Relief or a raw deal?
How much assistance, if any, should the government provide troubled borrowers? Discuss the third round of this week's Dust-Up.
Comments will close after two weeks.
1.
I recommend MIZNA to help homeowners with a loan modification. I tried some of the other companies and none responded and have the same credentials as MIZNA. Check them out at www.loanmod.com . They helped me get a fixed rate on my adjustable and a payment I can live with.
2. Being an election year, the politicians will feel that they have no choice and have to bail out the irresponsible lenders and borrowers. They will create mountains of new Fed debt on the back of taxpayers in exchange for the 3 new watchdogs on Finance. Their plan won't work, Japan tried that for 18 years and still hasn't recovered. Let the market correct itself, keep gov't out of it.
3. Thornberg is right. But, people in general are too quick to blame the lenders. I benefitted by getting into a subprime mortgage in 1999, and was able to purchase a $160,000 house with no money down and a $44,000 income. The terms of the mortage were almost usurious, but I knew that going in, and was able to pay down the balance and refinance (for a lower balance and shorter term) as my income rose. I was rated for my risk, and was charged the market price for my credit. The problem with the subprime mortgage market was easier credit all around (especially with the Fed).
4. I bought a Porsche when I really did not have the money to pay for one. I put no money down. Now, I cannot make the monthly payment and it is being repossessed. I expect all of you tax payers to bail me out and make my car payment for me.
5. The sooner that the free market is allowed to find a new equilibrium using responsible lending standards, the better off we will be in the long run. The lenders will lose billions but that is their problem for not checking properly that their borrowers could repay and they need to pay the price as an object lesson to the financial system. The lenders and borrowers need to talk to each other but that is their business to come to terms. Not the government's.
6. Thornberg is right. Hillary and Barak are wrong.
7. Christopher you are SOOO right on. My wife and I have been waiting for years to buy. Things are finally coming down to a level where some people can actually afford them, and I say it's about time. Oh, and Bear Stearns certaintly was no bailout. The investors and employees lost their shirts as they should have.
8. Thank you, Mr. Thornberg -- I hope your words reach President Bush and every member of Congress.
9. Wow, will Christopher Thornberg PLEASE run for president! How refreshing. He nails everything. Irresponsible, reckless borrowers bought homes they could not afford to pay for. They took out creative sub-prime loans and gambled their home value would increase in a few years and they could refinance with their equity. They lost. The people the government SHOULD be helping are the ones who did NOT get involved in this sub-prime mess. You know, the folks who have been PATIENTLY waiting on the sidelines, saving money and waiting for the INEVITABLE housing price correction to occur.
10. Every defaulting mortgage-debtor ought receive from the Federal Reserve Board ["Fed"] a refinance loan that payd off existing mortgage-debt and is repayable per Fed bailout of Bear Stearns. The Fed ought make the same arrangement available also to every non-defaulting mortgage-debtor who could claim Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy or whose monthly mortgage-loan debt-service is at least 40% of her after-tax income, if her income is not greater than twice the local poverty-level.
Submitted by: Audra
2. Being an election year, the politicians will feel that they have no choice and have to bail out the irresponsible lenders and borrowers. They will create mountains of new Fed debt on the back of taxpayers in exchange for the 3 new watchdogs on Finance. Their plan won't work, Japan tried that for 18 years and still hasn't recovered. Let the market correct itself, keep gov't out of it.
Submitted by: Geoff
3. Thornberg is right. But, people in general are too quick to blame the lenders. I benefitted by getting into a subprime mortgage in 1999, and was able to purchase a $160,000 house with no money down and a $44,000 income. The terms of the mortage were almost usurious, but I knew that going in, and was able to pay down the balance and refinance (for a lower balance and shorter term) as my income rose. I was rated for my risk, and was charged the market price for my credit. The problem with the subprime mortgage market was easier credit all around (especially with the Fed).
Submitted by: Louis
4. I bought a Porsche when I really did not have the money to pay for one. I put no money down. Now, I cannot make the monthly payment and it is being repossessed. I expect all of you tax payers to bail me out and make my car payment for me.
Submitted by: Total crock
5. The sooner that the free market is allowed to find a new equilibrium using responsible lending standards, the better off we will be in the long run. The lenders will lose billions but that is their problem for not checking properly that their borrowers could repay and they need to pay the price as an object lesson to the financial system. The lenders and borrowers need to talk to each other but that is their business to come to terms. Not the government's.
Submitted by: Dan
6. Thornberg is right. Hillary and Barak are wrong.
Submitted by: ted
7. Christopher you are SOOO right on. My wife and I have been waiting for years to buy. Things are finally coming down to a level where some people can actually afford them, and I say it's about time. Oh, and Bear Stearns certaintly was no bailout. The investors and employees lost their shirts as they should have.
Submitted by: Aviking
8. Thank you, Mr. Thornberg -- I hope your words reach President Bush and every member of Congress.
Submitted by: mgonsior
9. Wow, will Christopher Thornberg PLEASE run for president! How refreshing. He nails everything. Irresponsible, reckless borrowers bought homes they could not afford to pay for. They took out creative sub-prime loans and gambled their home value would increase in a few years and they could refinance with their equity. They lost. The people the government SHOULD be helping are the ones who did NOT get involved in this sub-prime mess. You know, the folks who have been PATIENTLY waiting on the sidelines, saving money and waiting for the INEVITABLE housing price correction to occur.
Submitted by: Dave
10. Every defaulting mortgage-debtor ought receive from the Federal Reserve Board ["Fed"] a refinance loan that payd off existing mortgage-debt and is repayable per Fed bailout of Bear Stearns. The Fed ought make the same arrangement available also to every non-defaulting mortgage-debtor who could claim Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy or whose monthly mortgage-loan debt-service is at least 40% of her after-tax income, if her income is not greater than twice the local poverty-level.
Submitted by: Loup-Bouc
| page 1 of 1 |
