Comments on Ben Young's articles RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/author/ben-young/articles http://seekingalpha.com/article/119862-1930s-unemployment-vs-today-it-s-about-people-not-percentages?source=feed#comment-402358 402358 Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:31:46 -0500
Password for website is RE20020]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/119862-1930s-unemployment-vs-today-it-s-about-people-not-percentages?source=feed#comment-384807 384807 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:00:29 -0500
At first glance your writing seemed interesting, but without paragraphs its too hard to read on an electronic medium. Thanks for taking the time to write anyways.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/119862-1930s-unemployment-vs-today-it-s-about-people-not-percentages?source=feed#comment-384491 384491 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:51:26 -0500 ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/119862-1930s-unemployment-vs-today-it-s-about-people-not-percentages?source=feed#comment-383593 383593 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:39:24 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/119862-1930s-unemployment-vs-today-it-s-about-people-not-percentages?source=feed#comment-383580 383580 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:34:36 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/119862-1930s-unemployment-vs-today-it-s-about-people-not-percentages?source=feed#comment-383468 383468 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:13:16 -0500
Otherwise, we will have an economy which is in perpetual imbalance.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/107486-simuflation-the-powder-in-the-market-s-keg?source=feed#comment-379576 379576 I got this far and stopped reading because the author's "facts" don't > reflect reality: > > "The result of wholesale substitution of stable industries with new > methods creates A major source of surplus money ... thus releasing > the money that used to be needed to grease the wheels of the old > industry in such quantity that it creates a defacto increase in the > money supply ... As governments find their need of borrowing is reduced, > the absolute and prospective supply of debt (treasury bonds) is severely > constrained" > > The excess money coming from increased efficiencies is dwarfed by > the gub'mint's printing presses. A quick glance at the ever increasing > federal gub'mint debt will show that the author's claim that their > "need of borrowing" is INCREASING, not decreasing as the author claims. > > > Any conclusions based on this skewed view of reality are not likely > to be worth very much IMHO.]]> Sat, 07 Feb 2009 22:57:12 -0500
So, the theory remains intact in that the false signal lead the government to do exactly the wrong thing at the wrong time.


On Nov 24 10:41 AM Smarty_Pants wrote:

> I got this far and stopped reading because the author's "facts" don't
> reflect reality:
>
> "The result of wholesale substitution of stable industries with new
> methods creates A major source of surplus money ... thus releasing
> the money that used to be needed to grease the wheels of the old
> industry in such quantity that it creates a defacto increase in the
> money supply ... As governments find their need of borrowing is reduced,
> the absolute and prospective supply of debt (treasury bonds) is severely
> constrained"
>
> The excess money coming from increased efficiencies is dwarfed by
> the gub'mint's printing presses. A quick glance at the ever increasing
> federal gub'mint debt will show that the author's claim that their
> "need of borrowing" is INCREASING, not decreasing as the author claims.
>
>
> Any conclusions based on this skewed view of reality are not likely
> to be worth very much IMHO.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106745-solve-the-housing-crisis-by-rewarding-the-prudent?source=feed#comment-339829 339829 your plan sounds good. > > i wonder about the unintended consequences? like the mortgage holders > which paid good money for the loan (or where the originator of the > loan). they did nothing wrong either. they made a good loan to a > good borrower. i am sure this would impact the profitability of many > banks. not that we should exactly feel sorry for banks but we may > be kicking somebody who is down. another negative consideration is > if it increases the domestic debt. and i wonder if it would really > stop the home value decline in the short term if we are in a state > of oversupply. > > in any event. this plan deserves consideration because the overall > effect to taxpayers is minimal. > ]]> Sun, 28 Dec 2008 13:24:44 -0500
Foreclosures are not only limited to people who can no longer make their payments, but they also include people who are “upside-down” but are otherwise financially solvent. The following is a proposal that can encourage this group of people to keep their loans and not “walk away” while greatly diminishing foreclosures. I can go on and on about the benefits of this plan but here it is:

Problem:

• We will not see stabilization until we can stem and reverse the acceleration of mortgage foreclosures resulting in decreasing home values. As it stands, there really isn't any way to establish and stabilize market values. They are in a free-fall.
• Homeowners do not have equitable value for their homes so they are either "walking away" from their homes leaving them to be repossessed by lenders, or they are paying way more for their home mortgage than their home is now worth, nor may it ever be again.
• Because homeowners are either stuck or “walking away” there is little liquidity in the housing market.
• Financial institutions are realizing tremendous losses due to foreclosures.
• Government is giving financial institutions huge bailout money to continue to do business as usual, not necessarily solving the problem.
• Lack of liquidity has produced a stalemate in the housing market.
• Defaulted/bankrupt homeowners are removed from the home buying marketplace for nearly a decade.

Solution:

Develop a program for financial institutions that would allow upside-down homeowners in good standing and the ability to pay to “trade-up” to a lender-owned home with a current market value equal to their existing home loan. The original lender would then own the original home whose value is less than the REO, which would be in good condition in most situations, and that home would also become available for a “trade-up” at market value. Please see example below.

Advantages for financial institutions:

• Greatly reduce foreclosures: Ultimately, this could have a domino effect to where lenders would eventually end up mainly owning lower value homes in foreclosure thus minimizing loss, and at a more normal percentage rate of foreclosures in the market.

• REOs could be transferred in a “trade-up” at market value. They would not have to be severely discounted so would minimize loss and reduce speculative investors.

• Lower property taxes and insurance on lender “trade-downs”.

• It would discourage people who can meet their loan obligations from defaulting on their de-valued homes, thus reducing risk of foreclosures.

• It would eventually establish viable market values and stop the downward spiral of prices. We may even start seeing a more normal appreciation in home values again.

• Lenders could sell good established loans to other banks in the case of a “trade-up” that is between two financial institutions.

• Lenders could retain good and stable mortgagees, which would reduce risk.

• Lenders could charge fees and points for the transfer.

• Improves and preserves housing liquidity.

• Reduce bankruptcies as a result of loan defaults.

Advantages for Homeowners:

• Homeowners could “trade-up” to a home that was worth what they owe on their current loans (equitable value).

• Homeowners would be able to relocate without incurring tremendous financial loss.

• It would improve liquidity.

• It would improve net worth, thus stimulating the economy.

Advantages for Taxpayers:

• This program would not require a government bail-out, just a mandate.

• Reduce bankruptcies as a result of loan defaults.

• Help to resolve financial crisis as it pertains to housing.

• Government bailout money can be conditioned on adopting this type of program to help mitigate losses.

In a nutshell, as long as prices continue to come down, foreclosures will keep going up (an economic fact), which further drives house prices down, etc. It is a chicken-egg effect. The banks are going to suffer losses either way, but this program would benefit financial institutions and mitigate losses, not only because they will get market value on foreclosures (much more than through foreclosure sales) but also because a program like this could be packaged and sold as a lending product, with all the applicable fees. Participating solvent mortgagees in good standing would be less likely to walk away from a loan with diminished value if they could "trade" it for a house that has collateral value, thus reducing that faction of homeowners who cannot justify throwing good money after bad. These loans could be saved. It would largely arrest foreclosures, thus stabilize housing prices, and it wouldn't be just handing money over to homeowners (or banks for that matter), as has been suggested.

I believe that a program like this could help turn around the housing crisis rather quickly. The energy from this kind of positive movement could re-stimulate the housing market, thus the economy.


Example:

House A
If sold through foreclosure: $110,000
Original Loan $250,000
Today’s value: $175,000

House B
If sold through foreclosure: $200,000
Original Loan $350,000
Today’s value: $250,000

House C: Bank Owned
If sold through foreclosure: $275,000
Original Loan $475,000
Today’s value: $350,000

Homeowner A and Homeowner B are financially solvent, have great credit and jobs, and are easily making their house payments, however, they are questioning if it is worth it to continue making payments on a home that has decreased in value to a degree they may never recover during the life of the loan. House C is currently bank owned and listed for approximately 42% less ($275,000) than the Original Loan Value ($475,000). The net loss to the lender is $200,000. If Homeowners A and B also decide to default on their loans, the potential net loss to the lender would be $490,000, including the losses from House C through a foreclosure sale.

Under this program, the potential net losses would be reduced from $490,000 to $300,000, not including reduced property taxes and insurance for the lien holders until the houses are filled; the more that houses are traded-up in the chain of trades, the more potential savings for the lender.

Homeowner B trades up Original Loan $350,000 for House C at Today’s Value of $350,000. Homeowner A can then trade up Original Loan $250,000 for House B at Today’s Value of $250,000. The bank then ultimately owns a house valued at $175,000 (House A) rather than a house that is valued at $350,000 (House C), and it is not as a result of a defaulted loan on House A.

The losses to the lenders are yet again reduced as the “trade-ups” can generate revenue through fees and selling loans to other lenders who provide “trade-ups.” Ultimately, lenders will end up owning mainly lower value homes that don’t have to be sold as foreclosures, thus again mitigating losses and establishing liquidity, which will stimulate the housing market.



On Nov 19 05:27 AM The hand wrote:

> your plan sounds good.
>
> i wonder about the unintended consequences? like the mortgage holders
> which paid good money for the loan (or where the originator of the
> loan). they did nothing wrong either. they made a good loan to a
> good borrower. i am sure this would impact the profitability of many
> banks. not that we should exactly feel sorry for banks but we may
> be kicking somebody who is down. another negative consideration is
> if it increases the domestic debt. and i wonder if it would really
> stop the home value decline in the short term if we are in a state
> of oversupply.
>
> in any event. this plan deserves consideration because the overall
> effect to taxpayers is minimal.
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106745-solve-the-housing-crisis-by-rewarding-the-prudent?source=feed#comment-339808 339808 Qualifications For Sec-State – Delusional – WMD ARE under every Rock > – Or Snipers. > > Now exactly – How are WE the People of these United States – Going > to have any credibility with the world – If we keep putting our delusional > foot first? > > Dear Lord – The money Changers are still trying to rule your house. > > > 2000 tears of not one inkling of evolving – Maybe it’s about time > – To show them what happens to the Golden Calf Builders. > > Forgive them not – They had 2000 years to change.]]> Sun, 28 Dec 2008 12:48:53 -0500
The following is a proposal to help underwater or upside-down homeowners who are in good standing and financially solvent. I have had a lot of really good feedback from HUD and this has now been sent by them to Washington:

Many people are either upside-down on their homes or know someone who is because of plummeting home values as a result of foreclosures. This letter is concerning this group of people who may hold the key to solving the housing market dilemma but have been overlooked.

Foreclosures are not only limited to people who can no longer make their payments, but they also include people who are “upside-down” but are otherwise financially solvent. The following is a proposal that can encourage this group of people to keep their loans and not “walk away” while greatly diminishing foreclosures. I can go on and on about the benefits of this plan but here it is:

Problem:

• We will not see stabilization until we can stem and reverse the acceleration of mortgage foreclosures resulting in decreasing home values. As it stands, there really isn't any way to establish and stabilize market values. They are in a free-fall.
• Homeowners do not have equitable value for their homes so they are either "walking away" from their homes leaving them to be repossessed by lenders, or they are paying way more for their home mortgage than their home is now worth, nor may it ever be again.
• Because homeowners are either stuck or “walking away” there is little liquidity in the housing market.
• Financial institutions are realizing tremendous losses due to foreclosures.
• Government is giving financial institutions huge bailout money to continue to do business as usual, not necessarily solving the problem.
• Lack of liquidity has produced a stalemate in the housing market.
• Defaulted/bankrupt homeowners are removed from the home buying marketplace for nearly a decade.

Solution:

Develop a program for financial institutions that would allow upside-down homeowners in good standing and the ability to pay to “trade-up” to a lender-owned home with a current market value equal to their existing home loan. The original lender would then own the original home whose value is less than the REO, which would be in good condition in most situations, and that home would also become available for a “trade-up” at market value. Please see example below.

Advantages for financial institutions:

• Greatly reduce foreclosures: Ultimately, this could have a domino effect to where lenders would eventually end up mainly owning lower value homes in foreclosure thus minimizing loss, and at a more normal percentage rate of foreclosures in the market.

• REOs could be transferred in a “trade-up” at market value. They would not have to be severely discounted so would minimize loss and reduce speculative investors.

• Lower property taxes and insurance on lender “trade-downs”.

• It would discourage people who can meet their loan obligations from defaulting on their de-valued homes, thus reducing risk of foreclosures.

• It would eventually establish viable market values and stop the downward spiral of prices. We may even start seeing a more normal appreciation in home values again.

• Lenders could sell good established loans to other banks in the case of a “trade-up” that is between two financial institutions.

• Lenders could retain good and stable mortgagees, which would reduce risk.

• Lenders could charge fees and points for the transfer.

• Improves and preserves housing liquidity.

• Reduce bankruptcies as a result of loan defaults.

Advantages for Homeowners:

• Homeowners could “trade-up” to a home that was worth what they owe on their current loans (equitable value).

• Homeowners would be able to relocate without incurring tremendous financial loss.

• It would improve liquidity.

• It would improve net worth, thus stimulating the economy.

Advantages for Taxpayers:

• This program would not require a government bail-out, just a mandate.

• Reduce bankruptcies as a result of loan defaults.

• Help to resolve financial crisis as it pertains to housing.

• Government bailout money can be conditioned on adopting this type of program to help mitigate losses.

In a nutshell, as long as prices continue to come down, foreclosures will keep going up (an economic fact), which further drives house prices down, etc. It is a chicken-egg effect. The banks are going to suffer losses either way, but this program would benefit financial institutions and mitigate losses, not only because they will get market value on foreclosures (much more than through foreclosure sales) but also because a program like this could be packaged and sold as a lending product, with all the applicable fees. Participating solvent mortgagees in good standing would be less likely to walk away from a loan with diminished value if they could "trade" it for a house that has collateral value, thus reducing that faction of homeowners who cannot justify throwing good money after bad. These loans could be saved. It would largely arrest foreclosures, thus stabilize housing prices, and it wouldn't be just handing money over to homeowners (or banks for that matter), as has been suggested.

I believe that a program like this could help turn around the housing crisis rather quickly. The energy from this kind of positive movement could re-stimulate the housing market, thus the economy.


Example:

House A
If sold through foreclosure: $110,000
Original Loan $250,000
Today’s value: $175,000

House B
If sold through foreclosure: $200,000
Original Loan $350,000
Today’s value: $250,000

House C: Bank Owned
If sold through foreclosure: $275,000
Original Loan $475,000
Today’s value: $350,000

Homeowner A and Homeowner B are financially solvent, have great credit and jobs, and are easily making their house payments, however, they are questioning if it is worth it to continue making payments on a home that has decreased in value to a degree they may never recover during the life of the loan. House C is currently bank owned and listed for approximately 42% less ($275,000) than the Original Loan Value ($475,000). The net loss to the lender is $200,000. If Homeowners A and B also decide to default on their loans, the potential net loss to the lender would be $490,000, including the losses from House C through a foreclosure sale.

Under this program, the potential net losses would be reduced from $490,000 to $300,000, not including reduced property taxes and insurance for the lien holders until the houses are filled; the more that houses are traded-up in the chain of trades, the more potential savings for the lender.

Homeowner B trades up Original Loan $350,000 for House C at Today’s Value of $350,000. Homeowner A can then trade up Original Loan $250,000 for House B at Today’s Value of $250,000. The bank then ultimately owns a house valued at $175,000 (House A) rather than a house that is valued at $350,000 (House C), and it is not as a result of a defaulted loan on House A.

The losses to the lenders are yet again reduced as the “trade-ups” can generate revenue through fees and selling loans to other lenders who provide “trade-ups.” Ultimately, lenders will end up owning mainly lower value homes that don’t have to be sold as foreclosures, thus again mitigating losses and establishing liquidity, which will stimulate the housing market.



On Nov 19 05:03 PM poncawolf wrote:

> Qualifications For Sec-State – Delusional – WMD ARE under every Rock
> – Or Snipers.
>
> Now exactly – How are WE the People of these United States – Going
> to have any credibility with the world – If we keep putting our delusional
> foot first?
>
> Dear Lord – The money Changers are still trying to rule your house.
>
>
> 2000 tears of not one inkling of evolving – Maybe it’s about time
> – To show them what happens to the Golden Calf Builders.
>
> Forgive them not – They had 2000 years to change.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106745-solve-the-housing-crisis-by-rewarding-the-prudent?source=feed#comment-339804 339804 Sun, 28 Dec 2008 12:40:25 -0500
I am a semi-retired real estate broker and I think I have found a solution to stemming foreclosures. I have drafted this in the form of a proposal and have sent it to many government entities concerning the housing industry with overall very good response and has now been sent to Washington.

Here it is:

Many people are either upside-down on their homes or know someone who is because of plummeting home values as a result of foreclosures. This letter is concerning this group of people who may hold the key to solving the housing market dilemma but have been overlooked.

Foreclosures are not only limited to people who can no longer make their payments, but they also include people who are “upside-down” but are otherwise financially solvent. The following is a proposal that can encourage this group of people to keep their loans and not “walk away” while greatly diminishing foreclosures. I can go on and on about the benefits of this plan but here it is:

Problem:

• We will not see stabilization until we can stem and reverse the acceleration of mortgage foreclosures resulting in decreasing home values. As it stands, there really isn't any way to establish and stabilize market values. They are in a free-fall.
• Homeowners do not have equitable value for their homes so they are either "walking away" from their homes leaving them to be repossessed by lenders, or they are paying way more for their home mortgage than their home is now worth, nor may it ever be again.
• Because homeowners are either stuck or “walking away” there is little liquidity in the housing market.
• Financial institutions are realizing tremendous losses due to foreclosures.
• Government is giving financial institutions huge bailout money to continue to do business as usual, not necessarily solving the problem.
• Lack of liquidity has produced a stalemate in the housing market.
• Defaulted/bankrupt homeowners are removed from the home buying marketplace for nearly a decade.

Solution:

Develop a program for financial institutions that would allow upside-down homeowners in good standing and the ability to pay to “trade-up” to a lender-owned home with a current market value equal to their existing home loan. The original lender would then own the original home whose value is less than the REO, which would be in good condition in most situations, and that home would also become available for a “trade-up” at market value. Please see example below.

Advantages for financial institutions:

• Greatly reduce foreclosures: Ultimately, this could have a domino effect to where lenders would eventually end up mainly owning lower value homes in foreclosure thus minimizing loss, and at a more normal percentage rate of foreclosures in the market.

• REOs could be transferred in a “trade-up” at market value. They would not have to be severely discounted so would minimize loss and reduce speculative investors.

• Lower property taxes and insurance on lender “trade-downs”.

• It would discourage people who can meet their loan obligations from defaulting on their de-valued homes, thus reducing risk of foreclosures.

• It would eventually establish viable market values and stop the downward spiral of prices. We may even start seeing a more normal appreciation in home values again.

• Lenders could sell good established loans to other banks in the case of a “trade-up” that is between two financial institutions.

• Lenders could retain good and stable mortgagees, which would reduce risk.

• Lenders could charge fees and points for the transfer.

• Improves and preserves housing liquidity.

• Reduce bankruptcies as a result of loan defaults.

Advantages for Homeowners:

• Homeowners could “trade-up” to a home that was worth what they owe on their current loans (equitable value).

• Homeowners would be able to relocate without incurring tremendous financial loss.

• It would improve liquidity.

• It would improve net worth, thus stimulating the economy.

Advantages for Taxpayers:

• This program would not require a government bail-out, just a mandate.

• Reduce bankruptcies as a result of loan defaults.

• Help to resolve financial crisis as it pertains to housing.

• Government bailout money can be conditioned on adopting this type of program to help mitigate losses.

In a nutshell, as long as prices continue to come down, foreclosures will keep going up (an economic fact), which further drives house prices down, etc. It is a chicken-egg effect. The banks are going to suffer losses either way, but this program would benefit financial institutions and mitigate losses, not only because they will get market value on foreclosures (much more than through foreclosure sales) but also because a program like this could be packaged and sold as a lending product, with all the applicable fees. Participating solvent mortgagees in good standing would be less likely to walk away from a loan with diminished value if they could "trade" it for a house that has collateral value, thus reducing that faction of homeowners who cannot justify throwing good money after bad. These loans could be saved. It would largely arrest foreclosures, thus stabilize housing prices, and it wouldn't be just handing money over to homeowners (or banks for that matter), as has been suggested.

I believe that a program like this could help turn around the housing crisis rather quickly. The energy from this kind of positive movement could re-stimulate the housing market, thus the economy.


Example:

House A
If sold through foreclosure: $110,000
Original Loan $250,000
Today’s value: $175,000

House B
If sold through foreclosure: $200,000
Original Loan $350,000
Today’s value: $250,000

House C: Bank Owned
If sold through foreclosure: $275,000
Original Loan $475,000
Today’s value: $350,000

Homeowner A and Homeowner B are financially solvent, have great credit and jobs, and are easily making their house payments, however, they are questioning if it is worth it to continue making payments on a home that has decreased in value to a degree they may never recover during the life of the loan. House C is currently bank owned and listed for approximately 42% less ($275,000) than the Original Loan Value ($475,000). The net loss to the lender is $200,000. If Homeowners A and B also decide to default on their loans, the potential net loss to the lender would be $490,000, including the losses from House C through a foreclosure sale.

Under this program, the potential net losses would be reduced from $490,000 to $300,000, not including reduced property taxes and insurance for the lien holders until the houses are filled; the more that houses are traded-up in the chain of trades, the more potential savings for the lender.

Homeowner B trades up Original Loan $350,000 for House C at Today’s Value of $350,000. Homeowner A can then trade up Original Loan $250,000 for House B at Today’s Value of $250,000. The bank then ultimately owns a house valued at $175,000 (House A) rather than a house that is valued at $350,000 (House C), and it is not as a result of a defaulted loan on House A.

The losses to the lenders are yet again reduced as the “trade-ups” can generate revenue through fees and selling loans to other lenders who provide “trade-ups.” Ultimately, lenders will end up owning mainly lower value homes that don’t have to be sold as foreclosures, thus again mitigating losses and establishing liquidity, which will stimulate the housing market.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/107486-simuflation-the-powder-in-the-market-s-keg?source=feed#comment-314256 314256 Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:00:20 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/107486-simuflation-the-powder-in-the-market-s-keg?source=feed#comment-313633 313633 Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:41:48 -0500
"The result of wholesale substitution of stable industries with new methods creates A major source of surplus money ... thus releasing the money that used to be needed to grease the wheels of the old industry in such quantity that it creates a defacto increase in the money supply ... As governments find their need of borrowing is reduced, the absolute and prospective supply of debt (treasury bonds) is severely constrained"

The excess money coming from increased efficiencies is dwarfed by the gub'mint's printing presses. A quick glance at the ever increasing federal gub'mint debt will show that the author's claim that their "need of borrowing" is INCREASING, not decreasing as the author claims.

Any conclusions based on this skewed view of reality are not likely to be worth very much IMHO.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/107486-simuflation-the-powder-in-the-market-s-keg?source=feed#comment-313514 313514 Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:06:55 -0500 nickgogerty.typepad.co...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106745-solve-the-housing-crisis-by-rewarding-the-prudent?source=feed#comment-310895 310895 Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:00:00 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/106745-solve-the-housing-crisis-by-rewarding-the-prudent?source=feed#comment-310475 310475 Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:26:49 -0500

Theoretically, no one picks up the tab. The idea is to allow homeowners to refinance their existing 6% mortgages for 4.3%. wa-la, instant lower payments for solvent households. The question is, where does the money come from to pay-off all the 6% loans? The fed would have to print, oh, I don't know, about 6 trillion dollars to do that. wa-la, rates aren't 4.3% anymore.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106745-solve-the-housing-crisis-by-rewarding-the-prudent?source=feed#comment-310326 310326 Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:50:27 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/106745-solve-the-housing-crisis-by-rewarding-the-prudent?source=feed#comment-310286 310286 Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:03:39 -0500
Now exactly – How are WE the People of these United States – Going to have any credibility with the world – If we keep putting our delusional foot first?

Dear Lord – The money Changers are still trying to rule your house.

2000 tears of not one inkling of evolving – Maybe it’s about time – To show them what happens to the Golden Calf Builders.

Forgive them not – They had 2000 years to change.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106745-solve-the-housing-crisis-by-rewarding-the-prudent?source=feed#comment-310279 310279 Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:59:11 -0500
I put 20% down on my home and my DTI is 35%. But now that my house is completely underwater they won't allow me a loan modification or a short sale "because I can afford my payments as is".

So for me, foreclosure. And for the rest, handouts.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106745-solve-the-housing-crisis-by-rewarding-the-prudent?source=feed#comment-310040 310040 Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:03:06 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/106745-solve-the-housing-crisis-by-rewarding-the-prudent?source=feed#comment-310021 310021 Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:42:07 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/106745-solve-the-housing-crisis-by-rewarding-the-prudent?source=feed#comment-309831 309831 Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:28:09 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/106745-solve-the-housing-crisis-by-rewarding-the-prudent?source=feed#comment-309829 309829 Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:27:14 -0500 IF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WAS EVER TO HAVE THE INCLINATION TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD FOR ALL US "SAPS" WHO'VE PLAYED BY THE RULES ( MANY OF WHOM ARE IN THE 55 AND OVER CATEGORY) , IT COULD DO SO QUITE EASILY, SIMPLY BY ALLOWING TRIPLE, (THAT'S 3x) THE DEDUCTION FOR INTEREST PAID FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME, 3-5 YEARS SEEMS FAIR.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106745-solve-the-housing-crisis-by-rewarding-the-prudent?source=feed#comment-309781 309781 Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:43:52 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/106745-solve-the-housing-crisis-by-rewarding-the-prudent?source=feed#comment-309765 309765 Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:34:28 -0500
IF THE ARE GOING TO GIVE A BAILOUT TO DISTRESSED HOMEOWNERS, THEN THEY SHOULD ALLOW THOSE WITH SENSIBLE 30 YEAR FIXED RATE MORTGAGES TO DEPRECIATE THEIR PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE BY 150% TO 200% PER YEAR WITHOUT RECAPITALIZATION WHEN THE HOUSE IS SOLD. THIS WILL PUT MORE MONEY IN THE ECONOMY AND EQUALIZE THE PLAYING FIELD.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106745-solve-the-housing-crisis-by-rewarding-the-prudent?source=feed#comment-309733 309733 Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:13:53 -0500 Propping up homes going into foreclosure is the stupidest idea - dosent help the market one bit. Best thing is to speed up foreclosures and make the market attractive to the buyers waiting on the sidelines. Also these better capitalized and qualified buyers will put more money into improvements and upkeep, helping other aspects of the eonomy.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106745-solve-the-housing-crisis-by-rewarding-the-prudent?source=feed#comment-309711 309711 Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:56:41 -0500


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106745-solve-the-housing-crisis-by-rewarding-the-prudent?source=feed#comment-309704 309704 Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:54:14 -0500 1. It would take several years to process the loans.
2. No one would want to participate because there is no profit to be made originating loans at below market prices.
3. The cost would be staggering.
4. The benefit would be extremely small in reality, my personal savings would be less than 1% in rate.
5. It would destroy the entire mortgage industry because they would be dragged into a longterm welfare mortgage program for 93% of the population which doesn't want or need it.
6. In the end the government would probably want a percentage ownership of your home, a percentage of the profits when you sell and your first born child.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106745-solve-the-housing-crisis-by-rewarding-the-prudent?source=feed#comment-309683 309683 Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:35:34 -0500 Since the goal of government is to grow in size and power, the rewards will only go to the irrespinsible, the non thinking feeler's, in our now liberal must feel good society.
Then government will be able streamline itself into a central committee instead of representatives and a gang of nine that change our basic rules instead of the pesky super majority ammendment process.
Glad i'm old and won't see it all come to pass.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106745-solve-the-housing-crisis-by-rewarding-the-prudent?source=feed#comment-309592 309592 Wed, 19 Nov 2008 05:27:05 -0500
i wonder about the unintended consequences? like the mortgage holders which paid good money for the loan (or where the originator of the loan). they did nothing wrong either. they made a good loan to a good borrower. i am sure this would impact the profitability of many banks. not that we should exactly feel sorry for banks but we may be kicking somebody who is down. another negative consideration is if it increases the domestic debt. and i wonder if it would really stop the home value decline in the short term if we are in a state of oversupply.

in any event. this plan deserves consideration because the overall effect to taxpayers is minimal.

]]>