KD6NIG
04-23-2008, 05:04 PM
.....that I actually agree with.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352198,00.html
K0RGR
04-23-2008, 05:38 PM
Yes, I think I can agree with the basic premise.
There was an interesting article in one of the Twin Cities papers earlier this week. A group of developers up there decided to keep their business going by finding 'suckers'. They told the story of one fellow - a plumber, I think, who was enticed into buying four $450,000 homes. He was promised a huge return when the homes were sold a few months down the line, and rents were supposed to cover all the costs - he just had to assume the liability for the mortgages.
Apparently, this scenario was repeated with hundreds of 'suckers' in the area. These people expected to earn a lot of money, fast, with no effort. In other words, they believed they were getting something for nothing.
Well, none of those houses have sold, and most have been foreclosed. The developers got off scott-free, but everybody else involved is hurting. That's what happens with speculation.
It seems to me that the only way this could be prevented is to have more stringent regulations or industry requirements on the lenders. After all, they were betting their corporation's funds - their stockholder's money - on those loans being good, when they were obviously extremely risky. The marketplace will take care of this kind of issue if there is good information available about it.