<stuff_stuff@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:02ogt3ler13unco71ps40k2587vjei0k0f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:12:34 -0500, "John Galt"
> <whoisjohngalt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Doobie Keebler" <kooper.db@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:5db55618-3ac5-4c8b-b672-10da7d5aeafc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Mar 11, 7:52 pm, "John Galt" <whoisjohng...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The risk to the taxpayers through the window is 200B max.
>>>>
>>>> Where's the immolation?
>>>>
>>>> JG
>>>
>>>
>>> UBS' and Merrill Lynch's total expected writedown estimates are around
>>> $600bn, still a long way to go from the $180bn currently acknowledged
>>> by major banks.
>>>
>>> How 'bout I meet you half-way on that number?
>>
>>Not until I get a citation from a source that's not grinding an axe.
>
>
> Did you the memo from Fannie Mae today? Want to reevaluate?
>
> "It's only one man's opinion, but Freddie Mac Chief Executive Office
> Richard Syron had some rather astounding comments to analysts today:
>
> - HOME PRICE DROPS "ONLY" ONE THIRD DONE
> - WE'RE IN A 100-YEAR STORM IN HOUSING
> - US IS IN WORST HOUSING MARKET IN A CENTURY
> - APARTMENT'S ROLE IN HOUSING TO BE "MUCH BIGGER"
Makes sense to me. The affordability issue must be solved, and quite
obviously people who get the boot from their homes need apartments to live
in. (That's a REIT play. Camden, perhaps.)
Enter Soapbox Mode: This addiction that Americans are encouraged to have
towards homeowner****p needs to be ended. Owning a home is certainly a
wonderful thing for some, but it's not a very good investment compared to
equities, and forcing a high level of homeowner****p over and above what is
typically found in other countries is in itself bubble-creating.
It should be added that homeowner****p (obviously) compared to renting puts
the risk on the shoulders of the homeowners. People of limited means ought
not to be taking great financial risk, and the idea that a large
percentage
of our bottom two tax quintiles have been shoehorned into homes, taking
the
burden of that risk, is unconsionable. Government, as you put it below,
encouraged them to become homeowners, facilitated the availability of
imprudent loans to finance their dreams, and softballed the fact that
owners
of homes take on capital risk that renters do not. We're a better country
if
we do not distort the natural functioning of this market simply because
increasing homeonwer****p rates makes politicians feel better.
Finally, the other advantage of lower homeonwer****p is green living. High
density living uses signficantly less energy than single family dwellings.
</soapbox>
>
> The most controversial thing Syron was picked up in a Bloomberg
> re****t: Federal Rules Let Too Many Poor People Buy Houses, Syron Says.
>
> That is rather inartfully expressed. What I think (or at least hope)
> he meant was that too many people -- Home owners formerly known as
> renters -- bought houses they simply could not afford.
Or, it could be said that any mortgage which does not build equity from
day
one is simply a complicated rental agreement you had to sign in 53 places.
>
> Here's the excerpt:
>
> "Freddie Mac Chief Executive Office Richard Syron said he's urging
> changes in federal rules that enabled too many low- and
> moderate-income Americans to buy houses they can't afford.
>
> It's "perverse'' that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the two biggest
> providers of money for U.S. home loans, have been encouraged "to put
> people into homes that they end up losing,'' Syron said at a meeting
> with analysts and investors in New York.
I don't suppose you want to name the party which is most likely to have
done
this "encouraging", would you? (I am always interested in how Henry
Ciseneros went from pressuring (or threatening) Anthony Mozila to help
make
minority homeowner****p rates increase to Countrywide's Board of
Directors.)
>
> Syron said in an interview that officials at the Department of
> Housing and Urban Development seem receptive to his suggestions that
> they change the affordable-housing goals for his McLean,
> Virginia-based company and Wa****ngton-based Fannie Mae.
Good news.
>
> The goals, which were last updated in 2005, require that a certain
> amount of the housing units that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac finance
> through their overall business and certain sub- segments meet
> affordable-housing needs."
Thus proving (again) that the current Admin isn't "conservative". Screwing
around with the markets rarely ends well.
JG
>
> "Hmmm, maybe he and I are referring to different things after all!"
|
