wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:01:54 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Then you can put the insurance companies back into the game by putting
rules in place that brings the mortagage lending practices back to what
worked before - verification of income and ability to pay based on
monthly/yearly income and expenses.

Regulation? Damn, how un-Republican of you. ;-) What you say makes a
lot of sense, but this subprime fiasco seems more like Tulip Mania than a
classic bubble. I mean, what were they thinking, or not?


NOT!


Did you here about the French trader that lost $7 billion? Somebody at
Societe Generale was asleep.


In short, put some sanity back into the market.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)

"John" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
...
http://tinyurl.com/2cqv7t

In my mind a lot of the blame for the home mortgage crisis belongs
squarely on the shoulders of those that received the loans.

In their quest to get into a home they failed to analyze what
could/would happen when the inevitable rate changes came along.

That doesn't excuse the lenders. "There's a sucker born every minute".



A female companion of mine wanted buy a house together a few years back.
She kept looking at houses in a ridiculously high price range. I pointed
out that if either of us lost our job, we'd be in trouble almost
instantly with the price range she was focused on. She said "Oh come on.
How likely is that?" Two weeks later, she lost her job. Gamblers
shouldn't buy houses.


LOL My wife and I are now empty nesters and have decided to down-size.
Unfortunately my wife's idea of down sizing is buying a larger more
expensive house. Not that it is her intention, but the only houses that
she is attracted to are MUCH larger. I keep saying the same thing - I do
not feel secure in my job so why would I want to take on a larger
mortgage...


I'm thinking now of a comment from comedian Ron White. He's talking about
the slogans used by one of the mall jewelry stores. "Diamonds - they'll
leave her speechless!" Why don't they just say what they really mean?
"Diamonds - that oughta shut her up!" :-)

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:54:49 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

This reminds me. I wonder what the local dentist (NOYB) is putting up
with nowdays?

If he really has a house in Port Royal he might not have been hurt
that bad. The multi-million dollar market is still holding. It is the
$250k-$1m market that took most of the bath around here. Over in West
Palm where my daughter lives they are still moving the "need" houses
at about the same price. "Want" houses are taking the beating.


My mama lived over that way, and left me a condo. My uncle retired to
Boca. Now, one of his "kids" (a few years older than I am) lives in that
house and manages the condo for me. I've stayed with my "cuz," but for
some reason I've not been to the condo since my mother died. We've had
two renters in it since she died. My favorite area in that part of
Florida is Bal Harbour, a bit further south.

On Jan 30, 2:03*pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:54:49 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

This reminds me. I wonder what the local dentist (NOYB) is putting up
with nowdays?

If he really has a house in Port Royal he might not have been hurt
that bad. The multi-million dollar market is still holding. It is the
$250k-$1m market that took most of the bath around here. Over in West
Palm where my daughter lives they are still moving the "need" houses
at about the same price. "Want" houses are taking the beating.

My mama lived over that way, and left me a condo. My uncle retired to
Boca. Now, one of his "kids" (a few years older than I am) lives in that
house and manages the condo for me. I've stayed with my "cuz," but for
some reason I've not been to the condo since my mother died. We've had
two renters in it since she died. My favorite area in that part of
Florida is Bal Harbour, a bit further south.

That's funny, you've never mentioned that to NOYB and all of the other
people here who live in that area........
Are you lobster boating us?

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:07:17 -0000, wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:01:54 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Then you can put the insurance companies back into the game by putting
rules in place that brings the mortagage lending practices back to what
worked before - verification of income and ability to pay based on
monthly/yearly income and expenses.

Regulation? Damn, how un-Republican of you. ;-)

Not so much regulation as policy. There will always be situations
that don't fit the local market conditions, or non-classic buyers who
have considerations other than those I mentioned, which local bankers
and underwriters can evaluate properly.

What you say makes a lot of sense, but this subprime fiasco seems
more like Tulip Mania than a classic bubble. I mean, what were they
thinking, or not?

With respect to tulips, the analogy isn't exactly "perfect" in the
sense that there are some arguments about the true cause of the Tulip
Mania Bubble by some fairly competent historians.

However, as popularly explained, the housing bubble is exactly like
the Tulip Mania Bubble which is the classic case. Prices will go up
forever - ergo, you can't lose money because you will always make
money.

While true over time, it's generally not true over the short term (say
5 years as opposed to 13 years). For instance properties I've owned
until recently that appreciated in terms of real market value (as
opposed to fair market value) 90% since a point in 2001 - one house
that I still have was bought at $132K and was bank appraised last week
at $234,000 (fair value $219k) and I have an offer of $230k.

That's what most people were counting on with the low ARMs - get in
low and sell high.

Only it didn't work that way. :)

Did you here about the French trader that lost $7 billion? Somebody at
Societe Generale was asleep.

And entirely believable oddly enough. Certainly the trader's
supervisors were asleep at the switch, but one single trader can, and
has done before, bought into futures trades on their own and ruined
financial institutions.

What I find interesting is how Soc Gen unwound the trades - that was
total incompetance.

wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:03 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:54:49 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:
This reminds me. I wonder what the local dentist (NOYB) is putting up
with nowdays?
If he really has a house in Port Royal he might not have been hurt
that bad. The multi-million dollar market is still holding. It is the
$250k-$1m market that took most of the bath around here. Over in West
Palm where my daughter lives they are still moving the "need" houses
at about the same price. "Want" houses are taking the beating.
My mama lived over that way, and left me a condo. My uncle retired to
Boca. Now, one of his "kids" (a few years older than I am) lives in that
house and manages the condo for me. I've stayed with my "cuz," but for
some reason I've not been to the condo since my mother died. We've had
two renters in it since she died. My favorite area in that part of
Florida is Bal Harbour, a bit further south.

That's funny, you've never mentioned that to NOYB and all of the other
people here who live in that area........
Are you lobster boating us?



You dumb foch, my mother's condo is in the Palm Beach area, "Over in
West Palm," as gfretwell was discussion. And my cuz lives in Boca, which
is why she manages the property. Look at a map, figure it out.

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:55:10 -0500, HK wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:30:17 -0500, JimH wrote:


He promptly blamed the lender as he said he did not know what an ARM
was. Doh!

Summary of sub-prime write-downs in Q4
UBS $13.7 bln
Citigroup $13.7 bln
Morgan Stanley $10.3 bln
Merrill Lynch $8.4 bln
HSBC $3.4 bln
Bank of America $3.3 bln
Deutsche Bank $3.1 bln
Barclays $2.7 bln
Royal Bank of Scotland $2.6 bln
Credit Agricole $2.3 bln
Bear Stearns $1.9 bln
Credit Suisse $1.9 bln
JP Morgan Chase $1.6 bln
Goldman Sachs $1.5 bln
Wachovia Bank $1.1 bln
Lehman Brothers $0.8 bln
SunTrust Bank $0.6 bln
Total: $72,900,000,000 and counting!

I guess the lender didn't know what an ARM was either.


Why should the execs worry with their golden parachutes?

That is probably the root of the problem.
Wall Street stock prices, the golden silk of the parachutes.
Greed is good.

--Vic

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:06:25 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:


"JimH" wrote in message
.. .

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
...
http://tinyurl.com/2cqv7t

In my mind a lot of the blame for the home mortgage crisis belongs
squarely on the shoulders of those that received the loans.

In their quest to get into a home they failed to analyze what
could/would happen when the inevitable rate changes came along.

That doesn't excuse the lenders. "There's a sucker born every
minute".


At what point of the deal did the lenders put a gun to the buyers head
and force them to sign?

That's my point, the home buyers must share a lot of the blame for
their decisions.

I realize that.

The lenders played on the consumers ignorance.


Perhaps, but perhaps not.

But if someone is signing for a 6 figure loan without knowing the type
of loan or if the payments fit into their budget I have no sympathy for
them.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer ran a series of stories about a couple of
these poor *victims*. In one case a lady was given $500,000 as an out
of court settlement for the death (drowning) of her son at a church's
pool. She buys a house (cash), a Lexus and then promptly blows the rest
of the money in a short time.

Not having money left she tries to get a loan off the equity in her
house and signs for a loan she could not afford. She loses her house.
Poor lady.

Another example is a guy earning $75,000/year signing into an ARM with
payments at around $800/month on his $130,000 house. Over a short time
the rates went up and his payments jumped to $1,300/month which he said
he could not afford. He eventually lost his house to the lender.

He promptly blamed the lender as he said he did not know what an ARM
was. Doh!

BTW: He also spends $1,200/month on the lottery.

You just keep reinforcing my argument.


Doh, I realize that. What I am also reinforcing is the fact that the
banks should not be blamed at all. You seem to put some blame on them.
That is *my* point.

Not true. I don't hold the lending institutions blameless at all. They
were accepting applications where the figures were not even verified.

I very clearly stated in my initial post "That doesn't excuse the lenders."


Jimmie is saying the banks have no fault in the matter. He says, "...the
banks should not be blamed...".

Which is horse****, but that's what he's saying.
--
John H

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:06:36 -0500, BAR wrote:

JimH wrote:
"D.Duck" wrote in message
...
"JimH" wrote in message
...
"D.Duck" wrote in message
...
"JimH" wrote in message
...
"D.Duck" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
...
http://tinyurl.com/2cqv7t
In my mind a lot of the blame for the home mortgage crisis belongs
squarely on the shoulders of those that received the loans.

In their quest to get into a home they failed to analyze what
could/would happen when the inevitable rate changes came along.

That doesn't excuse the lenders. "There's a sucker born every minute".

At what point of the deal did the lenders put a gun to the buyers head
and force them to sign?
That's my point, the home buyers must share a lot of the blame for their
decisions.
I realize that.

The lenders played on the consumers ignorance.

Perhaps, but perhaps not.

But if someone is signing for a 6 figure loan without knowing the type of
loan or if the payments fit into their budget I have no sympathy for
them.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer ran a series of stories about a couple of
these poor *victims*. In one case a lady was given $500,000 as an out of
court settlement for the death (drowning) of her son at a church's pool.
She buys a house (cash), a Lexus and then promptly blows the rest of the
money in a short time.

Not having money left she tries to get a loan off the equity in her house
and signs for a loan she could not afford. She loses her house. Poor
lady.

Another example is a guy earning $75,000/year signing into an ARM with
payments at around $800/month on his $130,000 house. Over a short time
the rates went up and his payments jumped to $1,300/month which he said
he could not afford. He eventually lost his house to the lender.

He promptly blamed the lender as he said he did not know what an ARM was.
Doh!

BTW: He also spends $1,200/month on the lottery.
You just keep reinforcing my argument.


Doh, I realize that. What I am also reinforcing is the fact that the banks
should not be blamed at all. You seem to put some blame on them. That is
*my* point.

The banks are selling the loans. They advertise the loans, they entice
and encourage the buyers sign on the dotted line. The banks have some
culpable in the sub-prime problems. They guys who bought the mortgages
are culpable too. Nobody gets away from this without some responsibility.


Bull****. I didn't have anything to do with it. Therefore I should get away
from this without some responsibility.

Oh, wait, I forgot. I voted for Bush, and it's his fault, so I must share a
portion of the blame.
--
John H

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:07:17 -0000, wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:01:54 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Then you can put the insurance companies back into the game by putting
rules in place that brings the mortagage lending practices back to what
worked before - verification of income and ability to pay based on
monthly/yearly income and expenses.

Regulation? Damn, how un-Republican of you. ;-)

Not so much regulation as policy. There will always be situations
that don't fit the local market conditions, or non-classic buyers who
have considerations other than those I mentioned, which local bankers
and underwriters can evaluate properly.

What you say makes a lot of sense, but this subprime fiasco seems
more like Tulip Mania than a classic bubble. I mean, what were they
thinking, or not?

With respect to tulips, the analogy isn't exactly "perfect" in the
sense that there are some arguments about the true cause of the Tulip
Mania Bubble by some fairly competent historians.

However, as popularly explained, the housing bubble is exactly like
the Tulip Mania Bubble which is the classic case. Prices will go up
forever - ergo, you can't lose money because you will always make
money.

While true over time, it's generally not true over the short term (say
5 years as opposed to 13 years). For instance properties I've owned
until recently that appreciated in terms of real market value (as
opposed to fair market value) 90% since a point in 2001 - one house
that I still have was bought at $132K and was bank appraised last week
at $234,000 (fair value $219k) and I have an offer of $230k.

That's what most people were counting on with the low ARMs - get in
low and sell high.

Only it didn't work that way. :)

Did you here about the French trader that lost $7 billion? Somebody at
Societe Generale was asleep.

And entirely believable oddly enough. Certainly the trader's
supervisors were asleep at the switch, but one single trader can, and
has done before, bought into futures trades on their own and ruined
financial institutions.

What I find interesting is how Soc Gen unwound the trades - that was
total incompetance.


Lots of those upside down loans, at least out here, were speculators.
Counting on a 20% / year growth. A few out here are stuck with 5+ houses.