• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Magyar

Graduate Poster
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Messages
1,906
So the stock market lost almost TWICE as much yesterday then the proposed bailout that was supposed to save us all.


Yet the world did not come to an end! The overseas markets, while not rose are still OK

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/30/markets/stockswatch/?postversion=2008093007

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=a_yvgjSfKg5E&refer=asia

and so on from google.


So why can't the market just simple write off all this fantasy bad debt - that by the way still no one explained - and move on?




ps. STILL no one has explained to me how about 3% of mortgages in foreclosures with the ACTUAL real property still in existence caused all this besides the fact that a bunch of greedy basters crying about how they aren't going to make as much money as everyone else in this scam.
 
So why can't the market just simple write off all this fantasy bad debt - that by the way still no one explained - and move on?
Nobody clearly owns it, therefore nobody can write it off.

What's to explain about bad debt? People borrowed money they can't pay back.

With banks in Europe now failing, any suggestion that the crisis is "over" is wishful thinking of the highest order.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately the bad debt is not a "fantasy" any more than the price of a haddock is a "fantasy". (Although bad debt can turn good again at a different point in time, like the price of haddock can change)

And is is all owned by "somebody". There is far-from-perfect disclosure about who owns what and far-from-perfect discovery of how much it is currently worth, but it is false to say "nobody clearly owns it" and "nobody can write it off"
 
The OP just shows a major problem: The Average Man is totally ignorant about economics.
 
Hi

In any economic bubble, people buy in at or near the top, and when the downswing starts, find out that their investment is going to tank and try to bail out, hastening the tankage.

In this case, the bubble was in real estate.

People were getting loans that they couldn't pay, some expecting to make more money reselling the property, some trying to take advantage of the low interest rates to get a better place to live.

The banks pitched in, joyfully, because they figured that, in a skyrocketing real estate boom, if someone defaulted on a loan, the property could be sold for more than the current mortgage, so they made mortgage loans to guys living in tar paper shacks to move into hundred-thousand-dollar homes!

The problem then was two-fold:

1) There turned out to be a reason the guys were living in tar paper shacks: They didn't have enough income to get out, and
2) The bubble popped, and those hundred-thousand-dollar homes the guys moved into was only worth ninety-thousand dollars!

So, the bank was out ten thousand bucks, with no way to make it back.

Multiply that times... ummm... what's the banking coefficient of greed... LOTS, and you suddenly have billions of dollars of liquidity disappearing from the lending system.

Money disappearing formt he banking system isn't in itself bad, because it usually goes into someone's pocket, and then back into the banking system, you see, but this wasn't what happened: In this case, the actual VALUE of the money, expressed as mortgage amortization payments, disappeared... it came off of the liquidity part of the banking structure!

See, if you have $10,000 in the bank, you don't have $10,000 cash money in the bank. You have, maybe, a few thou in cash, and the rest is invested in the community, helping people buy houses, run businesses, and go to school.

What you really have is proceeds from loan amortization payments, you see?

Banking is a matter of cash-flow control. A bank is nothing more than a reservoir for money: Money comes in to it from deposits and loan repayments and goes back out to withdrawals and new loans, with a few feet of dollar bills in the vault to cover temporary surges in the outflow.

The real estate bubble bursting has fractured the bottoms of the largest streams that bring money into the bank (the mortgage payments), diminished the real value of the held mortgages (a $100,000 home is only worth $90,00, right), and widened the gates on the outflow of day-to-day withdrawals to cover increased living expenses for persons trying their best to keep their houses... ummm... afloat, to continue the hydraulic metaphor.

Banks can't resell their mortgages to refill the reservoir because the real value is so much less than the loan value. They can't get people to deposit more because people still have to spend money on day-to-day living.

As such, the liquidity needed to provide the services to the banking customers is in danger of collapsing.

Without liquidity, there are no more business loans, no more educational loans, and no more withdrawals.

The money is still THERE. you just can't GET to any of it. It's all tied up in dirt and drywall.

I don't think this is because of deregulation. I think it's because of the efforts to stimulate a lagging economy by pushing low interest rates coupled with an unprecedented rise in housing costs.

Add two cups of good old Free Enterprise Greed (people were day-trading real property, there, for a while), a tablespoon full of Keeping Up With the Jonses, and a pinch of people not believing talk about, "bubbles," and you have a completely non-political recipe for a catastrophe.

The Fed did its job: It kept the economy on track.

The Government did its job: It made sure that banks kept enough cash on hand and didn't discriminate in their lending practices.

The Banks did their jobs: They kept the money moving.

The problem arose because everyone did their jobs a little too well in a time of a, "bubbly," economy. People with access to cheap money started looking around to find something to buy, and they all said, "oooh... look... a house that under normal circumstances I could never in this entire world afford!"

Well - circumstances have returned to normal: All fouled up.

<--- tucks his soapbox back under his arm and wanders away, aimlessly.
 
OK, It is STILL just a lot of double talk to me!

I understand what happened to the house market, BUT every report I look at still only says that less than 10% of mortgages are in actual foreclosures!

THAT means that 90%+ of all mortgages ARE still GOOD! In addition I understand that the specific lender may take a bath on the mortgage they gave on a house for $120K that is now worth $90 and in foreclosure, but unless you are telling me that one or 2 of these institutions were holding ALL of these bad loans how the rule 8 does it cause this total collapse???


No one seems to be able to explain this in anything resembling PLAIN english, including in this thread!

How does 5-10% of investments in mortgage loans that have dropped in value in the short term cause the whole world to come to an end as all the talking heads are talking about on CNN!

PS. This article seems to make a LOT more sense than anything else I've heard.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html

and while I may not know all that much about economy funny enough I pretty much reached the same conclusion as this guy. Maybe he's a moron too after all any one can get into harvard.
 
Bi

Because, while it is a fairly small part of the economic whole, it's a huge part of the liquidity.

Liquidity is the cash on hand with which you actually DO stuff.

No liquidity, no stuff being done. Stuff like money-stuff, that is.
 
OK, It is STILL just a lot of double talk to me!
.

I thought that gaggle's post was about as good a simple introduction as you are likely to get (though I would argue that the problem is fundamentally one of deregulation......)

....... but if you don't understand the financial system don't worry too much, that puts you in the same company as most of the bankers and economists who have got us into this mess. :)
 
Last edited:
I still don't understand a part of it.

Ok lets' take the $120,000 turned into $90,000 house example (by golly, are houses so cheap over there ? I am moving to you guys)

Ok so the value dropped. But the 'silly' buyer B, who took the $120,000 morgage to buy this house at $120,000 a few years back....... Didn't he PAY somebody $120,000 (former owner A)

Buyer B cannot pay his mortgage. But what about smart seller A? He got a good price at the peak of the Bubble. Where is his $$$. Why isn't all that cash in the same banks, so they still have it avaialble...

Or did (on avarage) every seller A, buy a new and bigger house (which also went down in price)

I am asking this, because here in Holland many expensive houses (houses are a lot more expensive here, €500,000 is common and still quite small) are owned by elderly people. Often they sell their house and move into a smaller condo with special healthcare for seniors. So they 'downgrade' in the housing market.... And becaus emore and more people in the population are getting old it happens quite a lot.
 
OK, It is STILL just a lot of double talk to me!

I understand what happened to the house market, BUT every report I look at still only says that less than 10% of mortgages are in actual foreclosures!

THAT means that 90%+ of all mortgages ARE still GOOD! In addition I understand that the specific lender may take a bath on the mortgage they gave on a house for $120K that is now worth $90 and in foreclosure, but unless you are telling me that one or 2 of these institutions were holding ALL of these bad loans how the rule 8 does it cause this total collapse???


No one seems to be able to explain this in anything resembling PLAIN english, including in this thread!

How does 5-10% of investments in mortgage loans that have dropped in value in the short term cause the whole world to come to an end as all the talking heads are talking about on CNN!
[snip]
Gagglenash has it - liquidity. No company has the cash to fund millions of home mortgages. As mortgages are funded, many are are grouped together and sold as "asset pools" to investors for a small profit. (If you are lucky, you keep the servicing rights and make a small fee per loan per month as well.) The money from the asset sale is then used to pay your employees and fund yet more new mortgages. When the values of the mortgages began to decline, investors stopped buying securities. It got so bad for subprime that it became impossible to even value your assets since there were no sales on which to base your numbers. You now no longer have the cash flow to fund new mortgages or worse yet, your day to day operations. You can have a trillion dollars worth of assets, but if you can't fund your operations, you are still in trouble. And now other credit institutions see that your assets are risky and charge more to lend you that seed money to fund the new loans, assuming they will lend at all. Liquidity!

Then the ripple starts - all those mortgage-backed securities sold to investors are now worth... what? If your retirement fund invested in those, what is your fund worth? Then there are insurance companies that are paying out for many of the defaults. That puts the insurer liquidity at risk. Good thing some of them put those monthly mortgage insurance premiums in safe investments, like mortgage-backed securities... :bwall

For those mortgage companies that hold on to their assets and try to make money from the monthly interest portion of payments, the investment is quickly deteriorating. The valuation of the house technically does not impact the mortgage payments, but in reality, more borrowers walk when they owe more than the house is worth. When a borrower walks, the investor does not simply have a house now worth X less, they have serious expenses to foreclose, maintain the house, pay property taxes, and now sell in a market that has tanked. Foreclosure can take years in some states. Some lenders are now paying foreclosing borrowers to get out of the house now and leave it in good shape. That is often cheaper than going through an eviction fight in which the buyer trashes the place before they leave.

Yes, on average, "only" 10% of all mortgages are in default (meaning behind at least 30 days per MBA calculation methods [I think], not in foreclosure/bankruptcy as you stated). But that 10% is killing your cash flow. You are expecting to get paid every month and the money just stops while your costs go up. If you invested in a subprime pool from a state with real problems, your default rate could be well over 30%. You are screwed. And all you did was try to help people live the American dream of home ownership by investing in mortgages offered by nice, safe, large companies.

CT
 
The real problem is the credit markets are still really tight. The whole purpose behind the Bail out was to loosen them. If the Credit Markets remain tight the whole economy will take a catastrophic hit.
I was afraid when I saw the news about today's stock rebound, that people would think the crisis was over, and the Fools On The Hill (Capitol Hill) would take this an excuse to go back to business as usual.
 
If I took a $100,000 30 year loan for a house worth $100,000 that is now worth $80,000 I don't see the problem. By the time the loan is paid off in 30 years it will be worth $120,000. Problem solved.

According to a high school friend of mine, who is a car salesperson, a lot of people end up owing more for a car than it is worth. That means they are stuck with that car.
 
Corplinx started a thread today about an SEC Mark to Market announcement HERE.

He seems to think this will be more effective than any bailout. Anyone else here agree?
It does seem to me that it "greases the skids" so to speak.
 
Last edited:
Corplinx started a thread today about an SEC Mark to Market announcement HERE.

He seems to think this will be more effective than any bailout. Anyone else here agree?
It does seem to me that it "greases the skids" so to speak.

All that does is move the goalposts. They are saying that the property is eventually going to be worth X amount of dollars, so why don't we value it at that price instead of the crappy price it is sitting at now. It is accounting slight of hand.
 
If I took a $100,000 30 year loan for a house worth $100,000 that is now worth $80,000 I don't see the problem. By the time the loan is paid off in 30 years it will be worth $120,000. Problem solved.
The present situation appears to have been created by people who thought this way.
 
Whether you understand it or not, do you really think decades old Wall Street investment firms would let themselves go bankrupt if it wasn't real???? "Oh, let's pretend we owe a lot of money and implode." It's not a fantasy.
 
No one seems to be able to explain this in anything resembling PLAIN english, including in this thread!

Gagglenash has it - liquidity. No company has the cash to fund millions of home mortgages.

Or maybe the even plainer language of George Bailey:

It's A Wonderful Life said:
No, but you...you...you're thinking of this place all wrong. As if I had the money back in a safe. The, the money's not here.


Well, your money's in Joe's house...that's right next to yours.

And in the Kennedy House, and Mrs. Macklin's house, and, and a hundred others.

Why, you're lending them the money to build,

and then, they're going to pay it back to you as best they can.

Now what are you going to do? Foreclose on them?

Unfortunately, this took place in a fictional past where there weren't speculators and predatory lending, and so on. Potter was presented as the evil landlord who wanted to keep everyone renting, but the bad guys in recent years really wanted you to borrow money.

Still, the basic idea is the same.
 
I think for some people the urge to punish the Fat Cats...and some of them deserve to be punished, make no mistake...is so great that they seem willing to take a very serious risk of wrecking the economy to do so.
In other words they are willing to burn the house down to get rid of the rats, or cut off their nose to spite their face.
This whole spectacle is why I am not a populist,who think the will of the people, no matter how stupid, should prevail.
 
Hi

I still don't understand a part of it.

Ok lets' take the $120,000 turned into $90,000 house example (by golly, are houses so cheap over there ? I am moving to you guys)

Ok so the value dropped. But the 'silly' buyer B, who took the $120,000 morgage to buy this house at $120,000 a few years back....... Didn't he PAY somebody $120,000 (former owner A)


No - the BANK paid the guy $120,000, expecting to be paid back over 20 to 30 years.

Buyer B cannot pay his mortgage. But what about smart seller A? He got a good price at the peak of the Bubble. Where is his $$$. Why isn't all that cash in the same banks, so they still have it avaialble...


It is still available... as the mortgage amortizes. A $100,000 house isn't $100,000 - it's $2,000 a month for the next third of a century being paid to the bank!

The bank uses this income to pay their debts (your interest on deposit), and make other loans. Thus, Seller A having $120,000 in the bank doesn't help, either, because, and this is important:

Money is NOT MONEY!

A dollar bill isn't money. Money is what the dollar bill REPRESENTS.

It's like the following stuff:
5 五 VI​
All of which mean five. They are printable characters which represent the numerical value of five.

So - following so far?

Ok - the dollar you have in your hand represents [work / real property / valuable stuff] that someone gave you to repay a debt. You use that dollar to repay your debts. The people you pay use it to repay their debts, and the people they pay use it to repay theirs...

and so on and so on....

THAT is what MONEY is. The movement of the value through the system.

In what's happening now, the banks are not being repaid in green paper over the next third of a century... they're being repaid, lump-sum, in dirt and drywall!

As they used to say, "Try taking that to the bank."

Money is MONEY because it's MOBILE. You can't transfer dirt and drywall. You can't pay your debts with dirt and drywall. A company with money in that bank can't make payroll with dirt and drywall. You can't buy your groceries with dirt and drywall.

Also: Since the housing market is going down, no one wants to pay today's prices for houses because it'll be cheaper tomorrow. We're right back to why Buyer B couldn't just resell his house when he couldn't make the payments in the first place, right, but on a much grander scale.

The banks' sources of income are being whacked, but the debts they have and the debts that their depositors have still need to be paid, so the assets that are available, the liquidity, is being sucked out as the bank accrues more and more non-movable, non-money dirt and drywall.

A bank with $1,000,000,000 dollars of assets can't do any business if $999,999,995 of it is dirt and drywall without the liquidity that the billion bucks is supposed to engender.

That means, among other things, that your Dad can't buy that bass-boat, your sister can't get money to buy a new car, and, at the extreme end of the thing, you can't get money from your boss because the bank can't make payroll, and you can't withdraw money form the bank to buy your groceries.

Or did (on avarage) every seller A, buy a new and bigger house (which also went down in price)

I am asking this, because here in Holland many expensive houses (houses are a lot more expensive here, €500,000 is common and still quite small) are owned by elderly people. Often they sell their house and move into a smaller condo with special healthcare for seniors. So they 'downgrade' in the housing market.... And becaus emore and more people in the population are getting old it happens quite a lot.


That sort of used to be the only reason a bank would sell you a LESS expensive house: Retirees moving into a smaller place and cashing out some equity for their retirement.

Now, elderly people may not be able to sell a house, because no one is buying. Everyone thinks that the prices for houses will be lower tomorrow than they are today, and, at the moment, they're probably right.

As such, although the house's value is appraised at €500,000, it's actual money worth is ZERO because it can't GO anywhere.

The only way they'll get someone to buy that €500,000 house is to price it low enough to convince someone that the price is low enough that they will have gotten reasonable use from it before they sell it again to make up for the money they will lose selling it.

There goes your €500,000 house, and at bargain-basement prices, and there slips away the housing market index another point, making it so the next house seller has to price even lower.

It may take a while for things to stabilize again. During that time, bank assets will devalue and liquidity will shrink. As liquidity shrinks, it will get harder and harder to do business, and business will start to default, so more and more liquidity will be replaced by non-liquid... mmm... not dirt and drywall, this time... ah.. bricks and mortar (oh - yeah - the high-finance guys even call businesses with real holdings, 'brick and mortar').

When the money stops moving, the Money stops right with it. The banks keep the money moving with cash on hand, or liquidity. When the liquidity drys up, the banks can't do business. When the banks can't do business, pretty much no one else can, either.

Welcome to the 21st Century. I know I'm going to hate it.

[ETA] Have I mentioned that I almost flunked Economics? I finally got the hang of it when my the tutor I hired explained things in terms of simple-recursive and chain-recursive functions and local and global variables. I am SUCH a geek. [/ETA]

[ETA] I mean that you can't transfer dirt and drywall now. Banks used to bundle mortgages together and re-sell them to stimulate liquidity, but no one will buy that $100,000 mortgage, for instance, that's backed by only $90,000 worth of assets. Another source of liquidity dried up. [/ETA]
 
Last edited:
...... A dollar bill isn't money. Money is what the dollar bill REPRESENTS.

It's like the following stuff:
5 五 VI​
All of which mean five. They are printable characters which represent the numerical value of five.


<pedantry alert>

Surely that VI means six, not five? Five is V.

</pedantry alert>
 

Back
Top Bottom