[Winstonm]

mike777, on Aug 16 2007, 06:11 PM, said:

The fed can inject money by simple buying treasuries outright...this is different from repos.

I am very aware of the capabilities of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve were net sellers this week and had to use a cash management bond to cover the shortfall. Foreign central banks reduced their holdings by 1.5 billion. The reduced treasury by about 3.5 billion and added to agency (GSE) about 2 billion.

Last Thursday and Friday were 3-day repos. I haven't looked to see what today's mixture was, but I bet there were some 14-day repos mixed in.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Winston...mortgage companies do not borrow from the fed to fund their operations, fund rate is not an issue here.

Agreed, Mike, but my point is that it is not FED rates that are causing the problem but MARKET rates - big difference as I'm sure you will agree.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

[mike777]

btw NBC news had a great story of how a rich couple in Burbank wanted to buy this horrible crappy looking 600,000$ house in Burbank and no one wanted to give them a jumbo.

They whined....silly.

Someone will gladly give them a jumbo...they may have to pay 100% interest but someone will .....or tell them to lower their offer to 100,000$ for this house.

I used to live just outside of Burbank in Studio City....the prices were insane then and have only gone up.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Aug 16 2007, 02:54 PM, said:

If big companies think they are too big to fail, then they will continue to make bad loans or take on too much risk, since they can shift the risk to the government.

Example...a complete stranger asks to borrow 800,000$ from you...you say sure..if you default .....the rest of the USA taxpayers will bail me out...no risk.

100% agree with this, Mike. It gets into "moral hazard". If large companies got too greedy and overleveraged on bad debt, is it the taxpayer who should bail them out?

If you believe in bailouts here, then you really don't believe in free market economies - you believe in socialism for the rich.

However, if this turns into a systemic crisis of financial system solvency, that would be a different kettle of mackeral.

[Winstonm]

I was watching a litle PBS a bit ago and Boston jumbo rates are 9%.

[Winstonm]

Quote

But those are the people who are getting screwed now. The people who will get screwed if Countrywide goes down are mainly people with existing mortgages who bought before the bubble and took out home equity loans.

How can imprudent borrowing ever be classified as getting screwed? If you make $1000 a month and take on car payments on a new Corvette for $800 a month, are you getting screwed when your car is repossessed? If anyone refinanced before the bubble, there is no problem as home prices hadn't doubled yet. The only problem is for those who refinanced after the bubble was well established.

Quote

When people can't get new mortgages at a reasonable rate, home prices will plummet.

These home prices are not plummeting - they are reverting to mean - this is what happens when a bubble pops. Real estate prices are sticky. It will be some years before the full effect of deflating prices is complete.

Quote

The amount that you can take on home equity loans is based on the equity on your house. Even a small drop in the price of a home can make a big % difference on your equity. People with excellent credit are suddenly going to find themselves cut off, forced to take either unsecured loans at a ridiculous rate or collapse into bankruptcy

.

People with excellent credit won't have a problem as they will not have placed themselves into this predicament. The only ones who will be in trouble are those who gambled on ever-rising real estate to cover their transgressions of having no money down and over-financing.

Houses are meant to be dwellings, abodes, places to live - they were never intended to be investment vehicles.

[pbleighton]

Quote

I doubt many home equity loans are callable upon demand.

This is true.

Quote

That would be very rare. Also most variable rates have caps on them.

This is technically true, but the caps are so high that for the majority of homeowners with a mortgage which is a significant proportion of their income a rise to the (or less) cap would force foreclosure - see my post on ratios and down payments.

As to bailing out Countrywide, I share Mike's and Richard's distaste for it. I hope it can be avoided, but *too big to fail* may apply here, and if it does (I don't know), it would be stupid for the Feds not to do it. We shouldn't trigger a recession in order to give an object lesson in moral hazard, particularly since the political consequence would be that the bar for bailouts in the future would be lowered.

Peter

[pbleighton]

Quote

People with excellent credit won't have a problem as they will not have placed themselves into this predicament. The only ones who will be in trouble are those who gambled on ever-rising real estate to cover their transgressions of having no money down and over-financing.

Not so. Alot of people will be vulnerable if we get a recession and moderately higher interest rates at the same time.

Peter

[mike777]

BTW I think people, experts and the media have been predicting a housing crash for at least 60 years.....one day they may even be right...this is not a home realestate crash or close to it yet.....

A recession just means a tiny blip for the economy....look at past ones in the last 100 years.

Even the depression only slowed things down for less than ten years. Yes it means pain for many but it is not the end of the world. We can survive and be stronger soon.

[Winstonm]

pbleighton, on Aug 16 2007, 06:57 PM, said:

Quote

People with excellent credit won't have a problem as they will not have placed themselves into this predicament. The only ones who will be in trouble are those who gambled on ever-rising real estate to cover their transgressions of having no money down and over-financing.

Not so. Alot of people will be vulnerable if we get a recession and moderately higher interest rates at the same time.

Peter

If a buyer did not use an exotic loan or did not overextend, then he can afford his house payments - whether the home value goes up or down is irrelevant.

The only way recession would hurt this person would be in job loss.

[pbleighton]

Quote

If a buyer did not use an exotic loan or did not overextend, then he can afford his house payments - whether the home value goes up or down is irrelevant.

Winston, about 30% of mortgage loans made in the last few years are adjustable rate loans. They are hardly exotic.

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on Aug 16 2007, 05:12 PM, said:

btw the market rallied 350 points or so today..Fed injected 17 billion just today into economy....a good start.

So the dow goes up 350 and the rich people get richer....and on what? Not just speculation.....when the fed ponies up 17 billion....that came from where? Oh yeah, they can PRINT money...whether the value is there or not....so your goods and services get devalued by the same amount....so YOU are subsidizing the rich so they can get richer....now THAT is rich.

[Al_U_Card]

For those who want to know.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm

[mike777]

Keep in mind the stockmarket is not a zero sum game....

The pie grows bigger....the pie is not static....many forget this...or do not understand this...of course the pie can grow smaller too....

If your point is there is evil, some evil in the capital market system we do not disagree. Some evil does not mean all evil...

Charity upon your fellow man does not have to be a bad thing.

[Winstonm]

pbleighton, on Aug 16 2007, 08:35 PM, said:

Quote

If a buyer did not use an exotic loan or did not overextend, then he can afford his house payments - whether the home value goes up or down is irrelevant.

Winston, about 30% of mortgage loans made in the last few years are adjustable rate loans. They are hardly exotic.

Peter

Peter,

If you can't afford the payments, you can't afford the house. The only reason to use ARMs was to take advantage of proclaimed rising home prices and falling mortgage prices - a gamble that you could buy too much house and then refinance it at a lower rate.

80/20 loans, interest only ARMs, ARMs - these were all created simply to move the merchandise - the house - allowing the originatiing lender to collect a fee, package the risk into a MBS and sell it, allowing the next guy to collect more fees when he stripped the MBS and created CDOs....and on and on.

To believe the last 2 years of the housing bubble 2005-2006 were about providing homes to poor working families is simply burying one's head in the sand.

The bubble forced home prices to rise to unaffordable levels - new mortgages were needed to get people initially into the homes otherwise the demand would drop and prices would have stabalized.

Do you really think the reason car loans were extended from 4 years to 5 years and then to 7 years was because consumer's demanded new loan products? No, it was because automobiles became too expensive for consumer's to afford with 3-4 year financing. New financing arrangements had to be created to keep the iron moving.

Housing was no different. You may not wish to call the ARM exotic, but to a buyer from 20 years ago it would be.

[Gerben42]

Quote

The bubble forced home prices to rise to unaffordable levels - new mortgages were needed to get people initially into the homes otherwise the demand would drop and prices would have stabalized.

This is the part I don't get. If already-built houses become too expensive it is cheaper to build a new one yourself. You know you're going to pay for that one exactly what it costs, rather than twice as much.

[mike777]

Gerben42, on Aug 17 2007, 02:26 AM, said:

Quote

The bubble forced home prices to rise to unaffordable levels - new mortgages were needed to get people initially into the homes otherwise the demand would drop and prices would have stabalized.

This is the part I don't get. If already-built houses become too expensive it is cheaper to build a new one yourself. You know you're going to pay for that one exactly what it costs, rather than twice as much.

Yes but:


Your huge new house may be worth nothing.
Your new land may be worth nothing.

Your junky old junky house on junky land may be worth million.

Does this sound goofy..of course..but this is calif and NY and boston and DC
Location, Location, Location

This is why many are leaving calif.......many including me

I live in a place that would be millions in calif....but cheap here. Well that is a bit of .....hyperbole...but a million here goes alot further than calif.

I really have no idea why because many places that cost a million or more are pure junk...not on beach.....but pure crap.

Of course in my opinion if you are not on beach...in calif you might as well leave...
I..lived on beach for a few years...moved inland...and then left...

too put this another way..live west of 405 or move out of state!

[Al_U_Card]

You can't expect to look at the card played and understand the position and the end-game. The big picture involves getting out of your hand and into the game.

The mortgage thing is just one element in a falling house of cards. There are so many ways to find out about market manipulations, international cartels, government (official and unofficial) wrong-doing.

Time to do some serious investigation before the round is called.....it is still not too late but time is a-wasting.

[pbleighton]

Quote

The only reason to use ARMs was to take advantage of proclaimed rising home prices and falling mortgage prices - a gamble that you could buy too much house and then refinance it at a lower rate.

This is simply untrue. I was in the mortgage business for two years (late 96 to late 98), and one of my bridge partners is still in the business. The reason most people choose ARMs is that they don't want to buy interest rate insurance from their lenders, because it is so expensive.

Quote

80/20 loans, interest only ARMs, ARMs - these were all created simply to move the merchandise - the house - allowing the originatiing lender to collect a fee, package the risk into a MBS and sell it, allowing the next guy to collect more fees when he stripped the MBS and created CDOs....and on and on.

This is silly conspiracy theory. What happened was capitalism - people bought new loans they liked.

Quote

To believe the last 2 years of the housing bubble 2005-2006 were about providing homes to poor working families is simply burying one's head in the sand.

Who in these posts has said that it was? I certainly haven't - it's just capitalism.

Quote

The bubble forced home prices to rise to unaffordable levels - new mortgages were needed to get people initially into the homes otherwise the demand would drop and prices would have stabalized.

More conspiracy theory.

Quote

Do you really think the reason car loans were extended from 4 years to 5 years and then to 7 years was because consumer's demanded new loan products? No, it was because automobiles became too expensive for consumer's to afford with 3-4 year financing. New financing arrangements had to be created to keep the iron moving.

I think consumers were given more choices. You seem to object to this.

Quote

Housing was no different. You may not wish to call the ARM exotic, but to a buyer from 20 years ago it would be.

BFD. A laser printer was unheard of 30 years ago, but I have a cheap one sitting on my desk. Deregulated financial markets are a fact of life. IMO they bring more good than bad, but they certainly have a down side.

Winston, I think I've figured out your proble. You want to go back to the fifties

Peter

[jtfanclub]

OK, so...two things that aren't true here, stated as fact. One was the callablility, one was the floor price.

Let me go through an example, using my parents, with the numbers entirely made up.

Suppose my parents bought a house with a mortgage in 1970 for $50,000.
In 1995, the value had increased to $100,000, main due to inflation.
Now it's worth $200,000.

Currently, they have a mortgage for $50K on it, since they got a second one and the first one has expired.

Back in 2000 or so they took out a line of credit, for $100K, at about 6%, with a 12 month payback. They're currently using $60,000 of it. Every month, they owe $5600 on the line of credit, and the LOC drops to $55,000. Every month, they pay $600, and take out another $5000 loan, pushing it back up to $60,000.

This is a completely stable situation. They owe a total of $110,000 on a $200,000 house, the amount of which is falling slowly as they pay off the 2nd mortgage. Eventually, they'll sell the house (they're not getting any younger), which will pay off the money they owe and then some.

Well, if the housing bubble just settles, then it's not a big deal. Even if the house drops to 1995 levels slowly, they'll end up having to play $1600 a month instead of $600 a month for 10 months to drop down to the new value of the house. They won't be able to go on vacations, may have to dip into their 401K, or ask me or my sister to help out, but they'll survive. Sucks to be them, since their retirement was going to be funded by the sale of the house, but we'll make it.

But if the housing bubble bursts, then housing values will drop to effectively zero, as far as the banks are concerned. My folks will find that they have to pay off the entire secured line of credit in 12 months and the interest...$65,000, give or take. They can't come up with that kind of money. I can't come up with that kind of money. Nobody will be offering them a secured loan for the house, because nobody will be sure if the house can sell for more than $50K on short notice. Then, it's foreclosure time.

Eventually, the panic that ensues after the housing bubble bursts will be over. The house will be worth $120K or whatever it settles to. Unfortunately, due to the panic, my parents no longer own the house- they were forced to give it up at its low ebb, which will be far lower than the settled value.

Panic kills. Losing Countrywide will probably cause panic. Floating Countrywide won't keep the bubble from popping, but it will prevent houses from dropping well below their bubble value while the market sorts itself out.