| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
|
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
"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". |
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:49:05 -0500, D.Duck wrote:
"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. True, but I'm a little more sympathetic to the homeowners as they aren't the professionals in the relationship. I also have no sympathy for the professionals if there was fraud involved. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7216602.stm Greed does funny things. In this case, it could take down the world's economy. 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". |
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
"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. |
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
"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. The lenders played on the consumers ignorance. |
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
wrote in message
... On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:49:05 -0500, D.Duck wrote: "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. True, but I'm a little more sympathetic to the homeowners as they aren't the professionals in the relationship. I also have no sympathy for the professionals if there was fraud involved. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7216602.stm Greed does funny things. In this case, it could take down the world's economy. 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". There are only about 100,000 of these on the internet(s): http://www.betterbudgeting.com/budgetformsfree.htm |
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"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. There are problems rampant in all sectors of the home mortgage business, and most of them predate the current crisis. Some of them have to do with the tax laws. -- George W. Bush - Worst President Ever, to the very last minute of the very last day of his term. |
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
"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. The lenders played on the consumers ignorance. I was annoyed when my mortgage broker pulled out a budget worksheet to prequalify me. I told her I'd worked out the number a dozen times. I'd brought the worksheets with me. She said "I know, but I'm not comfortable without spending a few minutes on this." Her method came up with results that matched mine, give or take fifty bucks, as far as the mortgage payment I could afford. She said "You'd be surprised how few borrowers bother to do this." |
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
"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. |
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
JimH wrote:
"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? Minors and idiots should not be allowed to enter into contracts. I put most of the blame for this on Congress and the lenders. |
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
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. |
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
wrote in message ... 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. Yep, the lenders screwed up big time. How in hell they thought the loan recipients were going to be able make the payments when the ARM kicked in is beyond me. 60 Minutes had a piece on the debacle last Sunday. Simply put is was greed. All along the food chain people/institutions were getting there commission. It some respects it was kind of like a Ponzi scheme. The 60 Minutes story reported that it was extremely easy to get a loan and figures on applications were not even verified. |
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
"BAR" wrote in message
. .. JimH wrote: "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? Minors and idiots should not be allowed to enter into contracts. I put most of the blame for this on Congress and the lenders. Minors already can't enter into contracts, at least in NY. Not sure if that's federal law, or state. Idiots...it would be tricky to limit them from entering into contracts. It would wreck the economy, since you're talking about 54% of the country. |
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
|
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
"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." |
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
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. |
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
|
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
|
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
|
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
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? 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. :) |
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
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. :) |
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
"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!" :-) |
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
|
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
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? |
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
|
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
|
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
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 |
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
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 |
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
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 |
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
|
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:19:11 -0800, "Calif Bill"
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. Proves the point doesn't it. |
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
On Jan 30, 3:16*pm, HK wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - There are many people in that area, you should have mentioned it. I really think you're lobster boating us! I don't need a map, Harry, I lived in Florida a long time, and worked for a company that had me travelling all over the state. Your childish name calling clearly shows you are caught in but another lie. |
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
|
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
On Jan 30, 4:36*pm, HK wrote:
wrote: * I lived in Florida a long time, and worked for a company that had me travelling all over the state. Who the hell would hire a slow-wit like you? What did you do, count the expansion cracks in sidewalks? That's great! Another idiotic, uncalled for ignorant response showing that once again, you're caught in a lobster boat lie..... |
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
|
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:16:42 -0500, HK wrote:
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. Harry, it's OK. Someone here will believe you. -- John H |
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:03:58 -0500, "John" wrote:
"D.Duck" wrote in message m... wrote in message ... 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. Yep, the lenders screwed up big time. How in hell they thought the loan recipients were going to be able make the payments when the ARM kicked in is beyond me. 60 Minutes had a piece on the debacle last Sunday. Simply put is was greed. All along the food chain people/institutions were getting there commission. It some respects it was kind of like a Ponzi scheme. The 60 Minutes story reported that it was extremely easy to get a loan and figures on applications were not even verified. Add on top of that, because of the cheap easy money, more people were in the market driving the housing boom, which was the only thing that kept Bush's economy growing. My vacation home went up in value about 400%. Of course houses are now sitting - but my taxes will never go back down. I know a lot of people who refinanced their homes and kept taking equity out, I know dumb - but if you get cash in hand and your mortgage payment goes down...... I just hope that they are not caught with an adjustable loan. 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 |
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
"HK" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "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. Good. They ought to be stuck, but good. Just an example of the fallacy of the boom. Sort of like the dot.bomb boom. And they will be saved by the loan programs that are being proposed by both parties. |
There's just nothing quite like capitalism
Calif Bill wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "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. Good. They ought to be stuck, but good. Just an example of the fallacy of the boom. Sort of like the dot.bomb boom. And they will be saved by the loan programs that are being proposed by both parties. If there is any "saving" to be done, it ought to be for individual families losing the house in which they live. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:11 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com