Author Topic: Bush bails out SubPrimers (Read 5916 times)

jack · « **on:** December 06, 2007, 07:26:12 pm »

In the short term this is good for everyone, but like any government intervention into the marketplace it will cause something really bad in the near future. In the short term I see it taking a lot of the fear and panic out of the markets. Who knows, maybe in a year or two they can figure out what some of these instruments are worth and maybe that value will be more than they have written them off for.
This could be bad for home builders. Without fear of foreclosure, people may not have to sell their homes.homes that are were inflated in price by these teaser notes and low lender requirements. Without a drastic reduction in the price of these homes who in their right mind is gonna buy one knowing in three or four years,this is all gonna happen again?
This is the problem you have with any industry heavily subsidized by the government. The industry is helpless when the balloon pops. Did the FEDs bail out investors in the crash of 2000? The housing industry is subsidized by mortage deductions and very favorable cap gains tax on home profits. You add this to Greenspans very low rates and teaser loans and you have homes inflated in same way stocks were in late 90s. When stocks crashed the easy money flowed just like water into the housing industry.
Without foreclosures and a housing crash to cleanse the market we are setting ourselves up for a very very bad disaster in the future.
All of us are gonna pay for the mistakes of those involved on both sides of these loans.

Patrick · « **Reply #1 on:** December 07, 2007, 12:17:35 am »

I agree with a lot of what you say. Yes, this bailout will be a relief for many with adjustable rate mortgages. But I feel it only delays the day of reckoning. Its a freeze on interest rates of existing mortgages for 5 years. Most of these people who have this type of mortgage can barely afford to pay it month to month with the interest rate as low as it already is. In 5 years, interest rates are likely to be much higher than they currently are (interest rates are below the historic norm right now). If this scenerio (likely) happens, then people are going to be hit with a ton of bricks come Christmastime 2012. Foreclosures will hit left and right. Instead of taking the pain now, its just deferred until later and possibly the fallout will be that much greater. I applaud Bush's efforts to try and help, but it isn't a situation that can be fixed.

DCGUY2007 · « **Reply #2 on:** December 07, 2007, 01:10:14 am »

I'm ambivalent about this. On the one hand I think the program might help people who took out adjustable and interest only mortgages that couldn't afford them. On the other it isn't fair for those of us who took out fixed rate mortgages and only brought property in our price range. If I had done what my real estate agent kept pushing for me to do with the interest only loan I would be in a ton of debt because I would have purchased property far larger than what I knew I could afford. But I realized taking interest only loan is taking a big gamble.

I think interest only loans should be done away with. Prices for property are set higher because of the interest only loans and because the prices are so high many buyers then start getting interest only loans so they can buy a place.

jack · « **Reply #3 on:** December 07, 2007, 05:33:13 am »

you guys are dead right. Those of us who used good judgement and common sense will be forced to pay for the borrowers who were braindead and the lenders blinded by greed. I do remember Greenspan advising potential homeowners to take advantage of these mortgages on several occasions. Dude was an idiot. I don't understand how someone in the Fed government,treasury dept(?), didn't see these kinds of lending practices as a danger. Sorry,but I have to lay a lot of this on W and his administration. Who was the Sec of Treasury? Dude from Alcoa. I also remember hearing W on several occassions say one of his goals was to see every American own a home. If this was his goal rather than just a political attempt to take credit for the "wonderful" housing industry in the past decade, he should be held responsible for this crisis.

This is being done more to protect the financial system than the those who took out the loans. These types of instruments have no liquidity,no one knows what they are worth because everyone is afraid to sell them. Institutions are writing their value down to 27% and lower.

I was one of the idiots who bought a house in early 80s at 17.5%, in Houston Tx,months before our housing crash. It took many years to recover from , Houston is much better off for it and I am better off for it. We did not participate in the real estate bonanza the rest of the country experienced since 1990 and today we are much healthier real estate wise than the rest of the country. I learned a lesson I will never forget. A house is not some commodity that you can buy and sell at will,it does not have the liquidity of stocks and bonds. And it cost money to live in a house. You have property taxes,utilities, upkeep.

Buckmark · « **Reply #4 on:** December 07, 2007, 07:55:52 am »

It really chaps my hide that the federal government is going to bail out these folks who made foolish financial decisions by taking out subprime loans with low teaser rates, or interest-only loans. It is simply unfair to folks like me who work hard to pay their mortgage, and made a better financial decision by buying a smaller property that was more affordable. Now I probably have a higher interest rate than subprimers who have their teaser rates locked in for another 5 years. What the fuck? This is just going to encourage people to continue to buy property that they cannot afford, thinking that they government will bail them out. Eventually, however, it is all going to come crashing down. This probably just delays it for a few years. And even if it doesn't, it still just ain't fair to folks who *are* managing to pay their mortgages.

I agree that this is probably more to protect the liquidity of the financial system. Though if I were the cynical type, I would also say that this was a politically-motivated action to prevent a crash / crisis prior to the 2008 election.

Henry

jack · « **Reply #5 on:** December 07, 2007, 08:30:26 am »

on the other hand, I wonder if this any different from when Rubin and Greenspan bailed all the same institutions in South America Debacle, Long Term Cap collapse,and Hong Kong melt down in 90s?
What happens to the huge supply of unsold homes? Homes prices have been inflated greatly by mortage deductions,favorable tax treatment,and the teaser,no interest,no money down,and no background checks mortgages. How is all this excess cleared out of the system now that everything is frozen? Just sets us up for a bigger crisis down the road. How do you expect new buyers to come into the market without much lower home prices?
Many people lost their life savings in stock crash in 2000 and some lost everything in situations like Enron,and no government bailout. Many of us have recovered on our own.
I also bought a house I could pay for with cash,instead of taking out a mortgage and buying a huge one like all my friends. I am being penalized for my thrift and self discipline.

David_CA · « **Reply #6 on:** December 07, 2007, 08:49:40 am »

As for paying cash for a house... that's obviously not an option for the vast majority of people. As long as a mortgage payment is a good bit less than rent, people will continue to buy. My ARM was fixed at 5.25% 'til this month. It went to 7% on it's first adjustment (it was fixed for 5 years). It's a dramatic increase in the monthly payment. I didn't pay over market price on this house, so I'm fine - I've got about 2.5-3x the principal amount in equity, so refinancing will take care of the problem. What I don't understand is these people who pay top price for a property with a payment that their budget is being stretched to the max to pay. It's like buying a new car with a long loan period and wondering why one can't get out from under it. I don't think it's so much the interest rates that are the problem, but the fact that the lenders are allowing people to count too much of their income towards the mortgage, which then adjusts up quicker than their income or the housing market. Tighter lending policies will improve this situation more than anything.

David

GSOgymrat · « **Reply #7 on:** December 07, 2007, 09:15:34 am »

Interest rates aside I think mortgage companies lend way more than people can actually afford. When I prequalified to buy a house they approved me twice the amount I felt comfortable paying.

Dachshund · « **Reply #8 on:** December 07, 2007, 09:28:49 am »

“Talk about moral hazard,” remarked Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. “We’ve all told people, don’t go any more deeply into debt. Now we’re saying that people who go more deeply into debt will have an advantage over people who don’t go more deeply into debt.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/business/07mortgage.html

jack · « **Reply #9 on:** December 07, 2007, 10:12:29 am »

Barney is as responsible for this crisis as W is. Republicans tried to get tougher regs on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Barney stonewalled them on the investigation of Fast Franky Raines and those involved in the Fannie looting scandal several years ago. Republicans said it was time to rein in Fannie and govern them more closely. Barnie stopped it. Fannie and Freddie are at the root of the problem. They are two of the most corrupt corps in US,they both are supported by an implied guaranty of Federal Bailout,and they wrote a bunch of these notes.
What do people like Barney and W have against renting? Why do they lust to have people in debt?
Check who giving money to W and see how much dough Fannie Mae has donated to Dems over the years. It is a crime.

jack · « **Reply #10 on:** December 07, 2007, 10:16:37 am »

I am really pissed at Barney cause I was very short Fannie Mae stock when he saved their ass. Dachsund quote from Barney shows what an idiot Barney is. What did he think was gonna happen? When you listen to Barney speak, he impresses us with you eloquence and intelligence,but this quote shows his total ignorance of the real world and how the law of unintended consquences works when the government perverts markets.

Dachshund · « **Reply #11 on:** December 07, 2007, 10:18:47 am »

What do people like Barney and W have against renting? Why do they lust to have people in debt?

Did you bother to read the quote or the article Jake? Barney agrees with you on a whole host of subjects.

Iggy · « **Reply #12 on:** December 07, 2007, 10:38:58 am »

I don't want to see anyone lose their home, but there is something wrong with selective bailouts for bad financial schemes that the government allowed in the first place.

I wonder how much this will all cost compared to universal healthcare btw?

dgr20002 · « **Reply #13 on:** December 07, 2007, 10:44:10 am »

I was listening to NPR yesterday and they said W gave out a phone number for people to call. They said there are about 1.2 million people that could come under this program but that very few will actually qualify. One reason was that if your credit score is too high (you should have known what you were getting into I guess) tough. W said the gov't was also not going to bail out people that bought more house than they could afford. It is going to be done on a case by case basis. When it can be proved that a lender took advantage of a borrower, based on a very narrow criteria then the borrowers could be eligible.

It was also said that this is completely voluntary on the part of the lenders. One of the reporters quipped about getting the lenders to give up any of the pie or something to that effect.

Here is a link to more of the story.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16981245

David

Cliff · « **Reply #14 on:** December 07, 2007, 10:56:43 am »

The credit crunch is having a significant impact to financial markets all over the world, especially here in Europe. I believe the bail out is beneficial (and the UK government has effectively done the same thing by proping up a major regional bank that was on the verge of collapse).

This isn't only about folks with low credit ratings and stretched budgets losing their homes. It's also about millions of people whose jobs (or rather their employers) depend on bank's ability to lend money at attractive rates. Because of the credit crunch, banks are unwilling to lend money or are only doing so at unattractive rates. In fact, the banks themselves are needing to borrow money to improve their balance sheets. Companies need access to credit/cash from banks in order to effecitevely run their business and grow. The US is running a high risk of recession, which will likely pull down Europe with it. Letting this instability run it's course, sounds great on paper, but will likely result in significant job losses (and not just to highly paid bankers).

Most of us have benefitted from banks overlending (i.e., being able to purcahse homes at low rates, homes being sold at high prices, increased employment, overconsumption, higher than average returns on investments, etc...). Noone complained when the good times were a rolling. But now that it's time to pay the piper...

jack · « **Reply #15 on:** December 07, 2007, 11:06:46 am »

Yes, I read the article. Barney is as responsible for this crisis as the crook running Countrywide,or anyone else. He stopped federal regulators from reigning in Fannie Mae. Many of these problem loans would not exist without Fannie Mae. Barney can pontificate all he wants,he should be fried for letting this happen,but I have not heard one single news source mention his involvement in this catastrophe.
The republican congress fought tooth and nail to stop Fannie about 4 years ago but Barney argued that people needed homes or some such bull shit. Fannie Mae was also a very large contributor to Dem campaigns.
Barney threw a party with an open bar and now is surprised everyone got drunk? Barney also stonewalled the investigation of Fannie Mae when the last management team led by Franklin Raines and Jaimie Gorelick lost billions and rewarded themselves with millions in bonuses.

Dachshund · « **Reply #16 on:** December 07, 2007, 11:30:37 am »

Barney threw a party with an open bar and now is surprised everyone got drunk?

I'm surprised Bush fell for this. Oh that's right, Bush was too busy singing the praises of home ownership for the last six years. I don't ever remember him mentioning Barney when Bush took credit in almost every speech he made for just how robust the housing market was and how because of his policies home ownership was at an all time high. You've got to give Barney credit for doing this right under the nose of a Republican administration. Just remember kiddies this "mortgage bailout" was written and approved by the lenders. I wonder who'll really benefit in the end?

Just John · « **Reply #17 on:** December 07, 2007, 09:04:55 pm »

Quote from: BuckmarkTX on December 07, 2007, 07:55:52 am

I agree that this is probably more to protect the liquidity of the financial system. Though if I were the cynical type, I would also say that this was a politically-motivated action to prevent a crash / crisis prior to the 2008 election.

Cynic or realist? I see the same thing happenning here in the UK.

Having lived on the wrong side of the financial tracks in the late 80's, early 90's I have a painful recognition that the entire economy is financed by the boom and bust cycle.

They first of all suck the little guy in with low interest rates and get him to invest, usually in property that he can ill afford but can with 'a little help' and then squeeze the life out of him when interest rates start to rise knowing full well that they can repossess the property, sell it at a loss at auction to one of their 'associates' whilst still recouping their original investment. Then they can pursue the little guy or his insurance company for any shortfall which is mainly made up of legal and administrative charges and then refinance the whole shebang when things settle down again. Neat.

Property in the UK is now so overpriced that no ordinary working guy can afford to buy without all the incentives, even then there a lot of overpriced, unsold properties to be had. As soon as interest rates start to rise, and they are only pegged at the current low rate with the support of the Bank of England, many who cannot then afford their mortgages will then find that when they need to sell that the true value of their property is well below their mortgage debt.

Oh, and er, the British Government and our press are blaming you yanks for the mess because our banks invested in yours - so there!

If I was a cynic I might suggest that our ex Prime Minister Tony B liar stepped aside before the brown stuff hit the fan only so that his second in command could go on to claim a Prime Ministerial pension and the lifelong Police Protection Officer that goes with the job?

John.

OneTampa · « **Reply #18 on:** December 08, 2007, 11:58:09 am »

Talk about extending a greased hand to help someone out of a hole. What about Lil Bush giving out the wrong telephone number for people to call for assistance with their ARMs? Lord help us! I also agree with a number of comments above, though. I purchased my home 6 years ago. I remember my best friend telling me, "Don't forget, tell them you want it fixed!". He kept saying, Fixed! Fixed! Thank God, I listened, and got it fixed---the mortgage rate that is.

CaptCarl · « **Reply #19 on:** December 09, 2007, 10:32:58 pm »

I just bought my first house this summer. I guess that I got lucky because the mortgage broker was a decent human being, and did not even once suggest an ARM so that I could buy a "bigger better" home. I was limited to 80K, which doesn't get much, but I did not want an ARM to begin with. For me, a big part of the attraction of buying a house is that my cost of keeping a roof over my head will reamin the same for the next 20 years. By paying an extra hundred bucks a month, it'll be paid off in 14 years. I Have a few friends with ARMs, and one of them has had to sell his house because he can no longer afford it. Another friend of mine bought a big house that was way overpriced, but the mortgage lenders convinced him he could afford an $1,100 a month mortgage when he was bringing home $1,700 a month. He has four kids, and they were facing foreclosure within 5 months. I thought then and still do that this constituted predatory lending. I've never lived beyond my means, have never had the desire for having a lot of stuff. I consider myself lucky. I'm happy with my 20 year old doublewide in the mountains, I know I can afford it, and as long as I keep my wits about me, I'll never need to worry about losing it.

Capt.Carl

Pilot · « **Reply #20 on:** December 10, 2007, 02:32:46 am »

There is no one at fault here.....its just a big mistake...the truth is it was all a misprint and a knee jerk reaction. Georgie thought it was the Submariners that were about to sink and he wants to keep them from sinking after all he is the commander in chief of all the armed forces and that includes the Navy for gods sake.

jack · « **Reply #21 on:** December 10, 2007, 09:21:15 am »

This reminds me a lot of when the Dickster tried price controls. He destroyed the entire economy. Interest rates skyrocketed.
Young people who do not own homes and anyone who is looking at buying a home are harmed by this horrible plan.
The entire home market has been grossly inflated by mortgage deduction, favorable cap gains tax treatment for homes,low interest rates,and teaser loans. Add into this mess greedy lenders,moronic bankers,and even more moronic borrowers and you have a disaster. The only real way out is to let home prices crash and clear the system out. This bailout just clogs the marketplace and delays the pain.

Buckmark · « **Reply #22 on:** December 10, 2007, 10:26:14 am »

Ah, yes, remember "wage and price controls" in the late 60s / early 70s, in an attempt to cure inflation? They seem laughable today.

jack · « **Reply #23 on:** December 10, 2007, 11:16:35 am »

and Jimbo Carter got blamed for it. My favorite idiot plan was Fords WIN. whip inflation now. Since government creates inflation how can the public whip it Gerald?

raroy273 · « **Reply #24 on:** December 10, 2007, 01:47:16 pm »

First of all I work in the morgage industry doing compliance, with that being said I do agree that this ia bailout and should not have taken place. For the last 4 years I have been saying that the market is going to crash and a time of correction needs to take place. Guess what, it is happneing now, this is not a bad thing. All markets need to make a correction, there were too many "creative" lending programs out there that made it easy to purchase/refinance. There is enough blame to go around to all parties involved, lenders, brokers and consumers. Lenders created the programs, brokers sold it with little explination, consumers trusted and failed to question. Loosing your home is a terrible thing, I had two family members loose theirs, but they did not understand the program. Right now ARM's are the culprit, but what happens when the Intrest Only loans convert? The first 10 years are I/O payments, your remaining term is P&I. The bottom line is this, question your lender/broker, if you dont understand something dont be embarassed to say so. And I do feel that the worst is still yet to come. Also, FHA has tightend lending guidelines, FHA guidelines is what the majoirty of lenders base thier own guidlines after, so things are going to tighten up.....

Forums Index

Welcome

Author Topic: Bush bails out SubPrimers (Read 5916 times)