This woman "gets it"

[DankNuggs 305]

Oh, you must be referred to the mortgage market, who has stated they will refuse to provide mortgage loans unless the government backs them.....which means they will only give out loans if the government guarantees them.....yeah, a utopia without risk....

 

I never suggested an arbitrary morality, but if you want one....get one...

fannie and freddy own them all, and basically every mortgage in this country, that isn't a change, its the status quo...

[RLLD 3,464]

the existance of financing vehicles that allow higher amounts of financing isn't fraud.... If you expect a real estate broker, a mortgage broker, or any other minion to be able to accurately predict the future you are a fool.

 

The government and banks apparently feel differently...hence the many charges of fraud against brokers and banks, and the elimination of those toxic loan vehicles...or did they just forget they have them? And attacking me personally does not help your argument, just makes you look weak since you cannot stick to the topic....

 

Your fraud is that you expect 'experts' to be able to read into the future. They can't

 

Please provide a link, or source this assertion, thank you

 

 

 

Go call a random broker and ask them how they feel the market is... They'll tell you its good and getting better... They are salesmen...they sell things...

 

This is actually true, I talk to them every day and this is exactly what they say....no go read the link in the first post again, and think about jsut why they might be blowing rainbows up our asses

 

 

 

 

 

Its not fraud for a saleman to paint a pretty picture of a product...

 

Never said it was.....

 

 

 

 

If a mortgage broker gave a good faith estimate at 4.5% then the actual mortgage was 5%, then thats fraud... A material misrepresentation. Your view of the future is not material to the transaction.

 

Correct. How does a "view of the future" factor in?

[Strike 4,022]

Oh, you must be referred to the mortgage market, who has stated they will refuse to provide mortgage loans unless the government backs them.....which means they will only give out loans if the government guarantees them.....yeah, a utopia without risk....

 

I never suggested an arbitrary morality, but if you want one....get one...

 

That's a load of crap. I can walk in to my credit union today and get a home loan, WITHOUT any government backing. Anyone with good credit and income can get the loan they qualify for. If one lending institution won't offer it another will. That's why they're in business. And if our government hadn't bailed out all the idiot institutions we'd have the better ones benefiting from this crisis as we should have.

[Strike 4,022]

fannie and freddy own them all, and basically every mortgage in this country, that isn't a change, its the status quo...

 

Bull. My credit union owns my mortgage, and they don't sell them.

[RLLD 3,464]

CMBS act precisely as securities

 

 

You want vindication for the average idiot being short sighted... THere is no vindication for an idiot acting idiotically, well maybe with a radical like Obama in office there is...

 

Yes they do, but i am referring to the homes, not the securities....yo need to understand the distinction between them, and the personal attacks are unwarranted...

[RLLD 3,464]

fannie and freddy own them all, and basically every mortgage in this country, that isn't a change, its the status quo...

 

 

Not sure I follow....

 

Mayeb this will help you better understand...

 

 

If the government pulled out, executives said, millions of Americans wouldn't be able to convince banks to take the risk of giving them home loans. Ending government support could lead to a spike in mortgage rates. That could deter many from buying homes, and banks, mortgage lenders and Realtors would lose money over time.

 

"It will take on a different form, but there is a role for government," Kevin Chavers, a managing director at Morgan Stanley, said in an interview.

 

Most attendees agreed the time had come to do away with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Rescuing the two mortgage giants has cost the government nearly $150 billion so far.

 

Bill Gross, the managing director for bond giant Pimco, suggested Fannie and Freddie should be formally merged into the government. He also called on the administration to allow millions of homeowner to automatically refinance their loans to help stimulate the economy.

A more widely held view at the conference is for government to do away with Fannie and Freddie, and instead guarantee that mortgage investors get paid even if borrowers default in droves

 

So, referring back to your original post that I have a "utopian" view and such, maybe you are thinking about these guys instead.....

[RLLD 3,464]

That's a load of crap. I can walk in to my credit union today and get a home loan, WITHOUT any government backing. Anyone with good credit and income can get the loan they qualify for. If one lending institution won't offer it another will. That's why they're in business. And if our government hadn't bailed out all the idiot institutions we'd have the better ones benefiting from this crisis as we should have.

 

Refer to the link above, regarding your unsourced link that the assertion is...uhmm..."crap"?

[DankNuggs 305]

Yes they do, but i am referring to the homes, not the securities....yo need to understand the distinction between them, and the personal attacks are unwarranted...

i wasn't refering to you or personally attacking you, the idiots were people taking IO/ARM loans without doing a back of the envelope analysis of whether they could afford what they were signing up for...

 

And you seem to think these loan products are fraudulent... Well they still exist, you can still get an ARM or an IO loan. There is no fraud in the fact they exist, people are simply wiser now to think before they walk.

 

 

It takes people getting burned to save other people from playing with fire...

 

 

Experience is the worst teacher, it gives the test before the lesson.

[Strike 4,022]

Refer to the link above, regarding your unsourced link that the assertion is...uhmm..."crap"?

 

Never said the government shouldn't be involved in loans. I said people will still be able to get them whether the government is or not, and provided an example of a lending institution that provides them without any government intervention. What the government SHOULD do is stop providing guarantees for crap loans, like they used to until they decided everyone deserved a home. Had they kept to that policy none of this ever would have happened in the first place. For some reason though, the idiots in our federal government still want to back risky loans.

[FeelingMN 273]

i wasn't refering to you or personally attacking you, the idiots were people taking IO/ARM loans without doing a back of the envelope analysis of whether they could afford what they were signing up for...

 

And you seem to think these loan products are fraudulent... Well they still exist, you can still get an ARM or an IO loan. There is no fraud in the fact they exist, people are simply wiser now to think before they walk.

 

 

It takes people getting burned to save other people from playing with fire...

 

 

Experience is the worst teacher, it gives the test before the lesson.

 

Well said.

 

[Strike 4,022]

Oh, and RLLD, I'm still waiting for a link that says sellers did something wrong. You know, caused you "sourced" it.

[DankNuggs 305]

Not sure I follow....

 

Mayeb this will help you better understand...

 

 

 

 

So, referring back to your original post that I have a "utopian" view and such, maybe you are thinking about these guys instead.....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-13/fannie-freddie-fix-expands-to-160-billion-with-worst-case-at-1-trillion.html

 

 

here is a good article describing the state of fannie/freddie that isnt by you favorite source the costarican times...

[RLLD 3,464]

i wasn't refering to you or personally attacking you, the idiots were people taking IO/ARM loans without doing a back of the envelope analysis of whether they could afford what they were signing up for...

 

And you seem to think these loan products are fraudulent... Well they still exist, you can still get an ARM or an IO loan. There is no fraud in the fact they exist, people are simply wiser now to think before they walk.

 

 

It takes people getting burned to save other people from playing with fire...

 

 

Experience is the worst teacher, it gives the test before the lesson.

 

Oh OK, I misunderstood your post....sorry about that....

 

Fraud was, and still is, part of the industry, and being an I/O or reverse ARM is not the only quality that makes fraud, its how they are implemented that makes them fraud...and their impact perverts the market by tweaking prices out of context...

 

 

In one common con, they would recruit as accomplices "straw buyers" with good credit to apply for "no-doc" loans, which required no documentation or proof of income, to buy their house. Good credit was required because lenders generally did check a borrower's credit score, even if they didn't require pay stubs or bank statements.

RInk

 

 

 

But financial fraudsters are a crafty breed, and they've adapted to the new restrictions, relying on more complicated schemes that involve drawing up false documents, and even recruiting banking insiders to do a share of the dirty work.

 

They are tailoring their elaborate scams towards the country's new economic reality, and they are targeting a fresh, rapidly growing group of people.

 

Rink

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Investigators believe the alleged criminals obtained nearly $3 million in loans. Lenders were fooled by false documents into believing the purchase price was higher than the actual selling amount. Some homeowners were not even aware they were technically selling their property anyways.

 

Raymond A. Desautels III, who was also part of the scheme, then performed all real estate closings. The lender wired the money to Desautels, based on the fake closing costs. Desautels then prepared fake documents claiming that the investor was using their own funds in the transaction. This attributed to more confusion and misunderstandings for the lender regarding actual costs and transactions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rink

[RLLD 3,464]

Never said the government shouldn't be involved in loans. I said people will still be able to get them whether the government is or not, and provided an example of a lending institution that provides them without any government intervention. What the government SHOULD do is stop providing guarantees for crap loans, like they used to until they decided everyone deserved a home. Had they kept to that policy none of this ever would have happened in the first place. For some reason though, the idiots in our federal government still want to back risky loans.

 

No, you never said the government should not be involved in loans, and no one suggested that either. And I agree that that government needs to stop guaranteeing loans....but i doubt that will happen, unfortunately....

[DankNuggs 305]

Yes they do, but i am referring to the homes, not the securities....yo need to understand the distinction between them, ...

a mortgage is like a bond, payments are the coupon... a mortgage acts precisely like a bond... they are pooled together, bought and sold... So i don't get your point...

[DankNuggs 305]

 

 

Fraud was, and still is, part of the industry, and being an I/O or reverse ARM is not the only quality that makes fraud, its how they are implemented that makes them fraud...and their impact perverts the market by tweaking prices out of context...

This is complete BS... it is not the responsibility of the mortgage market to make purchasing decisions for the buyer... It is to provide products and financing vehicles that people may choose to use.

 

I think deep down you feel it is the governments responsibility to make decisions for people you consider dumb... My response is to cherish and celebrate your freedom...

[RLLD 3,464]

a mortgage is like a bond, payments are the coupon... a mortgage acts precisely like a bond... they are pooled together, bought and sold... So i don't get your point...

 

The actual tangible piece of the transaction, the physical real estate, is not fungible like stocks and so to treat that piece mechanically the same will not work, and during recent years that is what transpired. Hence, you cannot treat real estate like a stock, but I am not speaking to the mortgage market...

[RLLD 3,464]

This is complete BS... it is not the responsibility of the mortgage market to make purchasing decisions for the buyer... It is to provide products and financing vehicles that people may choose to use.

 

I think deep down you feel it is the governments responsibility to make decisions for people you consider dumb... My response is to cherish and celebrate your freedom...

 

Uhm, how is fraud BS? Why is the government prosecuting these people for fraud then? One would think the ACLU and others would step in if what they are doing is not fraud.

 

Your deep down thoughts have no merit, and have already been debunked in countless other threads. Government IS the problem, the banks are also the problem too, but mainly because of their expansive greed and short sightedness....

[Frank M 181]

and if people arrive at that "aha" moment to see him for the perversion that he is, so much the better

 

Strike isn't a perversion.

 

He's a d1ckface.

 

Get it right.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I never suggested an arbitrary morality, but if you want one....get one...

 

 

I am stating that capitalism without morality is piracy.

 

 

Can't get much more arbitrary than that.

[Strike 4,022]

Strike isn't a perversion.

 

He's a d1ckface.

 

Get it right.

 

I love it when my groupies show up.

[Secret Asian Man 26]

I love it when my groupies show up.

 

You groupies all male. That make sense. Women avoid you like Twinkie avoid The New Girl.

[RLLD 3,464]

Can't get much more arbitrary than that.

 

So you admit that I never suggested arbitrary morality.....good.....

[Greedo 13]

Not sure why you keep trying to defend this position RLLD. No one put a gun to strike's buyer's head. There was a market price set, and the buyer had every ability to say no to the amount of sale, or the funding mechanism to provide said funds.

 

Here's another vote for strike wins.

[Gepetto 991]

Strike 1 Strike 2 Strike 3..........RLLD's OUT!

[Bill E. 667]

Interesting analogy,......so you are suggesting that homes should all be the same price across a market? And its OK to ruin the home values in your community and jeopardize jobs of other people so long as you get profit?

 

How is that different from what Bernie Madoff did?

 

I have not followed this but I do not get your logic. The market sets the price level. Properties are investments. For awhile prices across the board were higher than they should have been. Even if it is wrong to profit from your investment as you seem to be saying, how was Strike supposed to know the market was overinflated?

 

If he had undercharged for his house and tried to buy another one in a new area or upgrade to a larger home he could not have because the other homes price would have been up. Say I buy a stock for $1/share and decide to sell it five years later. If the price is now $5/share should I instruct my broker to sell it for $2 because $5 is too high?

[gocolts 300]

Not sure why you keep trying to defend this position RLLD. No one put a gun to strike's buyer's head. There was a market price set, and the buyer had every ability to say no to the amount of sale, or the funding mechanism to provide said funds.

 

Here's another vote for strike wins.

:thumbsup: No sh1t. That is what I have been thinking for all these years. His argument makes no sense whatsoever.

[nobody 2,056]

You cant fault the guy for someones stupidity.

 

On the flip side, my guess is most sellers are too stupid to know their houses aren't worth what they are selling them for either. I think that's where RLLD is losing everybody. He assumes that people who owned the properties knew they were gouging people. For the most part, that's not true. Most people selling at the height of the market probably genuinely thought real estate was going to go up forever. I know people around me did when I refused to buy anything even at 2003 prices. I got multiple advice from people that was basically, "Do whatver it takes to get into the most expensive home you can get into since it's value will always go up." Meanwhile, I'm watching guys making 100k a year struggling to afford sh¡thole condos in So Cal.

[Strike 4,022]

Did a quick review of this thread and tabulated how many people voted for me winning versus how many voted for RLLD. Final tally:

 

Strike - 3300052

RLLD - 1

 

I still won this thread.

 

[RLLD 3,464]

Not sure why you keep trying to defend this position RLLD. No one put a gun to strike's buyer's head. There was a market price set, and the buyer had every ability to say no to the amount of sale, or the funding mechanism to provide said funds.

 

Here's another vote for strike wins.

 

Because I believe that when you participate in fraud, the notion that you profited is not suitable enough to absolve you of all culpability. It's just that simple. Strike is for absolution of any culpability, but if you bought or sold, you were part of it.....not equally of course, but still part of it..... we can agree to disagree, but if enough people avoid the immoral approach to life, we can avoid a repeat of the economic catastrophe of recent years.....

[Strike 4,022]

Because I believe that when you participate in fraud, the notion that you profited is not suitable enough to absolve you of all culpability. It's just that simple. Strike is for absolution of any culpability, but if you bought or sold, you were part of it.....not equally of course, but still part of it..... we can agree to disagree, but if enough people avoid the immoral approach to life, we can avoid a repeat of the economic catastrophe of recent years.....

 

I'm glad the woman "gets it", because you surely don't!!!!

 

[RLLD 3,464]

I have not followed this but I do not get your logic. The market sets the price level. Properties are investments. For awhile prices across the board were higher than they should have been. Even if it is wrong to profit from your investment as you seem to be saying, how was Strike supposed to know the market was overinflated?

 

If he had undercharged for his house and tried to buy another one in a new area or upgrade to a larger home he could not have because the other homes price would have been up. Say I buy a stock for $1/share and decide to sell it five years later. If the price is now $5/share should I instruct my broker to sell it for $2 because $5 is too high?

 

The market was perverted by fraud, So the price levels were fraudulent, a fact substantiated by subsequent analysis.

 

You see......that person who's income could support no more than a $2000/month payment, was suddenly able to pay huge sums for a home, hidden behind crafty loan vehicles....which altered the market landscape since comps are part of the fabric of market pricing.....that person could NEVER afford the house at the price they bought it, hence the sweeping foreclosures....now, with the prices completely disconnected from anything approaching actual value, the market could only exist using the toxic loan vehicles, and eventually crashed....

 

You see once the prices soared out of the 100 benchmark (see here for explanation) some people started talking about a problem, a huge bubble that would imperil the economy....and that we needed to address this issue....Greenspan called it a statistical illusion, mainly because he knew he created this mess and was hoping to be out of the loop before it burst...

 

When anyone, such as myself, talked about the prices being bullsh!t and completely out of scope, we were assailed.....ultimately to be proven right.

 

So there is a "standard measure" to look toward in order to know when a market is being "worked" as real estate was, you can decide to profit from it and add to it, or you can stay away from it and avoid the moral hazard, its really up to each individual.

[RLLD 3,464]

I'm glad the woman "gets it", because you surely don't!!!!

 

 

OK

[KSB2424 3,085]

On the flip side, my guess is most sellers are too stupid to know their houses aren't worth what they are selling them for either. I think that's where RLLD is losing everybody. He assumes that people who owned the properties knew they were gouging people. For the most part, that's not true. Most people selling at the height of the market probably genuinely thought real estate was going to go up forever.

This.

[MedStudent 56]

Interesting back and forth between Strike and RLLD. I kind of agree with strike that you need to let the market determine the price. Even if the market is screwed up. I mean if Strike sells his place at a price lower than he could get and then goes to buy a place, he will get screwed financially. He isn't going to be able to tell the seller that he should lower the price because thats what he did when he sold hs place.

 

I put the blame on the banks that sold mortgages that they knew would fail and on wall street for being so blinded by greed that they failed to look at the real numbers. The sellers and buyers were simply pawns in this game of greed. Both Republicans and Democrats voted to bail out these greedy bastards. I really wonder what would have happened if we just let them all fail. It may been a huge crash but it may have been over by now.

[RLLD 3,464]

On the flip side, my guess is most sellers are too stupid to know their houses aren't worth what they are selling them for either. I think that's where RLLD is losing everybody. He assumes that people who owned the properties knew they were gouging people. For the most part, that's not true. Most people selling at the height of the market probably genuinely thought real estate was going to go up forever. I know people around me did when I refused to buy anything even at 2003 prices. I got multiple advice from people that was basically, "Do whatver it takes to get into the most expensive home you can get into since it's value will always go up." Meanwhile, I'm watching guys making 100k a year struggling to afford sh¡thole condos in So Cal.

 

I understand that in our culture the notion of avoiding profit is unthinkable, and it makes it nearly impossible for people to find a moral center where they can earn a dollar, so the notion of identifying a fraud, and avoiding it is simply not something the average American can do. They have been groomed to serve greed regardless of the impact of their actions.

 

I agree that sellers likely thought they deserved the extensive profits, and regardless, even if they understood the level of impropriety....they would have still taken the same action.....its just how people are.

 

When I went looking for a house in 2002 and 2003 and saw what was happening I made sure to stay away, and ultimately worked with a custom builder to build my own house at half the cost per square foot....roughly the proper price....

 

No one objects to my suggestion that it is government and the banks who are primarily culpable, nor that the buyers were also important in culpability, but once I note that the seller too played a role and should note their own culpability....oh man,,,,,,that is just wrong...

 

It part of the sickness of our culture....

[MedStudent 56]

When I went looking for a house in 2002 and 2003 and saw what was happening I made sure to stay away, and ultimately worked with a custom builder to build my own house at half the cost per square foot....roughly the proper price....

 

But did you sell a house? How did you determine the proper price. To me the proper price is set by the market and by supply and demand. Did you look at your house and say. I bought it for x amount of dollars y years ago and I feel I am only entitled to z% of profit when selling? Do you do this with other investments? If you bought some gold and it rose on the markets 80% would you sell it to some guy at less of a profit? I agree that home prices were inflated by greedy investors but I don't think you could say the sellers and buyers did anything morally wrong by letting the screwed up market dictate their price.

[RLLD 3,464]

But did you sell a house? How did you determine the proper price. To me the proper price is set by the market and by supply and demand. Did you look at your house and say. I bought it for x amount of dollars y years ago and I feel I am only entitled to z% of profit when selling? Do you do this with other investments? If you bought some gold and it rose on the markets 80% would you sell it to some guy at less of a profit? I agree that home prices were inflated by greedy investors but I don't think you could say the sellers and buyers did anything morally wrong by letting the screwed up market dictate their price.

 

I sold it for half the "market value", because it was the right price for that property.....for which i was pretty well lambasted here. But, those people are still in that house, no foreclosure, and I have my new home, so we both won...

[Strike 4,022]

But, those people are still in that house, no foreclosure, and I have my new home, so we both won...

 

Same thing with my old home. Guess all four of us won!!!!!\\

[FeelingMN 273]

Hmmmmm, let's say the buyer can afford.....

 

I sold it for half the "market value", because it was the right price for that property.....for which i was pretty well lambasted here. But, those people are still in that house, no foreclosure, and I have my new home, so we both won...

 

You could have sold it for "true market value" to a buyer who could afford it, and be in the same boat..........just like Strike.....as he already has pointed out.

 

My property isn't worth what we owe on it. We're gonna have to put a huge chunk of change down to get away from our place. Sigh.....

But if we can get a buyer to pay more than the "true value", we'll take it....quicker than you can say Strike Won. And yet, you seem to think this is somehow immoral. I don't get it. Why should we dip into our savings to cover the mortgage just so the property resets at it's "true value"?