We've spent a lot of time talking about what went wrong, now it's time to start talking about how to fix things. Since the current financial crisis was sparked by the meltdown of mortgages (the so-called subprime crisis, though it extends far past subprime) lets see what a liberal government would do to fix the problem.
Right now what's happening is Ben is taking the distressed mortgages, along with various other toxic waste paper, and lending the banks and brokerages treasuries in exchange. This is a government bailout by another name, but it's one where the government is paying essentially full price for the mortgages even though most of them are worth far, far less than that and one that provides no relief at all to homeowners. It keeps the banks in business, even if not solvent, but does nothing to put a floor underneath potential losses. All it does is transfer those losses from company spreadsheets to the Feds. Granted, the fed can always swap those back, but then most of those companies would wind up as insolvent.
What is needed is to provide a mark to market price. Right now you basically can't move mortgage backed securities, there is no market. When you think about it, that's awfully strange, after all, at the end of the day a mortgage is backed by a house and the property it sits on. In some cases, that house may be worthless, but in most cases it's worth something. Even in the most overheated areas of the country, I would expect housing prices to drop by no more than 50%. In most areas somewhere between 20% to 40% should occur. To put it another way, one can reasonably expect that the correction will take back most of what the bubble gave, and a simple way to figure out a baseline is to look at the median price increase in a particular county since 2001. It may fall to slightly less than that, or slightly more, but it makes a decent baseline.
So here's what a liberal government does. It provides real market clearing to the market by offering to buy mortgages, only in blocks, at a discount. Not to lend, as the Fed has been, but buy. It sets the price at approximately what the land would have been worth in 2001. It converts each and every mortgage it buys into a simple fixed rate mortgage with a nominal value for the property equal to what it bought the mortgage for plus ten percent and it lets the property owner choose a 10, 20, 30 or 50 year term for the mortgage as long as the monthly payments are no more than 1/3 of the owner's income. If you can't afford the payment on 1/3rd of your household income the duration of your mortgage gets kicked up until you can. No other loans can be taken against the house until the mortgage is paid off and no lump payments are allowed so that finance companies can't come in later and offer to pay of mortgages so folks can do foolish things. (If you get involved in this program you obviously did foolish things and you give up the right to control a certain part of your own finances. Don't like it? We'll let you opt out and deal with the bank yourself.)
You allow only mortgages on primary occupancies residences to get into this program. Some arrangements will have to be made for situation with multiple mortgages and so on, but those details can be worked out. The mortgage will be transferable in event of a sale. For the first half of the mortgage duration, if there the house is sold for more than the value of the original mortgage (the 2001 price) then the government gets half the upside.
What are the advantages of this program?
-
It sets a floor under mortgage prices and creates a market for them. They are now worth X. That allows banks, hedge funds, brokerage houses and others to actually put a mark to market value on them and have a good idea of how much debt they're carrying due to those securities.
-
The government makes a profit over the life of the mortgages. This is important. If the government is going to bail out people, there's no reason why the government shouldn't come out ahead in the long run. This is only fair to taxpayers, who will take on a burden from the original payments but will see a benefit from it in the future.
-
Lenders take a loss. They should. Moral hazard must apply to lenders who lend more than their borrowers can repay. The government should not be expected to be the banks leg-breakers beyond a certain point and that point is far gone when you're getting into liars loans, balloon mortgages and a business model that assumed that housing prices would never drop so they was no risk. There was risk, the lenders made a bad bet, they should lose money.
-
Property owners take a substantial loss in property price and they give up half the upside of any price increases for some time. Again, people who have acted foolishly should not be bailed out without any cost and moral hazard applies to individuals as well as companies.
There are a couple disadvantages as well. US monetary stock is based, to a large degree, on the value of the US's housing stock. This will fast forward deflationary pressures, doing in a couple years what would have taken 5 or 6 to play out normally. However, given that there are strong inflationary pressures at the current time, and because it sets a floor under property deflation, the risk is probably worth it. Nonetheless, it is a risk.
In addition, this will shock property taxes, hard and fast. The Federal government will need to provide some monetary support to municipalities for a few years. This can be paid for out of the income from mortgage payments. And really, municipalities were in a pile of pain anyway. If the offsetting payments are sufficient, they could actually come out ahead.
Those risks are worth the candle. The current Fed bailout does nothing to help property holders, does nothing to create a real market clearing price and puts taxpayers completely on the hook for uncertain amounts of massive losses. This plan creates a market, spread the pain but helps both investors and property owners and it will, odds on, actually wind up earning the government a profit.
But note something important; it's the sort of plan that can only be done by Congress, with the President signing it into law. It can't be done by the Fed alone. And that means that for sensible, simple solutions like this to be enacted we probably need both a new President, and a new Congress.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
Aloha, Ian!
Hey, Ian. Dude.
I was thinking that I just adore that graphic you’ve used lately…..spiraling….
But, then now I have to put all of those spiraling elements together with Simple Solutions aspect.
You tricking me into thinking?
Good one.
It worked.
I would add to these regulation of hedge funds and the derivatives market.
#
It sets a floor under mortgage prices and creates a market for them. They are now worth X. That allows banks, hedge funds, brokerage houses and others to actually put a mark to market value on them and have a good idea of how much debt they’re carrying due to those securities.
#
But if the banks and hedgefunds were lying about their holdings getting a REAL value for their mortgage loans would be the last thing they want.
What if the Mortgage problem is as big as we feared with real numbers Bear Stearns would likely not be the only financial company in trouble.
I’m for your plan but with Bush in the White House I don’t see anything that hurts the banks passing in Congress.
Yuh, agreed. One solution at a time though.:)
Very nice set up, Ian! It would provide a much needed safety net!
The plan makes sense so it will never happen.
What are the consequences of Ben’s current bailout plan besides more bailouts in the future the banks might be saved but with no buyers for mortgage paper but the fed how does that effect the economy?
Ian, I so appreciate your weekly columns here. I am learning SO much. Thank you.
Great ideas Ian as usual.
How do “we” deal with the derivatives out there which based on real estate products?
It seems much of the financial mess is that money is created from thin air by bets and hedges and so forth/ Can these be cancelled and declared unlawful so that neither party is hurt?
OT Kelly O’Donnell on NBC News tonight mentioned McCain’s statement about al Qaeda and Iran but then played McCain saying “But I corrected that immediately.” In fact, he didn’t but later in the press conference and O’Donnell didn’t point out that McCain had repeated his statement multiple times. So how exactly did he correct it immediately? O’Donnell was speaking with the Eiffel Tower in the background. Wouldn’t you like to have her job? Travel the world, never have to worry about getting anything right, have an inflated view of your place in the world and your knowledge of it. The only thing would be you would have to park you integrity at the door.
I just took on a new job that pays low.
It’s a great atmosphere though, lotsa giving back to the community and has great benefits.
Means less taxes for the government to spend on the war, but more giving back to the community.
Drum Jam at Lunch is the cherry.
The logical extension of the Ian system is for the federal gov to provide all mortgages at fixed rates and this would cool the real estate bubble (and toss a lot of creeps out of the business).
How about second and third mortgages and so forth? How are those handled?
Ian,
I always enjoy your posts and explanations of how things in the economy work, or could work. But it makes me wonder: what do you do for a living?
It seems like your very sensible advice –while entertaining and informative–would be more useful among those formulating policy and trying to right the listing ship.
I guess I mean preaching to the choir doesn’t help much. I read lots of blog sites and it seems there are a lot of quite reasonable people out there listening, the the very important ones ( our representatives, our leaders, and the army of character actors we call “pundits” ) don’t seem to be blog-readers.
As that article points out, action is needed asap…
Bernanke and Paulson have proposed no structural changes to keep bubbles like the mortgage crisis from happening again. They are hoping that they can put bandaids on it until it goes away or in Paulson’s case he is out of office. What they have done so far is consistent with the maxim: That profit is privatized (the upside of the bubble) and loss is socialized (the downside). This downside they want the government (with bailouts) and ordinary Americans (inflation) to pay for.
What are the significant differences between your proposal and the Frank/Dodd plan? I quibble about the ban you put on accelerated payments, or payments directly against principal - this is a virtuous thing in the long run, if made by the homeowner, and reduces overall amortization periods.
SanderO, Ian, wrote…
I took the job so I could contribute my portion to the loan on the house.
I can only speak of my part in this whole debacle.
You people are Way Smarter than me on these complicated issues.
I’m just glad that I have a reasonable mortgage and when things Go Further South, I’ll still be okay.
Who takes on a loan they can’t afford?
My dear old dad told me there’s No Free Lunch.
I took him at his word.
Did you notice the Google Ads under Ian’s post for low mortgage rates?
Moved to California in 1996. Could not afford a modest home at that time on my income.
Today, still cannot afford a home. I have basically been priced out of the home market.
This is a ridiculous situation to be in. I should have moved away from here a long time ago.
This bullshit market screwed over a lot of potential buyers for a decade - to the point where people took huge risks to be able to buy a home.
I’d be in the same situation if I hadn’t refused to go along with an insane inflationary market.
I hope it gets to the point where I can think about buying, but I’m not holding my breath.
Cali is a really big state. Lottsa different communities, for sure.
What part of California did you move to?
Can someone help me out here? I’m normally the last person to be “Google impaired”, but I’m having an off day. But I’ve been trying to find out the answer to this question re the Rev. Jeremiah Wright YouTube videos
Obviously, I have some strong suspicions regarding the purpose, but are there articles anywhere about who first drew attention to these videos–and anything else about the timeline and main players in developing this stoyr?
you’re fucked if you’re paying a mortgage on property you bought during the housing boom years, coz now you’re stuck paying a mortgage on property that has devalued considerably since you bought it.
So you’re better off not paying a mortgage but rent..or not paying a mortgage because you paid cash for the loft you own…the latter is my situation…
Finally, a sensible plan I could get behind! I do have some question, though. The main question for me is what about brand new homes that were purchased with ARMs that will increase payments to way more than people will be able to pay even if they get hefty raises before the first change in interest rate. Also, what if the house were purchased with an interest only loan?
Likely, even new home values will be affected by the decrease in home prices in their market, but these may be homes that the home owner had every intention of renegotiating into a fixed mortgage with a reasonable rate before the first change raised their interest rate out of the homeowners ability to pay, but they were unable to do so before the market made money for new loans dry up due to a prepayment penalty? I ask because my son is in this very real situation, and I doubt that he fully realizes yet how much peril he’s in. This is his first time home purchase.
First S.F. Then L.A.
I’ll have to think on it, honestly. Unilaterally giving a market price to securities 20% or 30% lower than face will cause huge losses on some derivatives. Otoh, those loses might have occured anyway. You could perhaps simply cancel them, or you could say that they have to be paid out at a pro-rated decrease - so if the duration was one year, assume that normal declines would have only chopped off one fifth of the amount you’re discounting the mortgage at inone year.
Stranger things have happened with a Dem President and more than 60 Dem Senators. Hate to say it, but if we have to give up one house of Congress, I’m hoping that it will be the House of Representatives. We need Senators, and we need them to be more than DINOS. That’s why I keep asking, what do Democrats stand for?
No 2nd and third mortgages. They need to be unwound, or perhaps piled into a single mortgage. Once you’ve got a government backed mortgages, no new second or third mortgages can be piled onto it, at the very least until the period in which the government benefits from property appreciation is done. We need to get people out of the habit of using primary residences as ATMs.
LA’s expensive. Certainly.
I’m fortunate to have found something nice and affordable.
Let’s see how things go.
I wish you best of luck.
I write, I do some consulting. Blogs like FDL are actually clipped for politicians now, same as the rest of the press. Now whether they clip policy pieces like this one is another question. I’m honestly not sure, I suspect it varies by politician. In non-election times I would think that Clinton, for example, who is a wonk, probably does get these sort of clips. Probably not right now though.
S&P’s at least a year behind the curve.
Ian, please forgive the o/t but wanted to remind people about the following and there was no other place it would likely be seen in time for some who are TV dependent for these things:
8:00 p.m. EDT - C-Span 2
Top Secret: When Our Government Keeps Us in the Dark with author Geoffrey Stone
Ian and firedogs,
haven’t even finished the post yet but am dying to share a story with all of you esp Ian and the Econ wonks -
the daughter works for a boutique CRE offshoot of a hedge - she and I were talking one night and I was asking her a bunch of questions based on one of Ian’s posts and y’all’s comments
. . .cut to a few days later - the day Jim Cramer was telling the world to buy BSC - the big swingin’ dicks she works with worshipped his ass and started making buys AND cajoling her to come along and bring her grad school money
. . .remembering our previous conversation, the girl calls mom and based on mom’s new found rudimentary grasp of wtf is goin’ on, mom tells daughter hell no, house of cards, don’t go anywhere near BSC, etc.
. . . cut to that Monday where by noon they’re all threatening seppuku on the bloomberg and autographed pics of Cramer are flying out the windows
thank you all for edumacating me and saving my baby’s grad school cash !
p.s.
. . .they all wanted to know what inside info she was privy to - source at the Fed ?, insider at JPM ?? she loves pointing out to them they were bested by a waitress in Texas and teases them all that if they behave she may one day share her source ;)
Would your plan require a reversal of the bankruptcy law?
Mine is much more broad, essentially. I wouldn’t put much of a limit on how much the government would be willing to spend on this. The government would hold the loans directly, they wouldn’t be refinanced through mortgage companies and the government gets much more upside on this if there’s growth in the future. It also puts in much more controls to ensure people don’t get themselves back in debt.
I don’t believe so. The plan is voluntary on the part of banks (though you could make it mandatory). If they’d rather force their customers into bankruptcy they can do so (though do note, mortgages must be sold in blocks. No fine-grained cherry picking.)
Mind you, we should reform the bankruptcy laws, but that’s another matter.
what about present second and third mortgages?
For folks who are upside down, I would generally reccomend walking away from the property. There are now companies which are willing to get you all the paperwork and handhold you through it. It’s traumatic, but it’s better than paying a mortgage on a property that is worth less than the mortgage.
All loans, ARMS, etc… would be reset to a simple, fixed rate mortgage with fixed interest payments, a fixed duration, and a clause that does not allow you to take out any further loans agains the value of the house at least until half way through the mortgage (ie. when the government no longer benefits from house appreciation.)
For your son, I would reccomend talking to a financial advisor. In particular, if the house is upside down (the value is less than the mortgage) he should find out how to walk away. If he knows that a baloon payment is going to be more than he can afford, he should try and sell if he still can, if it’s upside down he should get out.
From a Canadian perspective, I have been railing against certain developments in our mortgage markets for years. For example, the banks in Canada convinced CMHC (the Canadian govt agency that guarantees mortgages) to guarantee debt reconsolidation mortgages up to 90% of home value, which essentially resulted in a govt guarantee of credit card, student loan, automobile and other loans that the banks “converted” into “mortgages” with a 100% govt guarantee, and then they were able to get the customers to run up their credit cards again. Bad, bad, policy.
But, doesn’t it matter just how upside down you are?
I mean, if rents are stable, not going down, as they are in LA…if you suck it up, if it’s just a coupla hundred dollars a month, wouldn’t it be better to keep going, in some cases?
Isn’t this the same as a prepayment penalty? What if you want to sell the house and buy something smaller, because you’ve learned your lesson or lost a higher paying job. There’s got to be a way to find a solution for exceptions. But I do agree that people with cash will come in and try to victimize folks without some controls.
Mods -
Double-double checked and that program IS on tonight. Please wipe that #38 off the face of the map! That way, only those already on the thread will have proof of my non-existent brain. *g* Thank you!
Ian thanks so much for really explaining what “privatizing profits and socializing losses” means.
When Goldman Sachs goes to the Fed’s Discount Window, I thought they had to take their equity back after thirty days.
Is there transparency built in so that we (the public) can see what the Fed is accepting? Related to that does the Fed have resources to reappraise
all the crapeverything shoved at the discount Window?Per what Hugh mentioned above, the credit rating agencies also have failed, just as they did with Enron.
Also, can Congress impeach Chris Cox and Hank Paulsen?
Any comment on lowering capital requirements for Freddie Mac and Fannie May?
I hang out on a college football blog with some guys who work on Wall Street and in the mortgage business. I doubt they’ll ever vote Democratic, but even they are aghast at the Bear Stearns failure. They understand what a collapse in book value means for 401(k)’s and pensions. They know they may have to choose between paying for their kid’s education or retiring or neither of the above. I also think the GOP is running a stall trying to stall the deflation until after January 2009, so they can blame it on Democrats.
Thanks so much for all your work.
The bubble heads loved the ATM idea of real estate because it fueled so much “growth”. Boy are they addicted to growth.
I suspect without rising incomes and significant disposable income and favorable consumer credit, retail and consumer spending will tank.
This will pull a lot of stock performances down also.
Don’t we need an economy which works without the need for some much growth? Isn’t that also a major problem. We are all addicted to “growth”.
LOL. Very well done. And I’ll tell you a secret - judgement is more important than knowledge. Those folks all know more than you, heck they know about stocks and markets than I do. But they have lousy judgement, and you don’t.
And I’m very glad that someone got some real use out of this. :)
Fascinating. I didn’t know they’d done that. I agree. Very unwise.
You can sell the house, and you can transfer the mortgage (in fact you must transfer the mortgage, the house can’t be sold without it.)
Ian, Do we have a window which will last until the next congress steps into the mix? How might we lobby for a plan such as yours with the most effect?
Seems like your plan needs to happen sooner rather than later, considering the current and immediate future rate of bailouts. Would you suggest your plan include a bit of retroactive application to folks like Bear Stearns/JP Morgan, who received early help?
My suspicion was that CMHC did it to hang onto market share with the banks, because GE Capital had become a major player in the Canadian mortgage insurance market at the time (about 7 years ago) and was promoting aggressive strategies like that to the banks.
GS can be forced to take their crap back in 30 days by the Fed. The Fed will even probably do that once the crisis is over. But if the crisis doesn’t “end”, then they can’t force it back, becuase that would precipitate a crisis in confidence. So the question is if you think the crisis will “end” short of, well, a real collapse. And that’s a gamble - Ben doesn’t know and neither do I, though I think probably deleveraging is now in a self reinforcing downard spiral, and he has to think otherwise.
Great story.
Are the mortgage insurers not having to pay off the defaulted mortgages? What IS mortgage insurance?
Most of the people could afford it when they took it out. They failed to understand the fine print, however, or what happens when that attractive ARM converts with a 9 point plus prime interest rate. They’ve been watching other people do this for years; they didn’t understand the nature of a bubble; they thought something else would come along, like a pay raise or a refi and that would solve the problem. What amazes me is that both my niece and my nephew have done this stuff themselves, and mostly gotten out of the situation due to pay raises or their mate took another job or they refi’d the loan to a better rate so that the change never hit them, yet they don’t understand this! They think the people being affected should have known better.!
Ian,
Do you have an answer for my question at 43?
Fortunately for me, even with the prices going down, I’m currently at about double what I paid, but I know people who are on the edge.
Just wondered about your advice to walk away, especially since another question is where does one go?
Can’t see Paulson et al being impeached. I believe it is possible, however. Freddie and Fannie are insolvent, their ratios should be lowered to 10:1 along with everyone else’s, but until there’s a full bailout lowering their leverage would just cause them to collapse.
These things play out slow. Sooner would be better, but such a plan will help even in 2009. Congress right now is unlikely to do anything very broad, unless things get /really/ ugly. I mean this is the Congress that wouldn’t even expand unemployment benefits and food stamps, something that the Republican Congress of 2001 did. They are, substantially, actually the most reactionary Congress of the past 60 odd years. Only the 05-06 congress might be more reactionary.
So I don’t have a lot of hope for now. They’re going to fiddle around the edges and pray the Fed will save them. If the Fed fails, then they may do something.
…you just walk away–a friend of mine is doing just that…let the bank will have it. Why be burdened with property you can’t afford–and will eventually sink you?
If it’s your primary residence and you can afford the mortgage and it’s not a baloon mortgage and you intend to live there for at least 10 years or so, hang on. This is not a good time to sell, but it is a better time to sell than it will be for about 5 or 6 years.
Note that I don’t know you or your situation - advice you get on the internet is usually worth what you pay for it.
…you move in with friends, relatives, or parents…
(you and I are on the outs right now, but then I feel for you if you’re in a bad situation…)
Fortunately, as I said before, it’s not advice for me. I’m not going anywhere. Again, well above the ratio and no seconds or balloons.
I’m asking about people who may be upside down on their loans, but, still are paying somewhat equal to what rents are…which are pretty high in LA.
Don’t worry, I’m not hanging my children’s inheritance on free advice on the internet…just responding with a question to what You said.
Thanks for your response, though.
I can’t see how the larger credit crisis will be solved by stabilizing the mortgage monster. There is still way too much leverage and people are wanting to go from high risk/high returns to low risk low returns and this is inevitably going to run the banks.
There is a lot of pump and dump going on and people are looking for ways to get out of the market. Why would anyone play in the market now?
That’s preposterous.
Not every one has people to move in on.
…glad to know that you’re not at risk…you’ve been there for me in the past…just trying to respond. (Not to worry: this is the last time I’ll respond to you directly in a thread…)
Gettin a bit touchy up in here.
i will not even respond to this one..you’ve been on the warpath with me..especially during the Christy thread Pull Up a Chair this morning, about Jane–
(RGB: you taking note? I’m trying to be on good behavior here…but it’s damn difficult…i have to tell you…)
yep–and I can tell you I’m not taking any prisoners!!! WTF is going on at FDL?
The ramifications on one’s credit are serious! Consider all that you need a “good” credit rating for many decent jobs, apartments, and don’t ever expect to get a credit card or finance a car again.
and hey, didn’t I see something Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac related from Bernanke - this week ?? can’t find it now, was wondering if it was more withdrawals from the $400B left
and in case ya missed it - this morning Prof DeLong sounds the alarm for proactive planning in the event of Fed Failure - hope it isn’t too o/t
Who services these loans then? Who pays the taxes and insurance? Will there be PMI?
My comment was said in the possible way…
Sorry if my question and response seemed touchy, Ian.
I still think it was a fair question.
Still sorry if it seemed that way however.
Same ol’ buncha whiney ass experts as always. Where’s Kiddo and Lahoma?
my comment was absolutely not directed at you at all…*G*
i still love you, demi, in spite of all…(as I said, you were there for me during my tribulations… fair is fair…) I want everyone at FDL to know it…
and now i’ll retire gracefully…
“Mark to market” would cause an uproar from sea to shining sea, because who wants to face the fact that their RE is worth only a fraction of what they thought?
If banks sold their REOs instead of holding on to them, the market would correct itself without any government.
Also, Ian, I am quite shocked that you think because if one is upside down, one should walk - just like that. There are a lot of people who have acted irresponsibly and criminally, have lied, have not read their contracts, have been greedy as well as stupid.
Sell them to whom? China…?
Probably you get Fannie or Freddie to administer them. Although there’s an argument for setting up a new agency. Taxes are paid as normal, even if it is one branch of the government paying another. Bring it in-house. Managing simple mortgages is really very easy. It only becomes complex if you make the mortgages complex.
Because we all can use a break sometimes, and, sometimes, it’s worth to give someone else a break, just ’cause…
(a gentle remedy for touchiness….)
I vote for a new agency named after Bush.
Bother. And I previewed. it’s worth IT, to …
Sounds like you are describing Bush supporters.
Who will buy it?
Psst… Hey buddy can ya spare a couple Trillion…? ;-)
I am not on the warpath with anyone here. I just comment as my small minds sees things. If something sounds dumb to me I say so. But I get the same from others. To me it’s nothing personal because I don’t have personal relationships with these “screen nicks”.
Laura!
Walking when upside down is a business decision. Businesses would do it in a second, I think people should too. And I’ve worked in an underwriting department. The contract allows them to walk, they should walk. Be sure the banks would cut them dead in a second if it was in their interest to.
As per usual, Hillary was on top of this and had concrete solutions for the problem. Media would rather focus on how much she is a bitch. And how inspiring Obama’s speeches are. It is hard to be inspired when you are losing your home and retirement. But the best solution for all of our problems is a great speech, delivered via teleprompter between 8 flags with a bright blue background. Thank god we can check off the race problem because Obama had the courage to speak about it. Isn’t he wonderful! We all love a parade and a good speech!
I see a lot of Chapter 7 cases because my law partner is a trustee. I assure that most of the people we see were doing their best in a bad situation. Your assumptions have little basis in fact.
I might add that if the bankruptcy code were amended to permit ordinary citizens to do what businesses and rich people do in Chapter 11, that is, to cut the secured claim to the value of the collateral, and pay cents on the dollar on the balance, and to adjust the interest rate to current market, and to adjust the length of the payment and get rid of floating rates, as the Democrats proposed, then a big piece of the problem would be fixed.
Yes they would.
But, the little guy cannot always absorb the loss that a business can.
If you can afford an upside down loan that’s still lower than rent, isn’t it good business sense to protect what equity you have?
Ian;
Fantastically important post, as always. Always appreciate your finely honed insights.
If you owe more than the property is worth, there IS no equity.
The sad part is that Hillary reanimates the Clinton Hate Machine. Nothing’s likely to get done because of all the noise. The Clintons have not dealt with the machine. Ignoring it will not work.
And Laura, always wonder to see you, especially, in action.
‘wonder-ful’!!!
Hello there, David. Good to see you, too.