On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:49:05 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:

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

There's lots of blame to go around. The real lenders were the bond
holders. They thought they were buying a sure thing and didn't ask
too many questions. And then there were the whole army of middle men
who were making money hand over fist, starting with the local mortgage
brokers, all the way up to the investment banks, bond rating
companies, and bond insurers. They didn't ask many questions either.

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:20:56 -0500, HK wrote:

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.



Good. They ought to be stuck, but good.

the problem is that a lot of them really don't have much money in the
game and they just walked away leaving that long list of banks holding
useless paper and a house they can't sell. The 60 minutes piece
pointed out these loans were consolidated so many times it is hard to
figure out exactly who actually does own any given house in
forclosure. As I said before, big builders were getting huge blocks of
money from fund operators and they lent it out through their in house
mortgage company. The fund holds all the paper but the individual
investors have a hard time sorting them out when the fund fails.


Sure it is a problem, but the multi-house buying speculators should pay
a penalty in addition losing the little bit of money they "invested" in
hopes of using borrowed money to make a killing. Perhaps that penalty
will merely be being forced into personal bankruptcy.

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:20:56 -0500, HK wrote:

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.



Good. They ought to be stuck, but good.

the problem is that a lot of them really don't have much money in the
game and they just walked away leaving that long list of banks holding
useless paper and a house they can't sell. The 60 minutes piece
pointed out these loans were consolidated so many times it is hard to
figure out exactly who actually does own any given house in
forclosure. As I said before, big builders were getting huge blocks of
money from fund operators and they lent it out through their in house
mortgage company. The fund holds all the paper but the individual
investors have a hard time sorting them out when the fund fails.

There was a recent foreclosure court case in Ohio, I believe, that was
dismissed because the bond/fund holders suing for foreclosure couldn't
prove that they owned the mortgages.

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:27:41 -0500, HK wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:20:56 -0500, HK wrote:

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.



Good. They ought to be stuck, but good.

the problem is that a lot of them really don't have much money in the
game and they just walked away leaving that long list of banks holding
useless paper and a house they can't sell. The 60 minutes piece
pointed out these loans were consolidated so many times it is hard to
figure out exactly who actually does own any given house in
forclosure. As I said before, big builders were getting huge blocks of
money from fund operators and they lent it out through their in house
mortgage company. The fund holds all the paper but the individual
investors have a hard time sorting them out when the fund fails.


Sure it is a problem, but the multi-house buying speculators should pay
a penalty in addition losing the little bit of money they "invested" in
hopes of using borrowed money to make a killing. Perhaps that penalty
will merely be being forced into personal bankruptcy.

Harry, should everyone *except* the homeowner who got himself into the
situation pay a penalty?
--
John H

BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:20:56 -0500, HK wrote:

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.


Good. They ought to be stuck, but good.

the problem is that a lot of them really don't have much money in the
game and they just walked away leaving that long list of banks holding
useless paper and a house they can't sell. The 60 minutes piece
pointed out these loans were consolidated so many times it is hard to
figure out exactly who actually does own any given house in
forclosure. As I said before, big builders were getting huge blocks of
money from fund operators and they lent it out through their in house
mortgage company. The fund holds all the paper but the individual
investors have a hard time sorting them out when the fund fails.

There was a recent foreclosure court case in Ohio, I believe, that was
dismissed because the bond/fund holders suing for foreclosure couldn't
prove that they owned the mortgages.


I read about that one, it was worth a giggle. There's little question
the mortgage business needs to be regulated as it once was.

John wrote:
"John H." wrote in message .
I *knew* it was Bush's fault!

At least now someone admits the economy *was* growing. That's the first
I've heard that.
--
John H

Yes the last 7 years have been a great economy - here are some stats to back
it up:
http://www.bartcop.com/bush-econ-chart.gif





But Bush did help establish a "Sh'ite Democracy" in Iraq and did help
put Hamas in charge of the Palestinians!

wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:27:41 -0500, HK wrote:

Good. They ought to be stuck, but good.
the problem is that a lot of them really don't have much money in the
game and they just walked away leaving that long list of banks holding
useless paper and a house they can't sell. The 60 minutes piece
pointed out these loans were consolidated so many times it is hard to
figure out exactly who actually does own any given house in
forclosure. As I said before, big builders were getting huge blocks of
money from fund operators and they lent it out through their in house
mortgage company. The fund holds all the paper but the individual
investors have a hard time sorting them out when the fund fails.

Sure it is a problem, but the multi-house buying speculators should pay
a penalty in addition losing the little bit of money they "invested" in
hopes of using borrowed money to make a killing. Perhaps that penalty
will merely be being forced into personal bankruptcy.

I imagine that is where a lot of them are heading but if they were
smart enough to pay off one of the houses Florida law will let them
keep it.


Don't they actually have to be living in the house, or can you
"homestead" an investment house in Florida?

wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:44:45 -0500, HK wrote:

There was a recent foreclosure court case in Ohio, I believe, that was
dismissed because the bond/fund holders suing for foreclosure couldn't
prove that they owned the mortgages.

I read about that one, it was worth a giggle. There's little question
the mortgage business needs to be regulated as it once was.

I think that once that story gets around that part of the mortgage
problem will self regulate. Fund investors will demand more
accountability about where their money is going.


Self regulation is the "Bush" approach, and either results in no
regulation at all or incompetent regulation. Chinese toys, anyone? Or
how about prescription drugs that are manufactured in China and sold
here, without factory inspections? How about the lack of inspection of
food? Self-regulation is little more than PR.

"HK" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:44:45 -0500, HK wrote:

There was a recent foreclosure court case in Ohio, I believe, that was
dismissed because the bond/fund holders suing for foreclosure couldn't
prove that they owned the mortgages.

I read about that one, it was worth a giggle. There's little question
the mortgage business needs to be regulated as it once was.

I think that once that story gets around that part of the mortgage
problem will self regulate. Fund investors will demand more
accountability about where their money is going.


Self regulation is the "Bush" approach, and either results in no
regulation at all or incompetent regulation. Chinese toys, anyone? Or how
about prescription drugs that are manufactured in China and sold here,
without factory inspections? How about the lack of inspection of food?
Self-regulation is little more than PR.


And then there's stuff like this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/us...html?th&emc=th

How coal companies are regulated, ya know? It's beyond me why citizens of WV
didn't tie that judge to a tree in bear country and cover him with peanut
butter.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:44:45 -0500, HK wrote:

There was a recent foreclosure court case in Ohio, I believe, that was
dismissed because the bond/fund holders suing for foreclosure couldn't
prove that they owned the mortgages.
I read about that one, it was worth a giggle. There's little question
the mortgage business needs to be regulated as it once was.
I think that once that story gets around that part of the mortgage
problem will self regulate. Fund investors will demand more
accountability about where their money is going.

Self regulation is the "Bush" approach, and either results in no
regulation at all or incompetent regulation. Chinese toys, anyone? Or how
about prescription drugs that are manufactured in China and sold here,
without factory inspections? How about the lack of inspection of food?
Self-regulation is little more than PR.


And then there's stuff like this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/us...html?th&emc=th

How coal companies are regulated, ya know? It's beyond me why citizens of WV
didn't tie that judge to a tree in bear country and cover him with peanut
butter.




Hey! This is Romneyville..Foch the Workers!