rm

The Real Reason the FHA Doesn't Need a Bailout

I have a liberal senator who "represents" me (represent = doing the exact OPPOSITE of what I think is best), and each time I read one of his love letters to the unwashed, he pats himself on the back for helping to make this or that "more affordable" I always wonder if he understands that he actually made it less so.

Barney Frank: Name Names

[We used to have something called moral hazard and it worked great.]

Yeah, and that rule still applies.

To homeowners.

Are Stocks Always Best for the Long Run?

What impact might the GM bankruptcy outcome have on those bond returns?

The Real Cause of Foreclosures: No Skin in the Game

Negative equity: Is this causation or correlation?

Hasn't anyone had any statistics here?

Just because there's a strong correlation doesn't mean it's a cause.

Thus far, nobody's been able to document a significant number of borrowers who are able to make their payments that choose to walk away.

Probably because it's not happening on a large scale.

What *is* happening is that those who fall behind because they CANNOT afford the payments- whether due to a temporary or permanent change- ARE looking at the LTV before deciding what to do.

That's not the same thing... although it's a much less interesting story.

Back in the U.S.S.A.

[The cost and expense of living in any country are part and parcel of the benefits one enjoys for living there.]

I hear this kind of statement frequently, and seems that the reasoning is to excuse our government for its stupidity, favoritism and incompetence.

And this excuse is usually offered to excuse yet another intrusion of the government into our lives... "It's a small price to pay."

I disagree with this premise TO MY CORE.

There is often little-to-no relationship- perhaps an INVERSE relationship between the stupidity, over-taxation and pointless regulation we endure and the benefits that we enjoy as a result of living here.

Obama Summarizes Economic Policies, Misses Several Key Points

[ would like to read in addition the reasoning behind your assertion and, perhaps, a few of the "real investments" you have in mind. ]

There are plenty of studies that show there is no correlation between education expenditures and test scores, graduation rates, etc.

I believe DC spends $15k per kid and yet is near the bottom nationally.

The best government "investment" is no investment at all. Name one problem that the government has "solved" and I'll name 10 that they've completely clustered up.

Obama Wants a 'Better Plan'? Here's One: Bite the Bullet

[I'm not certain how many "strong regional banks" there are to step up to the plate. ]

Are we to believe that if the big names in banking were allowed to fail that nobody will fill the void?

I find that hard to believe.

As a consumer and a business owner, I'd prefer a larger amount of choices in this area.

Surely there's some correlation between the consolidation in the banking industry and the increased focus of far too many resources on economic activity that produces little to no real value.

In Defense of Peter Schiff: A Response to Mish

[You can know everything there is to know about boxing, but until you get your butt in the ring and take a couple smacks to the head, you won't likely get very close to being champion.]

I love the Mike Tyson quote: "Everyone's got a plan until they get hit."

Credit Where Credit Is Due

[In addition, while business loans increase our capital stock and lead to greater productivity, loans made to consumers are merely spent, and do not create conditions that will make repayment easier. ]

In much the same way, it seems this new stimulus bill won't create greater productivity, nor will it create sustainable jobs.

More like a "belch" into the economy than a breath of life.

Low Rates, Big Problems

[Only way to "solve the housing problem" is to make mortgages assumable.]

And who, exactly, would want to assume a mortgage on an underwater property?

The Humpty Dumpty Economy

[In a classic case of unintended consequences, the plan will encourage a massive new round of delinquencies and household income reduction ]

What's ironic is that in many cases, homeowners would be better served by the mod they can get on a case-by-case basis than the "streamlined" terms.

[In many cases, dual income families may decide to eliminate one job altogether as reduced mortgage payments combined with lower child care and other work related expenses will likely exceed the after-tax value of the lost paycheck.]

I see this as a good thing. Too many households have one member stuck in a dead-end job so they can pay for their "stuff." The mathemactics of that second job quite often made little sense on a net-after-all-costs basis. If we see a shift to parents spending more time with their children and less money on useless crap, this is a positive, unintended consequence.