This woman "gets it"

[nobody 2,109]

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"?

 

 

What he's saying is that it's immoral to knowingly gouge people which you seem to be advocating. The reason you should thoretically dip into your savings so the property resets at it's true value is is because if everyone thinks like you and is able to execute a plan as you suggest a giant real estate bubble forms and subsequently collapses costing you and everyone else more money than what you and everyone else would have lost by not artificially helping to expand the bubble.

 

The idea is that if everyone takes reasonable profits from the start, the market can sustain itself indefinitely. If everyone is greedy, the market will collapse at the expense of everyone. It's kind of like a modified prisoner's dilemma in game theory. And just as predicted in experiments society choose the wrong actions.

[RLLD 3,553]

What he's saying is that it's immoral to knowingly gouge people which you seem to be advocating. The reason you should thoretically dip into your savings so the property resets at it's true value is is because if everyone thinks like you and is able to execute a plan as you suggest a giant real estate bubble forms and subsequently collapses costing you and everyone else more money than what you and everyone else would have lost by not artificially helping to expand the bubble.

 

The idea is that if everyone takes reasonable profits from the start, the market can sustain itself indefinitely. If everyone is greedy, the market will collapse at the expense of everyone. It's kind of like a modified prisoner's dilemma in game theory. And just as predicted in experiments society choose the wrong actions.

 

More or less....yeah.....

[FeelingMN 273]

What he's saying is that it's immoral to knowingly gouge people which you seem to be advocating. The reason you should thoretically dip into your savings so the property resets at it's true value is is because if everyone thinks like you and is able to execute a plan as you suggest a giant real estate bubble forms and subsequently collapses costing you and everyone else more money than what you and everyone else would have lost by not artificially helping to expand the bubble.

 

The idea is that if everyone takes reasonable profits from the start, the market can sustain itself indefinitely. If everyone is greedy, the market will collapse at the expense of everyone. It's kind of like a modified prisoner's dilemma in game theory. And just as predicted in experiments society choose the wrong actions.

 

But how am I knowingly gouging someone? What I've paid for my property and what other similar properties have sold for are public record. Just because I list my place....at a loss by the way, I'm gonna lose money with this property. I just want to minimize the loss.....at a particular price does not mean the buyer has to agree. BUUUUTTTT, if they do agree, that's their choice.

 

Just because I'm listing it above what other properties(foreclosures and short sales) have gone for doesn't mean I'm gouging anyone. I'm just trying to make the best of a bad situation. It's in no way, shape, or form immoral. It's just not.

 

I guess you disagree with the premise of this thread....that the buyer really does set the price.

 

[Voltaire 4,593]

People who lose money by cutting their losses and selling when the market is low "get it" wheras people who make money by selling at the height of the bubble "don't get it."

 

Selling a house is like catching AIDS. I'd rather not get it.

[The Elevator Killer 497]

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

 

 

Borat Voice: "You never get this. You never get this." :Borat Voice

[DankNuggs 305]

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...

LOL...you really have misplaced anger at this stuff... If you sold for half of what you could have received, then you are a moron, bigger than any of idiot buyers during this recent cycle...

 

You don't understand market value... it isn't concrete, it isn't definable, its like a balance sheet statement, its a snapshot at a single moment in time. It is by natural continually in flux do to so many different dynamics....

 

 

To claim to 'know' value is to prove you don't understand the concept.

 

A seller can't determine value without the input of the buyer, it can't be determined in a vaccuum.

[RLLD 3,553]

LOL...you really have misplaced anger at this stuff... If you sold for half of what you could have received, then you are a moron, bigger than any of idiot buyers during this recent cycle...

 

You don't understand market value... it isn't concrete, it isn't definable, its like a balance sheet statement, its a snapshot at a single moment in time. It is by natural continually in flux do to so many different dynamics....

 

 

To claim to 'know' value is to prove you don't understand the concept.

 

A seller can't determine value without the input of the buyer, it can't be determined in a vaccuum.

 

I completely understand your point of view, but having not been brainwashed into accepting greed as being "OK", I simply take a different approach. Your personal attacks aside, you should not be so angry at me for avoiding participation in the fraud. After all, my actions ran counter to the issues that were created.

 

I completely understand market value, what you seem to either not get, or outright ignore, is the fact that people were never able to afford the prices, only the true prices that were hidden behind the toxic loan vehicles.

 

The proof is all around us. In newspaper articles and the mountain of foreclosures. Just because an individual avoids the mistake does not establish them as stupid, maybe they ignore the opportunity at an arbitrage, but that is their decision.

[Vic_Rattlehead 0]

Why do people by houses that they can not afford?

 

Why is a seller committing piracy when they sell a house at a price a buyer is willing to pay for it?

[RLLD 3,553]

Why do people by houses that they can not afford?

 

Why is a seller committing piracy when they sell a house at a price a buyer is willing to pay for it?

 

People bought because they were stupid, this has been previously established, not sure how you can be asking such a question so late in the event....

 

Piracy? You might want to check the definition....

[Vic_Rattlehead 0]

People bought because they were stupid, this has been previously established, not sure how you can be asking such a question so late in the event....

 

Piracy? You might want to check the definition....

 

Oh, you seem to be making invalid associations then. Thanks!

[RLLD 3,553]

Oh, you seem to be making invalid associations then. Thanks!

 

Really.....look at you, saying something else you cannot prove or in any way support.....making stuff up comes pretty easy to you....eh?

[Vic_Rattlehead 0]

You're the one bringing piracy to the game, not me. Let's not start in with more idiocy RLLD, your just making yourself look a fool.

[RLLD 3,553]

You're the one bringing piracy to the game, not me. Let's not start in with more idiocy RLLD, your just making yourself look a fool.

 

Excellent, now go a step further to demonstrate that you are completely fabricating the link between real estate and piracy......since I never said any such thing, but instead quoted Adam Smith....or just continue to pretend you have anything beyond the most abbreviated understanding of what is being discussed, and keep lying at every turn

 

[Vic_Rattlehead 0]

First, why don't you explain the point of bringing it into the conversation. TIA.

[RLLD 3,553]

First, why don't you explain the point of bringing it into the conversation. TIA.

 

I will take your denial to justify your blatant lie as an admission of it..... thanks:thumbsup:

 

I thought Smith is a fascinating contrast to the neo-Malthusian approach and his work The Wealth of Nations brings forth a differing system of thought, one that perhaps Foley seems to support but not source very well.....regardless, from the Keneysian approach that the Fed currently employs one can see a link to Smith's notions of economic theory. And perhaps Friedman has recently entered into the mindset a bit too.....and from these aspects we can see economic theory is not hard-coded so much as an evolving entity that is hypersensitive to the stimulus around it...

[Vic_Rattlehead 0]

 

I thought ... one can see a link to ...the mindset .... evolving ...

 

Why not just answer the question?

 

[RLLD 3,553]

Why not just answer the question?

 

 

I did, or are you referring to your own lack of response?

[DankNuggs 305]

I completely understand your point of view, but having not been brainwashed into accepting greed as being "OK", I simply take a different approach. Your personal attacks aside, you should not be so angry at me for avoiding participation in the fraud. After all, my actions ran counter to the issues that were created.

 

I completely understand market value, what you seem to either not get, or outright ignore, is the fact that people were never able to afford the prices, only the true prices that were hidden behind the toxic loan vehicles.

 

The proof is all around us. In newspaper articles and the mountain of foreclosures. Just because an individual avoids the mistake does not establish them as stupid, maybe they ignore the opportunity at an arbitrage, but that is their decision.

ok then...you go on arbitrarily defining value in your own terms... Whatever floats your boat... if you want to spend your days drooling around a park and pickup scraps up out of dumpsters thats fine too... It is your right to be insane.

 

 

Perhaps you should have offered budgeting counseling for any potential buyers, you could work out their monthly finances for them and work out a spending plan for financial solvency... You could follow up over the next 30 years of their mortgage payements to ensure they stayed in their house... But you were greedy and did nothing for them...

[DankNuggs 305]

I will take your denial to justify your blatant lie as an admission of it..... thanks:thumbsup:

 

I thought Smith is a fascinating contrast to the neo-Malthusian approach and his work The Wealth of Nations brings forth a differing system of thought, one that perhaps Foley seems to support but not source very well.....regardless, from the Keneysian approach that the Fed currently employs one can see a link to Smith's notions of economic theory. And perhaps Friedman has recently entered into the mindset a bit too.....and from these aspects we can see economic theory is not hard-coded so much as an evolving entity that is hypersensitive to the stimulus around it...

Always has been... Nice citation of economics 101 reading...

[RLLD 3,553]

ok then...you go on arbitrarily defining value in your own terms... Whatever floats your boat... if you want to spend your days drooling around a park and pickup scraps up out of dumpsters thats fine too... It is your right to be insane.

 

 

Perhaps you should have offered budgeting counseling for any potential buyers, you could work out their monthly finances for them and work out a spending plan for financial solvency... You could follow up over the next 30 years of their mortgage payements to ensure they stayed in their house... But you were greedy and did nothing for them...

 

OK, but why?

[TheNewGirl 1,071]

The buyer was an idiot who payed little more than extorition to you and the bank. FOr that buyer, house, face, family..... What the buyer SHOULD have done was call you on the bullsh!t price and made a proper offer or walked away.

 

 

WAIT a minute...if you're going to apply the buyer sets the price rule for this lady, then you need to apply it to Strikes as well. His situation is only different in that buyers did not have many homes to chose from, so they were able to offer up MORE money to sellers and therefore drove up the prices.

 

Back in 2001 when my husband and I were first looking, we'd look at a house in the AM, and by the afternoon the price was 30K MORE than what we were told that morning. This happened to us several times, and eventually we quit looking until 2003. Then, the house down the block would start at that higher price, people would offer even MORE on that one, and so on. Bay Area folks (SF Bay) COULD pay more, so the Sacramento Valley and other areas is where they came. They could afford to offer up an additional 50K on a house, therefore driving up the prices.

 

IMO, this lady's situation is no different than Strike's in terms of the buyers setting the prices.

[RLLD 3,553]

WAIT a minute...if you're going to apply the buyer sets the price rule for this lady, then you need to apply it to Strikes as well. His situation is only different in that buyers did not have many homes to chose from, so they were able to offer up MORE money to sellers and therefore drove up the prices.

 

Back in 2001 when my husband and I were first looking, we'd look at a house in the AM, and by the afternoon the price was 30K MORE than what we were told that morning. This happened to us several times, and eventually we quit looking until 2003. Then, the house down the block would start at that higher price, people would offer even MORE on that one, and so on. Bay Area folks (SF Bay) COULD pay more, so the Sacramento Valley and other areas is where they came. They could afford to offer up an additional 50K on a house, therefore driving up the prices.

 

IMO, this lady's situation is no different than Strike's in terms of the buyers setting the prices.

 

Let's run with this for a bit, shall we?

 

Hmmmm, so if I read correctly....you want to (at lest temporarily) accept the notion that the buyer sets the price? OK.....

 

Let's speculate that a buyer can afford $2000 a month in mortgage fee's, and has sought the services of an institution that will support such an endeavor.....the bank then works with that buyer to secure a loan for a....lets say $600k house, and the buyer is paying $2000 a month....because that is all they can afford......right? Well, that works for a few years using the I/O loan, but eventually the piper....he comes a callin.....

 

So, given that foreclosures are becoming a mountain......and given the assertion by the banks to return to more "strict" standards, y'know, the ones they had used for decades and all.....the buyer only ever wanted to pay that $2000 (or less), but the bank twisted that into a higher amount, a fraudulent amount, an amount that the home was never worth.....

 

So, tell me, how exactly.....in all these instances, was it the buyer "setting the price" then? Hmmmmmmm:huh:

[FeelingMN 273]

So, tell me, how exactly.....in all these instances, was it the buyer "setting the price" then? Hmmmmmmm:huh:

 

 

 

"The buyer really does set the price."

 

 

 

 

I'll leave you two alone to figure this out.

[RLLD 3,553]

 

 

I'll leave you two alone to figure this out.

 

Now.....if you are willing to agree that the buyer sets the price....then do tell, in my previous example,.....who set the price pumpkin? hmmmmm???

 

I will let you take your time....

[DankNuggs 305]

Let's run with this for a bit, shall we?

 

Hmmmm, so if I read correctly....you want to (at lest temporarily) accept the notion that the buyer sets the price? OK.....

 

Let's speculate that a buyer can afford $2000 a month in mortgage fee's, and has sought the services of an institution that will support such an endeavor.....the bank then works with that buyer to secure a loan for a....lets say $600k house, and the buyer is paying $2000 a month....because that is all they can afford......right? Well, that works for a few years using the I/O loan, but eventually the piper....he comes a callin.....

 

So, given that foreclosures are becoming a mountain......and given the assertion by the banks to return to more "strict" standards, y'know, the ones they had used for decades and all.....the buyer only ever wanted to pay that $2000 (or less), but the bank twisted that into a higher amount, a fraudulent amount, an amount that the home was never worth.....

 

So, tell me, how exactly.....in all these instances, was it the buyer "setting the price" then? Hmmmmmmm:huh:

or the buyer could CHOOSE a convention loan that they could afford... No one forced anyone into IOs and ARMs... people had the choice, and they made the wrong decision. You simply place blame in all directions other than the guy with the choice who made the wrong choice...

[RLLD 3,553]

or the buyer could CHOOSE a convention loan that they could afford... No one forced anyone into IOs and ARMs... people had the choice, and they made the wrong decision. You simply place blame in all directions other than the guy with the choice who made the wrong choice...

 

I think it would be safe to say, with some exceptions, that every buyer agreed to the terms of the loan.

 

As to your second assertion, I can easily disprove that with nearly four years of posting that clearly outlines I never gave the buyer a freebie on anything.....far from it, I hold that the government, banks and buyers all carry the bulk of responsibility.....and I think almost everyone agrees.....its just when I dare suggest that the sellers are not absolved that people want to riot.....you see, culpability is something no one seems willing to accept......and to suggest that someone behave morally where profit is available runs counter to everything the greedy believe, so your assertion is completely without merit....

[DankNuggs 305]

I think it would be safe to say, with some exceptions, that every buyer agreed to the terms of the loan.

 

As to your second assertion, I can easily disprove that with nearly four years of posting that clearly outlines I never gave the buyer a freebie on anything.....far from it, I hold that the government, banks and buyers all carry the bulk of responsibility.....and I think almost everyone agrees.....its just when I dare suggest that the sellers are not absolved that people want to riot.....you see, culpability is something no one seems willing to accept......and to suggest that someone behave morally where profit is available runs counter to everything the greedy believe, so your assertion is completely without merit....

the banks have culpability, in fact they pay the ultimate price as they own the property and have to liquidate, take a writeoff...etc... they are getting killed by this...

 

The government decided to have Fanny and Freddy buy up all these toxic mortgages, so in the end, instead of the banks, the govt (and thus the taxpayers) foot the bill...

 

 

What 'morals' should the bank have had AT THE TIME? Its a ridiculous argument. They were supposed to predict the future, know the market was going to tank? they ulitmately own the property at that price, it is their money on the line. If the buyer fails, banks lose.

 

The govt bailed out the banks, govt once again failed the american people... The govt rewarded bad behavior with a bailout... They easily could have let the bad banks fail (which some did, and mroe should have)...

 

 

People deserve FREEDOM to make choices, that is what liberty is all about. They may make mistakes, but in any case, you don't reward bad behavior.

[FeelingMN 273]

Now.....if you are willing to agree that the buyer sets the price....then do tell, in my previous example,.....who set the price pumpkin? hmmmmm???

 

I will let you take your time....

 

You're the one who posted "The buyer really does set the price."

 

The real question is, are you willing to agree that the buyer sets the price? Suddenly, there appears to be some discrepancy on your end.

 

Also, I think the issue of Strike, his homesale, and the fact that that buyer is still in the house has come up....and you've decided to skirt that issue altogether.

 

Hint: You won't find the answer in The Wealth of Nations.

[Vic_Rattlehead 0]

I did, or are you referring to your own lack of response?

 

No you did not, sir.

[RLLD 3,553]

the banks have culpability, in fact they pay the ultimate price as they own the property and have to liquidate, take a writeoff...etc... they are getting killed by this...

 

The government decided to have Fanny and Freddy buy up all these toxic mortgages, so in the end, instead of the banks, the govt (and thus the taxpayers) foot the bill...

 

 

What 'morals' should the bank have had AT THE TIME? Its a ridiculous argument. They were supposed to predict the future, know the market was going to tank? they ulitmately own the property at that price, it is their money on the line. If the buyer fails, banks lose.

 

The govt bailed out the banks, govt once again failed the american people... The govt rewarded bad behavior with a bailout... They easily could have let the bad banks fail (which some did, and mroe should have)...

 

 

People deserve FREEDOM to make choices, that is what liberty is all about. They may make mistakes, but in any case, you don't reward bad behavior.

 

The government's participation goes back to the Community Reinvestmant Act under Reagan, even more so was the 1995 Act passed by Bill Clinton......then on to Greenpan's manipulation of rates to combat a recession that never really existed, and his subsequent fear to not raise them effectively....on to the bankruptcy reform act of 2005....all these things conspired to allow ( an in some cases compel) banks to take huge risks.

 

They banks had the chance to police themselves, to behave poperly, but instead acted in a ravenously greedy, and ultimately cannibalistic way. And now seek to restore themselves to their previous standards. And the government steadily points the finger at their behavior, while the banks assail the government and the buyers.....

 

Whats worse, the government takes from people like you and I to first bail out the banks, and now bail out the buyers??? Really??? I mean, come on, are you and I supposed to win when others fail? Isn't that capitalism?

[RLLD 3,553]

You're the one who posted "The buyer really does set the price."

 

The real question is, are you willing to agree that the buyer sets the price? Suddenly, there appears to be some discrepancy on your end.

 

Also, I think the issue of Strike, his homesale, and the fact that that buyer is still in the house has come up....and you've decided to skirt that issue altogether.

 

Hint: You won't find the answer in The Wealth of Nations.

 

As i noted, in this instance, the buyers did not.....that is the point that you continue to miss....the buyers are SUPPOSED to set the price, but for years outside influences fabricated prices.....I don't know about strikes deal or his buyer, i do know that if you sold a home for a bullsh!t price, I do not feel that you can pretend you are absolved of culpability....

[DankNuggs 305]

You're the one who posted "The buyer really does set the price."

 

The real question is, are you willing to agree that the buyer sets the price? Suddenly, there appears to be some discrepancy on your end.

 

Also, I think the issue of Strike, his homesale, and the fact that that buyer is still in the house has come up....and you've decided to skirt that issue altogether.

 

Hint: You won't find the answer in The Wealth of Nations.

its because the buyer doesn't set the price...The market is the point at which buyer and sell meet and agree on a price.

 

A liquidation, or an auction is where the buyer sets the price... That presumes the seller is forced to sell... which may be a characteristic of THIS market during all these foreclosures and liquidations but it wouldn't be represenative of the overall market... Just another person being shortsighted and believing what happens today is what will always happen.

[RLLD 3,553]

No you did not, sir.

 

Yes, I did....and further note your continued inability to answer....

[RLLD 3,553]

its because the buyer doesn't set the price...The market is the point at which buyer and sell meet and agree on a price.

 

A liquidation, or an auction is where the buyer sets the price... That presumes the seller is forced to sell... which may be a characteristic of THIS market during all these foreclosures and liquidations but it wouldn't be represenative of the overall market... Just another person being shortsighted and believing what happens today is what will always happen.

 

Wow, so now we are claiming that supply and demand no longer exist....interesting....

[DankNuggs 305]

The government's participation goes back to the Community Reinvestmant Act under Reagan, even more so was the 1995 Act passed by Bill Clinton......then on to Greenpan's manipulation of rates to combat a recession that never really existed, and his subsequent fear to not raise them effectively....on to the bankruptcy reform act of 2005....all these things conspired to allow ( an in some cases compel) banks to take huge risks.

 

They banks had the chance to police themselves, to behave poperly, but instead acted in a ravenously greedy, and ultimately cannibalistic way. And now seek to restore themselves to their previous standards. And the government steadily points the finger at their behavior, while the banks assail the government and the buyers.....

 

Whats worse, the government takes from people like you and I to first bail out the banks, and now bail out the buyers??? Really??? I mean, come on, are you and I supposed to win when others fail? Isn't that capitalism?

Clinton did alot for promoting home ownership which ramped up considerably when Henry Cisneros was the head of HUD as you correctly point out. The CRA under Reagan didn't have that objective as well defined as when Clinton took over...

[DankNuggs 305]

Wow, so now we are claiming that supply and demand no longer exist....interesting....

No, the level of need for the seller to get rid of the house and the timeperiod has a huge role in the negotiation process and will hugely influnce the end result...If a seller gets lowball offers and has time to sell, he will pull the property off the market after a while and relist when they think times will be better... A seller forced to sell will have to take one of the lowball offers... That becomes a comp. a datapoint for other sales to be compared against, and as such the dominos tend to fall...

 

We are in a period were sellers wouldn't be in the market if they didn't 'have' to sell. Which gives more power to buyers as you point out...

 

But to claim unilaterally that buyers set the price is incorrect.

[RLLD 3,553]

Clinton did alot for promoting home ownership which ramped up considerably when Henry Cisneros was the head of HUD as you correctly point out. The CRA under Reagan didn't have that objective as well defined as when Clinton took over...

 

Agree. If you read back through press releases and interviews with bank CEO's, they clearly felt pressured after 2005 to accentuate sub prime lending....

[RLLD 3,553]

No, the level of need for the seller to get rid of the house and the timeperiod has a huge role in the negotiation process and will hugely influnce the end result...If a seller gets lowball offers and has time to sell, he will pull the property off the market after a while and relist when they think times will be better... A seller forced to sell will have to take one of the lowball offers... That becomes a comp. a datapoint for other sales to be compared against, and as such the dominos tend to fall...

 

We are in a period were sellers wouldn't be in the market if they didn't 'have' to sell. Which gives more power to buyers as you point out...

 

But to claim unilaterally that buyers set the price is incorrect.

 

Lets take another look at the suggestion.....

 

 

Let's speculate that a buyer can afford $2000 a month in mortgage fee's, and has sought the services of an institution that will support such an endeavor.....the bank then works with that buyer to secure a loan for a....lets say $600k house, and the buyer is paying $2000 a month....because that is all they can afford......right? Well, that works for a few years using the I/O loan, but eventually the piper....he comes a callin.....

 

So, given that foreclosures are becoming a mountain......and given the assertion by the banks to return to more "strict" standards, y'know, the ones they had used for decades and all.....the buyer only ever wanted to pay that $2000 (or less), but the bank twisted that into a higher amount, a fraudulent amount, an amount that the home was never worth.....

 

So, tell me, how exactly.....in all these instances, was it the buyer "setting the price" then? Who was "settting the price" Was the buyer's income establishing the price? A cost they could afford?

[Vic_Rattlehead 0]

Yes, I did....and further note your continued inability to answer....

 

When you answer, I will.

 

And I don't want to hear theory. I want to know why you brought up piracy.

[DankNuggs 305]

Agree. If you read back through press releases and interviews with bank CEO's, they clearly felt pressured after 2005 to accentuate sub prime lending....

agreed...HUD was at the center of the whole thing... absolutely. The sub prime lending was almost being compared to discrimination again poor people LOL in that they couldn't secure quality loans and achieve 'the american dream'