0
0

Barack Obama Wants to Reward FBs


 invite response                
2007 Aug 29, 2:57am   30,705 views  270 comments

by Randy H   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

I don't follow politics for myriad reasons. I know that pretty much every Congressman and every Presidential hopeful is falling all over themselves to buy as many votes as they can -- business as usual. But I do know that the Obama crowd prides their candidate on his integrity and high ethical bar.

Well, Mr. Obama writes in Todays Financial Times "Comment" section:

Fine unscrupulous mortgage lenders

The implosion of the subprime lending industry is more than a temporary blip on our economic progress. It is a cancer that, given today's integrated financial markets, threatens to spread with devastating impact to housing and to our economy as a whole, unless we act to contain it.

Already I'm sure many of you will take some exception to Mr. Obama's statement. Myself, I don't see too much trouble with his concern; and I also think that the government has some role in providing stability to the core banking structure.

I'll go on, quoting the more objectionable excerpts. To Mr. Obama's credit, he does want to aggressively go after lenders who committed fraud, used deceptive tactics, or systematically exploited the elderly or minorities. To his detriment, not a single word was uttered about regulating or punishing the real-estate industry. I guess even a principled candidate has to be careful which lobbies he crosses.

This all started as a good idea -- helping people buy homes who previously could not afford to.

[...]

Today, as we weigh our options on how to best resolve this crisis, many argue that bailing out the borrowers and investors will just encourage them to engage in more of the same irresponsible practices.

[...]

The real victims in this crisis are the millions of borrowers who followed the rules, whose only crime was taking out mortgages lenders told them they could afford. Normally these borrowers could avoid foreclosure by refinancing their mortgages or selling their homes. The problem today is that they cannot refinance because no one will lend to them, and they cannot sell because the housing market has fallen. With some arguing that the effects of the worst subprime loans will not be felt until 2008 and 2009, this may be just the beginning.

We need to help struggling borrowers to weather this storm. One way to protect innocent homeowners -- at least until this crisis passes -- is to establish a fund to help people refinance or sell to avoid foreclosure.

[...]

That is why I have proposed a Home Score system that would create a simplified, standardised[sic] metric for home mortgages -- rather like the annual percentage rate (APR), the effective interest rate a borrower ends up paying on a loan -- allowing prospective home buyers easily to compare various mortgage products so they can find out whether they can afford to make the payments.

[...]

Owning a home represents a big part of the American dream and all Americans -- no matter what their income level -- should have the power to reach for that dream.

[...]

If we are serious about stopping this crisis [...] Washington needs to stop acting like an industry advocate and start acting like a public advocate.

I'll let you guys defend Barack or rip him apart. I'm not sure why Washington should necessarily advocate either side of the ownership/industry value chain, but I can see how this rhetoric gains populist votes.

One point for Mr. Obama: APR is not the same as EAR. You might want to get get someone on staff who actually knows something about markets, finance and economics before you go making a fool of yourself in the Financial Times.

--Randy H

#politics

« First        Comments 265 - 270 of 270        Search these comments

265   skibum   2007 Aug 31, 9:21am  

Jimbo, I disagree. Zephyr is more on target, although saying the Fed did the right thing but too much of it more or less says they screwed up, at least partly.

I'm more old school. We need recessions once in a while. You need an impetus to clean out the system and clear out the dead weight once in a while.

266   Jimbo   2007 Aug 31, 9:56am  

Back in the day when we used to have an industrial base, it made sense that we might "need" a recession to clear out over capacity. But what does that mean in the context of a service economy? Too many software developers? Isn't that what happened in 2001-2002? Too many new homes chasing too few credit-worthy borrowers? That is what we are seeing now. Better financial engineering and better inventory control mean recessions are going to be shorter and less severe.

For those in tech during 2001, that was not a mild recession at all. I ended up out of work for six months, then got a job, only to be laid off in a big down sizing at the second place seven months later. I finally found another job three months later. And I was one of the survivors.

Most people I know who joined the party late, moved back to their home towns and left the field entirely. The only thing that kept me employed at all was my network, which I had built up since college.

267   skibum   2007 Aug 31, 10:04am  

Too many software developers?

In a word, yes. The good ones will remain employed, the bad ones will go back to serving coffee at Starbucks.

Perfect current example - so much of Web 2.0 is useless crap. A good recession will clear that out.

268   Jimbo   2007 Aug 31, 4:26pm  

It will not require a recession for it to happen though, that is what I am saying. Why should there be an economy-wide recession, just to correct an imbalance in one sector?

Maybe the housecleaning happens faster that way, but I am not really convinced that this is better for the economy when it does. Eventually VCs will grow tired of throwing money after all the "me too" social networking sites, but remember, before Google, everyone thought that search was a tired and done sector.

269   Randy H   2007 Sep 2, 2:24am  

If the NAR and NAHB want to fund a bailout, then I have no objections. I didn't know these organizations were in the business of giving money for bail outs, though.

Maybe you were mistakenly referring to the National Association of Retards and the National Association of Hemorrhaging Buyers?

270   KatieJ   2008 Oct 10, 12:42am  

Until I hear one address what is to be done about the CEO's of these comapnies/banks.... that were part of the lending that lead to this meltdown ...that taxpayers are now being saddled with....I have little respect for any. I hear a lot of posturing, but not ONE has mentioned these CEO's walking away with MILLIONS...MILLIONS...while we tax payers already struggling are left to pay for their mess...and they walk away with parachute packages worth MILLIONs....Only one..has refused to accept his windfall and sent the money and perks back to be used to cover the debt that his company is responsible for. UNTIL these politicians hold those responsible accountable...Do not think anythnig they say will matter to the American public..I don't care what grand plans they have...beyond it's money out of my pocket, and your pocket to cover the mess made by those who are walking away millionaires. Let's hear a candidate address that issue and what's to be done to hold them accountable..Like maybe NO bail out for any that accept the golden parachutes and leave them on their own to sink or swim. If you want the American public to pay for your mess then first take care of as much of the debt as you can yourself. Every Joe Schome that goes to Bankrupty court has to cover as much of the debt as he can and we're not talking multi millionaires here or Billionaires but average working class struggling Americans...They don't get to walk away scott free....

Will we ever hear a politician actually stand up and say..NO we wont bail you out...we wont offer a plan..we wont do anything until you help yourself out of this mess and cover as much as you can...SEE I have a huge problem with this...And no one ever mentions it...I wish someone with financial background would look into it and come up with the figures of how much overall these CEO's and Coporate officers are going to walk away with as the taxpayers are forced to bail out their mess...and will the bail out money be used for their golden parachute packges..Is that part of the deal? Where does that Money come from?

I've had enough political posturing and plans (that amount to basically nothing...beyond more money from taxpayers..) I want real answers to real concerns....and no more sound bytes or the same speeches over and over that say nothing...

Thanks to you Patrick as you seem to be the first person anywhere to even question Obama or his plans....He gets a free pass from the media..so I applaud your courage.

« First        Comments 265 - 270 of 270        Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions   gaiste