WeezieBenobi's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/169960/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/84744/comments?source=feed#comment-204221 204221
The bond market was not amused.]]> Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:29:56 -0400
The bond market was not amused.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/78008/comments?source=feed#comment-170841 170841 Tue, 20 May 2008 22:59:09 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/75423/comments?source=feed#comment-161476 161476
Even the article in a recent Wall Street Journal mentioned the flight of 'disgruntled customers.' That's not an overstatement. They cut corners in their training and service to prop up ROE and have to cut their 'initial' premiums to entice new customers. This just creates a vicious cycle. Couple that with an uncertain political environment and it's no mystery why investors don't bite.

]]> Sun, 04 May 2008 11:02:03 -0400
Even the article in a recent Wall Street Journal mentioned the flight of 'disgruntled customers.' That's not an overstatement. They cut corners in their training and service to prop up ROE and have to cut their 'initial' premiums to entice new customers. This just creates a vicious cycle. Couple that with an uncertain political environment and it's no mystery why investors don't bite.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/71821/comments?source=feed#comment-148317 148317 Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:56:19 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/71563/comments?source=feed#comment-146877 146877
Great article, Keith, and thanks for taking the time to write it.]]> Tue, 08 Apr 2008 08:55:35 -0400
Great article, Keith, and thanks for taking the time to write it.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/71265/comments?source=feed#comment-145949 145949
Until there is some real teeth and real consequences (as in jail time, fines exceeding the payout and barring from the financial industry) this behavior will continue. Having Uncle Sam subsidize this lemonade stand isn't going to make the kids play fair.

Socialize the risk, but privatize the profits. The sad thing is that they're using the 'poor homeowner' and the 'average American' as the rally point; omitting that this bailout will do far more to impoverish the country than letting things go its natural way.]]> Sun, 06 Apr 2008 11:58:51 -0400
Until there is some real teeth and real consequences (as in jail time, fines exceeding the payout and barring from the financial industry) this behavior will continue. Having Uncle Sam subsidize this lemonade stand isn't going to make the kids play fair.

Socialize the risk, but privatize the profits. The sad thing is that they're using the 'poor homeowner' and the 'average American' as the rally point; omitting that this bailout will do far more to impoverish the country than letting things go its natural way.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/70909/comments?source=feed#comment-135305 135305
I will offer, from an admittedly basic understanding of economics and a good deal personal observation, that it is creative lending programs and government programs that are artificially increasing prices. The sub-prime mortgage mess is a prime example of this - creative lending and lax regulations allowed more buyers into a relatively limited, but highly demanded, market. Prices go up, financing becomes more creative, prices go up again... rinse and repeat.

But even before the current sub-prime debacle, I've always found special financing programs, FHA assistance and other government assistance for lower- (and yes, even mid-to-higher) income housing baffling. Years ago when I and my partner was looking for a house, we were priced out of bidding for one home by another couple who had less income but was getting a down payment subsidy. Well, if someone with a higher income was priced out, but another with a lower income got in, doesn't that indicate that perhaps there is something wrong?

A very clear indication that the programs are not just putting people in homes, but putting the very same homeowners in properties that realistically they can't afford, but are given the illusion they can.

Unfortunately, we're in a catch-22. If the mortgages went back to the standard 10/20% down for a fixed 15/30 year term and reasonable credit scores, then that would reduce the pool of buyers, reduce the demand for houses and drive down prices - sticking those who purchased recently (both those who could and those who could not) with an asset with a declining value, yet keeping this altruistic 'everyone has a right to own a home' without demanding that the buyer can afford the home, only props up prices and perpetuates this cycle.]]> Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:54:49 -0400
I will offer, from an admittedly basic understanding of economics and a good deal personal observation, that it is creative lending programs and government programs that are artificially increasing prices. The sub-prime mortgage mess is a prime example of this - creative lending and lax regulations allowed more buyers into a relatively limited, but highly demanded, market. Prices go up, financing becomes more creative, prices go up again... rinse and repeat.

But even before the current sub-prime debacle, I've always found special financing programs, FHA assistance and other government assistance for lower- (and yes, even mid-to-higher) income housing baffling. Years ago when I and my partner was looking for a house, we were priced out of bidding for one home by another couple who had less income but was getting a down payment subsidy. Well, if someone with a higher income was priced out, but another with a lower income got in, doesn't that indicate that perhaps there is something wrong?

A very clear indication that the programs are not just putting people in homes, but putting the very same homeowners in properties that realistically they can't afford, but are given the illusion they can.

Unfortunately, we're in a catch-22. If the mortgages went back to the standard 10/20% down for a fixed 15/30 year term and reasonable credit scores, then that would reduce the pool of buyers, reduce the demand for houses and drive down prices - sticking those who purchased recently (both those who could and those who could not) with an asset with a declining value, yet keeping this altruistic 'everyone has a right to own a home' without demanding that the buyer can afford the home, only props up prices and perpetuates this cycle.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/70906/comments?source=feed#comment-135185 135185 C'mon guys... Wal-Mart was adamant on their position regarding the repayment of the money from the start. They only caved in when they realized that this had become an enormous PR minefield. The regrettable thing here is that Wal-Mart wasn't the real evil here, but rather the idiot attorney who didn't bother to check the insurance policy, allowed a settlement on only $1 Million and took over half of it. Unfortunately Wal-Mart took the hit because it's reputation preceeded it. Life's unfair, karma's a b**** and so on.

As far as the charity goes... chutzpa anyone? I wonder what percentage of their employees (who'd life full-time hours but Wal-Mart's 'keeping costs down') rely on the charities that Wal-Mart contributes to? It's a PR shell game and people are starting to realize that there is nothing under any of the cups.]]> Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:17:31 -0400 C'mon guys... Wal-Mart was adamant on their position regarding the repayment of the money from the start. They only caved in when they realized that this had become an enormous PR minefield. The regrettable thing here is that Wal-Mart wasn't the real evil here, but rather the idiot attorney who didn't bother to check the insurance policy, allowed a settlement on only $1 Million and took over half of it. Unfortunately Wal-Mart took the hit because it's reputation preceeded it. Life's unfair, karma's a b**** and so on.

As far as the charity goes... chutzpa anyone? I wonder what percentage of their employees (who'd life full-time hours but Wal-Mart's 'keeping costs down') rely on the charities that Wal-Mart contributes to? It's a PR shell game and people are starting to realize that there is nothing under any of the cups.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/70906/comments?source=feed#comment-135175 135175
As far as Google not 'being evil', I suspect that the target anthesis they had in mind was Microsoft, not Wal-Mart.]]> Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:04:24 -0400
As far as Google not 'being evil', I suspect that the target anthesis they had in mind was Microsoft, not Wal-Mart.]]>