It Really Is Clinton III
 

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:28:33 -0600, wrote:

It was greed. Financial markets are run on the balance of greed/risk.
There's nothing wrong with that, but greed took over, and here we are. A
few fat cat "financiers" just brought the world's economy to a
standstill.

Um...it takes two to tango you know. The old saw "if it's too good to
be true, it probably is" had a big part in this.

In my view, politics besides the point, folks who purchased $300,000
homes with no documenation of their $100,000 income when they were
actually on welfare are just as guilty as those who wrote the
mortgages.

And believe it or not, that's pretty much what happened. The dynamic
of buying a $300,000 home one year and selling it the next for
$400,000 was too good to be true. I saw it happen right here in
Woodstock right down the street from me.

There is a lot of blame to go around on this - it wasn't strictly a
case of financiers being greedy.

Also, I would posit that the base reason the economy tanked wasn't the
mortgage crisis - it was the rampant speculation on the crude oil
market that tanked the world's economy.

And I think I can prove it.

Our discretionary spending was cut way back in anticipation of the
increases in the cost of the necessities. When hundreds of thousands or
millions of families do this it puts tremendous pressure on the economy
worldwide.

It Really Is Clinton III
 

Eisboch wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...


And believe it or not, that's pretty much what happened. The dynamic
of buying a $300,000 home one year and selling it the next for
$400,000 was too good to be true. I saw it happen right here in
Woodstock right down the street from me.

There is a lot of blame to go around on this - it wasn't strictly a
case of financiers being greedy.


Gee. We bought a house in Florida for $485K. Sold it 3 years later
for $1M.

I feel so guilty.

Eisboch

You'll be getting a nasty phone call from Ohio soon.

It Really Is Clinton III
 

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:00:05 +0000, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:28:33 -0600, wrote:

It was greed. Financial markets are run on the balance of greed/risk.
There's nothing wrong with that, but greed took over, and here we are.
A few fat cat "financiers" just brought the world's economy to a
standstill.

Um...it takes two to tango you know. The old saw "if it's too good to
be true, it probably is" had a big part in this.

In my view, politics besides the point, folks who purchased $300,000
homes with no documenation of their $100,000 income when they were
actually on welfare are just as guilty as those who wrote the mortgages.

Of course, they are just as guilty, and just as stupid, but it is still
greed over-balancing risk. There is enough blame to go around, but I
still say, those that were in the business should have known better.
It's also true, that if I speculated on three houses, the damage is
considerably less than if I were a broker that mortgaged thousands, and
chances are, I'd be in bankruptcy now, as opposed to getting money from
Washington.


And believe it or not, that's pretty much what happened. The dynamic of
buying a $300,000 home one year and selling it the next for $400,000 was
too good to be true. I saw it happen right here in Woodstock right down
the street from me.

There is a lot of blame to go around on this - it wasn't strictly a case
of financiers being greedy.

Also, I would posit that the base reason the economy tanked wasn't the
mortgage crisis - it was the rampant speculation on the crude oil market
that tanked the world's economy.

And I think I can prove it.

It sure didn't help, but I thought, IIRC, the sub-prime fiasco was
already ongoing well before the major oil increases. And again, it's a
handful of fat cat "financiers" that brought the world's economy to a
standstill. ;-)

It Really Is Clinton III
 

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 09:18:17 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

Gee. We bought a house in Florida for $485K. Sold it 3 years later
for $1M.

I feel so guilty.

I keep wondering how that dentist from the south make out. I hope he's
riding it out, even though he was a conservative SOB. ;-)

It Really Is Clinton III
 

It Really Is Clinton III
 

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:20:10 -0500, hk wrote:

I keep wondering how that dentist from the south make out. I hope he's
riding it out, even though he was a conservative SOB. ;-)


He was really upside down in that house. I sorta miss him. He was
exasperating, but a hell of a lot brighter than most of the
"conservatives" who remain here.

I'm not sure. IIRC, it was more the funky loan than the price of the
house. He was planning to stay in the house. So any price decline
should recover, but that loan? It would need to be refinanced some time
about now. ;-(

It Really Is Clinton III
 

wrote in message
t...
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:18:18 -0500, BAR wrote:


Racist and illegal? It was based upon risk analysis. Why would I want to
lend money to people who were most likely not going to pay it back. And,
if I did have to foreclose just before getting the sheriff to evict them
they would trash the place. Where is my motivation to lend money in
those areas?

Yup, racist and illegal. When I find the link I'll post it, but those
"redlined" areas have reasonably low default rates. Where most of the
problems have arisen, is the more affluent borrower who over extended
thinking of their home as an investment, not as a home.


those redlined areas had low default rates and the lender did due diligence
and loaned on what the house was really worth, and if the borrower could
afford the payments.

As to NOYB the guy in Florida, he may lose the house if he can not
refinance, but he bought the house early enough before a lot if the price
inflation and he got to write off 35% of his payment. Probably cheaper than
renting a house. The taxpayers subsidized his renting the house. May owe
taxes on the unpaid part of the loan if foreclosed. Do not know the rules
on that. Credit cards, they write down the balance owed, and you get a 1099
for the amount written down. Ordinary income.

It Really Is Clinton III
 

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:04:41 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


As to NOYB the guy in Florida, he may lose the house if he can not
refinance, but he bought the house early enough before a lot if the price
inflation and he got to write off 35% of his payment. Probably cheaper than
renting a house. The taxpayers subsidized his renting the house. May owe
taxes on the unpaid part of the loan if foreclosed. Do not know the rules
on that. Credit cards, they write down the balance owed, and you get a 1099
for the amount written down. Ordinary income.

As I recall NOYB is a dentist with a good income.
He should be doing just fine.
As to refi's, I'm not sure how people got into trouble with the
various home loans. Must have not read the terms or lost their jobs.
I did a 3 yr ARM refi about 6 years ago at 3.75%. I had planned on
paying it off before it adjusted from 3.75%, but didn't quite make it
before I retired, and still have about 30 g's on it.
Thing is it never went past 6.75% and is now 5.75%.
So far I haven't wanted to take the tax hits in cashing in IRA's to
pay it off.
It's not easy figuring out how to best do that, as we have little
taxable income. And I'm lazy about thinking since I retired.
But I think I have to figure out how to knock down the principal
pretty soon, as I'll be paying that interest forever - and maybe even
at a higher interest rate.
Once they adjusted this one it went on a 30 year amort schedule and
though the payment is low, it's nearly all goes to interest.
I hate paying interest, and on the surface it looks like I would pay
more in taxes by cashing in CD's.
But if you look at an amort schedule and see TOTAL payments over some
years, it might make sense to just take the one time tax hit. Depends
too on when and if I move south.
Just have to make sure I can still afford the "boat(s) of my dreams."
I'm thinking of getting a little help on handling my money.
Anybody know about a guy named Bernie Madoff?
He's been highly recommended by those "in the know."

--Vic

It Really Is Clinton III
 

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 09:31:21 -0500, Jim wrote:

Eisboch wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...


And believe it or not, that's pretty much what happened. The dynamic
of buying a $300,000 home one year and selling it the next for
$400,000 was too good to be true. I saw it happen right here in
Woodstock right down the street from me.

There is a lot of blame to go around on this - it wasn't strictly a
case of financiers being greedy.


Gee. We bought a house in Florida for $485K. Sold it 3 years later
for $1M.

I feel so guilty.

Eisboch

You'll be getting a nasty phone call from Ohio soon.


Ewwwwwh!

It Really Is Clinton III
 

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 14:52:31 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:04:41 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


As to NOYB the guy in Florida, he may lose the house if he can not
refinance, but he bought the house early enough before a lot if the price
inflation and he got to write off 35% of his payment. Probably cheaper than
renting a house. The taxpayers subsidized his renting the house. May owe
taxes on the unpaid part of the loan if foreclosed. Do not know the rules
on that. Credit cards, they write down the balance owed, and you get a 1099
for the amount written down. Ordinary income.

As I recall NOYB is a dentist with a good income.
He should be doing just fine.
As to refi's, I'm not sure how people got into trouble with the
various home loans. Must have not read the terms or lost their jobs.
I did a 3 yr ARM refi about 6 years ago at 3.75%. I had planned on
paying it off before it adjusted from 3.75%, but didn't quite make it
before I retired, and still have about 30 g's on it.
Thing is it never went past 6.75% and is now 5.75%.
So far I haven't wanted to take the tax hits in cashing in IRA's to
pay it off.
It's not easy figuring out how to best do that, as we have little
taxable income. And I'm lazy about thinking since I retired.
But I think I have to figure out how to knock down the principal
pretty soon, as I'll be paying that interest forever - and maybe even
at a higher interest rate.
Once they adjusted this one it went on a 30 year amort schedule and
though the payment is low, it's nearly all goes to interest.
I hate paying interest, and on the surface it looks like I would pay
more in taxes by cashing in CD's.
But if you look at an amort schedule and see TOTAL payments over some
years, it might make sense to just take the one time tax hit. Depends
too on when and if I move south.
Just have to make sure I can still afford the "boat(s) of my dreams."
I'm thinking of getting a little help on handling my money.
Anybody know about a guy named Bernie Madoff?
He's been highly recommended by those "in the know."

--Vic

Dentists suffer big time during recessions. A lot of their work is
'voluntary', like veneers, some caps, some alignment, etc.

I too hope NOYB is in good shape. But, I can call my dentist in the
afternoon and get a next morning appointment. Six months ago I'd have
waited a week, unless it was an emergency.