• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

DuneAHH

Beach Fanatic
Bailout can be a relative term. Were depression-era soup lines "bailouts" for good people? Or the more benign Charity? Yes & Yes... and that in a country that was significantly more rurally agrarian and essentially 'self-sustaining' than we are as a nation today.

By now, the default crises are shaking down to encompass numerous fiscally responsible people who did plan for the worst... but the worst turned out to be so much worse, so much longer than even careful people living modest lives could have dreamt of.

Point being... we can not know what we do not know. Multiple external-force (some Natural) disasters have occurred in the last 10 years that were so bad that no one (regardless how wise, savvy, experienced, conservative, idealistic, or just plain lucky) could conceive of the possibilities; let alone put strong enough safety nets in place to avoid.

As many have stated... there are good and responsible people out there with their butts in a sling. And it's like cancer... we all know them. We are them.

Sometimes it just seems to come down to the Universe periodically imposing hard lessons to force us to a greater empathy... whether to ourselves, our neighbors & families, fellow mankind or Mother Nature.
What else could induce us to collectively return to smaller simpler lives (y'know the old days when a kid's birthday party consisted only of a cake just big enough for the immediate family.)

And finally... with regards to ruined credit ratings... WHO CARES??? It's a societal construct anyway. When majority numbers hit the proverbial crapper, Averages & Bell Curves will automatically redefine the standard (not "watching" your rating as that moronic credit-rating company commercial with the furry doggy numerals implies.:blink:)

Current rant over :clap:
 

LuciferSam

Banned
Apr 26, 2008
4,749
1,069
Sowal
So true. If the market had stayed strong would the same individuals blaming the financial insitutions for losses on loans they requested be praising them for their new found wealth? I doubt it, they would patting themselves on the back for their wise business decisions.

Yeah, perhaps for those who knew when to say when. I think a lot of them would have kept on with it and parlayed their winnings. I think a crash would have been inevitable. There would be winners and losers just like there are now. Insiders have the advantage. This reminds me so much of the pump and dump you saw in the stock market back in the '90s. Obviously there are some differences, but ultimately in either case the purchaser is the last line of protection from decisions that might hurt him financially. He at least has the option of evaluating the bad advice he is given from the corrupt evil lender (or broker) and rejecting it.
 

Geo

Beach Fanatic
Dec 24, 2006
2,740
2,795
Santa Rosa Beach, FL
So true. If the market had stayed strong would the same individuals blaming the financial insitutions for losses on loans they requested be praising them for their new found wealth? I doubt it, they would patting themselves on the back for their wise business decisions.

Poppy, very thought provoking post. Really made me think. Here is what I came up with-

If I buy property and it appreciates I will view it as a sound business decision. If it appreciates to a degree greater than the norm I would view it as good timing. And if it appreciates wildly and I found out that it was because of shananigans of wall street and lenders I would view it as good luck.

In other words- irrespective of how it worked out for me-I would place credit and blame where it is due (including with myself).
 
Last edited:

Busta Hustle

Beach Fanatic
Apr 11, 2007
434
34
People staying in their homes without paying and squatting as long as they can is not a consequence of massive bailouts. It is instead a consequence of the invention of Credit Default Swaps. If true modifications were offered (reduction in interest rates or reduction in mtg. principal based on true appraisal) then those who purchased the short side of a CDS would be penalized. In other words they would not get paid if people stayed in their homes or were able to keep their investment properties.

The consequence of masssive bailouts is that investment banks and hedge funds who bet and lost were reimbursed.
 
Last edited:

Lynnie

SoWal Insider
Apr 18, 2007
8,151
434
SoBuc
People staying in their homes without paying and squatting as long as they can is not a consequence of massive bailouts. It is instead a consequence of the invention of Credit Default Swaps. If true modifications were offered (reduction in interest rates or reduction in mtg. principal based on true appraisal) then those who purchased the short side of a CDS would be penalized. In other words they would not get paid if people stayed in their homes or were able to keep their investment properties.

The consequence of masssive bailouts is that investment banks and hedge funds who bet and lost were reimbursed.

You got that right!;-)
 

Geo

Beach Fanatic
Dec 24, 2006
2,740
2,795
Santa Rosa Beach, FL
I get it. So if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Are you saying that busta hustle's comment-

"The consequence of masssive bailouts is that investment banks and hedge funds who bet and lost were reimbursed. "

implies that he/she is making an argument for a bailout for borrowers?
 

LuciferSam

Banned
Apr 26, 2008
4,749
1,069
Sowal
Are you saying that busta hustle's comment-

"The consequence of masssive bailouts is that investment banks and hedge funds who bet and lost were reimbursed. "

implies that he/she is making an argument for a bailout for borrowers?

Not Busta Hustle in particular but that's a prevailing attitude and there are parrallels. You've got people who bet and lost, are pointing fingers at the big institutions, using that as a justification for their own irresponsible behavior, and now expect a bilout. Read some of the message boards, not just this one and you'll see.
 

Geo

Beach Fanatic
Dec 24, 2006
2,740
2,795
Santa Rosa Beach, FL
Not Busta Hustle in particular but that's a prevailing attitude and there are parrallels. You've got people who bet and lost, are pointing fingers at the big institutions, using that as a justification for their own irresponsible behavior, and now expect a bilout. Read some of the message boards, not just this one and you'll see.

Fair enough. Let me ask you this-

If one bets and loses and in the process of trying to stick it out ends up losing everything including their ability to pay their mortgage-

What do you believe should happen next?
 

Busta Hustle

Beach Fanatic
Apr 11, 2007
434
34
I get it. So if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.


No Sir never stated or implied that.
Tarp was massive bailout 1 and it went to we all know who. The stimulus was another massive bailout and what has gone out has mainly been to state and local governments.

Only a tiny fraction of any bailout has gone to an individual property owner/mortgagee in the form of a legitimate modification.

Those former property mortagee's the subject of the article will lose, their home all their downpayments, fees to banks and taxes, monthly mtg. payments, equity, credit rating.

I-banks win initial fees and charges, bailout cash, the hard asset to sell again, zero interest borrowing, and future bailouts unnamed and several times as large as the tarp.

On a scale of 1 to infinity i don't hold much anomosity toward....guess who?
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter