The bail out bill is going to cost us more that three trillion dollars

If the Congress is correct in their figures then I am wrong and it will only cost us tax payers three trillion dollars to bail out the mortgage industry. With the pork they have already loaded the bill with just to get people to sign it in the House we all should know by know that it will cost more than the trillion dollars they initially asked for under the guise of 750 billion.

 

The Congressional lack of understanding in business is shining through once again. Unless Congress re-writes its charter, there is a little fact that gets in the way of their ignorance. Freddy or Fanny and the GSA are forbidden to own or hold any private property longer than 180 days without putting it up for auction. So if property is foreclosed upon then the GSA must sell it to the highest bidder after 6 months. I think this is why the Congress wants to create a new agency to handle the mortgage crisis one that can hold those properties longer. The President was going to get rid of them as fast as possible if they fell under the control of the GSA. Have you ever been to a GSA auction? The last one I went to was at the Kennedy Space Center, where there is a regional office of the GSA, I watched a nearly new Rolls Royce sold for 9,000 because that was the highest bid. It did have a few bullet holes in the trunk but other than that and the blood stains some lucky guy drove away with a 240 grand car for 9 grand, what makes you think that if the GSA had a million homes nation wide they would not be selling for a dollar a piece? There is one catch, once you have bought the property at their auction you are on the hook to the bank for any unpaid mortgage. This will mean we would not need to take a trillion dollars of tax payer money to buy up the bad mortgages and people that can afford them can buy them.

 

The Congress killed that idea so they came up with this bail out bill that will further choke the economy.

 

All the confiscated property from drug dealers and mobsters is turned over to the GSA for sale. If Freddy and or Fanny foreclosed on the bad mortgages they would have to get rid of them as quickly as they can, providing bargains for the people in the know. It was a very smart idea to do this but what would the Congress know about doing things smartly?

 

Their grand idea is to buy up the bad stuff and hold it for years with a new agency. The government would be forced to maintain the property at government expense, I know because I am writing a proposal for my company to manage the properties in my area and it won’t be cheap.

 

This is where it starts to get expensive. The federal regulations for the maintenance of property is very strict and costly, grass has to be cut, security has to be maintained, cleaning has to be done, if there is a pool it has to be maintained which means power has to be kept on the property so the electric bill must be paid each month and in the northern part of the country snow has to be removed from the sidewalks and in some cases the roofs to protect them from collapse. The trillion dollars to buy the bad properties is only the first and cheapest step. The next step is maintaining the value of the home, what does it cost to maintain your home? Multiply that by a million homes and you can see that this will become very expensive. Then you have to do record keeping of each property, that costs money too, and you have to list it for sale, a small home will cost five hundred dollars a month to maintain, a large home will run you two thousand dollars a month and if it has a pool it will cost an extra three hundred dollars. So using averages of  $1,000 per home times a million homes comes out to about $1,000,000,000 per month times five years comes out to about 60 billion dollars on top of the trillion in the initial buy. Don’t forget the five to fifteen hundred dollars to initially secure the property per federal regulations and the same amount to get it ready for sale. Multiply that by one million homes and you can see that the Congress is going to be spending our tax dollars for the next five to eight years waiting for the market to absorb those homes while home builders and homeowners wanting to sell will be competing with older homes that have been vacant for five years. It will slow down the rise in property values and at first will cause property values to drop by about 12% to 15%. Yeah the people that are still paying on their homes will love to know that their property just lost another 12% because the neighbor was foreclosed upon and the government picked up the tab.

 

Less homeowner’s in the area will mean higher property taxes to make up the loss in local government revenue because the Federal Government is exempt from property taxes and until the home is sold local governments will be bleeding dollars. This means that there will be layoffs in local fire and police so crime will go up. People will move out of the area if they can or abandon their homes if the crime rate is too high leaving even less property tax payers. Yup, I can see where this is heading and it won’t be pretty for the first decade or two.

 

Great job, why listen to a president with a business degree when we can listen to lawyers that never ran a business and allow them to make business laws?

13,091 views 42 replies
Reply #1 Top

Okay I know I was being optimistic but as a conservative I try to look on the sunny side of this crappy deal.

Reply #2 Top

Some businesses fail.  Some businesses fall on hard times.  But most that survive do not hold assets on the books for book value that are non-producing.  They "cut their losses".

You correctly point out that the government (for a lot of reasons, but we will concentrate on one of them) is not like Business.  What would happen if the government bail out did not occur?  The government would take a huge hit on its balance sheet and have to unload houses at distressed prices.

So what would happen to those houses?  Savvy speculators would snap them up.  And then turn them around.  To whom?  Well, they are not much good to foriegners that have no intention of living here.  So they would be sold to people that need to get into a fixer upper cheap and then build from there.  In other words, it would promote home ownership - at the expence of an already bad investment.  Instead the government is trying to prop up the value of the houses - at our expense, leaving many Americans to try to get into homes that are too expensive - how?  Probably through a junk mortgage (the law has not been changed, only the credit has dried up).

And where does that leave us?  The same place in 5 years as we are today.  The bailout does not address the root cause of the crises, and instead just pumps money into the market (that will devalue the dollar and thus "tax" everyone not associated with the crises) that will then shut out some low end buyers again ,or force them into the "risky" practices that got us into the mess to begin with.

So who it is helping anyway?  People like Franklin Raines - Obama's Financial advisor.  So much for Change.

Reply #3 Top

So who it is helping anyway? People like Franklin Raines - Obama's Financial advisor. So much for Change.
End of quote

 

Change is good, and if Senator Obama wins that is all we will have in our pockets, change.

Reply #4 Top

So what would happen to those houses? Savvy speculators would snap them up. And then turn them around. To whom? Well, they are not much good to foriegners that have no intention of living here.
End of quote

What you describe is the system correcting itself, the natural order of things. It is good for everyone including the people that will be kicked out of their homes.

Reply #5 Top

Freddy or Fanny and the GSA are forbidden to own or hold any private property longer than 180 days without putting it up for auction.
End of quote

Fredie and Fannie sell foreclosed properties via real estate brokers. They do not auction them but in fact have the right to counter offers made by prospective buyers.

The GSA auctions off seized properties that have been seized by govt entities such as the FBI.

The President was going to get rid of them as fast as possible if they fell under the control of the GSA
End of quote

Which hallucinogenic were you on when you thought this one up. The president in fact signed into law on July 30th the following bill: H.R. 3221: Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008

Compare it with other bills that were proposed in prior years and you will see that this one actually has substance. It creates a new agency that has much broader oversight and enforcement abilities than OFHEO. It provides a means to go after companies that were/are involved in mortgage fraud and predatory lending. It provides the means to value and assesss the risks of mbs's associated with the GSE's properties or those aquired from the primary market.  etc.

What would happen if the government bail out did not occur? The government would take a huge hit on its balance sheet and have to unload houses at distressed prices.
End of quote

No. The govt it not regulated like the banks or other corporations.

Probably through a junk mortgage (the law has not been changed, only the credit has dried up).
End of quote

The law has been changed.

The trillion dollars to buy the bad properties is only the first and cheapest step.
End of quote

They are buying securities not properties.

Reply #6 Top

So much for cleaning up the earmark process.  I'm so angry and disgusted that our representatives can't pass any bill on a single subject, any bill, on its own unadorned merits.  Our Founders would puke at what the House & Senate have become - bunch of chickenshit gutless weasels, bowing before the alter of the media, including BO, Biden & McCain.  Fact, I may just go puke now.  The 'art' of poison pill politics just stinks like a skunk up your nose.

Reply #7 Top

It provides a means to go after companies that were/are involved in mortgage fraud and predatory lending
End of quote

Trouble is, what is currently called 'predatory lending' was called 'equal housing lending' only a few months ago, and was required by F&F's political masters, overwhelmingly Democrats, under threat of draconian penalties.

Reply #8 Top

The law has been changed.
End of quote

When?

Reply #9 Top

So much for cleaning up the earmark process.
End of quote

It is pretty sad......And they broadcast it throughout every media outlet for 2 weeks. Look at who changed their votes from nay to yea and you'll see quite a few who delayed the bill for earmarks. There were 4 rediculous ones that i saw being outed on CSpan, and a couple more from comittee members.  Ill have to check the bill to see if they floated them thru. Some aren't earmarks just stuff that should be proposed in a different bill, but earmark is the new buzzword although pork is what the real problem is.

Reply #10 Top

When?
End of quote

H.R. 3221: Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008

Reply #11 Top

we all should know by know that it will cost more than the trillion dollars they initially asked for under the guise of 750 billion.

The Congressional lack of understanding in business is shining through once again

End of quote

No, calling a 750-1tn asset purchase equivilent to losing 3tn does suggest a lack of understanding however! If I buy an asset for $100, the cost to my wealth isn't $100, it's $0, since all I've done is transferred $100 of my cash assets into $100 of whatever asset I've bought (assuming that asset is worth $100). To have a cost of $100 the asset would have to be completely worthless. Hence saying a bail out that purchases 'toxic' loans for ~750bn (along with a few other measures) will cost 3 tn suggests a lack of understanding about this. It's possible the purchase (+possible resale in the future) of all these loans could even make money, not lose it!

Reply #12 Top

 

Fredie and Fannie sell foreclosed properties via real estate brokers. They do not auction them but in fact have the right to counter offers made by prospective buyers.
End of quote

They have 180 days to get rid of the property then it must be sold at auction. The GSA handles the auctions. The property is freely listed by any licensed broker with a cap on the percentage they can charge for the sale. Crappy properties don’t sell and they go to the GSA to be auctioned off.

Compare it with other bills that were proposed in prior years and you will see that this one actually has substance. It creates a new agency that has much broader oversight and enforcement abilities than OFHEO. It provides a means to go after companies that were/are involved in mortgage fraud and predatory lending. It provides the means to value and assesss the risks of mbs's associated with the GSE's properties or those aquired from the primary market. etc.
End of quote

If this law was so great why do they need to pass another one?

 

No. The govt it not regulated like the banks or other corporations.
End of quote
  

 

You don’t explain how the Dr.’s statement is wrong. You don’t know what you are talking about in this case.

 

They are buying securities not properties.
End of quote

 

Ignorance! The government has already guaranteed the loan, the person defaults and it becomes the property of the government. Buying more securities is buying more bad debt. And unless the laws have changed the government is forbidden to make a profit only break even.

 

So much for cleaning up the earmark process. I'm so angry and disgusted that our representatives can't pass any bill on a single subject, any bill, on its own unadorned merits.
End of quote
 

 

Toss the bums out!

 

No, calling a 750-1tn asset purchase equivilent to losing 3tn does suggest a lack of understanding however! If I buy an asset for $100, the cost to my wealth isn't $100, it's $0, since all I've done is transferred $100 of my cash assets into $100 of whatever asset I've bought (assuming that asset is worth $100). To have a cost of $100 the asset would have to be completely worthless. Hence saying a bail out that purchases 'toxic' loans for ~750bn (along with a few other measures) will cost 3 tn suggests a lack of understanding about this. It's possible the purchase (+possible resale in the future) of all these loans could even make money, not lose it!
End of quote

 

Starter homes that were worth 140k were sold for 320k we will buy them with this bail out and sell them at market value, say 190k the government will have to eat the difference. Even if they are sold at current market rates of 260k which is still above actual value there is a short fall. Selling them at government auction is the best way to go but this new bill makes that impossible. You have been sold a bill of goods without the goods. The government is not supposed to make a profit, that is why we pay taxes to keep them from competing with business. To bring the full weight and power of the government into the business sector you have someone that can not lose.

Reply #13 Top

They have 180 days to get rid of the property then it must be sold at auction. The GSA handles the auctions
End of quote

No the GSA is seperate from the GSE's. You took the typo of a different post, drew a false conclusion, and you are now trying to prove something based on a mistake.

If this law was so great why do they need to pass another one?
End of quote

Goes to show you how badly broken our economy is. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 was written to address those two entities specifically at a time when the Government knew what was about to unravel. It was meant to not only tighten up regulation of the GSE's but it also has provisions which will help alleviate some of the other economic problems which are currently or about to unfold. What we are seeing now is something that has been predicted by economists for years. We are seeing how the popping of a huge market bubble spreads to the wider economy.

Ignorance! The government has already guaranteed the loan, the person defaults and it becomes the property of the government.
End of quote

Not true. The GSE's do not controll every mortgage in the U.S. Nor does the gov't Guarantee every mortgage in the U.S. There are a huge amount of mbs's in the market. Some underwrite loans in which the GSE's hold the mortgage, however many are not underwritten by the GSE's. It is very questionable at this point exactly what mix of mbs's the govt will be buying. It will also be very difficult and time consuming to gather the information concerning any non GSA issued mbs's that the treasury buys. The GSA's are not sitting on the mortgages of non GSA issued mbs's. The GSA's already have a large portfolio of non GSA issued mbs's for which they are not the underwriters holding the actual mortgage.

Reply #14 Top

Occurs to me that Barenaked Ladies should re-issue one of my favorite songs, substituting 'trillion' for 'million' - "If I had a trillion dollars... I'd buy your love," which is exactly what Congress is trying to do. :-"

Reply #15 Top

 

No the GSA is seperate from the GSE's. You took the typo of a different post, drew a false conclusion, and you are now trying to prove something based on a mistake.
End of quote

The government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) are a group of financial services corporations created by the United States Congress. All government agencies are created by the Congress. I did not take a type-O and use it to prove anything. Your type-O was what got me thinking where this mess will go next. I wrote about what I used to do for three years as a federal purchasing agent. It was one of my collateral duties while in the service. Part of that duty was learning the FAR or federal acquisition regulations they are the same regulations for all government purchasing officers and agents. They say what we can and can’t buy and how we can buy it. DEA, FBI, CIA, Secret Service, IRS and any and all government organizations have to abide by these rules written by Congress. All private property, that is ALL private property must not be held longer than 180 days. Once an agency passes that mark it is turned over to the GSA for disposal. This is why when the DEA needed fancy cars they seized them and used them for a while then turned it over for auction. The IRS sells property at auction but the auctions are administered by the GSA.

 

This law is very important because without it there is room for abuse. I as a government official seize your property and then sell it to myself at cost, so I pay the government what it costs to take your property, say an 80 million dollar yacht, it costs the government 5,000 to do this so I pay five grand and get a yacht. It also prevents me from using it for the governments business without proper compensation. This is wrong. It is one of the balances in the system to ensure we don’t have a tyrant taking what is not his with the use of the federal government. This is why the government guarantees the loans to banks. The bank does the foreclosure and then the government buys the house from the bank if the bank can’t sell it or if the house is sold the government will pay the difference from the loan and the short sale. If it can’t be sold the government takes control of the house and sells it or gives it away because it is no longer private property. If the bailout is done the government will have to foreclose on the house taking ownership of private property. The 180 day clock starts ticking at that point. With a flood of property becoming government owned the price of homes will drop because the government has to get rid of them. This will hurt the industry until they are all gone and the system can correct itself.

Goes to show you how badly broken our economy is.
End of quote
 

Or if you look at it another way it goes to show you how broken the law was.

The GSE's do not controll every mortgage in the U.S. Nor does the gov't Guarantee every mortgage in the U.S.
End of quote

Correct the GSE’s don’t control every mortgage in the country. But all the mortgages that are controlled by the GSE’s are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. This includes Freddy and fanny which have put the government on the hook for three of the ten trillion dollar mortgage market. Of that only 4% are in the default process leading to foreclosure. 96% are still making payments on time. And for 4% we are panicked? Because hundreds of billions of dollars is out there and no one wants to take the hit so the idiot politicians are going to ride in and fix it. NOT!

Reply #16 Top

Folks, you do realise that the U.S. government will actually make a profit out of these bailout? If the taxpayer actually churns out the 700 billions, they will cash in about 1 trillion in future asset that will be paid back over time by the mortgagers.

The things is, that 700 is currently worth about 450, and WAS initially worth about 800. So even if the governement is paying more than the market value for these debts, it's still a bargain value for what everybody initially paid for them. Only people actually exposed to risk care about the market value vs future nominal value, but the US governement isn't exposed to risk.

It's not a mere "bailout" that the US goverment will give money that'll never come back. It's merely a good investment that the market really need right now, and the US will make a good profit on it.

Reply #17 Top

DEA, FBI, CIA, Secret Service, IRS and any and all government organizations have to abide by these rules written by Congress. All private property, that is ALL private property must not be held longer than 180 days
End of quote

The GSE's are not held under these rules. They are still ENTITIES and not AGENCIES. They are simply under conservatorship.

And for 4% we are panicked?
End of quote

The problem is the GSE's exposure to derivatives.

Reply #18 Top

Folks, you do realise that the U.S. government will actually make a profit out of these bailout? If the taxpayer actually churns out the 700 billions, they will cash in about 1 trillion in future asset that will be paid back over time by the mortgagers.
End of quote

Dont keep your hopes up. Do some research on these "assets". You may think otherwise after you do.

Reply #19 Top

Dont keep your hopes up. Do some research on these "assets". You may think otherwise after you do.
End of quote

Yhea, those are sub-prime mortgage, I know. Some people might bankrupt and never really pay totally back, but it is still a generally good deal for a risk-neutral entity such as the governement. It's only for the companies who are exposed to risk that these mortgage lost a lot of their initial value.

Reply #20 Top

risk-neutral entity such as the governement
End of quote

You've lost your mind, or had it stolen from you in school.

Reply #21 Top

Yhea, those are sub-prime mortgage,
End of quote

No they are not. They are derivatives that were valued on the principal and the expected interest payments of pools of loans. Expect the banks,etc. to try to dump their worst, so you are talking about pools of non GSE underwritten derivatives which may include pools of loans with large % from areas that have seen the largest drops in real estate values and/or pools that have particularly high % of subprime loans, etc.

risk-neutral entity such as the governement
End of quote

No. The taxpayer assumes the risk. Everything depends on how well the derivatives are valued when the auctions occur. Right from the get-go we know that we will be paying more for them than investors are willing to pay.

 

Reply #22 Top

Folks, you do realise that the U.S. government will actually make a profit out of these bailout?
End of quote

Let me tell you a little story about that lie you have accepted as fact.

When I first started working for DHS I got the nickel tour of the airport. I saw one of the federal baggage screeners take a bottle of wine from some idiot that did not know that no liquids meant $1,500 bottles of Cabernet Sauvignon, I know the cost because I was given a bottle a few years ago as a gift. Great stuff! Anyway I remarked to the director that someone was going to be living high on the hog with that. I was then informed that since the government confiscated the bottle without compensation the only thing the government can do is destroy it so the government would not profit from the confiscation. I almost cried seeing that bottle placed with others and crushed. My point is that even though a house is more valuable than a bottle of wine the rules are still the same.

 

If they foreclose on a property and the government sells that property for more than it paid it is breaking the law set by the Congress in keeping the surplus money. Sure they can make a dime here or there but anything more than a few dollars to round up the figures is forbidden. If there is any profit made by the sale the extra money goes to either the bank or the original owner of the property.

 

 

Reply #23 Top

If they foreclose on a property and the government sells that property for more than it paid it is breaking the law set by the Congress in keeping the surplus money
End of quote

They are not buying foreclosed properties...They are buying securities under the provisions of a law that was just passed a few days ago....Go read the new law.

 

 

 

Reply #24 Top

Quoting Smoothseas, reply 10

When?


H.R. 3221: Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008
End of Smoothseas's quote

Better reread it.  It does not fix the problem, and indeed only papers it over and makes it worse.  It does not address the root cause.  And does not change the fact that the excesses that occurred can still occur,.

Reply #25 Top

They are not buying foreclosed properties...They are buying securities under the provisions of a law that was just passed a few days ago....Go read the new law.
End of quote

Just what do you think those securities are? By law the GSE's when they secure a loan are putting the American taxpayer on the hook if the homeowner defaults. When the bank forecloses on the property and can’t resell it the government pays the bank for it to free up the money to make new loans. Does the house vanish? It becomes the property of the U.S. Government calling it securities and derivatives, is just a nice way of saying we are paying for the same item twice. The GSE's buy the bad mortgage and take the house, the government then buys the house from the GSE and hopes to sell the house. You seem to be unable to understand the “full faith and credit” clause.