View Single Post
  #5  
Old March 21st, 2007, 03:07 PM posted to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly
Ken Fortenberry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,594
Default Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...

wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:47:48 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Tom Littleton wrote:
wrote :
I'm watching "Nightline," and apparently, folks think the "government"
ought to get involved to somehow help folks who overborrowed on
too-large houses at over-inflated prices because the lenders were too
lenient in lending...AFAIAC, let the lenders go under and the yuppie
****s live in boxes eating recalled dogfood....

Doubting this will help much,
R
...and if anyone with any sense wonders about why the US "public" ought
not to be trusted with much at all, here's gonna be Ayer answer...
agree with the overall sentiment. My suspicion is that
the folks ending up getting bailed-out will be the idiots
who lent out the cash. An equally stupid remedy, IMO.

The ones who lent out the cash at usurious rates have already
cashed out. For the most part they sold those mortgages to
unsuspecting investment houses under misrepresented circumstances
and it's those investment houses who are gonna get stuck holding
the bag. As for the yuppies being kicked out of their houses to
live in Frigidaire boxes and eat Alpo, they're more the victims of
loan sharks than anything else and they're not yuppies.


Uh, OK...and just how does any company, good, bad, or otherwise, force
someone into a mortgage, "usurious" or otherwise, on an overly-large,
over-valued/mortgaged, or otherwise
inappropriate-to-the-borrower's-situation home? Mortgages on "solid"
deals for folks buying appropriately were, and still are, easy to get.
Subprimes are, were, and always have been, well, subprime, and for a
reason. And keep in mind that much of the "in the news" cases are
folks with iffy credit (which in itself should make a point), limited
payback ability, and many were taking out home equity loans to pay off
other "shopping"/"lifestyle" debt.

And yeah, I'm sure that someone knows or read about some poor couple who
had to mortgage the house to pay for junior's heart transplant or
something, but that type of situation would be a _rare_ occurrence. The
great majority of this is, simply, people attempting to live wa-a-a-a-y
beyond their means.


I don't disagree with any of that but loans were made to people with
iffy credit and then those mortgages were sold as if they were loans
to people with good credit. As I understand it this was an aggregate
deal, that is the buyers thought they were buying, just for an example,
75% good credit mortgages and 25% iffy credit mortgages but ended up
with more iffy credit mortgages than good. And this was, and is, all
somehow legal. I don't believe an S & L type bailout is warranted, like
you say the percentage of the market involved with iffy credit mortgages
is small, but I do think it should be illegal to misrepresent what
you're selling.

As for what to do, I'd say nothing beyond making it harder to sell
bad mortgages disguised as good ones.


--
Ken Fortenberry