Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (30022)	2/27/2008 5:00:45 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217764

<<What am I missing?>> You are missing 'denial' that will be punctured by 'fury', and 'resistance' that will be followed on with 'is futile' :0)

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (30022)	2/27/2008 8:41:34 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217764

So many of my clients refinanced their houses to pay off their credit cards and auto loans, and now have no home equity to refinance when the ARMs lock. They have no debt but the house and they own too much car to file Chapter 7 and keep the cars. If they can refinance at fair market value in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy (have to have a good job) the foreclosures will be limited. And the Senate may pass a bill authorizing this in the next week or so.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (30022)	2/27/2008 8:42:25 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217764

>>Getting Real About the Rescue Some big banks are supporting new proposals to rescue homeowners who owe more on their mortgages than their houses are worth, but let’s get one thing straight: the banks haven’t been struck by a sudden urge to help the needy. Rather, by advocating bailouts, the lending industry is trying to head off a possible change in the law that would let troubled borrowers modify their mortgages in bankruptcy court — where lenders, not taxpayers, would be stuck with the losses. Congress must not kowtow to the lenders. It should insist that borrowers be given a chance to modify their mortgages under bankruptcy court protection before it even thinks of asking taxpayers to pick up the tab for the mortgage mess. Under current law, borrowers cannot rework the mortgages on primary homes in bankruptcy proceedings. Senate Democratic leaders are pushing a bill to let many at-risk homeowners do just that. The House Judiciary Committee has passed a similar measure. Republicans, who are balking, should get on board, or risk leaving their constituents without an effective way to save their homes. If the bankruptcy provision becomes law, as it should, lenders will have a powerful incentive — which they currently do not have — to modify troubled loans voluntarily. If they can’t or won’t come to new terms with borrowers, then they would run the risk that a bankruptcy court would do the modifying for them. So far, despite a lot of promises, the industry has been unable or unwilling to rework the junk loans of the bubble years in ways that come near addressing the enormity of the problem. In contrast, access to bankruptcy court would mean relief for some 600,000 homeowners — not by wiping out their debts, but by modifying the loan terms so borrowers can pay them off over time. Lenders object that by giving homeowners the right to modify their mortgages under court supervision, the bankruptcy amendment would raise the cost of mortgages for everyone, forever. That concern is surely overstated, but not entirely without merit. To address it and other industry worries, lawmakers have proposed constraints, such as limiting the bankruptcy relief to junk mortgages of the past few years. The bankruptcy amendment has another virtue: it could bolster a worthy rescue idea floated recently by the Treasury Department’s Office of Thrift Supervision, one of the nation’s bank regulators. The idea is that if lenders voluntarily agree to loan modifications, they would become entitled to a share of the house’s appreciation, if any, when the house is ultimately sold. Like other Bush administration plans, this one suffers from its emphasis on voluntary cooperation, which has been shown to be inadequate. The bankruptcy amendment, however, would give lenders more incentive to go along, by providing a real downside to not acting voluntarily — losing control to a bankruptcy judge. In the end, taxpayer-funded bailout proposals may make sense, but only if other prudent measures have been exhausted. That has not happened yet. There are two good, complementary ideas on the table — the carrot for lenders offered up by the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the stick provided by the bankruptcy amendment. Congress and the Bush administration should move forward quickly on both of them. nytimes.com

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (30022)	2/28/2008 5:46:35 AM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217764

Here's the script: Hyperinflation threatens to destroy all USD world reserves. OPEC countries move away from the USD. China will move away from USD. This further remove the floor under the USD. USD holders scramble for assets to protect the value of their holdings. Rampant speculation in every tangible asset. Euro will go up, sending Euroland on depression. Elmat will ask to be paid in CFA -the currency of Francophone Africa or the Rand.