Where is the US economy headed?

@BigTexN,

BTN, The market price may not be revalued immediately, but in this environment, it's more true than not that the market value would need to be reduced on their books sometime in the near future.

Of coarse, much of this depends on the market area; some are impacted more than others.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

What about a new law requiring you all to take out top-up mortgages and you being marched to the shops and ordered to buy more of that junk you are habituated to using to display before your neighbours your success in life?

Would that work?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

spendi, That the government has to enforce an "equal pay" amendment just shows how backwards we have been as a country in seeking "equality" for every one.

Are you promoting equal pay for everyone irrespective of usefulness? Bernard Shaw suggested that.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

CI, an interesting story on bank mark-to-market accounting...I had the opportunity to speak with a bank asset pricing manager. He stated that, even though I never missed a mortgage payment and regardless that my payments recur automatically from my checking account, the bank is required to reprice the value of my mortgage at a deeper rate because my payment history does not show an inclination to pay MORE than the minimum and therefore I am considered to be at greater risk for default.

According to him, an additional payment of 5% would increase the book value of my mortgage by as much as 20% or more. Surprisingly, that increased value would probably prompt the bank to immediately sell the asset to another lender...even though it would still be considered a "loss" to my original lender.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I believe in equal pay for performance in any "similar-typre" profession.

1 Reply

@BigTexN,

BTN, This is the first time I'm hearing about the "bank's mark-to-market accounting," and I used to work as an accountant/manager. Thanks for the info.

My wife and I took out an equity line of credit last year, because we had major renovations done to our home. The interest rate started at 5.25%, and the bank automatically reduced the rate now to 3.25%.

I have problems with the rational used by banks on existing "good" customers who have always paid their mortgage on time, but also understand where some markets would require the re-evaluation of homes even under those conditions.

Some places in California like Modesto have become ghost towns, because many just left their homes after their market value dropped below their mortgage balance. However, our ZIP code in Silicon Valley has held property values pretty well, and many still sell over over one million.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I used to work as an accountant/manager.

Nudge nudge--say no more. A nod's as good as a wink to a blind horse.

There's a new one out. Laser treatment on eyes. Nothing to pay for two years and then interest free for a further two years.

Watch out for bundles of that stuff coming to your bank.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendi, Get lost. You're worse than a gnat.

1 Reply

@BigTexN,

BigTexN wrote:

Okie, with regards to home equity, should the bank that holds my mortgage be required to market-to-market the value of that mortgage to 60% of its value even though I have never missed a payment, the mortgage is less than the current value of my house and I pay my mortgage via automatic withdrawal from my checking?

The common sense answer is "No". But, banks are being forced to show this on their books. The government loaned the banks funds to cover this shortfall related to an irrational, emotional pricing model.

The bank is not feeding those government funds back into the economy for 2 important reasons: 1) they need it to support the short-term mark-to-market anomaly on their books and 2) if they DID use the funds to free up credit, any new loan they underwrote would instantly be repriced on their books to less than its real value because of mark-to-market accounting.

Because the banks "borrowed" these funds and therefore must repay these loans, is it true that the governments printing of these funds created a multiplier effect and, by extension, inflation?

If you paid more than your house is now worth, then you are part of the emotional pricing model that you speak of, and therefore you paid an inflated price for your house, when compared to its current value. Therefore, the propping up of the bank and your loan, and all loans like yours, isn't it the same as paying for the inflated value of your house, and others like it? Now, if the banks had not loaned as high of a percentage of the deemed value of your house and like houses years ago before the price dropped, the banks would not be in trouble now, it would simply be a matter of home owners taking a loss in perceived value of their homes in a free market where prices go up and they go down, nothing unusual or wrong with that. The people would not have owed so much on their houses, such that they would not be in trouble if they needed to sell, they would merely not make as much profit, or they would take a loss, but it would be paid for.

So the people that did not leverage their houses to the hilt are paying for people and banks that did. Although you are paying your payments, it is unreasonable to expect everyone to do that. Basically, houses were leveraged to a much higher percentage than they should ever be to withstand fluctuations in property values.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Quote:

Therefore, the propping up of the bank and your loan, and all loans like yours, isn't it the same as paying for the inflated value of your house, and others like it?

What's your point, if you have one?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I believe in equal pay for performance in any "similar-typre" profession.

And who is to determine that ci. if not those whose venture capital is on the line?

The Government?? Goodness gracious me.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

spendi, Get lost. You're worse than a gnat.

You're getting rattled ci. You're a bloody Commie. But not regarding the poor.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
I believe in equal pay for performance in any "similar-typre" profession.

And who is to determine that ci. if not those whose venture capital is on the line?

The Government?? Goodness gracious me.

The lawyers in Washington, spendius, the ambulance chasers turned into politicians. Thats who ci voted for.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

spendius wrote:

Quote:
I believe in equal pay for performance in any "similar-typre" profession.

And who is to determine that ci. if not those whose venture capital is on the line?

The Government?? Goodness gracious me.

The lawyers in Washington, spendius, the ambulance chasers turned into politicians. Thats who ci voted for.

It's simple; hire people into positions, pay them equally no matter what their race or gender. How ******* complicated is that?

'ambulance chasers,' please. Can you just drop the tired old Republican smears? There's nothing wrong with suing a company who discriminates against you, Okie.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

i just hope okie will never be in any trouble ... mounting his own defence before a judge and jury might be troublesome even for okie <GRIN> .
since okie doesn't trust any lawyers (there aren't any exceptions , are there ?) , he'll have to throw himself "on the mercy of the court" .
hbg

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

It's simple; hire people into positions, pay them equally no matter what their race or gender. How ******* complicated is that?

That's an easy thing to trot out when it's not your venture capital. Nobody is arguing here for discrimination on pay relating to race or gender. And certainly not me.

Why don't you read the thread Cyclo before blurting your pinko crap. You're not up to being labelled "red". You're a dripping wet liberal pinkie toes.

Get yourself a business--get real.

1 Reply

@spendius,

since all corporations employ squadrons of lawyers , what's wrong with someone being cheated out of their pay also using a lawyer to get their rights ?

what's good for the goose is got for the gander ?

or are you suggesting that corporations not be allowed to employ/hire lawyers - i'm sure they'd be squealing loudly .

one might argue that there are too many lawyers in america , but that's the american system , i believe .
(japan has far fewer lawyers than america but i doubt that americans would be satisfied with the japanese judicial system . )
hbg

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's simple; hire people into positions, pay them equally no matter what their race or gender. How ******* complicated is that?

'ambulance chasers,' please. Can you just drop the tired old Republican smears? There's nothing wrong with suing a company who discriminates against you, Okie.
Cycloptichorn

Cyclops, ambulance chasers are reality, perhaps you don't know why lawyer jokes work so well? It would be a smear if it wasn't true. Don't get me wrong, lots of attornies are honest, but there are enough that will bend the law to make a buck that the profession is held in low regard by many people. Equal pay for equal work, that would be wonderful, I have absolutely no objection whatsoever, but very often that is not the case in regard to greviences brought, and decades old, come on cyclops.

I just heard of an occasion, a relative, whereby their foot slipped momentarily off the brake while stopped at a light, and bumped the car in front of them. An accident report was made, with the policeman not giving a citation, there was no damage to the vehicles except a small bit of paint left on the bumber, no damage, no injuries. Guess what, 9 months later, the young girl sued the relative for several hundred dollars of damage to the car and $16,000 in pain and suffering or some such thing. Thanks goodness for insurance, but the insurance company paid the $400 some odd dollars damage to the car, but are denying the 16,000 as a joke. So it took 9 months for this person to realize they were hurt, or did it take 9 months for that person to realize they could get some money with a lawyer? This is common practice in this country, cyclops, and the same will happen times ten with this new ridiculous law for ambulance chasers to cash in.

1 Reply

35 of the 55 Founding Fathers were lawyers

First ten Presidents:

1 George Washington Surveyor, Farmer/plantation owner, Soldier (General of United Army of the Colonies)
2 John Adams Lawyer, Farmer
3 Thomas Jefferson Writer, Inventor, Lawyer, Architect, Farmer/Plantation owner
4 James Madison Lawyer
5 James Monroe Lawyer
6 John Quincy Adams Lawyer
7 Andrew Jackson Soldier, Lawyer
8 Martin Van Buren Lawyer
9 William Harrison Soldier
10 John Tyler Lawyer

They practiced law, not just studied law. Obama, for instance, lectured on law but never practiced law. Any other astonishing news?

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's simple; hire people into positions, pay them equally no matter what their race or gender. How ******* complicated is that?

'ambulance chasers,' please. Can you just drop the tired old Republican smears? There's nothing wrong with suing a company who discriminates against you, Okie.
Cycloptichorn

Cyclops, ambulance chasers are reality, perhaps you don't know why lawyer jokes work so well? It would be a smear if it wasn't true. Don't get me wrong, lots of attornies are honest, but there are enough that will bend the law to make a buck that the profession is held in low regard by many people. Equal pay for equal work, that would be wonderful, I have absolutely no objection whatsoever, but very often that is not the case in regard to greviences brought, and decades old, come on cyclops.

I just heard of an occasion, a relative, whereby their foot slipped momentarily off the brake while stopped at a light, and bumped the car in front of them. An accident report was made, with the policeman not giving a citation, there was no damage to the vehicles except a small bit of paint left on the bumber, no damage, no injuries. Guess what, 9 months later, the young girl sued the relative for several hundred dollars of damage to the car and $16,000 in pain and suffering or some such thing. Thanks goodness for insurance, but the insurance company paid the $400 some odd dollars damage to the car, but are denying the 16,000 as a joke. So it took 9 months for this person to realize they were hurt, or did it take 9 months for that person to realize they could get some money with a lawyer? This is common practice in this country, cyclops, and the same will happen times ten with this new ridiculous law for ambulance chasers to cash in.

Do you actually know anything about the law in question, Okie? The law that Obama signed does not allow people to go back 'decades ago' and sue for discrimination; it just resets the 180 day limit for cases to the last paycheck you were discriminated in, not the first one. That way, people who find out they are being currently discriminated against can still sue, even if it's been going on for years. So, enough with the stupid 'decades' claim. You're completely wrong when you state that.

If people can prove they were paid less then their fellows at the same positions, then that's not ambulance chasing or suddenly discovering that you were hurt. It's evidence that you were discriminated against.

Just admit that you believe that women should be discriminated against, and that when they find out about it, they shouldn't be allowed to sue for discrimination Okie. Stop dancing around and just say it in plain words.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know