Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nice statement I found

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Nice statement I found



    It's interesting to consider in the context of the housing crisis. On the one hand, you had condemnation of the poor for buying houses that were too big, which has at least two roots in American thinking. One is this Puritan work ethic—you’re supposed to work for a living, not gamble on housing going up. Secondly, it has a class component, which is basically that the working class shouldn’t aspire beyond its station. "Who is this poor person with the gall to buy a nice house in a subdivision when he can’t afford it?" Both of those dictate that you should be critical of the poor person who buys a big house. But we have this other strain of thinking which says, (a) it’s a free market and you should maximize your profits, and (b) individual initiative is good, and you should go and do what is good for you. We don’t, however, apply those to the poor person who buys a big house; we apply those to traders on Wall Street. So, for some reason, we apply different elements of our national ideology to different sets of people.

    As I say, you could see it in the housing crisis, where a lot of the right-wing think tanks blamed the individual and the government for the collapse. Now, even though there were people who were taking out mortgages that they couldn’t afford, or taking out lots of home equity in order to buy big, flat-screen TVs—everyone always says flat-screen TVs—I think that, this is just a guess, but for every person who was drawing down his home equity to buy a flat-screen TV, or an SUV, there were two people who were drawing it down to pay medical bills or college bills, basically trying to make ends meet. Middle class wages have been declining for ten years and stagnant for thirty years, and if you have a financial system that allows people making $15,000 a year to take out $400,000 mortgages, I don’t think that’s the fault of the guy making $15,000. I think it’s the fault of the financial system.

    But, let’s say I’m a guy who makes $15,000 a year. I realize, wow, I can get a $400,000 mortgage and I can live in this house for a few years, and if housing prices go up, I can flip it and I can actually make a couple hundred thousand dollars. And let’s say I’m really clever, and I say, if housing prices go down, I’ll just walk away and I will have gotten to live in a really nice house for three years at no cost to myself. I mean, that’s the worst, most cynical spin you can put on it, right? But this is exactly what people on Wall Street do. The person who is criticizing the janitor for doing this is the same person who thinks that businesses should exploit every legal opportunity to make profits. So even if you attribute the worst possible state of mind to the guy making $15,000, he’s still just doing what any businessman should do under the circumstances. But our national ideology somehow doesn't allow us to think about it in those terms.


    The last part is the kicker. Its okay for corporations to sometimes walk away from contracts, but god forbid if the little guy doesn't pay back every single damn penny - otherwise, they are evil and deserve to rot in hell!
    If you don't like reality, change it! me
    "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
    "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
    "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

  • #2
    No years of waiting for credit to improve for the big guys.
    Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
    "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
    He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

    Comment


    • #3
      I made :$15,000 a year the past couple of years, and to be honest, I wouldn't even know where to start to get a mortgage for a house. I don't understand any of it.

      What is credit? Should I care?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by GePap View Post

        The last part is the kicker. Its okay for corporations to sometimes walk away from contracts, but god forbid if the little guy doesn't pay back every single damn penny - otherwise, they are evil and deserve to rot in hell!
        Do you mind explaining when you think it's considered "okay" for corporations to walk away from contracts?

        In the US, a corporation that breaks its contracts can be found liable for the damage done to its counterparties due to the failure to fulfill its obligations. If the corporation is unable to meet all of its liabilities, it can either be placed into Chapter 7 bankruptcy (complete liquidation of all assets, disbursed to creditors according to their seniority) or Chapter 11 bankruptcy (restructuring). Under a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, creditors must agree to the restructuring plan (they will do so if they believe that the restructuring will allow them to receive more than simple liquidation).

        Most of the people who walk away from their mortgages in the US are able to do so simply because it is difficult and costly for the creditor to collect what he is owed above the residual value of the house (the debtor manages to retain assets, instead of being forced to go through bankruptcy). Therefore they are taking advantage of an inefficient legal system rather than any sort of set of agreed rules.
        12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
        Stadtluft Macht Frei
        Killing it is the new killing it
        Ultima Ratio Regum

        Comment


        • #5
          Well, financially it is ok to walk away from a contract, if you can get away with it. Is there outrage from uninvolved parties when this happens?
          “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
          "Capitalism ho!"

          Comment


          • #6
            The partners Tishman Speyer and BlackRock have left tenants in limbo and investors with far bigger losses.


            Many of the other companies, banks, countries and pension funds — including the government of Singapore, the Church of England, the Manhattan real estate concern SL Green, and the Newcastle Investment Corporation — that invested billions of dollars in the 2006 deal stand to lose their entire stake.

            “At the time, it looked like a sound investment,” said Clark McKinley, a spokesman for Calpers, the giant California public employees’ pension fund, which bought a $500 million stake in the property. “When the market tanked, we got caught.”

            Calpers, he added, has written off its investment. So has Calstrs, a California pension fund that invested $100 million, as has a Florida pension fund that put $250 million into the deal.

            Even though nearly all of the attention and blame surrounding the default has been directed toward Tishman Speyer, it will lose only its original investment of $112 million. (BlackRock will also lose $112 million.)

            Any collateral damage to Tishman Speyer, which manages a $33.5 billion portfolio of 72 million square feet of property in the United States, Europe, Asia and Latin America, was expected to be minimal; real estate experts said that Tishman’s reputation might suffer, but that the firm would still be able to put together deals and raise capital.

            “This is a big black eye for them,” said John McIlwain, a senior fellow for housing at the Urban Land Institute. “But it’s not the end of Tishman. They own a lot of property. It’s a dent, but not the end.”


            Also, given all the revelations about how poorly if at all many of these banks handled State laws regarding the legal transfers of properties and the issues they are having now as they try to actually foreclose on properties, I think that its not just borrowers (in fact, it isn't mainly borrowers) who tried to play the deficiencies in the legal system.

            I think the main problem highlighted in the passage is:

            Middle class wages have been declining for ten years and stagnant for thirty years, and if you have a financial system that allows people making $15,000 a year to take out $400,000 mortgages, I don’t think that’s the fault of the guy making $15,000. I think it’s the fault of the financial system.


            After all, people making little money are not apt to be highly sophisticated, while people working in the Financial system are of course the smartest people in the world. I have no sympathy for geniuses who claim they were outsmarted by peons and rubes.
            If you don't like reality, change it! me
            "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
            "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
            "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by DaShi View Post
              Well, financially it is ok to walk away from a contract, if you can get away with it. Is there outrage from uninvolved parties when this happens?
              My point is that it's a lot easier for individuals to walk away from contracts than it is for corporations. Corporations usually have physical/financial assets which are relatively easy for a court to seize. Larger corporations also have more to lose on their reputations. Individuals are far more anonymous, and the difference becomes greater the bigger the corporation.
              12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
              Stadtluft Macht Frei
              Killing it is the new killing it
              Ultima Ratio Regum

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by KrazyHorse View Post
                Do you mind explaining when you think it's considered "okay" for corporations to walk away from contracts?

                In the US, a corporation that breaks its contracts can be found liable for the damage done to its counterparties due to the failure to fulfill its obligations. If the corporation is unable to meet all of its liabilities, it can either be placed into Chapter 7 bankruptcy (complete liquidation of all assets, disbursed to creditors according to their seniority) or Chapter 11 bankruptcy (restructuring). Under a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, creditors must agree to the restructuring plan (they will do so if they believe that the restructuring will allow them to receive more than simple liquidation).

                Most of the people who walk away from their mortgages in the US are able to do so simply because it is difficult and costly for the creditor to collect what he is owed above the residual value of the house (the debtor manages to retain assets, instead of being forced to go through bankruptcy). Therefore they are taking advantage of an inefficient legal system rather than any sort of set of agreed rules.
                Maybe parochial to the UK, but I would say that Phoenix companies are common enough.
                One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by GePap View Post
                  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/nyregion/26stuy.html

                  Many of the other companies, banks, countries and pension funds — including the government of Singapore, the Church of England, the Manhattan real estate concern SL Green, and the Newcastle Investment Corporation — that invested billions of dollars in the 2006 deal stand to lose their entire stake.

                  “At the time, it looked like a sound investment,” said Clark McKinley, a spokesman for Calpers, the giant California public employees’ pension fund, which bought a $500 million stake in the property. “When the market tanked, we got caught.”

                  Calpers, he added, has written off its investment. So has Calstrs, a California pension fund that invested $100 million, as has a Florida pension fund that put $250 million into the deal.

                  Even though nearly all of the attention and blame surrounding the default has been directed toward Tishman Speyer, it will lose only its original investment of $112 million. (BlackRock will also lose $112 million.)

                  Any collateral damage to Tishman Speyer, which manages a $33.5 billion portfolio of 72 million square feet of property in the United States, Europe, Asia and Latin America, was expected to be minimal; real estate experts said that Tishman’s reputation might suffer, but that the firm would still be able to put together deals and raise capital.

                  “This is a big black eye for them,” said John McIlwain, a senior fellow for housing at the Urban Land Institute. “But it’s not the end of Tishman. They own a lot of property. It’s a dent, but not the end.”
                  Do you mind thinking before you post crap like this? The owner of the properties (and thus the debtor) is the PARTNERSHIP, not any individual partner.

                  Also, given all the revelations about how poorly if at all many of these banks handled State laws regarding the legal transfers of properties and the issues they are having now as they try to actually foreclose on properties, I think that its not just borrowers (in fact, it isn't mainly borrowers) who tried to play the deficiencies in the legal system.


                  It's pretty obvious that you lack even the slightest clue as to what "foreclosuregate" is about.

                  Middle class wages have been declining for ten years and stagnant for thirty years, and if you have a financial system that allows people making $15,000 a year to take out $400,000 mortgages, I don’t think that’s the fault of the guy making $15,000. I think it’s the fault of the financial system.


                  "The financial system" is a pretty broad actor to accuse. I also think that this type of screed is virtually meaningless.

                  After all, people making little money are not apt to be highly sophisticated, while people working in the Financial system are of course the smartest people in the world. I have no sympathy for geniuses who claim they were outsmarted by peons and rubes.


                  Get back to me when you want to have a meaningful discussion. Nobody here has suggested that the financial services industry needs protection from rubes.
                  12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                  Stadtluft Macht Frei
                  Killing it is the new killing it
                  Ultima Ratio Regum

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Dauphin View Post
                    Maybe parochial to the UK, but I would say that Phoenix companies are common enough.
                    They're pretty common in the US for certain industries (e.g. airlines). Again, creditors have decided to allow this type of restructuring because they believe they will receive greater repayment if the business continues to operate.
                    12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                    Stadtluft Macht Frei
                    Killing it is the new killing it
                    Ultima Ratio Regum

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Isn't the (expected/past) ease that an individual (or corporation) can walk away from a contract, in particular a loan type contract, included in the rates/etc given in the contract?

                      I am pretty sure this is the case with credit cards.

                      JM
                      Jon Miller-
                      I AM.CANADIAN
                      GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by KrazyHorse View Post
                        They're pretty common in the US for certain industries (e.g. airlines). Again, creditors have decided to allow this type of restructuring because they believe they will receive greater repayment if the business continues to operate.
                        Doesn't always work like that in practice. The Enterprise Act has come under a lot of criticism because of its 'poor' creditor protections.
                        One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jon Miller View Post
                          Isn't the (expected/past) ease that an individual (or corporation) can walk away from a contract, in particular a loan type contract, included in the rates/etc given in the contract?

                          I am pretty sure this is the case with credit cards.

                          JM
                          Again, corps can't just "walk away" from contracts.

                          People who don't have large amounts of easily seizable assets can.
                          12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                          Stadtluft Macht Frei
                          Killing it is the new killing it
                          Ultima Ratio Regum

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            By the way, Jon: if you're attempting to make a statement about the morality of saying "so sue me" instead of making good on your obligations based solely on the fact that this risk was priced into the rates being charged, then you are aggregating morality across debtors.

                            Those who take advantages of weakness in enforcement are effectively taking from others whose credit indicators are similar to theirs and who do not take advantage of this weakness. That's the point; in equilibrium, the burden of default falls not on the creditor, but on debtors as a class.
                            12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                            Stadtluft Macht Frei
                            Killing it is the new killing it
                            Ultima Ratio Regum

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Dauphin View Post
                              Doesn't always work like that in practice. The Enterprise Act has come under a lot of criticism because of its 'poor' creditor protections.
                              I don't know how things work in the UK, but in the US, bankruptcy law is supposed to work to the advantage of stakeholders in order of seniority.

                              If the courts aren't enforcing that principle then there is something massively wrong...
                              Last edited by KrazyHorse; November 7, 2010, 19:45.
                              12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                              Stadtluft Macht Frei
                              Killing it is the new killing it
                              Ultima Ratio Regum

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X