patrick.net

Sriram Gopalan Says:

January 25th, 2007 at 9:19 pm e
HARM, aren’t there already laws about fraud and lying and breach of contract and whatnot? What more do you need?

What I "need" is for the existing laws to be enforced, not willfully ignored with a nod and a wink --and this includes prosecuting fraudulent buyers (e.g., Casey Serin getting a nice cozy bunk and boyfriend at Club Fed). I'd also like to see stronger/better laws that apply fiduciary responsibility to mortgage lenders and realtors, similar to the current securities laws. Not too much to ask of my state and federal lying shitbags, is it?

If the existing common sense laws are applied, that alone would take care of the crooks involved.

Yes and no. While there's no way of knowing *for sure* (since the existing laws clearly aren't being enforced), it doesn't appear that Realtors and mortgage brokers are held to anywhere near the same standards as securities brokers (see DinOR's excellent posts). IMO, we need tougher enforcement of existing anti-fraud laws AND tougher laws designed to discourage it before it happens.

The rest is caveat emptor. As tempting as it might be, the government is not the solution. In fact, it is the problem.

On the latter part, we can agree wholeheartedly. However I don't think the opposite of shitty government is NO government. I think the opposite of shitty government is GOOD government.

I DON'T want more government subsidies for banksters or more taxpayer RE risk underwriting --I want a lot LESS of it. The only things I want MORE of from the government is: (a) fraud prosecution, and, (b) re-coupling risk with the originating lenders and fraudulent borrowers. "(b)" alone would quickly result in the return of sane lending standards, including "quaint" practices like requiring down-payments, PMI, and full-doc loans. The government could also increase reserve requirements and outlaw negatively-amortizing mortgages. I would welcome all of these.

SP,

I had to manually approve your post, so something's up. Maybe your IP is being blocked --I'll check.

FYI: Sorry to any who got stuck in moderation. The queue is a nightmare these days (1,000+ spam posts per day). Most of the time, it's easier to just flush it and start clean.

SP,

Yes, your IP was in the moderation list. I removed it.

Holy crap, Sid --I'm getting the same thing! Could it be a temporary setback, or has the long ARM of the law finally caught up with our favorite specuvestor-savant?

Stay tuned... :-)

Or has something else happened to Young Casey?

The creditors may have swooped in and closed up shop on everything -- no ifs, no buts.

They simply stop all of his expenditures -- including hosted websites, even basic ISP access. They simply freeze all his outgoings to pay the creditors, anything that is an inessential expense. It would be debtors prison for him in the old days -- now he will just be paying off his debts out of earnings for years to come... the RE guru seminars he did don't come highly recommended...

Punchbowl,

Yeah, the "good" old days! LOL! It may come as a shock but there was a time when stock firms actually hired guys that were loud, obnoxious and aggressive (but couldn't come close to passing "the 7" exam). So...... they paid somebody else to "stand-in" and take the exam for them!

Now there's finger printing and background checks among a lot of other things. You can check out any RP (registered person) through the NASD's web-site. You just need their CRD Number or full name and firm and you can see if they've had a DUI, bankruptcy and obviously any customer complaints. Again your first complaint, will be your LAST complaint.

What's frustrating is that NAR is still in the "production covers all" mode. As long as they're generating those huge 6% comm. for their broker there's nothing local RE associations can't work around!

I don't think HARM is naive in the least. When I first got registered we were only expected to have a basic understanding of front running, free-riding and churning. Only the most basic aspects of regulatory code. Now? Pffft, I'm practically a securities litigation attorney! At least once a week we get a "Compliance Bulletin" also accompanied by an e-mail version that requires you to send back a receipt to your branch manager or directly to your compliance officer.

Just keeping your license is a major hassle with continuing education every year and if you're an independent we're now registered as NASD Branch Offices. Anything we wish to use as advertisement HAS to be pre-approved by the legal dept. before you can run it. Our corporate AND personal e-mails are monitored.

Compliance has become an industry. Firms like Smarsh create software programs that allow brokerages to search for things like "guarantee" or "15% is in the bag" etc. Firms have the legal right to randomly record broker/client phone calls as does the NASD. They even have "leads cards" that are actually phone numbers where NASD "plants" pretend to be prospective clients! If you haven't been around for awhile, you wouldn't recognize the industry. There's no earthly good reason NAR can't implement the same.

Sid Finster,

Some time back I actually gave old Casey a call. You've got to imagine that guy has a fair amount of "mechanical screening" complete with answering machine and caller I.D! I suppose b/c I wasn't a mortgage broker promising free money to bail him out of his jam or a reporter, my call (along w/many others I'm sure) was not returned.

Is Sid Finster a play on San Francisco?

FAB,

The W campaign requirement that you sign a statement of loyalty and support to W in order to attend a political rally actually seemed rather Stalinistic to me. This administration has used intimidation, threats, oh, the outing of your CIA agent wife, attacks by media personnel (not just Fox, I saw Paula Zahn accuse a critic weapons inspector (Scott Ritter) of being disloyal to his country because he found no evidence at all of any WMDs program before the invasion of Iraq.) This administration has famously traded access for towing the line.

I'm not a fan of the left's cult of victimization, but I am terrified of this administration's crushing of dissent. I'm not too happy with Gonzales' assertion that habeas corpus is not protected in the Constitution either.

FAB,

Man Tan was out when I was a little kid. It was just a fake tanner marketed to men, and it turned you orange.

Supposedly the spray tanning booths don't turn you orange. I went to one on Union Street before going on a winter beach weekend a couple of years ago, and there is definitely an orange tone to the stuff.

"Clown Prince of Real Estate" LOL!

Yeah I kind of like that one. It should be used in acronym form and added to the glossary.

My old man had a million "Sid" references. One of his favorites was "Fletcher Brown" (F@cking B@stard!) and he used it freely. Mom always seemed to frown on it, can't imagine why?

Sid Finster,

One of my favorites is "Lou Minnati" the guy is hysterical. He does shorts on the housing bust from Houston featured on youtube and his own site. The man's grasp of the obvious is truly remarkable!

SFWoman,

It isn't Angelo's fake tan that concerns me. Doesn't he look like a cast member from the Soprano's though? He'd fit right in.

Hey everybody! Uncle Angelo's come by to pay his respects, bada-bing!

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/16551266.htm

Congress may push for loan "suitability"

Nice pickup this week by Athena on her Sonoma blog. (Well, it was news to me. :))

Apparently Dataquick include foreclosures (I.e. returns to lenders) in their sales statistics. Presumably the "price" in this case is the loan amount.

Now that the pace of said foreclosures is quickening . . .

ajh,

Your earlier comment was spot on! Please read lunarpark's link above for some very informative news. I NEVER thought I'd say this BUT...... I'm w/Barney Frank on this one!

Steve O'Conner and Roy DeLoach (both VP's w/the MB Assoc.) portraying the implmentation of a federally mandated "suitability standard" as being "vague and subject" is exactly what they should *not* be saying. It's coming and they can't fight it! It was dumb on their part not to take the same pre-emptive measures that BofA and CitiGroup took. Guys? (Hint o.k?) EMBRACE regulation! (Cause you DESERVE it!)

make that "vague and subjective". (That's what we have NOW and the MBA is just fine w/THAT!)

Now Barney Frank is standing between potential FB's and The American Dream (TM)! (Actually he's standing between the MB's and their loan flipping commissions but why quibble, eh?)

eburbed Says:

> I’d say that W’s administration has encouraged
> a culture of Freedom of Speech suppression.

Then as an example of GW’s “culture of Freedom of Speech suppression” points to a guy who was detained after writing “Kip Hawley (the head of the TSA) is an Idiot” on the outside of a clear plastic quart bags while going through TSA screening at the airport.

This has nothing to do with GW and if you go to any company in the US (or try and visit Hillary Clinton at the Senate) with a plastic bag that says the boss of the company (or Sen. Clinton) is an idiot you will be detained.

Try going to an Oakland Raider game with a bag that says Raider fans are idiots. You will have your face bashed in and will be lucky to get out alive.

It scares me that some people think that it is “Bush” and his “culture of Freedom of Speech suppression” has caused Clinton staffers and Raider fans to disrespect the first amendment…

This goes back to the overall difference between Liberals and Libertarians. Liberals blame others (“I decided to make a point and act like a f’ing idiot writing that the TSA boss is an idiot while going through screening at the airport and since Bush is conducting an immoral war the staffers felt that it was OK to detain a fellow American”) and Libertarians blame themselves (“that was a bad idea to write that the head of the TSA was an idiot on a bag. I’ll learn from this and try not to do it again epically at a Raider game where I would have had my head bashed in”)...

FAB,

Isn't the logical extension of your argument that people should then go on not to criticize the administration if they are reporters because they will quickly learn that it shuts down any access to the White House and is bad for their careers? Unfortunately, that is what happened.

DS: Punchbowl is increasingly looking like some sort of RE specuvestor troll in it for the money…

LOL. I guess that's what I get for calling you a name. Turnabout is fair play.

I just think that HARM is wrong about more regulation being needed. Fraud is already a criminal offense. If fraud has been done, then let the perpetrators be punished, criminally and civilly. People who have made misrepresentations that resulted in losses to others deserve to be behind bars or have their assets confiscated.

That makes me a libertarian, not a specuvestor. Meanwhile, you're still a Stalinist. ;-)

FAB,

I would also question your assertion that this describes a libertarian:
"Libertarians blame themselves (“that was a bad idea to write that the head of the TSA was an idiot on a bag. I’ll learn from this and try not to do it again epically at a Raider game where I would have had my head bashed in”)…"

I would say that is more of a description of a conformist. I can't really imagine a libertarian would be quite so ready to give up unpopular speech for the convenience factor.

I don't understand why the Mortgage Brokers Association just doesn't adopt the same ROA (return on assets) formula the securities industry uses? It's not that damn difficult!

Let's see? You "slammed" $1,600,000 in "loanownership" this month doing the Lord's work preserving The American Dream (TM). That means on a 1% ROA you get $16,000 to split with "the house". Start liking it.

But...but...bu I do a lot of sub-prime loans and they "can" be more difficult so shouldn't I get paid MORE for that? No, you shouldn't. You should stop writing sub-prime loans. But...but...bu we have HUGE advertising budgets and we won't be able to stay in business.

Uh, start doing nice work, take care of your clients like they were your mother and you'll get plenty of business through referrals. Since when did being a Loon Officer instantly translate to making big bucks? Look at the bank distribution channel, those guys/gals make a decent living but they're certainly not knocking down the big bucks.

His site is down because the real estate market had a spring bounce, his properties skyrocketed in value and he was able to sell them, made a killing, and is at his new house in the south of France without WiFi access?

Libertarians blame themselves (“that was a bad idea to write that the head of the TSA was an idiot on a bag. I’ll learn from this and try not to do it again epically at a Raider game where I would have had my head bashed in”)…

So... the TSA, an agency composed of men and women who are supposed to be protecting us from terrorists, are of the same caliber of professionalism as Raiders fans.

Interesting point.

Peter P,

I'm hearing the options exchanges are starting a pilot program to trade in penny increments (select issues). Have you been holding out on us?

A bit more crushing of dissent:

Jonathan S. Landay
McClatchy Newspapers
Friday, January 26, 2007

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney exerted "constant" pressure on the Republican former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee to stall an investigation into the Bush administration's use of flawed intelligence on Iraq, the panel's chairman charged Thursday.

In an interview with McClatchy Newspapers, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia also accused President Bush of running an illegal program by ordering eavesdropping on Americans' international e-mails and telephone communications without court-issued warrants....

Long Island is so silly

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/26/nyregion/26long.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1169836686-jrXmJnFbiYCFiAWik9fRGg

Apparently only 2% of houses sold are affordable compared to 60% in 2000.

At first, that seemed worse than here - but then the reason was revealed:

In 2000, 60 percent of the homes sold on Long Island could be classified as “affordable” for families earning up to $100,000 a year, under the old rule of thumb that buyers should spend no more than 2.5 times their income on places to live.

I guess the NYAR (?) hasn't learned from CAR that you have to change the way you measure things yet.

eburbed Says:

> So… the TSA, an agency composed of men and
> women who are supposed to be protecting us from
> terrorists, are of the same caliber of professionalism
> as Raiders fans.

While the average (average not every) IQ of Rader fans is at least one standard deviation below the mean it is well above the average IQ of the people working for the TSA (and most other “government” jobs)…

I’m hearing the options exchanges are starting a pilot program to trade in penny increments (select issues).

Good news.

My friend asked me if he should sell a whole bunch of 0.05 calls near expiration.

It reminds me of russian roulette. LOL!

Oh, is it bad that I feel like celebrating?

SQT, welcome back.

Why is it bad that history unfolds as we have predicted? ;)

I don't get it, why doesn't Casey just sign up somewhere else, pay by paypal (no credit worry), and remove the offending link? He can then repoint his DNS at the new site.

Supposedly he is an internet professional, is this technical manouevre beyond him?

I pay around $10/month for a basic hosting account. Shouldn't he just move his back-up files across to a new inexpensive host?

Casey already lost data earlier when he didn't back his site up properly - let me guess, he still wasn't doing that?

SFWoman Says:

> FAB, I would also question your assertion that
> this describes a libertarian: “Libertarians blame
> themselves (“that was a bad idea to write that the
> head of the TSA was an idiot on a bag. I’ll learn
> from this and try not to do it again epically at a
> Raider game where I would have had my head
> bashed in”)…”
> I would say that is more of a description of a conformist.
> I can’t really imagine a libertarian would be quite so
> ready to give up unpopular speech for the convenience
> factor.

I’m not saying that Libertarians are conformists I’m just saying that they tend not to blame others for their problems or the situations they get in. Most Libertarians want to make pot legal and in college I was the only Libertarian I knew that was not a regular pot smoker. I was also probably also the only Libertarian on campus that wore Topsiders (remember that this was over 25 years ago when they were kind of in style). Libertarians love to argue but unlike Liberals who want the people that disagree with them kicked off campus for “hate speech” they will suck it up and go back for more knowing that they control their own life and they don’t want to get in to arguments they should not wear the “Legalize Pot” T-shirt to their job tutoring kids at the local public school. I bet we don't have even a single Libertarian that complains to the Government about gatting "tricked" in to a Neg. Am. IO loan...

FAB,

I just think that avoiding saying things because they can cause trouble is a form of conformity that is quite dangerous in that it subverts the checks in a functioning democracy.

I too find the blame game and cult of victimization despicable, but I don't think it is only the liberals who are using it now. Look at the legions of evangelicals who are crying discrimination when they aren't getting their way. I think my favorite were the judge and congressman who wanted the ten commandments in all public courthouses and buildings. The Daily Show and Colbert report had some hysterical pieces on them.

I just think that avoiding saying things because they can cause trouble is a form of conformity that is quite dangerous in that it subverts the checks in a functioning democracy.

I disagree. Libertarians "avoid" saying things because they believe there exists freedom in other people as well. I am sure most of them actually have opinions about things.

Peter P.,

Most people I know who are Libertarians are opinionated and feel quite free to speak them. Not voicing your concerns about government wrongdoing is a pretty dangerous thing, IMHO. Democracies require that people do put checks on government.

Anyway, one of my favorite "Better Know a District" segments, with Congressman Lynn Westmoreland:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xzeYVKuL_LY

Gotta weigh in with SFWoman on the free speech issue. Free speech is just that --the right to be a complete asshole if you want to and say things that make other people uncomfortable. And it's essential that it be protected for any functioning democracy. Otherwise, what good is it? Every country protects the right to *socially acceptable* and *polite* speech, even the Taliban. Of course, that's as long as the Taliban gets to determine what constitutes *socially acceptable* speech.

Oh, and I agree there are extremists on either end of the spectrum that want to crush it --PC lefties that don't want any "minority" group offended, and RaptureReady types that don't want us to read any book other than the Bible.

How desperate can they possibly get? This would actually be a great deal if the bankruptcy laws were more lenient. Live free for 2 years and then declare bankruptcy! Rinse and repeat!

Of course, sometimes there are negative legal consequences for saying things that cause harm to other people --such as slander, libel & physical threats. But aside from that, you're still free to be a complete asshole. And that's the way it should be.

But aside from that, you’re still free to be a complete asshole.

I agree. Animals have no rights! ;)