Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
TheBreeze
ParticipantMultipleprop,
If it weren’t for the fact that I could buy and sell you 3x over, I might be bitter.
ParticipantMultipleprop,
If it weren’t for the fact that I could buy and sell you 3x over, I might be bitter.
ParticipantMultipleprop,
If it weren’t for the fact that I could buy and sell you 3x over, I might be bitter.
ParticipantMultipleprop,
If it weren’t for the fact that I could buy and sell you 3x over, I might be bitter.
ParticipantAlso, getting back to the theme of the thread, certainly the banks were enablers, but imagine a lender who didn’t use similar lending guidelines in the bubble market. There is no way they would have survived.
LOL! Do you think Countrywide, Wamu, Citi, Fannie, and Freddi are going to be able to survive now without some type of government bailout?
Yours is the most ridiculous housing bubble justification I have heard yet. Basically your trying to find a justification for having a bank implode in spectacular fashion after the bubble bursts as opposed to a slow bleed (and maybe a failure) during the bubble.
By the way, I recently read an article about a locally-owned bank (in Ohio I think) that didn’t do any subprime or alt-a mortgages during the bubble. I think they had to tighten their belts a bit during the bubble, but they pulled through and today are doing good business lending to well qualified people that otherwise couldn’t get loans. If I can find the article again I’ll post it.
I am amazed at how many people on this board (supposedly a board full of intelligent people who are well-versed in the ways of the housing bubble) are willing to give the lending establishment a free pass here. Unbelievable.
ParticipantAlso, getting back to the theme of the thread, certainly the banks were enablers, but imagine a lender who didn’t use similar lending guidelines in the bubble market. There is no way they would have survived.
LOL! Do you think Countrywide, Wamu, Citi, Fannie, and Freddi are going to be able to survive now without some type of government bailout?
Yours is the most ridiculous housing bubble justification I have heard yet. Basically your trying to find a justification for having a bank implode in spectacular fashion after the bubble bursts as opposed to a slow bleed (and maybe a failure) during the bubble.
By the way, I recently read an article about a locally-owned bank (in Ohio I think) that didn’t do any subprime or alt-a mortgages during the bubble. I think they had to tighten their belts a bit during the bubble, but they pulled through and today are doing good business lending to well qualified people that otherwise couldn’t get loans. If I can find the article again I’ll post it.
I am amazed at how many people on this board (supposedly a board full of intelligent people who are well-versed in the ways of the housing bubble) are willing to give the lending establishment a free pass here. Unbelievable.
ParticipantAlso, getting back to the theme of the thread, certainly the banks were enablers, but imagine a lender who didn’t use similar lending guidelines in the bubble market. There is no way they would have survived.
LOL! Do you think Countrywide, Wamu, Citi, Fannie, and Freddi are going to be able to survive now without some type of government bailout?
Yours is the most ridiculous housing bubble justification I have heard yet. Basically your trying to find a justification for having a bank implode in spectacular fashion after the bubble bursts as opposed to a slow bleed (and maybe a failure) during the bubble.
By the way, I recently read an article about a locally-owned bank (in Ohio I think) that didn’t do any subprime or alt-a mortgages during the bubble. I think they had to tighten their belts a bit during the bubble, but they pulled through and today are doing good business lending to well qualified people that otherwise couldn’t get loans. If I can find the article again I’ll post it.
I am amazed at how many people on this board (supposedly a board full of intelligent people who are well-versed in the ways of the housing bubble) are willing to give the lending establishment a free pass here. Unbelievable.
ParticipantAlso, getting back to the theme of the thread, certainly the banks were enablers, but imagine a lender who didn’t use similar lending guidelines in the bubble market. There is no way they would have survived.
LOL! Do you think Countrywide, Wamu, Citi, Fannie, and Freddi are going to be able to survive now without some type of government bailout?
Yours is the most ridiculous housing bubble justification I have heard yet. Basically your trying to find a justification for having a bank implode in spectacular fashion after the bubble bursts as opposed to a slow bleed (and maybe a failure) during the bubble.
By the way, I recently read an article about a locally-owned bank (in Ohio I think) that didn’t do any subprime or alt-a mortgages during the bubble. I think they had to tighten their belts a bit during the bubble, but they pulled through and today are doing good business lending to well qualified people that otherwise couldn’t get loans. If I can find the article again I’ll post it.
I am amazed at how many people on this board (supposedly a board full of intelligent people who are well-versed in the ways of the housing bubble) are willing to give the lending establishment a free pass here. Unbelievable.
ParticipantAlso, getting back to the theme of the thread, certainly the banks were enablers, but imagine a lender who didn’t use similar lending guidelines in the bubble market. There is no way they would have survived.
LOL! Do you think Countrywide, Wamu, Citi, Fannie, and Freddi are going to be able to survive now without some type of government bailout?
Yours is the most ridiculous housing bubble justification I have heard yet. Basically your trying to find a justification for having a bank implode in spectacular fashion after the bubble bursts as opposed to a slow bleed (and maybe a failure) during the bubble.
By the way, I recently read an article about a locally-owned bank (in Ohio I think) that didn’t do any subprime or alt-a mortgages during the bubble. I think they had to tighten their belts a bit during the bubble, but they pulled through and today are doing good business lending to well qualified people that otherwise couldn’t get loans. If I can find the article again I’ll post it.
I am amazed at how many people on this board (supposedly a board full of intelligent people who are well-versed in the ways of the housing bubble) are willing to give the lending establishment a free pass here. Unbelievable.
ParticipantWall said savedbypigs. The lender can protect themselves in multiple ways: they can chop the appraisal, they can go back to demanding 20% down, they can charge a higher interest rate, etc, etc.
I think it is naive to think the housing bubble wouldn’t have happened if loans were recourse. Most homebuyers have no idea what is in the mortgage contract. They just want to buy the most expensive house that the lender will let them buy. It’s the lender’s responsiblity to make sure that the lender is protected.
Mish had a great article on what really enabled the housing bubble the other day. Basically, until sometime in the 1970s, the rating agencies worked for the buyers of loans. Then, the federal government passed some law giving a few rating agencies a monopoly and requiring the seller of the loan to pay them. Well, it took a while, but eventually the rating agenices totally sold out to the folks that were paying them (loan sellers). If they were paid enough, the rating agencies would put a AAA rating on anything.
Several bond funds, pension funds, etc are restricted in what they can buy based on ratings. Because the rating agencies sold out and rated every POS they could get their hands on AAA, the market for this crap balooned. If the ratings agences were still working for the funds, it is unlikely that the MBS market would have supported a housing bubble.
Another change I would like to see is the GSEs only guaranteeing loans where the home buyer puts 20% down. 0-down loans were another “innovation” that helped create the housing bubble.
If the ratings agencies went back to working for the loan buyers and 20%-down loans came back in vogue, we wouldn’t be seeing any housing bubbles for a long, long time.
ParticipantWall said savedbypigs. The lender can protect themselves in multiple ways: they can chop the appraisal, they can go back to demanding 20% down, they can charge a higher interest rate, etc, etc.
I think it is naive to think the housing bubble wouldn’t have happened if loans were recourse. Most homebuyers have no idea what is in the mortgage contract. They just want to buy the most expensive house that the lender will let them buy. It’s the lender’s responsiblity to make sure that the lender is protected.
Mish had a great article on what really enabled the housing bubble the other day. Basically, until sometime in the 1970s, the rating agencies worked for the buyers of loans. Then, the federal government passed some law giving a few rating agencies a monopoly and requiring the seller of the loan to pay them. Well, it took a while, but eventually the rating agenices totally sold out to the folks that were paying them (loan sellers). If they were paid enough, the rating agencies would put a AAA rating on anything.
Several bond funds, pension funds, etc are restricted in what they can buy based on ratings. Because the rating agencies sold out and rated every POS they could get their hands on AAA, the market for this crap balooned. If the ratings agences were still working for the funds, it is unlikely that the MBS market would have supported a housing bubble.
Another change I would like to see is the GSEs only guaranteeing loans where the home buyer puts 20% down. 0-down loans were another “innovation” that helped create the housing bubble.
If the ratings agencies went back to working for the loan buyers and 20%-down loans came back in vogue, we wouldn’t be seeing any housing bubbles for a long, long time.
ParticipantWall said savedbypigs. The lender can protect themselves in multiple ways: they can chop the appraisal, they can go back to demanding 20% down, they can charge a higher interest rate, etc, etc.
I think it is naive to think the housing bubble wouldn’t have happened if loans were recourse. Most homebuyers have no idea what is in the mortgage contract. They just want to buy the most expensive house that the lender will let them buy. It’s the lender’s responsiblity to make sure that the lender is protected.
Mish had a great article on what really enabled the housing bubble the other day. Basically, until sometime in the 1970s, the rating agencies worked for the buyers of loans. Then, the federal government passed some law giving a few rating agencies a monopoly and requiring the seller of the loan to pay them. Well, it took a while, but eventually the rating agenices totally sold out to the folks that were paying them (loan sellers). If they were paid enough, the rating agencies would put a AAA rating on anything.
Several bond funds, pension funds, etc are restricted in what they can buy based on ratings. Because the rating agencies sold out and rated every POS they could get their hands on AAA, the market for this crap balooned. If the ratings agences were still working for the funds, it is unlikely that the MBS market would have supported a housing bubble.
Another change I would like to see is the GSEs only guaranteeing loans where the home buyer puts 20% down. 0-down loans were another “innovation” that helped create the housing bubble.
If the ratings agencies went back to working for the loan buyers and 20%-down loans came back in vogue, we wouldn’t be seeing any housing bubbles for a long, long time.
ParticipantWall said savedbypigs. The lender can protect themselves in multiple ways: they can chop the appraisal, they can go back to demanding 20% down, they can charge a higher interest rate, etc, etc.
I think it is naive to think the housing bubble wouldn’t have happened if loans were recourse. Most homebuyers have no idea what is in the mortgage contract. They just want to buy the most expensive house that the lender will let them buy. It’s the lender’s responsiblity to make sure that the lender is protected.
Mish had a great article on what really enabled the housing bubble the other day. Basically, until sometime in the 1970s, the rating agencies worked for the buyers of loans. Then, the federal government passed some law giving a few rating agencies a monopoly and requiring the seller of the loan to pay them. Well, it took a while, but eventually the rating agenices totally sold out to the folks that were paying them (loan sellers). If they were paid enough, the rating agencies would put a AAA rating on anything.
Several bond funds, pension funds, etc are restricted in what they can buy based on ratings. Because the rating agencies sold out and rated every POS they could get their hands on AAA, the market for this crap balooned. If the ratings agences were still working for the funds, it is unlikely that the MBS market would have supported a housing bubble.
Another change I would like to see is the GSEs only guaranteeing loans where the home buyer puts 20% down. 0-down loans were another “innovation” that helped create the housing bubble.
If the ratings agencies went back to working for the loan buyers and 20%-down loans came back in vogue, we wouldn’t be seeing any housing bubbles for a long, long time.
ParticipantWall said savedbypigs. The lender can protect themselves in multiple ways: they can chop the appraisal, they can go back to demanding 20% down, they can charge a higher interest rate, etc, etc.
I think it is naive to think the housing bubble wouldn’t have happened if loans were recourse. Most homebuyers have no idea what is in the mortgage contract. They just want to buy the most expensive house that the lender will let them buy. It’s the lender’s responsiblity to make sure that the lender is protected.
Mish had a great article on what really enabled the housing bubble the other day. Basically, until sometime in the 1970s, the rating agencies worked for the buyers of loans. Then, the federal government passed some law giving a few rating agencies a monopoly and requiring the seller of the loan to pay them. Well, it took a while, but eventually the rating agenices totally sold out to the folks that were paying them (loan sellers). If they were paid enough, the rating agencies would put a AAA rating on anything.
Several bond funds, pension funds, etc are restricted in what they can buy based on ratings. Because the rating agencies sold out and rated every POS they could get their hands on AAA, the market for this crap balooned. If the ratings agences were still working for the funds, it is unlikely that the MBS market would have supported a housing bubble.
Another change I would like to see is the GSEs only guaranteeing loans where the home buyer puts 20% down. 0-down loans were another “innovation” that helped create the housing bubble.
If the ratings agencies went back to working for the loan buyers and 20%-down loans came back in vogue, we wouldn’t be seeing any housing bubbles for a long, long time.
-
AuthorPosts
