HomeyDDogg

Schadenfreude: Finally, Countrywide's CEO Getting What He Deserves

Yes, but the morons that run our gubmint saw fit to IMPRISON Martha Stewart. Do any of you have any faith that the true criminals in this entire meltdown will ever see a day in prison?!?!

Housing: 'We're About to Have a Big Problem'

DirtyHarry, Most of the commenters on this website provide thoughtful analysis. You have contributed drivel. HardwoodFlooring said $415K, you state the "correct" figure is $417K. What's the difference? We know what the exact number is. Smart people can handle approximations when discussing an issue. Your claim that lenders are writing "conforming jumbos" sounds like mortgage broker spin. Qualifying for these loans is MUCH more difficult than it used to be. Most people don't have the assets to put down. Additionally, those properties are in the "move-up" segment, not the first-time buyer market. If the owners can't sell their current home, how the heck are they going to move up?

The loan modifications of which you speak are an absolute joke. There is no real financial relief provided to the home-buyer (sucker) with these mods. They favor the banks heavily, are a temporary fix, and have already been demonstrated to have a high re-default danger.

In other words sir, keep your eyes and mind open, your fingers still, and you might learn something on this and websites like it.

On May 29 03:00 PM dirtyharry wrote:

> Most of your comment is incorrect. First of all the conforming limit
> is $417K and not $415K. Secondly, lenders are writing "agency" "conforming
> jumbos" to $729K. Also, not everyone already owns a house. 1/3
> of the households out there rent, and for them this could start to
> be a buying opportunity. They have nothing to sell in this market.
>
>
> Furthermore, banks are finally doing loan modifications that will
> actually make a difference. For example, giving a homeowner a 5
> year fixed at 4% interest only so he can stay in his house. This
> will prevent his house from going into foreclosure when it otherwise
> might have. While he's not a seller, it will help to not add fuel
> to the high inventory problems.

Consumer Confidence Building Again: Here's Five Reason Why

Have to agree with the previous posters. It's nice that you write a contrarian piece to offer the half-full glass in an attempt to bolster confidence. However, your's is sadly lacking of any real substance. I believe that you are deluded.

Has GM Changed Its Tune Yet?

Judy,
I second BilldDrummer. You are doing a great job with your coverage. It's so fresh to read analysis from a thoughtful person without an agenda. SeekingAlpha and we readers are lucky to have you.

As for the article, I also agree with Bill. I actually read the entire conference call transcript and also found the GM reps to be annoying. All this talk of run rates, and retail vs. fleet, and unit volumes. Why no mention of incentives, aka discounting? Won't those ultimately have a huge effect on the revenue reported? These GM sales guys love to trumpet their increased unit sales, but there is absolutely NO mention of the costs incurred to move those units.
Personally, I find this presentation to be disingenuous. The conference call is little more than PR spin, IMHO.

Keep up the great work.
----another grateful reader