Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
I think your frustration is clear but really, to call people who just received a reprieve from losing their homes because they weren't going to be able to pay their mortgage, victims, is hardly accurate.
The five-year plan is something that is going to benefit both sides in the sub-prime mess. I don't see how keeping people from losing there homes is a bad thing.
The only thing I can see is that the "free market" did fail and it isn't going to take it's lumps and accept the adjustment. The thing is, those that are feeling the pain of this adjustment extend way beyond the US borders. The debt is held by many foreign interests and has resulted in fluctuations in markets around the world.
I don't think you can blame Bush for this.
|
I totally disagree. No one who cannot refinance "on their own", will benefit from this plan. The few with "good credit" who cannot refinance into a loan with more attractive terms as their "time bomb" adjustable rate mortgage, or "no interest" for the first X number of years adjustable rate mortgage RESETS to a higher interest rate, and includes payment of some principle, are unable to refinance because the property that they took a mortgage loan on is worth less than they paid for it.
If they put down a 5 percent or smaller down payment, they have to pay the difference between current appraised value, and closing costs, in order to pay off their current mortgage. If the difference they would have to bring to the closing to qualify is a small amount, and they were credit worthy, they would have refinanced before it became a problem.
I'll post it again. The folks who took out the loans that are now "a problem", were almost all borrowers who, at higher appraised values than the current ones, were stretched to qualify for the high amounts that they borrowed, and now owe.
Housing valuations are not going to be rising until excess inventory, unsold new units still being built by builders not yet bankrupted, along with the finished units languishing and overhanging on the market, along with rising foreclosures and from the people who have the means to keep paying but who are smart enough to "walk away", will pressure prices down.
Added to that are the buildup of sellers who will grow more impatient and concerned as prices continue to drop. That kind of a market triggers a growing, mass realization that residential real estate is an illiquid, unattractive investment, except as a necessity.
Again, anyone who already is "upside down" on their loan vs. valuation....in this, only the morning of a long period of decline, is much better off walking away from their mortgage and property now. They will walk later.
Read the first posts on the <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=113978">1992 redux</a> thread. Read the stock prices mentioned then, look at them now. I know what I am talking about. Read a few thousand posts, over five or six years, on these sites:
http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/sub...ubjectid=51347
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/
This guy had been correct for months:
http://search.messages.yahoo.com/sea...thor&within=tm
Here are the prices offered for Mortgage backed bonds:
http://www.markit.com/information/products/abx.html
Here is a description of what E*trade just sold $3 billion of these assets for:
Quote:
http://www.seeking-alpha.com/article...tadel-infusion
....Indeed, the biggest winner in this deal would appear to be Citadel, which is getting $3 billion of securities that yield 12.5% “for 27 cents on the dollar,” says Bank of America Analyst Michael Hecht, who also figures that Citadel got most of its 19% stock stake for free. (It already owned a 2.5% position.) At the same time, he points out, as a result of the deal shareholders will suffer a 40% earnings per share dilution with a 100% dilution of tangible equity. “Xmas Comes Early for Citadel, Existing Shareholders Get a Lump of Coal,” was the headline of his report....
|
Citicorp is bankrupt, the largest US bank is getting a "bailout" at 11 percent annual interest, form an Abu Dhabi state owned "entity" to put "lipstick on the pig", to delay the FACT that Citicorp is insolvent. The Fed has allowed the four biggest US banks to loan up to 30 percent of their assets to their brokerage subsidiaries, instead of the ten percent limit conditioned by FDIC deposit insurance. They've put that insurance fund at risk by raising the limit:
Quote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a0X4zgNm8Ibs
...Citigroup to Raise $7.5 Billion From Abu Dhabi State (Update5)
By Will McSheehy and Bradley Keoun
Enlarge Image/Details
Nov. 27 (Bloomberg) -- Citigroup Inc., the biggest U.S. bank by assets, will receive a $7.5 billion cash infusion from Abu Dhabi to replenish capital after record mortgage losses wiped out almost half its market value.
Citigroup rose 1.9 percent in New York trading today following acting Chief Executive Officer Win Bischoff's statement late yesterday that funds from the state-owned Abu Dhabi Investment Authority will help ``strengthen our capital base.''
Abu Dhabi will buy securities that convert to stock and yield 11 percent a year, almost double the interest Citigroup offers bond investors, underscoring the New York-based company's need for cash. Fourth-quarter profit will be reduced by as much as $7 billion because of losses from subprime mortgages, which led to the departure of CEO Charles O. ``Chuck'' Prince III and a 46 percent slump in its stock this year. ...
|
If you still see this as a "subprime" loan problem, you have a lot of reading to do. I cannot believe you posted so adamantly.
It borders on insulting.
This is a global credit crisis. Major banks do not trust the solvency of each other...even to the extent of lending to each other "over night". It is not that they don't know the "value" of their own SIVS, Derivatives, and MBS, they refuse to accept, or let on that they have accepted, that much of what they hold is near worthless, crap.
This has nothing to do with opinions stated in this thread's OP. The decsions are not "socialistic", they are not intended to provide any benefit to individuals. The US banking system and it's paper currency are "on the brink".
Toronto Dominion bank is facing similar challenges, but your currency is sound. You enjoy a trade surplus, your country exports a million barrels of petroleum per day. We import 14 million bbls of petroleum equivalents per day, at $90 per bbl, all with borrowed money.
Our government along with the Fed, which is a private bank, and the executives of the major financial concerns will screw the entire populace, as the dollar and these corporations "go down". The US is heading into, believe it or not, an economic depression. Anyone paying a mortgage on a house that is worth less than they paid for it, is a debt slave.
Only a dramatic collapse in the exchange rate of the dollar...say 50 percent in the next two years, will aid "upside down" mortgagees enough to matter. The Fed talks about battling inflation while their critical concern is a repeat of what began in 1929, a deflationary depression. In housing, it is here. The fiscal policy is to attempt to inflate, and it is going to fail, unless they work even harder to destroy the dollar's purchasing power.
World demand for everything is beginning a decline. US imports will drop dramatically. This will help to stabilize the dollar, by easing the $840 billion annual trade deficit. The Fed keeps lowering interest rates, dropping the dollars' exchange rate, hurting rates of return for small savers and CD purchasers. They try to make borrowing more attractive to consumers and businesses increasingly unable to qualify for loans, or uninterested in obtaining them.
I hope the above info and this will help put things in perspective for you. Again, there is not justification for this thread's OP:
Quote:
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/...4_FORTUNE5.htm
Financial News: Banks Urge UK Clients To Stop Borrowing
Dow Jones
December 02, 2007: 07:16 PM EST
Banks have asked top U.K. corporate clients not to draw on lending facilities to which they are entitled in order to preserve their balance sheets as they approach the financial year end.
The banks are urging some of their biggest clients not to draw on standby credit facilities as the sub-prime crisis and squeeze on interbank lending have affected banks' ability to fund themselves.
The problems started with the closure of the commercial paper market as a means of cheap funding for companies in the summer. Banks have to provide standby financing of up to 100% to backstop commercial paper programs. With banks struggling for their sources of financing through the interbank market, the drawdowns are having a direct effect on their balance sheets.
Several bankers have said Citigroup (C) is one of those most affected and that the bank was asking some clients not to use standby facilities, which are part of the normal relationship banking arrangements made between banks and companies.
A Citigroup spokesman said: "Citigroup honors its commitments to its clients but, as part of our normal business, we discuss with clients the potential use of our balance sheet. This is standard industry practice."
Simon Allocca, head of non-French corporate origination at BNP Paribas ( 13110.FR), said: "By the end of the summer, the principal problem facing banks was not U.S. sub-prime or collateralized debt obligation exposure but the drawing down of standby loans and bilaterals. In some cases banks are seeking to avoid further balance sheet capital pressure by asking clients not to use their standby facilities."
Standby financing is typically for 364 days and when undrawn has a zero risk weighting. When it is drawn, the risk weighting goes to 100%. This makes the sums involved significant. If a company is unable to tap the markets for commercial paper to the tune of, say, GBP4 billion (EUR5.6 billion), banks may have to provide that amount in standby financing.
|