weekender

>While it's clear the overwhelming number of foreclosures are due to people not making payments, there do also seem to be some cases where banks have lost track of paperwork and have initiated foreclosures on paid-up loans. thanks for the reply. i was actually being more of a wise ass than looking for articles. I dont like when people say"numbers" to imply many. I thought his point was to imply it was rampant and the gov't's deal was to address it. He cleard up his point and myself and others have pointed out the deal is about deliquent homes. there is currently protections for the rarer case of banks forclosing on current homes. to be clear, im not defending anyone. if a bank commits fraud the gov't should go after them. if you dont pay your mortgage the bank should take action. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

From what the NPR article stated people who were in the process of "renegotiating" their loans based on what the banks had told them to do (in this case stop paying for a month or two) were also foreclosed on in an improper manner. Also there were a good number of folks who were paying their loans and still were foreclosed on. As for "why" a bank would wish to own a given property which they would sell at a loss? Well that truly is an interesting question...can we say tax write off? i did not hear what NPR said. i read the statement put out by the gov't that is on the news wires. so cannot defend what i do not know. did you study about write off's in business school? your understanding of them reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer explains its ok to damage goods because they are just "written off". Business do not take a profitable transaction and purposely lose money on it. they can always just put money into employee insurance or 401k's to bring down taxable income as an example. they dont purposely lose money. not in my experience. I guess i could be wrong and your right but doubt it. edited for clarity: a business does not purposely take a profitable transaction and make it unprofitable. they have other ways to reduce taxes. i fully understand charges and buying loses. i am specifically saying they would not take a profitable property and purposely make it a loss. that makes no sense. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>Guys argue all you want, it's a dead economy, it's NJ 20% of $200k is...... who can afford that in cash? Many people. i am in contracts on a property and its worth more than 200k. single mother is putting down 20% cash. she has my admiration for renting till she could actually afford to buy. Why do you assume because you cannot afford something no else can? Oh and it is not an argument, if you make an opinion statement as fact and someone points that out. Your opinions are not facts. your experiences are not everyone's. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

completely seperate issue. this is specific to homes that were behind on payments. use some common sense. why would a bank want to forclose on a home in good standing that is under water? they would lose the monthly interest income and assume a property that they would have to sell for less than they paid? "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

This is news to me and if you could provide links i would appreciate it. you say, "a number of stories", could you be more clear? somewhere between zero and a million? Its mute though. the banks are being called to the table for abusing the forclosure process. using robots signatures and false documents to speed up the process, for example. this was only on deliquent homeowners not people current. The banks were wrong and should be punished. id say if you didnt pay your mortgage and the bank got you kicked out but did it by not following the law and extra 2k is nice. you do NOT deserve your home back IMO. your not that much of a victim. you still didnt pay your agreed payments. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>I say allow young vibrant first time home owners move in, fix up the shit holes, start their lives, contribute to the community and also help stem the decline in property value.' >Now I know you guys like to argue but you have to admit....there is nothing wrong with the above statement. i will only agree with you if you add, "who can afford to purchase the unit". I.E. put down at least 20% so they have enough equity to weather downturns. You have clearly stated you wish you only put down 3% so you could walk away. Why on earth would i want more of that? If you can't add that to your comment, then no, i do not have to admit anything. i dont have to look far to confirm why. Your previous comments about walking away are all i need as proof as to why it its a bad idea. funny, you are the evidence to disprove your own theory. do even read your own posts?

>I just wish I had done the %3 down thing and not barrowed the 20%. Would have been easier to walk away now. But such is life. comments like this are exactly why people like me do not like this plan. its also why people in your complex do not like it. Do you not understand that? do you not get where we are coming from? more people buying who will vacate during a downturn is not good for us. I'm willing to sit on my condo until qualified, read 20% down, people can buy the empty units. it might take some time but i dont care. I am NOT underwater because i put 20% down. I also dont live in it so dont care about car washing, fyi. rule of thumb for me, what most people do in a detached home we should allow at the complex. No parking of boats, though. thats low rent in my book "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

You made a mistake, join the club. i do NOT fault you for that. Read my posts. the general theme is that you come here and lecture everyone on how finance and economics work with such confidence. Thats fine except, most of what you say is opinion and alot of it is just factually wrong. So i comment on that. show some humility, your obviously not an expert on this topic. by the way, i'm not nearly as old as you seem to think. Ive worked in banking for roughly 20yrs. got my undergrad in 91. so your erection comments are a little early. alot AC hookers would disagree with you. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

read my posts and explain to me where you came to the conclusion i do not understand finance or economics. The fact that you failed so miserably on your home purchase and your defense there of, proves you should not lecture anyone on such topics. c'mon, you just proved in your last post you dont even understand a down payment. do you lack the ability to be embarrassed? you should learn some humility before lecturing others with such confidence. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>I know a horrible thing to do right! Not dropping tons of cash into the pockets of the big banks and instead taking it and giving it to middle class guys at Lowes and HD and handymen so that you can turn your inefficient property into an efficient home.'' Gee, i am confused. i always understood it differently. i thought the bank makes more money the LESS you put down. The bank loans you money and charges you interest. the less you borrow, the less interest they can charge. Please wise man, learn me about finance. Where does the down payment go?? i always thought it went to the seller. I am shocked to find out the bank keeps it. so who makes up the difference to the seller? help me, seriously, i do not understand the banking industry like you. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>Furthermore, the first time home owners 3% FHA loan is what feeds the middle class and keeps property values afloat in many areas and keeps communities from gentrifying into depends wearing bengay rubbing fucks. I am amazed at the confidence which you speak of topics you have failed so miserably at. You have admitted you should not have bought the condo with a 20/80 loan. you have also admitted you cannot sell your condo because its under water, thus showing you didnt time the market well or provide enough equity to weather downturns. YET, you are so sure you know exactly what would help the housing market. you are so confident that you lecture everyone, including people with no financial problems, on what they need. where does this confidence come from? Perhaps in some areas, buying with less than 20% is a good idea. I would not want it in my area. We have been burned by people who bought places they could not afford already. People who are under water and blaming everyone but themselves. Why would i want to replicate the cause of the last problem? People who cannot afford to buy should rent. it worked for me. it worked for America for generations. lowering the standards has not proven to help the market, except in your mind. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>"So yes back when people could barrow the20% needed it was not an issue. But now that people can't...it's an issue." So you think you will solve your problem by having more people like you buy a unit? someone who cannot afford the 20% and thus doesnt have enough equity to weather downturns in the market? If i were you i would prefer more people who can actually afford the condo's buy them. If you dont have 20% to put down, you have no business buying a property. have you not figured that out yet? Oh and dont tell me how i need to learn business or NJ or real estate. I've worn a white collar for 20 years. i live in Bergen County. I own one property outright and have two others mortgaged. Put 20-30% down on all three of them. Untill i could afford to buy, i.e. the 20% down, i rented. Maybe you should mock your elders less and try to learn from them. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Northern NJ is nuts! Average home today still costs $400k. It is not a cheap place to live at all! But for now it's home, even though my property tax is $6k Luck you. Mine's $9k. Brother I feel your pain, I hope you at least have some grass to lay on in the middle of the summer and relax. I don't even have that. Brothers, yes i know...NJ is nuts! But it is where my job is and at an unemployment rate of well over 8% i highly doubht any company will want me enough to buy me out of my condo which is underwater by a solid $100k. So yes I agree with you 100% but there is not much I can do. That said.... http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/02/will-mitt-romney-speak-out-on-the-legal-loophole-known-as-the-carry/?hpt=hp_t2 Can we all agree that this loop hole needs to be closed? If so then let's close it such that the world is a better place for us dorks in the middle class! What county do you live in? rental rates are at a near all time high and there are few vacancies. Many cannot afford to buy but want to live in a good town. I'm in Bergen County for the record, so know a bit about high taxes. Have you seriously considered renting? I do mean seriously, like spoke to brokers or friends who rent. I own a condo and have no problem renting it. Recently, raised the rent because i knew i could. Its a nice place in a great location. Renters didnt even complain because they checked around and it was inline with the market. Where do you work(location, not firm)? Rent your North Jersey condo and move to an affortable apartment more south or west on a train line. then commute to work like most people who make as little as you do. (i say that smiling b/c 100k is not much in suburban NYC) "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>Oh, and there I was thinking your opinion was based on the selfishness and greed of those who work in the financial sector. (smiling). actually my opinion is based on what i feel the intent of the law is. The law is intended to not tax capital gains the same as regular income. at the time written, hedgefunds were not a large sector nor considered. they have benefitted from the current tax structure by luck. NOT in my opinion by design. IMO, if a manager collects a fee, it should be income. if a manager comingles his personal assets with clients, it should be taxed as income. Why? because when he comingles his funds he is given a huge market advantage based on the size of his assets. Not going to get more granular than saying it should be obvious to all that larger funds have access to better sources. the fund manager should, in fairness, have to pay for this advantage through taxes. this is all my opinion based on my personal taste on what is fair. No greed or selfishness was used to form this opinion. if its nonsense or irrational, i welcome criticism. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>What nonsense. Only the wealthy have any hope of taking advantage of it. The overwhelming majority of citizens cannot possibly benefit from it. It gives preferential treatment to the wealthy. the law applies to all but not everyone qualifies. it is not nonsense that only some people qualify for certain tax treatments. i dont qualify for child credits or earned income credits. i suppose if i was a angry jealous man like you, i would scream nonsense. thanksfully, im not. at least we can agree the law should be changed so they are taxed more. of course, my opinion is based on what is fair and rational. yours is based on a white hot anger stemming from an irriational jealousy of succesful people. (smiling) "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

any even crazier - you're criticizing someone else for commenting on your provided anecdote? Perhaps you should think twice before using one that doesn't support your argument? BTW, it's the 2 and 20 that makes him ridiculously well paid, not the fact that they have a questionable policy on how it's taxed. But why do you care? That income comes from high net worth folks who voluntarily agreed to pay this insane amount, despite the fact that most hedge funds don't deliver results to warrant it. The source of the income is irrelevant. It's income, and should be taxed like any other income, not at some special low rate reserved only for the privileged super-rich. there is no special low rate reserved for anyone. Oh yes, there is. It's called carried interest and it allows some wealthy individuals' fees to be treated at preferential rates. The Dems tried to eliminate it in 2007, but were blocked by the GOP. The law applies to everyone not just the rich. It so happens that it benefits hedgefund managers more than poor people. That doesnt make it preferential or special. you dont like the law, so say so. its dishonest to keep implying that a specific group gets a special rate. we all could qualify for this rate. most just dont run their business in this manner. again to be clear, i feel that the law should change to tax management fee's and all gains from comingled assets as ordinary income. Like Kallend i dont like the law. unlike him, im honest about the law when discussing it. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

any even crazier - you're criticizing someone else for commenting on your provided anecdote? Perhaps you should think twice before using one that doesn't support your argument? BTW, it's the 2 and 20 that makes him ridiculously well paid, not the fact that they have a questionable policy on how it's taxed. But why do you care? That income comes from high net worth folks who voluntarily agreed to pay this insane amount, despite the fact that most hedge funds don't deliver results to warrant it. The source of the income is irrelevant. It's income, and should be taxed like any other income, not at some special low rate reserved only for the privileged super-rich. there is no special low rate reserved for anyone. every single person who pays taxes will have their capital gains taxed at the same rate as the super rich. as is their ordinary income. you dont like it, fine. then say that but dont pretend there is a different rate when there isnt. the law is the law. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>to be fair, banks also invest, and loan. it's not just a futile 'lock box' I dont dissagree and if thats how it read it was not my intent. I was responding to the person who implied rich people keep their money in banks which is not the case mostly. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

What rich people do you know that keep their money in banks?? wealthy people dont have christmas savings accounts. they are diversified accross a wide spectrum of investments. for example...they buy a large portion of the municipal bonds issued, for tax reasons, that build schools, roads and bridges etc.... rich people invest and it does help the economy. do you think the original investors in Facebook or Google were poor? no, they were already rich and looking for a way to put their money to work. who do you think buys all the short term notes so giant companies like GM and F can make payroll? almost exclusively rich people. I'd say that is pretty helpful if your GM or F and would like to have cash on hand. not defending the current tax code but pointing out that rich people do put money into the economy and not hoard it in banks. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

so you don't actually know the numbers, do you? Do you? Maybe he takes advantage of the carried interest loophole. The top hedge fund manager, John Paulson, makes more hourly than most Americans will earn in a lifetime, while paying a lower tax rate. This is an egregious loophole, but the GOP refuses to consider it as part of a deal to reduce the deficit they so hypocritically deplore. Paulson is a Democratic supporter mostly, its all public info. Most rich people who live in West Chester, Greenwich and Bergen County are. Whats the motivation of the GOP to aid people who support the wrong party? Anecdote != data The carried interest loophole is defended by the GOP, and benefits a relative handful of super wealthy individuals who use it to pay tax at a far lower rate than most middle class Americans. ok, you just repeated what you said numerious times but didnt answer my question. why would the GOP want a law to benefit people who dont support them? its not an anecdote, Paulson donates to the democratic party mostly. its all public info. so do most rich Wall Street people who live in solid Democratic areas. So why protect the rich who donate to the opposite party? for the record i support an adjustment to the tax code so hedgefund managers pay a higher tax on the earnings from their funds comingled with outside investors. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

so you don't actually know the numbers, do you? Do you? Maybe he takes advantage of the carried interest loophole. The top hedge fund manager, John Paulson, makes more hourly than most Americans will earn in a lifetime, while paying a lower tax rate. This is an egregious loophole, but the GOP refuses to consider it as part of a deal to reduce the deficit they so hypocritically deplore. Paulson is a Democratic supporter mostly, its all public info. Most rich people who live in West Chester, Greenwich and Bergen County are. Whats the motivation of the GOP to aid people who support the wrong party? "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

the investor class's value hasn't gone up 30%. he doesnt care. he does this all the time, just makes things up and then changes the subject. not saying he is lying just loose with the facts then claims its hyperpole after the fact. also, Chase is not Wall Street. Thats a commercial bank. peope who work there are commercial bankers not Wall Street bankers. perhaps a bit pedantic but if your going to use terms use them use them correctly. otherwise your point is lost on those who actually understand the business. also, your friends who work at Chase know as much about what's going on at JPMS as you do, which is nothing. completely different industry. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

the original model for cap and trade was based on this exact program and i agree with you. it worked. pollution went down. the motivation behind it was to reduce pollution. no one will ever convice me that the motivation behind cap and trade was to reduce pollution/carbon. it was to make the traders and bankers rich in a new unregulated OTC market and bring tons of rev's to cash strapped states and nations my opinion is based on my experience as a carbon derivative trader. i worked with the people who created carbon credits through the Kyoto protocols. my bank securitized them and marketed them to institutional accounts. similiar to mortgage derivatives. No one i met, including people who worked for Mr Gore himself, did not seem motivated purely by greed. It made me very cynical about the green movement. the market fell apart when our congress did not pass cap and trade. the US banks got out of the business and the credits are now worthless. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>Isn't General Electric the 'big winner' in this deal? as i understand it big business was the ones who pushed for the bill. places like Walmart were the ones who lobbied FOR cfl's. reason was pretty simple. what do you think your margin is on a 30cent lightbulb vs. a $6 one.(not exact prices)? its not like they can NOT carry light bulbs. so if you have to pay to stock them why wouldnt you want the gov't to basically mandate a huge profit for you. this was the only time i didnt side with Walmart on something. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>Hmm. Here I thought market problems usually stem from market perceptions. Mortgage derivatives were great till people stopped paying mortgages. I guess that once you learn how to control people's minds, you control the market. Even monetarists and libertarians, however, believe in i dont dissagree, if everyone payed their mortgages there wouldnot have been a problem. what im saying is that since there is little reporting on these securities you dont know you have a prolblem till its too late. all im suggesting is basic reporting and regulaton, similiar to stocks. its not big brother or world domination. pretty modest idea imo. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante