+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: How to Keep America in Their Homes

  1. #1
    Curious About TPA Regular Member s243a's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,139
    Thanks
    303
    Thanked 180 Times in 141 Posts


    How to Keep America in Their Homes

    http://watch.bnn.ca/#clip125758

    Buyout scheme worth try

    Diane Francis, Financial Post Published: Saturday, October 11, 2008
    Story Tools

    Story tools presented by

    Washington should undertake a massive, temporary buyout of residential real estate in order to save its economy from years of turmoil and credit crisis, said an expert who helped bail out Canada from similar turmoil in the 1980s and early 1990s.

    Canadian workout and insolvency expert, Dennis Jewitt, who ran workout giant Gentra, undertook a miraculous turnaround in the 1980s involving trust companies, banks and real estate collapses in Canada. In a telephone interview yesterday, he proposed the same fix for the United States.

    His scheme would break the vicious cycle that's destroying everything: lousy mortgages, 176,000 foreclosures a month (which lowers every-one's property values) and frightening writedowns (which tighten credit for everyone as the banks foreclose).

    There is also no subsidy involved; people can remain in their homes for half the cost of owning them, then eventually buy them back if they choose in a couple of years.

    Here's how Jewitt's scheme would work today:

    -The government should offer to buy out anybody with a subprime mortgage at the local discounted property value.

    -The government should say, "Take it or leave it. You can't afford your house, so we'll buy the house and pay off the mortgage and rent it back to you."

    -The mortgage holder must waive what's called a "deficiency claim," which would allow it to go after people for the losses the mortgage holder would incur. Any bank that refused to do so would not have its property bought.

    -Here's the magic: A subprime mortgage at 8% on $300,000 would cost $24,000 a year in mortgage payments. If the government buys it for $240,000 and charges the former owner 5% of $240,000 as rent, or $12,000 a year, the government will net a tidy profit because it borrows money at less than 1%.
    .........
    http://www.financialpost.com/scripts...a6cd56&k=69433

  2. #2
    Muz
    Muz is offline
    Member with Benefits Active Member Muz's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    3,363
    My Mood
    Inspired
    Thanks
    1,521
    Thanked 1,452 Times in 907 Posts


    I always wondered why they didn't do that in the first place when the "avalanche" was just beginning.

    It's a win-win for everyone.

    Muz
    Since 1996

  3. #3
    Curious About TPA Regular Member s243a's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,139
    Thanks
    303
    Thanked 180 Times in 141 Posts


    Quote Originally Posted by Muz View Post
    I always wondered why they didn't do that in the first place when the "avalanche" was just beginning.

    It's a win-win for everyone.

    Muz
    Well, their were two issues. One was there is limited funds. Consequently the government has to ask where is the money most useful. More importantly though; aside from how would the government administer or organize something like this people did not want to help people that bought something that they couldn’t afford.

    They felt it would only encourage bad behavior in the future. With regards to the banks people were told it was a necessary evil because our whole economy depended upon the banks. Had people realized that the government could make a profit helping home owners then I’m sure they would have much preferred to bail out homeowners then banks.

  4. #4
    Crackberry whore :( Active Member mikezila's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a boat!
    Posts
    15,042
    My Mood
    Amazed
    Thanks
    1,723
    Thanked 1,129 Times in 911 Posts


    the bulk of that $700B bailout went to buy stock in banks that where in no danger of failing. Uncle Sugar has already turned a profit on it, and well more than 1%.

  5. #5
    Padmini Active Member triedit's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    in your pants
    Posts
    4,700
    My Mood
    Lurking
    Thanks
    1,186
    Thanked 1,212 Times in 852 Posts


    I dunno. I just smell a skunk in the whole thing. I don't personally know of anyone who is losing a job because of the economic issues. I don't believe we should bail out the auto industry because they were short sighted and got caught with a zillion pickup trucks and SUV's because consumers got smarter.
    If aliens are looking for intelligent life?! WHY THE HECK ARE YOU SCARED?!

  6. #6
    Crackberry whore :( Active Member mikezila's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a boat!
    Posts
    15,042
    My Mood
    Amazed
    Thanks
    1,723
    Thanked 1,129 Times in 911 Posts


    Quote Originally Posted by triedit View Post
    I dunno. I just smell a skunk in the whole thing. I don't personally know of anyone who is losing a job because of the economic issues. I don't believe we should bail out the auto industry because they were short sighted and got caught with a zillion pickup trucks and SUV's because consumers got smarter.
    they didn't get smarter, trucks and SUVs are the only things selling at the moment.

    http://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.com/2008/1...s-soaring.html

  7. #7
    Curious About TPA Regular Member s243a's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,139
    Thanks
    303
    Thanked 180 Times in 141 Posts


    Quote Originally Posted by mikezila View Post
    the bulk of that $700B bailout went to buy stock in banks that where in no danger of failing. Uncle Sugar has already turned a profit on it, and well more than 1%.
    I hope so.

  8. #8
    Curious About TPA Regular Member s243a's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,139
    Thanks
    303
    Thanked 180 Times in 141 Posts


    See the section: mitigating the finical crisis in the following paper:

    Evaluating Toxic Assets: Where do we go next
    http://econ.bus.utk.edu/Davidson.html
    It also has similar suggestions as given in my original post.

+ Reply to Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Members who have read this thread : 0

You do not have permission to view the list of names.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts