SI
SI
discoversearch

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: XoFruitCake who wrote (149732)9/23/2008 11:28:37 PM
From: The ReaperRespond to of 306849
 
You know, since we the people now own FNM/FRE, let them deal with the administration of the "bailout". Have them buy these mortgages with govt. money. Let them price them according to their expertise and let them dispose of them at "value at maturity". Banks get their liquidity and Taxpayers have a shot at coming out of this whole.



To: XoFruitCake who wrote (149732)9/23/2008 11:33:09 PM
From: inchingupRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 306849
 
"no, my 2 cents is that he is going to hold on to the house"

If the treasury would use the buy and hold strategy you present that would give them only $700B to work with. By buying and selling they have an unlimited amount of cash that can be recycled both indefinitely and infinitely.

JMHO.



To: XoFruitCake who wrote (149732)9/24/2008 12:04:16 AM
From: SGJRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 306849
 
Better the Fed just lend more easy money at the window for this, not the treasury. They are the damn central bankers.



To: XoFruitCake who wrote (149732)9/24/2008 3:21:37 AM
From: NOWRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 306849
 
<The working theory is that the "hold to maturity" value is much higher than market price. >
regarding the housing market, this is of course nonsense. might it be true of some of the financial instruments out there? sure. it might be. to pretend someone knows that is foolish