- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Fannie Mae Reports Massive Q3 Loss, Asks For Another $15 Bil
Posted on 11/6/09 at 7:46 am to Tiger JJ
Posted on 11/6/09 at 7:46 am to Tiger JJ
Why is my criticism of borrowers who walk away from loans as a matter of convenience (meaning they can pay the loan, they just don't want to because the loan balance is more than the market value of the house) a 'jab' at you? Does the shoe fit? How many such loans have you walked away from?
And why was my comment "off-base"? People walking away from loans by choice are a part of the problem with losses at the mortgage companies. That is relevant to kfizz's OP.
Regarding your first post about not making a profit on the funds the government put into Fannie and Freddie, have you seen anyone claim those actions would be profitable? I haven't.
The purpose of the government takeover and funding of those companies was to provide liquidity in the mortgage market.
To the poster who said I am part of the oligopoly, THANK YOU!! I think I will add "Oligarch" to my business card!
And why was my comment "off-base"? People walking away from loans by choice are a part of the problem with losses at the mortgage companies. That is relevant to kfizz's OP.
Regarding your first post about not making a profit on the funds the government put into Fannie and Freddie, have you seen anyone claim those actions would be profitable? I haven't.
The purpose of the government takeover and funding of those companies was to provide liquidity in the mortgage market.
To the poster who said I am part of the oligopoly, THANK YOU!! I think I will add "Oligarch" to my business card!
2
Posted on 11/6/09 at 8:06 am to LSURussian
quote:
And why was my comment "off-base"? People walking away from loans by choice are a part of the problem with losses at the mortgage companies.
the mortgage companies helped create this situation by
1. agreeing to such terms; and
2. giving far too many loans to risky borrowers
quote:
The purpose of the government takeover and funding of those companies was to provide liquidity in the mortgage market.
government subsidies of stupid business decisions. apparently, these businesses still need help
it kind of cracks me up that the supposedly super elite bankers/loan officers in their ivory towers were out-maneuvered by a bunch of uneducated people with credit scores in the 600s. we're not dealing with the cream of the crop
Posted on 11/6/09 at 10:09 am to LSURussian
quote:
Why is my criticism of borrowers who walk away from loans as a matter of convenience (meaning they can pay the loan, they just don't want to because the loan balance is more than the market value of the house) a 'jab' at you? Does the shoe fit? How many such loans have you walked away from?
Gee, I don't know. Perhaps because you've made it a habit to accuse me of such behavior in the past?
quote:
And why was my comment "off-base"? People walking away from loans by choice are a part of the problem with losses at the mortgage companies. That is relevant to kfizz's OP.
Ah, but now you've magically changed your original statement, which was:
quote:
I guess that is what happens when so many borrowers start believing it's acceptable to walk away from a loan obligation simply because they think it's in their best interest. It's a shame our society has devolved to that.
Your original remark tried to ascribe the problem in full to borrowers walking.
quote:
Regarding your first post about not making a profit on the funds the government put into Fannie and Freddie, have you seen anyone claim those actions would be profitable? I haven't.
Why was such a high coupon put on the government's preferred shares? That's right - to give the ILLUSION that Frannie would somehow miraculously be able to carry and repay such absurd amounts of rescue financing.
quote:
The purpose of the government takeover and funding of those companies was to provide liquidity in the mortgage market.
There were many purposes, and yes, that was one of them.
Posted on 11/6/09 at 10:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it kind of cracks me up that the supposedly super elite bankers/loan officers in their ivory towers were out-maneuvered by a bunch of uneducated people with credit scores in the 600s. we're not dealing with the cream of the crop
They weren't "out-maneuvered," they both got caught holding the bag.
Posted on 11/6/09 at 10:56 am to kfizzle85
more like they were outmanuevered by the CRA's and also companies like GS that were shorting what they sold behind their backs.
Posted on 11/6/09 at 10:57 am to prplhze2000
So they were out-maneuvered by themselves?
Posted on 11/6/09 at 11:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it kind of cracks me up that the supposedly super elite bankers/loan officers in their ivory towers were out-maneuvered by a bunch of uneducated people with credit scores in the 600s. we're not dealing with the cream of the crop
Out maneuvered? The brass of those firms raked in literally billions of dollars in cash bonuses for themselves and their employees - and then ended up with massive government bailouts that leave them in charge with not much changed.
Posted on 11/6/09 at 11:31 am to Tiger JJ
well i mean before the government bailouts
dumb consumers > banks > government
dumb consumers > banks > government
Posted on 11/6/09 at 11:50 am to SlowFlowPro
IDK, it's not like having your credit obliterated and your house[s] foreclosed on is a "win."
Posted on 11/6/09 at 12:21 pm to kfizzle85
you can fix your credit in 10 years
you could not get out of these mortgages in 10 years
you could not get out of these mortgages in 10 years
Posted on 11/6/09 at 12:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
Eh. Your increased borrowing costs vs the bank's carrying costs (assuming that they decided to hold on to the house for 10 years); I promise you your borrowing costs exceed their cost of carry.
Posted on 11/6/09 at 1:14 pm to kfizzle85
Posted on 11/6/09 at 5:32 pm to Tiger JJ
quote:So do you or do you not agree it's acceptable for a borrower to walk away even when he can pay the monthly obligation?
Perhaps because you've made it a habit to accuse me of such behavior in the past?
quote:No I didn't. Maybe in your mind they changed, but both of my statements were consistent with each other.
now you've magically changed your original statement,
quote:High risk of non-repayment? Yes. Higher risk = higher interest rates.
Why was such a high coupon put on the government's preferred shares?
quote:No. Your paranoia is showing again.
That's right - to give the ILLUSION that Frannie would somehow miraculously be able to carry and repay such absurd amounts of rescue financing.
Posted on 11/6/09 at 6:13 pm to LSURussian
I'd really love to be a banker in Russian's alternate reality, where lenders have no fiduciary responsibility over a nation's money supply. Oh wait, that's our reality.
Posted on 11/7/09 at 6:27 pm to LSURussian
quote:
So do you or do you not agree it's acceptable for a borrower to walk away even when he can pay the monthly obligation?
What does "acceptable" even mean? Certainly it's legal. And in the context of taking care of oneself and one's family, it can be a moral imperative. Default is what it is - a known potential outcome by both parties consensually entering into a financial transaction.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News