on MSN Money. I generally invest in index funds through my 401(k) and individual stocks in my personal account.
ParticipantI don’t know anything about Cramer’s new book, but I do have subscription to his Web site (realmoney.com). Cramer definitely has a lot of knowledge about stocks and investing. He’s been in the money-running business since the late 70s I believe. I believe he started off at Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs as a broker after graduating from Harvard Law. He eventually started up a hedge fund with a partner and ran other people’s money for several years. Now, as far as I know, he has his TV show, his Web sites (realmoney.com, thestreet.com, etc.), and a “charity” portfolio that he manages. In any event, he definitely has a lot of financial-industry experience and knowledge.
With all that being said, you can pretty much find any stock he talks about on either the new 52-week high list or in the Investor’s Business Daily 100. Cramer is all about the momentum stocks. You also need to keep in mind that Cramer is a salesman. I doubt he could have had success as a stock broker or a hedge fund manager without being to sell himself. You can see his salemanship on his TV show with the way he’s excited about every stock he recommends.
I wouldn’t recommend Cramer for advice on long-term investing. I don’t believe that has ever been his forte. However, Cramer is worth reading/watching to learn about how the stock market works, how the financial industry works, and to just help yourself get acquainted with a variety of stocks.
For long-term investing, The Retire Early Home Page has some good articles on how various portfolios have done through various periods in history:
http://www.retireearlyhomepage.com/
It’s pretty tough to beat the market return, so probably the best thing you can do is to make regular contributions to an index fund (S&P 500, Total Market Index Fund, etc) and maybe some type of bond fund.
Making regular contributions to index funds can be pretty boring, so you can use resources like Cramer, financial Web sites, and Investor’s Business Daily or the Wall Street Journal to find individual stocks to invest in. There are also various stock-screening tools out there. Last time I looked, there were some decent screening tools on MSN Money. I generally invest in index funds through my 401(k) and individual stocks in my personal account.
ParticipantOverall incomes can go up during recessions, even bad ones.
Consider that during the last prolonged recession in San Diego the median household income increased from about 32K in 1990 to about 37K in 1995.
Interesting. Why do incomes go up during a recession? Is it because more low-wage folks get laid off and don’t get figured into the median?
In the upcoming recession, I would expect that several of the hundred-thousand dollar former RE pros will get laid off/go out of business. This is why I would expect the median income in San Diego to go down over the next few years. Guess we’ll have to wait and see what happens.
ParticipantOverall incomes can go up during recessions, even bad ones.
Consider that during the last prolonged recession in San Diego the median household income increased from about 32K in 1990 to about 37K in 1995.
Interesting. Why do incomes go up during a recession? Is it because more low-wage folks get laid off and don’t get figured into the median?
In the upcoming recession, I would expect that several of the hundred-thousand dollar former RE pros will get laid off/go out of business. This is why I would expect the median income in San Diego to go down over the next few years. Guess we’ll have to wait and see what happens.
ParticipantOverall incomes can go up during recessions, even bad ones.
Consider that during the last prolonged recession in San Diego the median household income increased from about 32K in 1990 to about 37K in 1995.
Interesting. Why do incomes go up during a recession? Is it because more low-wage folks get laid off and don’t get figured into the median?
In the upcoming recession, I would expect that several of the hundred-thousand dollar former RE pros will get laid off/go out of business. This is why I would expect the median income in San Diego to go down over the next few years. Guess we’ll have to wait and see what happens.
ParticipantOverall incomes can go up during recessions, even bad ones.
Consider that during the last prolonged recession in San Diego the median household income increased from about 32K in 1990 to about 37K in 1995.
Interesting. Why do incomes go up during a recession? Is it because more low-wage folks get laid off and don’t get figured into the median?
In the upcoming recession, I would expect that several of the hundred-thousand dollar former RE pros will get laid off/go out of business. This is why I would expect the median income in San Diego to go down over the next few years. Guess we’ll have to wait and see what happens.
ParticipantOverall incomes can go up during recessions, even bad ones.
Consider that during the last prolonged recession in San Diego the median household income increased from about 32K in 1990 to about 37K in 1995.
Interesting. Why do incomes go up during a recession? Is it because more low-wage folks get laid off and don’t get figured into the median?
In the upcoming recession, I would expect that several of the hundred-thousand dollar former RE pros will get laid off/go out of business. This is why I would expect the median income in San Diego to go down over the next few years. Guess we’ll have to wait and see what happens.
-
AuthorPosts
