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 : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (135185)	7/20/2008 11:08:35 AM
From: Tommaso	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

I am surprised that 24% of families have no debt. Also, for old people, the poorest and the wealthiest seem to be the most likely to be debt free. I guess people with no income but social security cannot get a credit card. That' can't be right. ANYONE can get a credit card. I could get one for my cat.

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (135185)	7/20/2008 11:18:03 AM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Bailing Hard and Getting Soaked washingtonpost.com What are we taxpayers getting for our money as we bail out the geniuses who have run some of our leading financial institutions into the ground? The Treasury is extending a reported $300 billion line of credit to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but what do we receive in return? The answer, I'm afraid, is very little -- other than relief from the imminent threat of a much worse crisis. I'm glad that a systemic meltdown has been avoided again, temporarily. But these bailouts are the equivalent of "no document" loans to borrowers who are saying in effect, "Lend me billions right now or I'll destroy the international financial system."

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (135185)	7/20/2008 11:37:23 AM
From: RockyBalboa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Recently it occurred that we discussed possibilities of a "way out" of the mess at the local university. All the proposals which have been made have been rendered pretty useless by participants (except the market approach where the lender has some stake in return for partial debt forgiveness). In short, the group agreed that a kind of general workout is required, but with a staged approach. We believe that something similar will happen. Or, the market will make it happen but possibly with unwanted distributive effects. To reduce or prevent moral hazards, basically all outstanding good mortgages should be crammed down by several percentage points, e.g. 8%. This provides an incentive for debtors of good loans to stay good (and prevents further defaults so, the "chain of defaults" can be finally broken). Next, owned occupied homes which are in certain specified noncurrent scenarios shall be reduced by 20% with some extra percent for each child living in the home. Lastly, we talked about mortgages which are in distress beyond repair (e.g. 40% underwater at current balances or having true repayment rates which will exceed the household income and are subject to recast). In those cases, the occupier should give up all titles and offered to use the house on a rent. Title should go to a government sponsored new GSE which issues debt in lieu of the cancelled mortgage to the former lender and otherwise collects the rent. Ultimately, non owner occupied homes having no equity and/or owned for less than 3 years and are in distress, shall be seized by the same GSE and reappraised. The lender shall receive a note on the reappraised lower value. If occupied by a renter he shall be offered a rental contract based on market prices. Fees shall be outlawed and late fees etc for the last 6 months reversed retroactively. We wondered whether such a solution could be sold politically. It can, under national and social considerations. It could keep neighbourhoods intact by not forcing out people and destroying microcosms. By doing that the market value of all homes in a vicinity can be preserved and is not subject to further deterioration. It means that good mortgages are somewhat compensated. We found that better than an "all purpose - serves noone" general stimulus payment. To finance a portion of it, fed fund rates shall be raised quickly to a market level but not less than 4%. 5% is mostly viewed as a suitable rate. Of course what is the other side saying: Our assets are being crammed down but theres a twist. It would stabilise the US dollar and by this way also the bonds could stabilise and then apprechiate in non USD terms. Lenders (and buyers of the debt) must be told that there is no alternative; it will merely stop the bleeding.