Let market purge itself
I concur with professor Mohammed Akacem’s sentiment that — as his Aug. 20 Speakout column is headlined — “Fed’s markets rescue a slippery slope.” Going one step further, I would say that the Federal Reserve should not rescue the mortgage industry and banks for their financial indiscretions.
We should let this market fall and purge itself of the “bad actors” in the business whether large or small. The British purchased $125 billion worth of T-bills to prop up our markets. This is more debt. Those in our society who believe in “free markets” should have no problem accepting the fall of our markets because of “self-inflicted” financial wounds and not look for a government bailout.
We have replaced our manufacturing base with a housing-consumer base and as one can see, it is not self-sustaining.
Jimmy Johnson, Colorado Springs
This bail out proposal is nothing more then more government nannyism. More socialist adgenda being forced upon the American people.It send sthe message that do not worry if you make a bad decision the government will take care of you. Instead of bailing out these grab the money and run outfits. They should be left alone to sink over thier poor buisness practices.
To those who can not aford thier new homes. I am sorry. But you should not have made the purchase if you could not afford it. I am tired of my pocket getting raped to bail you out. One day, after saving and planning I would like to purchase a home. I just have to wait till I can afford it.
Posted by on August 29, 2007 04:29 AMThis is not a market bailout or specific industry relief, its an economy-wide liquidity resuce. The Fed seriously overshot a year ago by tightening monetary policy and making short-term rates higher than long term rates, unnecessarily inverting the yield curve--a historically very reliable indicator of recession about one year into the future. And here we are today, the first major sign of serious economic trouble surfaced in the subprime area.
Q2 GDP growth will likely be restated up to a solid 4% growth after a very subpar Q1. But Q3 looks like a 50% slowing in the rate of economic growth from Q2 with something more like a 2% GDP gain. A comparable 50% growth rate decline in Q4 would leave our entire economy kissing recession. And Q4 concludes only 4 months from now.
For the past year, a subpar American economic growth has simply not attained its growth potential. Recognizing their earlier error of maintaing a too tight and restrictive monetary policy, and with inflation now in their "comfort-zone," the Fed correctly changed its policy focus from fighting inflation to stimulating much needed economic growth. Bigger issues are beginning to surface that are much more serious than the subprime problem, the Fed's too tight monetary policy has placed consumer spending, 70% of economic activity, and the entire economy at risk.
The Fed rode the back of a powerful worldwide economic boom, but their mistaken restrictive monetary for the past year has finally taken its toll. Failure to act (loosen and lower rates) would result in an unnecessary recession. There will be several more fed interest rate cuts to follow, look for a fed funds rate of about 4.5% by year-end, down from the current 5.25% target.
Folks, that's why they put steering wheels, brakes and gas peddles in cars. When its time to make a necessary change, the needed tools are there. Bernanke fell asleep behind the wheel for too long, he put the whole economy at risk, but it appears that he woke up just in time to hit the gas peddle.
Posted by Hank on August 29, 2007 07:14 AMHere comes Hank to chime in on behalf of corporate welfare, but at least he's consistent.: He supports welfare programs for struggling families as well.
Right Hank?
Posted by Charles B on August 29, 2007 07:22 AMLet the "free market" help the lazy idle rich.
No more bail-outs for multi-national corporations.
Posted by dmz on August 29, 2007 07:26 AMI think there should be no bail out what so ever,, These slime balls let people they knew could not possibly pay these loans back have a loan anyway.Their greed surpassed their saneness.
Let them fall and the strong ones will survive and hopefully learn a lesson from this debacle they created .
Not only did they rip off buyers and lenders,they hurt the real people like my family and others who pay their bills on time and have pristine credit.Our home values are down and predatory lenders,broker's and real estate sales people are accountable for the mess we are in today.GREED! GREED!!GREED!!
Let them go out of business and let the government do some investigating into whether the companies,brokers,and realtors broke any laws and go after them with a vengence.
Let's remember each one of these buyers where conned by a realtor first.It is their duty to see if the buyer qualifies and then suggest some lenders.We know the realtors were in bed with the lenders and that should be illegal. The Realtor works for the buyer or seller.I think house should be cleaned in the Real Estate seller business.Their greed set the train in motion.
All of the parties involved should be investigated and purged out of the industry.
Let's have a clean slate and go back to the days when credit meant something. When you went to get a loan you actually could pay it back.When paying bills on time and being financially responsible meant something.
I do not want tax payer dollars going to bail out these crooks.Let them go out of business,they don't deserve to be in the business.
Why should the tax payers who are financially responsible,who have been indirectly harmed by these crooks,bail them out?
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on August 29, 2007 07:36 AMYes Charles & dmz, those "struggling" families that bought a home they knew they couldn't afford at a rate they knew would go up dramatically in 2 or 3 or 5 years yet they did it anyway.
So yes let's help these "struggling" idiots. I think this is a good lesson for all, and once again it comes down to personal responsibility - yes, that taboo statement. These people all made a "choice" (a great liberal term isn't it) to get themselves into this financial trouble. Now they have another "choice" to make - go into foreclosure or get two or three more jobs to pay for their overzealous attempt at buying a home they knew they couldn't afford in the first place.
They are just as much to blame if not more then the brokers who sold them that mortgage. But now you and your bleeding heart libs all want to "bail" them out by providing help for their "mistakes" or "struggles".
I do not think so - more nannyism and I suspect a huge redistribution of my taxes to someone who isn't smart enough to know they couldn't afford that shiny new house and SUV.
Why is it that I know my financial limits and pay my taxes every quarter on time and my mortgage every month on time. And now those who knew they couldn't afford their home are going to get some of my tax dollars to rescue them? Ridiculous.
Let these people go rent an apartment and save the old fashioned way for a downpayment and then only be able to finance what they can afford. No more government intervention - let the mortage bankers go out of business if they must - it is time this country returns to it's roots- personal responsibility - no more blaming others for your own mistakes.
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
Jack Bauer.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on August 29, 2007 08:22 AMI am not sure what the answer is here - although some articles have stated that this is affecting worldwide markets, and could result in a US depression & a European depression. China already "owns" much of the US debt (is this how Communism takes over a country)?
There is enough blame to go around - but I think more of it goes to the mortgage industry than to the vast majority of folks who relied on the fact they "qualified" for loans when they probably shouldn't have. It's the same as the credit card companies which flood perspective card users with applications, they pretend to be surprised when some number of those credit card users deliberately max them out & can't or won't pay their bills. To bail the banks/credit card companies out, Congress made it harder to declare bankruptcy - didn't push for interest rate reforms for the folks who were doing fine until their jobs got offshored or given to illegal immigrants, and it took them months if not years to find a new job - or folks who ran into a family medical emergency which ran thru any savings they might have had.
We probably need some kind of 2 pronged attack - including teaching economic basics in school. Do your kids know how to budget? Do they know that for most purchases, saving then paying cash saves a ton of money & they don't need the newest, flashiest toy on the market when the current cell phone/TV/DVD player, etc works just fine? As far as the other side of the coin, why don't usury laws apply to credit card companies?
Posted by Mary on August 29, 2007 08:22 AMBig money Always takes care of big money whether the problems are created by big money or not. Does anyone remember the crash of saving and loans a couple of decades ago? Do you remember that powerful government official's, even the president, had relatives in that business and how their influence was used to bail out these corrupt and scandalous criminals? Does Silverado Savings and Loan here in Colorado bring anything to mind?
Hank calls it a liquidity rescue, thats just another catch phrase meaning amnesty for big money criminal felons who destroy others lives then golden parachute into the land of milk and honey.
It's always been a mystery to me how big money fights tooth and nail to avoid government intervention then, when their plots and schemes fail scream like gut shot cats for the government to bail them out. They turn from staunch conservitives into ultra liberals in the blink of an eye, Does that tell you anything? It should, it should tell you that big money is a whore who will turn to any source to help them as long as they get to keep the money.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 29, 2007 08:27 AMJack Bauer: "families that bought a home they knew they couldn't afford"
Of course those families thought they could afford the home. They did not expect to be foreclosed.
My Lord, does Bauer really think that the loan companies knew the present situation would occur and were looking forward to it? The loan companies were in a much better position to judge the economic vitality of the loans than were the borrowers; if they could not foresee what was going to happen, it's quite understandable that the borrowers fell prey to their propaganda.
The reason we have usury, deceptive advertising, product safety, and consumer protection laws is because all intelligent people know how easy it is for consumers to be duped by false propaganda and false advertising. When people buy drugs that eventually prove to be harmful, relying on the false advertising of the drug companies, we don't blame the buyers, we rightly blame the drug companies.
When something is as widespread at this is, with literally millions of home buyers involved, to say, without knowing any of the particulars about any individual case, that all those millions acted foolishly is a case of profound ignorance and arrogance.
We should at least have some integrity in what we post. Unless, of course, all we want to do is to vent rather than make sense.
Posted by Truth on August 29, 2007 08:36 AMTruth, Some of the home buyers knew they could not afford the payments.My brother was approved for $180,00 home loan, the real estate agent told him this then hooked him up with " a lender that would help him".
Even though he had 2 bankruptcy's,4 repoed cars,a credit rating below 250 and no steady job.
He has the IQ of a moron.. They saw a sucker and he got the loan with a 2nd mortgage attached of $8,000 in closing costs.
They were in forclosure in 3 months.
You can't tell me the lender's who were only doing adjustable rate mortgages didn't see this coming.
They could have done fixed rate mortgages.Then maybe they wouldn't be in this mess they created today.
Here is the chain of culpability,the real estate agent,the home buyer,the appraiser,the lender,the title insurance and closers of the loans. Plain and simple.
If a buyer has a horrible credit history and clearly can't pay a mortgage payment that is taking more than 33% of their income then the lenders cheated them into adjustable loans,eveyone involved in the transaction is at fault.
You don't stand in front of a lion and dangle a steak in front of him and expect him not to take it.
To people defending the mortgage industry, while applying for a house loan we have been told by three different mortgage companies to include the income from our rental properly but not the mortgage on the property. That was outright fraud... We were relocating and our house did not sell for over a year so we were renting it out.
Also, in the hottest markets, how did most of the people qualify for $400K + houses? I didn't know that there were that many people earning over $100K / year as would be required to cover the $3K / month payments.
So the current mess is a combination of factors, on one hand the mortgage companies gave a loan to anybody breathing using downright fraud to make the sale, and on the other hand you have people getting adjustable / interest only / negative amortization loans which they have no chance in hell of making the payments on.
Posted by on August 29, 2007 09:10 AMJack Bauer,
I never said anything about bailing out families in foreclosure, which I appose.
Posted by Charles B on August 29, 2007 09:13 AMI every case, if the circustances were investigated to the maximum degree, the mortgage companies would be held libel for the foreclosure for the obvious reason. They approved a loan knowing the ability of the buyer to pay the costs involved.
What is not being said, so far as I know, is that when the mortgage is in default three things can occure: A. The property goes back to the mortgage company which pays the back taxes, if any, if they are the loaner. Then they sell it again and again until they contrive to find a really qualified buyer: B. the property, if a bank or other financial institution is the loaner, goes back to them and they can do the same thing; C. no one pays the taxes so the property goes to public auction and low and behold, what do the banks,etc and the mortgage companies do then. Why they pay their pre-arranged buyers, sometimes in colusion with the auction company, to secure the winning bid on the property so they can resell it at a very nice profit.
These three things keeps the money in the money lenders pockets and the looser is always the unqualified buyer that is targeted by the money people.
The problem is they have highly paid lobbyists that work incesantly for laws exonerating big money from culpability for making bad loans. In actuallity they are saying to the public, " welcome to the real world, sorry about you losing your lifes savings, sucker!
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 29, 2007 10:08 AMA couple of three points to remember here.
1) In the last several years, homeownership has increased dramatically. While the number of foreclosures has risen, the percentage of total homeowners in foreclosure has stayed at or near normal.
2) Most of the foreclosure numbers being assailed by the MSM come form a company called RealtyTrac. The people compiling these numbers are not real estate experts. During a foreclosure there are between 3-5 steps that occur ranging from default filings to notice of foreclosure. RealtyTrac doesn't separated the various stages a homeowner may be going thru so the same person and house will be counted more than once and added into the total number RealtyTrac supplies to the media.
3) Most mortgage loan servicing companies have other companies under the same corporate umbrella that deal exclusively in buying and selling foreclosure property. At the foreclosure sale on "the court house step" the other company "buys" the house, usually below market value and the servicer posts a net loss. Then the home is prep'd and resold again at a higher price, at or near market value, resulting in profit for the umbrella company as well.
Posted by KW on August 29, 2007 11:32 AMAllen Campbell and KW describe the situation as it is. Nobody loses any money but the original borrower and the money people pull off this scam to enrich themselves and screw up the rest of the economy in the process. As CIGAA stated: GREED! GREED!! GREED!!!
These crooks should be shot for treason.
Posted by Stan Broyles on August 29, 2007 12:16 PMStan - I'm only offering a bit of perspective here for those who's fields don't provide them this insight into the industry.
I wasn't making any value judgements. Being in the real estate development field I'm very close to many of the problems that are now occuring with the financial end of this market.
I also know this prediciment wasn't caused by just a) those nasty lenders or b) those idiot homebuyers (both of which do exist). This situation grew out of a hot housing market that hit the skids, and greater flexibility in lending guidelines brought about by the major influx of borrowers. This led to mortgages that were once affordable but quickly became unmanageable due to market conditions.
I don't personally believe a major bailout is required to right the ship either. The strong financial institutions will take over the weak and closing companies. And when all the dust settles the process will begin all over again.
Posted by KW on August 29, 2007 12:44 PMSo, can anyone one of you financial Einsteins identify O-N-E single bailout? Name O-N-E single company ? Who got bailed? Can you identify who got something and how much they got? How much money was involved? I'm waiting.
Looks like a bailout without any specific targets because its all of America who is getting bailed out of a possible recession--300 million beneficiaries who were put at risk by bad monetary policy that has since been reversed are now getting bailed. That's YOU.
Some of you financial pigmys are so stupid that don't know what a bailout is. But you can find what the Fed is bailing out the next time you jump into a shower, Alan Campbell. Its that big fat saggy, sack that follows you everywhere you go while carryinhg your brains. The next time you shower, reach behind you, Allan, and grab it with both hands if you can reach it . Introduce yourself to what the Fed is bailing out.
Posted by Hank on August 29, 2007 12:50 PMPeople should only buy what they can afford. They should not speculate on their most important possession, their home.
The Federal Reserve, those private bankers who charge us interest to print our currency, should all be banished to Hell.
KW,
With all due respect ,that was quite a spin you had in your last post.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on August 29, 2007 01:09 PMAmen, not aware of spin that KW had. Sounded straight forward to me. You and I agree more than not, but not seeing your point here.
Look at a few of the highest Foreclosure zipcodes in Denver and it is not the higher end homes that are accounting for the majority of foreclosures. It is th"first time" homes that are being slammed. This looks to have multiple causes.
Stan, you need to look up the meaning of the word treason....
Meanwhile, the people who were offered these loans were silly enough to sign and should face the consequences. Maybe they won't do it again.... but, my guess is they will.
Also, the vast majority of these loans are actually being paid, with only a small percentage actually being foreclosed on. So, some of the people are making it.
This will pass. Some companies and some investors will lose. Some people did something stupid and signed a bad contract. Perhaps they have learned something. Perhaps not. The government should not be bailing out the stupid. They would have and endless supply....
Posted by Dravur on August 29, 2007 01:29 PMKW said: "This situation grew out of a hot housing market that hit the skids, and greater flexibility in lending guidelines brought about by the major influx of borrowers."
I'm afraid I don't quite follow you here. The greater flexibility in lending guidelines you speak of attracted the influx of new borrowers, not the other way around.
In plain talk, this situation grew out of major deregulation of the mortgage industry - yet another failed "free market" experiment. For those like Hank who propose a government bailout to a situation that evolved from the government removing itself, I ask: what happened to your faith in the "free market" to right all ills?
Posted by mytwosense on August 29, 2007 01:34 PMI'm still waiting for just one of you financial dwarfs to name ONE single company that got bailed. Name it!
This is NOT a targeted bailout of either lenders or buyers (what financial moron here started that dopey "bailout" notion anyway?), the Fed is moving against something very much bigger. Its moving against a slowing economy and a possible broadly based economic recession caused by too high interest rates. And that possible recession could impact everyone's job, income, spending and wealth. A recession would put 300 million asses at some risk.
Lower rates and increased liquidity are like an incoming tide that raises all boats. If it also happens to benefit some crooked lenders and stupid people who grossly overextended themselves, so what. We can finger point and nail the bad guys later. Its the other 300 million innocent folks, potential victims of a possible recession, who didn't participate in this fandango that I care about.
Did any one of you financial wizbangs even bother to read the Fed statement that accompanied the rate cut? The fed changed its policy focus from fighting inflation to stimulating flagging economic growth. Its worried about a broadly based economic recession, not Bear Stearns.
This is all public info and on the internet, there is NO excuse for such incredible ignorance on this subject.
Posted by Hank on August 29, 2007 01:41 PMYes the hot housing market did hit the skids Other factors include:
1) Speculation on "upward" neigborhoods
2) High Rental areas.
a) lack of pride in home ownership
b) higher concentration of Illegal immigrants. How many vehicles can you get in your front yard?
3) Flips gone bad
When trying to sell in these areas it becomes almost impossible with the combination of above items along with the market skid as KW has mentioned. When an agent has to walk 1/3 of a block to show a house because of the rentals on either side combined with12+ cars, how hard do you think it is to sell that house? Add to that the "pride" in ownership does not exist for most rentals. The failure to do so in many cases lead to the foreclosure process.
What of the Illegals that are buying houses and then moving on through abandonment? Before we blame the Mortgage companies (they still own a good share) only, lets talk to those neighborhoods and really look at what is going on in the community.
Hank, not sure if you're addressing the S&L crisis of the eighties or not. If you are, you surely can't be serious by inferring the government did nothing to bail out the industry?
Posted by mytwosense on August 29, 2007 01:51 PMThe market just got all of yesterday 's loss back; the benefits of prospective lower interest rates and monetary easing will buoy the entire American economy for 300 million folks. Even YOU . 3-cheers for wealth, prosperity and a healthy economy.
You financial pigmys can stick your "Tobacco Road" "bailout" nonsense where the sun never shines. You have know idea what's going on, where you are and where you are headed. Nor will you know any more when your financial journey is over and the business cycle starts all over again.
If any of you glooming and dooming conspiracy types manage your own IRAs or 401Ks, then I suggest that you put that Oliver Stone novel down and get help fast.
Posted by Hank on August 29, 2007 01:55 PMWell, so much for trying to have a coherent exchange with Mr. Duckspeak.
Anyway, my position is an opposing one against any kind of bailout. There's no guarantee a bailout will prevent a recession, anyway...just like the S&L bailout didn't prevent the subsequent recession of the early nineties.
Also, I don't see how a bailout of the mortgage industry will help bring inflated housing prices back down to reality, and to me, that's the main consideration. I definitely support the gold standard of 20% down, 30 year fixed. However, at today's housing prices, there aren't going to be too many folks who can achieve this.
Posted by mytwosense on August 29, 2007 02:27 PMmts - The point I was trying to make (which is pretty hard without writing a novel) is that many factors have gone into this problem.
The flexibility in lending practices did bring out more buyers but it was also caused by the influx, sort of a catch 22. Certain lenders pioneered the creativity based on assumed factors and things seemed to work. As these lenders where dominating this newly created market more lenders began using the same creativity to get their share of the market which in turn brought more buyers in the market, which inturn... See where I'm going?
I even read one piece that explained some risk levels where determined based on credit card performence among higher credit risk buyers. A very risky way of determining floors or ceilings for lending guidelines.
Bottom line is this too shall pass and most of those getting hurt will be the greedy and the stupid, the rest will come out ok.
And then the cycle will start again.
Disclaimer - In my opinion, that is.
bwr - Yes. Many, many factors contributed to the current situation. We can't just sit back and point the finger to lenders and buyers.
I was in the mortgage business prior to my change and have seen this once before. It can be pretty frightening for LO's processors, underwriters.
Makes me glad I got out of that end of the business.
Posted by KW on August 29, 2007 02:47 PMYes it looks like a zoo in that industry right now. People are running for their lives right now. Yes be glad that you are not in the middle of that right now.
Posted by bwr on August 29, 2007 04:08 PMKw'
, In your 2:38 post,
Replace the word flexibility and creativity with GREED,then you will have the reason of why so many bad mortgages and so many forclosures.
In my opinion.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on August 29, 2007 04:33 PMI agree to a point Amen, but just trying to keep your business alive played a part along with the greed.
Lender B's volume was down, losing out to Lender A and risking the loss of the investers for his group. This created the need for Lender B to adapt the creative lending programs Lender A was already using, simply to remain competitive in the market and not go out of business.
The cycle just keeps repeating itself until something gives. And this time several things gave at once.
Posted by KW on August 29, 2007 04:43 PM Hank,
Countrywide, to the tune of two billion.
For starters.
So shut the F*** up.
It's still welfare for the rich.
And let's not forget, it 's happening on W Bush's watch.
Also, Neil Bush made out like a bandit (literally) during the S&L bailout of the 80s
Posted by CW McCall on August 29, 2007 06:43 PMCW,
Don't waste your time, hank needs a Valium.
And Neil Bush made out "like a bandit" on Reagan's watch.
That "BAILOUT" cost US taxpayers 500 billion. ( in 80's dollars)
Don' t tell me the Cons don't watch out for each other.
And hank....KMA, or at least be civil.
You've got a problem,dude.
Why is it always someones else's fault with you libs?
Take some personal responsibility ,read your contract,and stop blaming others for a bad situation you yourself agreed to and created.
Hell, I made some bad investments in the past and learned from my mistakes.
I never expected the taxpayers to bail me out of my own screw-ups.
Just one more example of the cradle to grave mentality of todays "Progressives".
(Progress on the road to Socialism that is)
Get real,
Like your Senator Craig?
or Mark Foley?
or the rev. Haggard?
They all blamed someone else
Get Real, Get bent. & get a life
Posted by dmz on August 29, 2007 08:44 PMGood posts KW.
The flexibility in lending practices did bring out more buyers but it was also caused by the influx, sort of a catch 22. Certain lenders pioneered the creativity based on assumed factors and things seemed to work. As these lenders where dominating this newly created market more lenders began using the same creativity to get their share of the market which in turn brought more buyers in the market, which inturn... See where I'm going?
and
Lender B's volume was down, losing out to Lender A and risking the loss of the investers for his group. This created the need for Lender B to adapt the creative lending programs Lender A was already using, simply to remain competitive in the market and not go out of business.
Yep. Starting back in the early dot-com boom when interest rates hit historic lows, there was a huge refinance boom. With that boom, many new "players" got into the mortgage market (brokers, lenders, investors and various "servicers"). With the dot-com bust and then the rise in interest rates, the number of refis dried up (plus most borrowers had already refinanced anyway) and the number of mortgages returned to more historical norms. But with more players in the market than before the refi boom, there was much more competition for the shrinking pool of mortgages. That increased competition led to more "creative" mortgage products and practices. Also, many of these new players in the market didn't understand the cost of risk so as long as things were good, they were fine but they were in a bad position if anything were to hit a kink.
One practice I haven't seen mentioned yet is an increase in "piggy-backs" or second mortgages along with the first mortgage for purchases. Piggy-backs allow borrowers with less than 80% LTV (Loan To Value) avoid having to pay for mortgage insurance (MI) since neither of the two loans has more than 80% LTV. The result of this though was fewer mortgages bought by investors were insured (higher risk) so when the eventual downturn came, many investors got burned (and are now twice shy).
Bottom line is this too shall pass and most of those getting hurt will be the greedy and the stupid, the rest will come out ok.And then the cycle will start again.
As is typical of boom-bust cycles. It'll recover, but I don't think it will start again for quite a long time. With this round, there's a market consolidation that's already taking place (Bank of America's recent $2B stake in Countrywide wasn't an act of altruism IMO).
Get Real, the only person on this thread who is advocating a bailout is Hank, and I believe you two subscribe to pretty much identical politics.
The letter writer, who appears to be a liberal, is advocating the opposite.
I know you can read, so are you purposely ignoring the obvious???
Posted by mytwosense on August 29, 2007 08:53 PMCW what anger. Get a grip dude. What part of the 2 Billion given to Countrywide coming from the tax payers? That was the discussion
Posted by bwr on August 29, 2007 09:03 PMHank,
My notion of a bailout is as described by Senators Charles Schumer (D) New York suggested last week a federal bailout for borrowers via non-profits. That is what I said no way too - do you disagree?
Hopefully these links remain active.
So rather than calling people Financial Einsteins or financial Dwarfs or names of any kind because you feel your posistion is the endall just ask civily why we think there is a bailout in the offing and somebody will provide more info.
Here are a couple of stories I've read - anybody else have more to offer?
http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/13/real_estate/subprimebailout_cost.moneymag/index.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18059004/
Truth,
you are one sad little socialist puppy aren't you? and you said "My lord" - watch out because your atheist buddies will hang you for using that word.
As for profound ingnorance and arrogance, that is written in every one of your daily diatribes. You miss the point of the story - we the tax payers are not reponsible for the indivdual borrowers mistakes. They are, I shouldn't have to pay for another persons desire to own a home they knew they could not afford in the first place.
To whom it may concern, (hank, CW, Truth,Get Bent),
Don't forget the biggest blame-game of the Cons (so far this century) , blaming Iraq for 9/11.....THAT is cost ing taxpayers a TRILLION and there's no end in sight.
Now Iran is next.
Hitler was warned about fighting a two-front war ,too. But, like W, proved to be nuts.
But what else do you expect from the party of perpetual war? They are ruthless, and will do anything to gain power and fortune.
And the investors who own stock in war-for profit companies have blood on their hands , both Iraqi AND American, sure as hell.
How can they live with themselves, knowing they are responsible?
God help us all from madmen and fools.
Thanks CL. Good points from you as well. Countrywide is a major purchaser of loans from developers and what I'm hearing is a major crackdown on piggybacks. They may still be offering them in their own product line but builders have had to undergo a complete overhaul, virtually zero piggy backs, 95% max LTV on other than full doc loans, increased fico's for all alt A products, etc...
While the builder may be fairing ok with home sales, they're losing big time with a major reduction in loan products they can offer to their customers. Many buyers are forgoing incentives attached to the builder mortgage because outside lenders can offer better programs to suit the buyers needs.
As far as Countrywide is concerned, I see them being bought out in the next year or two. The recent cash infusion will keep them viable for the short term but when those notes come due you might see b of a or someone of that size taking them over.
Makes me glad I'm not in that end of the business any longer.
Are we on the same page again??? Can't be happening. Maybe you should fire back an insult so we can revert back to the fuedal exchanges like we use to!
Posted by KW on August 30, 2007 10:04 AM