" 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 22:08:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:58:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message

When do you expect to go fishing?

As soon as the ice is gone, the boat goes in. Two weeks? Who knows.
Meanwhile, a couple of trout streams are ice-free.

Which reminds of when I used to fresh water fish. Mostly in the
depths of summer. But sometimes during the spawn.
Talking crappies and bluegills.
The crappies went deep and didn't have much appetite mid-summer,
so spawn time was the salad days for fishing.
How's it work where you're at regarding the spawn?

--Vic


http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/7917.html

9"' minimum on Crappie!
Them's big crappie. Thought they only grew them like that down south,
calling them "slabs" and other rustic names.

--Vic

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

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
news
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:47:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:16:34 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message

The reason oil costs what it does isn't because of futures, but
because of what the market will bear. Supply and demand.


Wrong. You will find out otherwise in the near future.

Is that a threat?

--Vic


It's a promise. Neither of us knows what percentage of oil price
increases
are due to simple gambling, but it's significant enough that it's getting
more attention.

Oil is a product whose price affects virtually everything we buy. There
is
no excuse for allowing recreational gamblers affect the price. Let the
oil
companies hedge, but not players at any level.

Here's how it works.
When you refuse to buy gasoline, refuse to fly, or cut back on use,
the price *may* come down. Including the futures prices.
Here's another option for you. Plant some oil acreage or find some
inexhaustible oil fields.
Until then, live with it. Jesus H. Christ, you act like the world
owes you low oil prices.
And I thought I was over the top complaining about Cheerios.

--Vic


Vic, you're reciting the fairy tale version. Please stop. It's not
befitting of a grown man.

Let's take it a step at a time. Do you agree that some players in oil
commodities are completely unrelated to the oil business itself? Not
acting on behalf of an oil company that's hedging its raw materials, in
other words.


Airlines hedge oil prices. Not just gas companies. Is a major reason the
Southwest Airlines was very profitable the last few years. Those hedged
contracts have now expired. Lots of uses also hedge the futures market.
Was a major reason the market was started. Farmer sold part of his crop
ahead of time for a set price. Gave him the money to plant his complete
crop and raise it to maturity. If big crop he made big money, small crop,
he still did not go bankrupt. Been futures trading for ever by those
gambling. George Soros made his billions on trading currency futures.
Enough futures that he most likely manipulated the market for huge gains.
Oil refiners are not a big profit percentage game. CVX only pays about 2.7%
dividend. XOM is about 1/2 that. Citigroup a couple of years ago had a
gross profit margin of about 35%. Maybe there should be a windfall profits
tax on all those multi megabuck bonuses the executives got while showing
huge profits from bad investing?

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:21:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"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.

Exactly right - it's hurting everybody, not just those who made stupid
bets or stupid loans.

So, in the interest of stabilizing the industry and trying to recover
some kind of value and establish a floor, it requires that the GSEs do
their thing and make that happen.

The interesting thing is that if the GSEs did this, it doesn't cost
the taxpayers anything and in fact, it will actually make money.

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.

Zillow has a chart feature on houses - if you go to the bottom of the
page to the charts section, you can do a 1, 5 or 10 year average along
with all kinds of intersting data that involves time.

It does keep historical data - I can send you a link via email that
shows the historical data for a house I own in Danielson.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:21:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


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



Zillow has a chart feature on houses - if you go to the bottom of the
page to the charts section, you can do a 1, 5 or 10 year average along
with all kinds of intersting data that involves time.

It does keep historical data - I can send you a link via email that
shows the historical data for a house I own in Danielson.


There's something funny going on at Zillow. I think they did something
within the last 2 or 3 months with their "calculator".
According to the "old" historical data, our primary house peaked about 4
months ago. It now is valued almost 700K lower. But, if you go back and
look at the new graph and the value it shows 4 months ago, the peak is 400K
lower than the old graph. Almost like they revaluated all the historical
data. So, I guess that's good. We've only lost 300K in value instead of
400K. :-)

I haven't checked the detailed data on the other two houses we own.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


There's something funny going on at Zillow. I think they did something
within the last 2 or 3 months with their "calculator".
According to the "old" historical data, our primary house peaked about 4
months ago. It now is valued almost 700K lower. But, if you go back and
look at the new graph and the value it shows 4 months ago, the peak is
400K lower than the old graph. Almost like they revaluated all the
historical data. So, I guess that's good. We've only lost 300K in value
instead of 400K. :-)

I haven't checked the detailed data on the other two houses we own.

Eisboch


Mis-typed. Shuda said, " ... 300K in value instead of 700K.

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 05:07:01 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:21:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

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

Zillow has a chart feature on houses - if you go to the bottom of the
page to the charts section, you can do a 1, 5 or 10 year average along
with all kinds of intersting data that involves time.

It does keep historical data - I can send you a link via email that
shows the historical data for a house I own in Danielson.

There's something funny going on at Zillow. I think they did something
within the last 2 or 3 months with their "calculator".
According to the "old" historical data, our primary house peaked about 4
months ago. It now is valued almost 700K lower. But, if you go back and
look at the new graph and the value it shows 4 months ago, the peak is 400K
lower than the old graph. Almost like they revaluated all the historical
data. So, I guess that's good. We've only lost 300K in value instead of
400K. :-)

I haven't checked the detailed data on the other two houses we own.

Ah - I understand now. Let me go look.

Hmmm - that's interesting. The house peaked about 4 months ago at
$250K and it's now $224K which I expected, but as I remember it it was
$265 back then.

You know what they may have done is readjust the historical data to
reflect actual market conditions at that time. To tell the truth,
that house was never worth $250K. It does have a high assessment
because it's an unusual house lot - the apartments are huge - the
total house is like 2,780 square feet.

The house we're living in now peaked at $450K - it's now down about
$385K. - which is kind of bogus - the land is worth more than the
house. :)

Interesting times - interesting times.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news

Ah - I understand now. Let me go look.

Hmmm - that's interesting. The house peaked about 4 months ago at
$250K and it's now $224K which I expected, but as I remember it it was
$265 back then.

You know what they may have done is readjust the historical data to
reflect actual market conditions at that time. To tell the truth,
that house was never worth $250K. It does have a high assessment
because it's an unusual house lot - the apartments are huge - the
total house is like 2,780 square feet.

The house we're living in now peaked at $450K - it's now down about
$385K. - which is kind of bogus - the land is worth more than the
house. :)

Interesting times - interesting times.



It is. I also agree, I think Zillow had everything overvalued for several
years.
No big deal. Eventually this whole mess will straighten itself out, along
with inflation, consumer prices and income.
The result will be an overall "correction" for the phony valuations over the
last couple of years and the economy will stabilize.

I hope.

Eisboch