On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:42:47 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Whose business it anyway if lenders choose to write bad loans?
Doesn't hurt me.

That's naive. If the government ends up bailing out the lender "to
save the economy" who do you think ends up paying for that? Sooner or
later we all do, either in taxes or with a depreciated dollar.

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:47:43 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:42:47 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Whose business it anyway if lenders choose to write bad loans?
Doesn't hurt me.

That's naive. If the government ends up bailing out the lender "to
save the economy" who do you think ends up paying for that? Sooner or
later we all do, either in taxes or with a depreciated dollar.

Sounds like you want it regulated.

--Vic

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:33:54 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Whose business it anyway if lenders choose to write bad loans?
Doesn't hurt me.

That's naive. If the government ends up bailing out the lender "to
save the economy" who do you think ends up paying for that? Sooner or
later we all do, either in taxes or with a depreciated dollar.

Sounds like you want it regulated.

Actually not. My real preference would be to let the lenders fail,
except for the one that is paying my pension and holding my retirement
$$$s.

Life is complicated. :-)

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:05:43 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:33:54 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Whose business it anyway if lenders choose to write bad loans?
Doesn't hurt me.

That's naive. If the government ends up bailing out the lender "to
save the economy" who do you think ends up paying for that? Sooner or
later we all do, either in taxes or with a depreciated dollar.

Sounds like you want it regulated.

Actually not. My real preference would be to let the lenders fail,
except for the one that is paying my pension and holding my retirement
$$$s.

Life is complicated. :-)

Only when you won't accept responsibility for your action or inaction.
That's what I meant when I said it doesn't hurt me.
I really don't care what happens with the bad loan situation, since I
wasn't responsible for it.
Not that it's rocket science. I saw it coming, as did anyone with
their eyes open and not heavily sedated.
If I were responsible I would have regulated loans to prevent it.
But nobody asked me.
Would not have looked good for "record home ownership" statistics
that GWB often crowed about. Just wouldn't be prudent.
And I don't care about the taxes or depreciated dollar.
I just don't. Nobody asked me to be the boss of that, and
I admit I didn't volunteer. I just left it the business community.
with proper gov oversight.
And here we are.
Okay with me.
Why get upset about it?

--Vic (feeling laid back, and a bit high on Stabil)

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:33:54 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Whose business it anyway if lenders choose to write bad loans?
Doesn't hurt me.

That's naive. If the government ends up bailing out the lender "to
save the economy" who do you think ends up paying for that? Sooner or
later we all do, either in taxes or with a depreciated dollar.

Sounds like you want it regulated.

Actually not. My real preference would be to let the lenders fail,
except for the one that is paying my pension and holding my retirement
$$$s.

Life is complicated. :-)




I just heard on Chris Matthews's "Hardball" show of a plan being kicked
around that would provide government financing for banks to re-negotiate
some of these sub-prime loans with home owners having trouble with their
mortgage. But, here's the kicker. In this plan, not only would the rates
and terms be re-negotiated, but also the prinicple owed .... meaning it
would be lowered as well as the house "value", decreasing taxes. I am not
sure I completely understand this .... or even heard it correctly, but it
sounds rather bizzare.

Those who have managed to keep their conventional 30 year mortgage payments
by working two jobs to make ends meet receive no benefit or consideration.

Sounds like those who are financially responsible, live within their means
and borrow what they can afford finish last.
Those that took chances and advantage of loose lending practices with
mortgages they couldn't afford, win.


Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:33:54 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Whose business it anyway if lenders choose to write bad loans?
Doesn't hurt me.

That's naive. If the government ends up bailing out the lender "to
save the economy" who do you think ends up paying for that? Sooner or
later we all do, either in taxes or with a depreciated dollar.

Sounds like you want it regulated.

Actually not. My real preference would be to let the lenders fail,
except for the one that is paying my pension and holding my retirement
$$$s.

Life is complicated. :-)




I just heard on Chris Matthews's "Hardball" show of a plan being kicked
around that would provide government financing for banks to re-negotiate
some of these sub-prime loans with home owners having trouble with their
mortgage. But, here's the kicker. In this plan, not only would the rates
and terms be re-negotiated, but also the prinicple owed .... meaning it
would be lowered as well as the house "value", decreasing taxes. I am
not sure I completely understand this .... or even heard it correctly, but
it sounds rather bizzare.

Those who have managed to keep their conventional 30 year mortgage
payments by working two jobs to make ends meet receive no benefit or
consideration.

Sounds like those who are financially responsible, live within their means
and borrow what they can afford finish last.
Those that took chances and advantage of loose lending practices with
mortgages they couldn't afford, win.


Eisboch

That is the Democratic way. Steal from the working stiff and give a little
to the slackers and those looking for a free ride. The rest finds it's way
to the lawmakers and their friends.

wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:33:54 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Whose business it anyway if lenders choose to write bad loans?
Doesn't hurt me.

That's naive. If the government ends up bailing out the lender "to
save the economy" who do you think ends up paying for that? Sooner or
later we all do, either in taxes or with a depreciated dollar.

Sounds like you want it regulated.

Actually not. My real preference would be to let the lenders fail,
except for the one that is paying my pension and holding my retirement
$$$s.

Life is complicated. :-)




I just heard on Chris Matthews's "Hardball" show of a plan being
kicked around that would provide government financing for banks to
re-negotiate some of these sub-prime loans with home owners having
trouble with their mortgage. But, here's the kicker. In this plan,
not only would the rates and terms be re-negotiated, but also the
prinicple owed .... meaning it would be lowered as well as the house
"value", decreasing taxes. I am not sure I completely understand
this .... or even heard it correctly, but it sounds rather bizzare.

Those who have managed to keep their conventional 30 year mortgage
payments by working two jobs to make ends meet receive no benefit or
consideration.

Sounds like those who are financially responsible, live within their
means and borrow what they can afford finish last.
Those that took chances and advantage of loose lending practices with
mortgages they couldn't afford, win.


Eisboch

That is the Democratic way. Steal from the working stiff and give a
little to the slackers and those looking for a free ride. The rest finds
it's way to the lawmakers and their friends.


Ahh. I knew there was an explanation for the big brokerage house bailout.

" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:33:54 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Whose business it anyway if lenders choose to write bad loans?
Doesn't hurt me.

That's naive. If the government ends up bailing out the lender "to
save the economy" who do you think ends up paying for that? Sooner or
later we all do, either in taxes or with a depreciated dollar.

Sounds like you want it regulated.

Actually not. My real preference would be to let the lenders fail,
except for the one that is paying my pension and holding my retirement
$$$s.

Life is complicated. :-)




I just heard on Chris Matthews's "Hardball" show of a plan being kicked
around that would provide government financing for banks to re-negotiate
some of these sub-prime loans with home owners having trouble with their
mortgage. But, here's the kicker. In this plan, not only would the
rates and terms be re-negotiated, but also the prinicple owed ....
meaning it would be lowered as well as the house "value", decreasing
taxes. I am not sure I completely understand this .... or even heard it
correctly, but it sounds rather bizzare.

Those who have managed to keep their conventional 30 year mortgage
payments by working two jobs to make ends meet receive no benefit or
consideration.

Sounds like those who are financially responsible, live within their
means and borrow what they can afford finish last.
Those that took chances and advantage of loose lending practices with
mortgages they couldn't afford, win.


Eisboch

That is the Democratic way. Steal from the working stiff and give a little
to the slackers and those looking for a free ride. The rest finds it's way
to the lawmakers and their friends.

Actually, republicans do it, too. The difference is this: Democrats have the
balls for formalize the deal by codifying it into law. Republicans play
smoke & mirror games, like claiming the war is cheap and there's no deficit.
Their followers are stupid enough to believe it. 54%, ya know?

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:10:38 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:33:54 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Whose business it anyway if lenders choose to write bad loans?
Doesn't hurt me.

That's naive. If the government ends up bailing out the lender "to
save the economy" who do you think ends up paying for that? Sooner or
later we all do, either in taxes or with a depreciated dollar.

Sounds like you want it regulated.

Actually not. My real preference would be to let the lenders fail,
except for the one that is paying my pension and holding my retirement
$$$s.

Life is complicated. :-)

I just heard on Chris Matthews's "Hardball" show of a plan being kicked
around that would provide government financing for banks to re-negotiate
some of these sub-prime loans with home owners having trouble with their
mortgage. But, here's the kicker. In this plan, not only would the rates
and terms be re-negotiated, but also the prinicple owed .... meaning it
would be lowered as well as the house "value", decreasing taxes. I am not
sure I completely understand this .... or even heard it correctly, but it
sounds rather bizzare.

The idea is that the prices are in a deflationary direction, thus the
principle has deflated in value along with the loan. In that
paradigm, it makes sense to revalue the amount of principle by writing
off a portion of the principle, renegotiating the interest on the
remaining principle to a rate and time period in which the now lowered
principle w/interest can be paid.

This revaluation of the loan, including the principle, will lower
property taxes because the house involved will not be in line with
actual fair market value rather than an inflated market valuation -
the tax base will be revalued at a lower price point.

It's a complicated way to establish a floor on mortgage valuations and
personally, I don't think it's worth discussing for a number of
reasons - in particular the whole "let's spread the pain" scenario.

Those who have managed to keep their conventional 30 year mortgage payments
by working two jobs to make ends meet receive no benefit or consideration.

Sounds like those who are financially responsible, live within their means
and borrow what they can afford finish last.

That's one way of looking at it.

Another way would be to ask what advantage do you gain? In one way,
it does do something to establish a value on any given mortgage
package. Another way would be to say that there isn't a specific
moral hazard in any practice that grants asylum to people who over
estimated the real estate market.

To my way of thinking, everybody who wrote these loans is just as
responsible as the person requesting the loan. Since when did giving
a $450,000 jumbo loan at 2% introductory rate over two years make
economic sense? Or a $250,000 loan at 2% with no qualifiers - no job
qualifications, no down payment, no nothing. All on the bet that you
will sell your $250,000 (or 450) home for 60K more than you paid for
two years from now.

If one is a true free market type, then you let it go - let those who
screwed up and made bad bets lose everything.

The complication is that toxic paper extends globally - almost every
country's central bank is involved along with Swedish towns, Norweign
government, Singapore, Chinese banks - almost everyone has a piece of
this American mortgage mess. The potential of taking down the entire
global financial system is enourmous because that system requires that
you have confidence in the system. No confidence, no system.

So that's the dynamic.

Those that took chances and advantage of loose lending practices with
mortgages they couldn't afford, win.

Sadly, that's the other half of the problem - how do you compensate
those who played the system correctly for their losses essentially
incurred by those who didn't?

I still think I have the right solution - but nobody pays attention to
me. :)

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...


I still think I have the right solution - but nobody pays attention to
me. :)


Read your post with interest. (no pun intended)

I snipped it just for brevity here.


I think I agree with the plan, after reading your explanation and thinking
about it some more.
One of the arguments against it was that the re-valued properties would also
tend to de-value
the property of those who have been paying consciensously. But ... housing
values are dropping anyway and
*all* had become overvalued.

I noticed another very interesting thing about a month ago. Zillow.com
publishes estimated market values for properties based on recorded data in
the registry of deeds, local market factors and a bunch of other components
that they feed into their calculator.
Their estimated house values peaked several months ago, and has been
dropping ever since. But, what is interesting is that they recalculated
the estimated historical value as well. In other words, the peak value
published a year ago no longer exists in their data base.

Everything was dropped, and by a considerable amount, depending on the
particular house value.

Eisboch