mallarde

Foreclosure Moratoriums: It's Time to Get Real

And User 357704, what does all this moving of continents in order to slow the decline in housing prices accomplish? So what, you kept prices from falling a little while? You transferred money from taxpayers to speculators, so what? And maybe you took money from banks and mortgage securities holders and transferred it to speculators, so what?

No one in the Obama administration or in Congress talks this through. So we "keep people in their homes" a little while longer. So what? They don't have to rent, is that the idea? We save the economic waste of them hiring movers? Isn't that stimulative, though? Or maybe we avoid traumatizing little Billy when we force him to move into a rental?

I think the implicit assumption is that by propping up the housing market home owners will continue to go further into debt and be nice consumers again. That and we can hire all the illegal aliens and other people and get them building houses again.

None of the "benefits" from propping up the housing market -- presuming it were even possible -- has any appeal for me on a policy basis.

Foreclosure Moratoriums: It's Time to Get Real

I would agree that we need more regulation of mortgage brokers and the whole real estate industry.

But I do not want to subsidize all of the irresponsible home buyers who knew, knew that they could not afford their loan payments unless their house increased in value and they sucked the equity out. Families had plenty of options. They could rent. They could move to the Midwest or other regions where housing did not become like a casino. They could even forgo having a family until they felt financially able to buy a house.

It is impossible to get inside the heads of these millions of people to determine whether they were gamblers or just naive... or what combination of the above applies. I suspect that 95% knew and were dreaming of 15% per year gains in equity.

The author is correct that any money thrown at propping up the real estate industry will be wasted. It's like trying to hold an iceberg in place that is drifting across the ocean. It is too heavy and any force applied is wasted energy.

Number of U.S. Homes With Negative Equity Is Stunning

In California, where a large portion of the population lives, construction jobs are performed by Mexicans and other illegal laborers. Will anyone FINALLY (excuse the all-caps) talk about that???

If Americans cannot earn decent wages, where are we? Not everyone has the ability or education to invent or work behind a desk.


On Nov 12 05:39 PM E Thomas St wrote:

> Say goodbye to construction jobs. Say hello to higher unemployment.
>

Number of U.S. Homes With Negative Equity Is Stunning

cadoggy, I strongly disagree with you. What few in the media seem to grasp is that the problem is not so much that home values are dropping. Instead, it is that borrowers took out loans they could not repay UNLESS their gamble on their pricey house paid off -- and values continued to increase.

Remember, this crises started before the economy hit a wall. These people never could afford to pay off their loans without a windfall of increased home equity.

I said it before here: these homebuyers were like options traders. Their purchase of a house was like a call option. Because the stock price -- the home value -- did not go up but went down they will not exercise their stock option.

Any inconvenience or even disruption to the lives of families that gambled on housing is of their own making. The government cannot remove or even attempt to remove the moral hazard inherent in all this. That would be very dangerous.

Back Room Deal? - Cramer's Mad Money (10/10/08)

Give the guy a break. He "changed his mind in a day" after the biggest point swing in the history of the market. Of course, he is going to give different advice after such a big drop.

Personally, I like his analysis compared to the panels of talking heads that are afraid to take a position on anything and are all trying to sell their picks that they their clients already bought.

Bill Ackman Piled Into Wachovia and AIG Shares

All it took me was a Google search. I was not bold enough to recover much of my loss on the way down with WB, but I made a quick profit.

The Lowdown on Citi / Wachovia

Wasn't this forced by federal regulators? If the shareholders reject it, it could mean that our stock is worth zero, correct? WB might end up declaring bankruptcy because it can no longer operate as a bank because regulators will not allow it.

I bought more shares at $1.90 yesterday thinking that the $1 we got from Citi and the other assets were worth more. Hehe, I just got a 50% return. Not close to offsetting my big losses.

Banking on Trust: What Builds Loyalty?

I agree that banks have completely neglected certain aspects of the customer experience. I've had very bad experiences with both Bank of America and Wachovia in terms of penalties for very small account deficits.

Bank of America in particular has really atrocious customer service in some of its branches and phone services.

Point of No Return or Perfect Buying Opportunity?

Who cares about hitting the top again? If it recovers half the loss you double your investment in, perhaps, 2 years or so.

I have ridden WB down from an average investment of $27 or so. I hold on because I see the stock recovering to the low-$30s, in a good scenario. This would be a great outcome for me after taking a large hit.

The question in my mind for WB is -- after you write-off the bad loans (taking a worst case scenario view), is that company a good value based on its core business? What are the cash flows of its core business? They seem to be growing at a healthy pace. The brand is strong and they have retail outlets all over the country.