[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Aecetia]Here is another suggestion from bubbletracking:

http://bubbletracking.blogspot.com/2008/07/mighty-mike-to-rsf-triumvirates-rescue.html%5B/quote%5D

I clicked thru.
I am not sure its the right link.

Looked like an article on the same stuff and not a new suggestion.

Did I click it wrong or something?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Aecetia]Here is another suggestion from bubbletracking:

http://bubbletracking.blogspot.com/2008/07/mighty-mike-to-rsf-triumvirates-rescue.html%5B/quote%5D

I clicked thru.
I am not sure its the right link.

Looked like an article on the same stuff and not a new suggestion.

Did I click it wrong or something?

[urbanrealtor]

wow.

Two good points (short sales regulation and loan protection), 2 good references (Caddyshack and Batman), and one long rant about how you love western capitalism.

Responding:
Shorts:
The government can do whatever the people will let it do (and vice versa). Sad but true. I suspect that the people will let the government do quite a lot considering the current climate.

Loan protection:
You are dead on that protective regulations won’t be needed for newer originations. That is a point that I think is lost on most people.

References:
Well played sir. However if you cite “batdance” or any other Prince single from the last series of films, I will hunt you down. I am mean that way.

Capitalism:
We agree that it is a good way of distributing wealth. However, I do not think that it was ever created. I think it is organic and that sometimes that organic competition could benefit from help. China is a good example of getting competition going with beneficial (for the Chinese) governmental intervention. Bear in mind most forms of government are a response to wealth building and capitalism. That is as true of communism as it is of democracy. However, democracy is (in my opinion) better and more fair. It is also, why the speech you want will not happen much during this current finacial crisis.

[urbanrealtor]

wow.

Two good points (short sales regulation and loan protection), 2 good references (Caddyshack and Batman), and one long rant about how you love western capitalism.

Responding:
Shorts:
The government can do whatever the people will let it do (and vice versa). Sad but true. I suspect that the people will let the government do quite a lot considering the current climate.

Loan protection:
You are dead on that protective regulations won’t be needed for newer originations. That is a point that I think is lost on most people.

References:
Well played sir. However if you cite “batdance” or any other Prince single from the last series of films, I will hunt you down. I am mean that way.

Capitalism:
We agree that it is a good way of distributing wealth. However, I do not think that it was ever created. I think it is organic and that sometimes that organic competition could benefit from help. China is a good example of getting competition going with beneficial (for the Chinese) governmental intervention. Bear in mind most forms of government are a response to wealth building and capitalism. That is as true of communism as it is of democracy. However, democracy is (in my opinion) better and more fair. It is also, why the speech you want will not happen much during this current finacial crisis.

[urbanrealtor]

wow.

Two good points (short sales regulation and loan protection), 2 good references (Caddyshack and Batman), and one long rant about how you love western capitalism.

Responding:
Shorts:
The government can do whatever the people will let it do (and vice versa). Sad but true. I suspect that the people will let the government do quite a lot considering the current climate.

Loan protection:
You are dead on that protective regulations won’t be needed for newer originations. That is a point that I think is lost on most people.

References:
Well played sir. However if you cite “batdance” or any other Prince single from the last series of films, I will hunt you down. I am mean that way.

Capitalism:
We agree that it is a good way of distributing wealth. However, I do not think that it was ever created. I think it is organic and that sometimes that organic competition could benefit from help. China is a good example of getting competition going with beneficial (for the Chinese) governmental intervention. Bear in mind most forms of government are a response to wealth building and capitalism. That is as true of communism as it is of democracy. However, democracy is (in my opinion) better and more fair. It is also, why the speech you want will not happen much during this current finacial crisis.

[urbanrealtor]

wow.

Two good points (short sales regulation and loan protection), 2 good references (Caddyshack and Batman), and one long rant about how you love western capitalism.

Responding:
Shorts:
The government can do whatever the people will let it do (and vice versa). Sad but true. I suspect that the people will let the government do quite a lot considering the current climate.

Loan protection:
You are dead on that protective regulations won’t be needed for newer originations. That is a point that I think is lost on most people.

References:
Well played sir. However if you cite “batdance” or any other Prince single from the last series of films, I will hunt you down. I am mean that way.

Capitalism:
We agree that it is a good way of distributing wealth. However, I do not think that it was ever created. I think it is organic and that sometimes that organic competition could benefit from help. China is a good example of getting competition going with beneficial (for the Chinese) governmental intervention. Bear in mind most forms of government are a response to wealth building and capitalism. That is as true of communism as it is of democracy. However, democracy is (in my opinion) better and more fair. It is also, why the speech you want will not happen much during this current finacial crisis.

[urbanrealtor]

wow.

Two good points (short sales regulation and loan protection), 2 good references (Caddyshack and Batman), and one long rant about how you love western capitalism.

Responding:
Shorts:
The government can do whatever the people will let it do (and vice versa). Sad but true. I suspect that the people will let the government do quite a lot considering the current climate.

Loan protection:
You are dead on that protective regulations won’t be needed for newer originations. That is a point that I think is lost on most people.

References:
Well played sir. However if you cite “batdance” or any other Prince single from the last series of films, I will hunt you down. I am mean that way.

Capitalism:
We agree that it is a good way of distributing wealth. However, I do not think that it was ever created. I think it is organic and that sometimes that organic competition could benefit from help. China is a good example of getting competition going with beneficial (for the Chinese) governmental intervention. Bear in mind most forms of government are a response to wealth building and capitalism. That is as true of communism as it is of democracy. However, democracy is (in my opinion) better and more fair. It is also, why the speech you want will not happen much during this current finacial crisis.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]Lets assume some sort of intervention is the most politically viable option. Lets assume that because people who are really hurting tend to un-elect those who would make such decisions.[/quote]
I mean like they vote opponents to relief out of office. Sleepy. Sorry.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]Lets assume some sort of intervention is the most politically viable option. Lets assume that because people who are really hurting tend to un-elect those who would make such decisions.[/quote]
I mean like they vote opponents to relief out of office. Sleepy. Sorry.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]Lets assume some sort of intervention is the most politically viable option. Lets assume that because people who are really hurting tend to un-elect those who would make such decisions.[/quote]
I mean like they vote opponents to relief out of office. Sleepy. Sorry.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]Lets assume some sort of intervention is the most politically viable option. Lets assume that because people who are really hurting tend to un-elect those who would make such decisions.[/quote]
I mean like they vote opponents to relief out of office. Sleepy. Sorry.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]Lets assume some sort of intervention is the most politically viable option. Lets assume that because people who are really hurting tend to un-elect those who would make such decisions.[/quote]
I mean like they vote opponents to relief out of office. Sleepy. Sorry.

[urbanrealtor]

Lets assume some sort of intervention is the most politically viable option. Lets assume that because people who are really hurting tend to un-elect those who would make such decisions.

Lets assume some of the government intervention has to be implemented locally. Lets assume that part would be required since real estate markets have a large local component.

Considering that politics works on some of the same supply and demand logic as everything else, it is likely that an innovative politician will exploit this whether or not it is Aguirre.

A better question is what would be a less irritating or offensive relief measure look like?

Here’s my version:
Require any bank with loans on property in the city limits to cooperate with short sales (in a timely manner) if the situation met a certain set of criteria.

It would just mean a modest change to their SOP and would likely create minor changes in the inventory. What it would mean (that would be good) is that fewer agents would blacklist shortsales.
Maybe it would make competition more robust than it is now.

This is just an idea. I would appreciate feedback (including from those who disagree).

Does anybody have a better idea that Mr. Mike?

Not being rhetorical. Really. Does anybody have a more desirable version of intervention?

[urbanrealtor]

Lets assume some sort of intervention is the most politically viable option. Lets assume that because people who are really hurting tend to un-elect those who would make such decisions.

Lets assume some of the government intervention has to be implemented locally. Lets assume that part would be required since real estate markets have a large local component.

Considering that politics works on some of the same supply and demand logic as everything else, it is likely that an innovative politician will exploit this whether or not it is Aguirre.

A better question is what would be a less irritating or offensive relief measure look like?

Here’s my version:
Require any bank with loans on property in the city limits to cooperate with short sales (in a timely manner) if the situation met a certain set of criteria.

It would just mean a modest change to their SOP and would likely create minor changes in the inventory. What it would mean (that would be good) is that fewer agents would blacklist shortsales.
Maybe it would make competition more robust than it is now.

This is just an idea. I would appreciate feedback (including from those who disagree).

Does anybody have a better idea that Mr. Mike?

Not being rhetorical. Really. Does anybody have a more desirable version of intervention?

[urbanrealtor]

Lets assume some sort of intervention is the most politically viable option. Lets assume that because people who are really hurting tend to un-elect those who would make such decisions.

Lets assume some of the government intervention has to be implemented locally. Lets assume that part would be required since real estate markets have a large local component.

Considering that politics works on some of the same supply and demand logic as everything else, it is likely that an innovative politician will exploit this whether or not it is Aguirre.

A better question is what would be a less irritating or offensive relief measure look like?

Here’s my version:
Require any bank with loans on property in the city limits to cooperate with short sales (in a timely manner) if the situation met a certain set of criteria.

It would just mean a modest change to their SOP and would likely create minor changes in the inventory. What it would mean (that would be good) is that fewer agents would blacklist shortsales.
Maybe it would make competition more robust than it is now.

This is just an idea. I would appreciate feedback (including from those who disagree).

Does anybody have a better idea that Mr. Mike?

Not being rhetorical. Really. Does anybody have a more desirable version of intervention?

[Author]

Posts