Not many sales to go around for Realtors in 2009

Shortage of commissions for Steamboat agents has some deciding to become inactive

Advertisement

— January is the month when Realtors take stock and write checks for about $1,800 in order to stay in the game. It’s a modest amount, but with the number of transactions, and thus commissions, dwindling to 467 sales closed through the Multiple Listing Service in 2009, there are signs that some of Steamboat’s roughly 395 Realtors are considering their options.

Karen Beauvais, longtime owner of Coldwell Banker Silver Oak Ltd., said last week that she learned the Steamboat Springs Board of Realtors has heard from about 30 Realtors who do not intend to be active this year.

“There are going to be more,” she said.

Jody Condie, executive director of the Steamboat Springs Board of Realtors, said she could not confirm Beauvais’ number.

“There’s no way to know that at this time because the period (for paying dues) has not expired,” Condie said. “We notify our members of the names (of Realtors) who are no longer active on a weekly basis. But that doesn’t mean they won’t be members this year. I know of a lot of people who have not paid yet but will. They are an optimistic group, and they have an investment in their licensing.”

Condie said she has until Feb. 13 to certify to the National Association of Realtors how many members the Steamboat board has confirmed.

Realtors took part in less than half of countywide transactions last year when Doug Labor’s MLS figures are compared with statistics researched from records at the Routt County Assessor’s Office by Bruce Carta, of Land Title Guarantee Co. He reported that transaction volume last year in the county reached 1,063, with 412 of those occurring in the last quarter of the year.

The late sales rally brought the 2009 unit volume to within 98.7 percent of the 2008 transaction volume of 1,077. However, both of those numbers pale in comparison with 2005 and 2006, when there were more than 3,200 deals done with or without Realtors.

Prior to 2008, the last time there were fewer than 2,000 transactions was in 2004 when the volume was 1,915 sales.

The deadline for paying about $500 for combined dues to national, state and local associations of Realtors was Jan. 1, but those organizations are willing to work with their members on the terms of payment, Condie said. In addition to dues, the Realtors need to come up with $700 to register with Realtor.com and an estimated $600 for tuition to cover the cost of ongoing education, Beauvais said.

During the year, Realtors also spend on marketing their listings and, depending on the structure of their brokerage, may pay a desk fee to cover office expenses.

David Baldinger Jr., of Steam­boat Village Brokers, said the overall Realtor head count in Steamboat is misleading because so many Realtors don’t depend on selling real estate for a living.

Baldinger said he thinks Beauvais’ number of 30 Real­tors going inactive is accurate but that he’s relatively unconcerned.

“That’s less than normal turnover,” he said. “If it was a huge number like 100, I’d be concerned because it would mean the (Steamboat) board would have less revenue and be able to provide fewer services. The long and short of it is that just because a Realtor has a license doesn’t mean they’re active.”

Comments

Scott Wedel 4 years, 10 months ago

Prior to 2008, the last time there were fewer than 2,000 transactions was in 2004 when the volume was 1,915 sales.

Only the SB Pilot could categorize (2009) 1063 and (2008) 1077 with 1915 (2004). Two of the numbers are close and one is 40% greater.

0

greenwash 4 years, 10 months ago

And we care because..?

Real Estate, Stock and Mortgage Brokers should all be ashamed of the dishonesty that has occurred throughout the years.

Its not like realtors are an educated bunch,you dont need a degree to get a licence.

List it yourself in the MLS, its not rocket science .

Dont Pay 6% negotiate the terms.

What do realtors do anyway?Put an ad somewhere?Offer a virtual tour?Umm any yahoo can do it.

Dont fall for the B.S. Realtors are a waste of time and money.

0

seeuski 4 years, 10 months ago

Yea, nothing better than negotiating with a pleasant chap like greenwash. People hire a Realtor to avoid the sillyness that can blow up a transaction, like dealing with an emotionally attached owner who doesn't have a clue. The beautiful thing here greenwash is that people have a right to sell on their own or stupidly buy on their own but then they also can fail on their own through unforeseen contract/property flaws and transaction mishaps. Those of you who think properties that are FSBO sell for less and are a better deal are wrong as most sellers believe their home is worth more than the true market value. Statistics show that the majority of FSBO's are turned over to a Realtor after the frustration has exhausted the Sellers. You continually blame the economy on those on the street when it is completely and directly a product of bad Government throughout the last 40 years and culminating in the bubble that has blown and is still in correction mode. The Wall street bailouts was a reward that should never have happened.

Here is a great snapshot of the history as was provided in the Pilot. "With nothing to fear, the big financial houses bought, repackaged and resold investment products that included loans like the one issued by Washington Mutual to non-English-speaking strawberry pickers earning a combined $14,000 a year to purchase a $720,000 house. " http://www.anncoulter.com/

0

kathy foos 4 years, 10 months ago

Are you bankers happy now?How does it feel to control the economy in your own little hands?You bankers are taking us all down by not lending to us and driving us out of business,starving construction families,and thats just a start.Yeah there will be no building again this year,thanks to you people and your lending practices.When are you going to let go of a little cash so that our world wont go broke?Keep it up and we will just cut you off from our money altogether.Dont assume that you will get away with your 750 and above lending score forever.Guess what,people that have a score like that ,have some cash to buy things.they dont need your stupid cash.You are the cripplers of this country and something needs to be done with you all.Lets get a peoples coop bank and tell our local and national banks to shove it, see what kind of a bonus you get then.You people are ruining our country,you bankers,Id like to tell you to go fish like you tell me now,Great to borrow from you when you are in the mood.too bad you are bringing down our country now and I do take that personal,Im sure that the realitors do too.When will you let us regular people have some money?.Affordable housing is in your hands you DORKS.I am disgrunteled , because you are putting me out of my business(sure lend to me to get in ,and then dump,when its a questionable time with the economy)Same with people who get into trouble with homes(god forbid that a bank could be part of the solution to bring us on our feet.When we do get back on our feet hopefully we can put an end to you putting an end to us.Sorry for venting,but you bankers are so rude and dangerous,you do derserve it.

0

blue_spruce 4 years, 10 months ago

sorry, seeuski, but "http://www.anncoulter.com/" is definitely NOT an okay source to reference....can you do any better than that? she is a dirty, dirty person you know...

0

greenwash 4 years, 10 months ago

OOPs I meant to say....You dont even need a HS diploma to get a RE License.

Yea Yea Yea Ive heard the story of why we need a realtor.OK I agree mabye 5 in SBS are worth a darn .The remainders are nothing but bottom feeders.

0

Fred Duckels 4 years, 10 months ago

Sun, What came first, the chicken or the egg? Did alert businessman loan like drunken sailors, or did Barney Frank and crew force 50% subprime loans? This created a firestorm in the markets and all hell broke loose.. There is plenty of blame to go around but social engineering proponents did not look at consequences of their actions. See if you can get a subprime loan today, I wonder why not.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 10 months ago

Investment banks converting mortgages into securities came first. AIG London was kind enough to write the insurance, take the cash and decide there was no risk so no need to put aside reserves to potentially pay for any losses.

It was already a roaring fire when Washington decided to allow Fannie and Freddie to cash in by allowing them to do it as well.

If you want to blame Barney Frank then you have to explain how as a minority member of the committee he forced the majority to follow his suggestions. I note that Republicans now show how a minority can stop the majority so how, when the Republicans had a majority, do you think Barney Frank' managed to control everything?

0

seeuski 4 years, 10 months ago

Some people will always have their heads in the sand. I might as well go and start reading "Arguing with Idiots".

Here is a NY Times news story for those of you who have NO memory of history. "Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending" http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html?scp=1&sq=&st=nyt

And Scott, Here is a paragraph at the end of this report that would answer your question about how a Congressional majority consisting of Republicans would be hamstrung to act. "The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants." The threat of redlining was a tactic used by the Dems to force banks into bad loans.

more.......... "Blame Fannie Mae and Congress For the Credit Mess" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212948811465427.html

And for those of you who hate my message and Anne Coulter's honest reporting on these matters, here is your former hero in his own words. "Bill Clinton on Democrats and the financial crisis" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfGWxq...

And poor sun, your anger should be directed at Obama, Chris Dodd and Geihtner for their insistence in the bonuses you speak of being added to the bailout bill that sent our tax dollars to those big shots on Wall Street. I can understand your anger, I and many others are also in that camp.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 10 months ago

See, From the nyt article: felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits

And what was that quote about? It was about the profits other lenders were making from sub prime. And was it forced upon Freddie and Fannie? No, they wanted to make more money.

And the bailout bill that you hate so much was passed in Sep, two months before Obama was elected.

But apparently you think all of the world's problems were created by Democrats.

0

kathy foos 4 years, 10 months ago

Fred,Once upon a time there was a overly large chicken that laid a golden egg,we borrowed money on that egg and there for the bankers created the problem.How could the borrowers have created the problem when the bankers first gave us the loan?

0

bubba 4 years, 10 months ago

Sun, are you serious? Do you really believe that the bankers are solely responsible for people not repaying loans? The individuals who borrowed more than they can afford to repay bear no responsibility in this? You ask 'how could the borrowers have created the problem when the bankers first gave us the loan?' Umm... How about not paying back the loans? The economy isn't shot because bankers made loans, it's shot because borrowers didn't repay them. Think of it like falling off a cliff - the falling (making the loan) isn't the bad part, it's the landing (not getting repaid) that kills you.

Sure, there was a decades-long bipartisan effort to encourage and allow lenders to make more loans to promote the American dream of homeownership, which encouraged bankers to make increasingly risky loans, but a risky loan is only a problem when the other party (the borrower) decides not to repay it.

0

trump_suit 4 years, 10 months ago

bubba,

That is very VERY true. The caveat seems to be this:

When a business begins running at a loss, those losses can only be sustained until cash is depleted. At some point the business owner decares bancrupcy and the business ceases to exist.

If you look at individual homeowners as a business, it is hard to justify paying payments on a $500,000 mortgage for a house that is only worth $200,000. It becomes in the homeowners best interest to tolerate the consequences of bancruptcy and to eliminate the bad debt.

I am not saying that this is right or wrong but it is simple economics. Most people will not continue to hold mortgages that are larger than the property value. Whose risk is involved here and who should rightfully pay for the collapse in housing values? It is this dynamic that is driving foreclosures more than ability to pay the payments.

0

seeuski 4 years, 10 months ago

Back to my book. Clinton is liar huh Scott, and yes I do blame the Dems for the Economic turmoil we are in, it is they who own the Tax and spend, spread the wealth mantra. How are you liking our growing deficit?

0

greenwash 4 years, 10 months ago

I noticed St.Regis/Clock Tower /Temple is in forclosure.Any intereted buyers?NOT

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 10 months ago

The investors that bought thousands of apartments in New York City in what was the largest real estate deal in history stopped making payments and gave the property back to the lenders.

Chase, JP Morgan and other major investment banks have all recently turned back various investments back to the (unfortunate) lenders.

But God forbid that individuals make the same sort of rational business decisions as the wealthiest corporations.

And Seesuki, I guess I just have these memories of there being a budget surplus when Clinton left office. I also have memories of the Republicans in Congress after the election holding hearings in which they got economists and other "experts" to describe how surpluses could have bad results. Thus, Congress passed tax cuts and spending to get rid of the "excessive" surpluses which Bush gladly signed.

But I guess that was also the Democrats fault by running excessively large surpluses that the Republicans had to solve by running major deficits.

0

seeuski 4 years, 10 months ago

Please provide backup for your assertion of Republicans against the surplus. I also remember Clinton passing thru a mini recession and a tech bubble that bursted oh, and something called 9/11. The economy needed a boost and Bush signed the tax cuts which WORKED. Must I repost the Clinton youtube video to refresh your memory? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfGWxq...

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 10 months ago

Greenspan's Tax Views Prompt GOP Raves http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=88709&page=1

Seems back then that there was enough enough of a surplus left by Clinton that paying off the national debt was so likely that they could afford a 10 year tax cut as well.

And so the burst of tech bubble which certainly was never a threat to the entire tech industry, but just the end of rampant speculation in internet related companies, required a $1.6 Trillion stimulus package (mostly tax cuts).

Do you want me to also get links of Republicans talking about the horrors of surpluses because that would result in government owning securities and thus putting the financial system under the political control of the US government?

I guess it was the Democrats fault for leaving too much of a surplus for Bush that they just had to get rid of it. And the Republicans sure did a great job of getting rid of that surplus.

0

kathy foos 4 years, 10 months ago

Hey Bubba,Im not talking about forclosures ,Im talking frozen lending practices that are paralizing the economy.They have floated peoples ideas and homes for their benefit for a long time and now that things are difficult,they are shutting down the economy and forcing us into unknown territory because they dont ever gamble on any of us succeding now.How is this going to get better without economic expansion?They are safe from their own bottom falling out thanks to us taxpayers concern,It is their(banks) obligation to pass the favor on,Do their job and start loaning money again.They are sitting on that egg and watching the so called correction happen and not taking any progressive hopeful stances,that is because ,like I stated before they are overly large cowards(chickens) .Is their only function now to collect overdraft fees like parasites?Do they even have any money for anything besides paying our bills for us?Maybe thats it they just dont have any money anymore like the rest of the economy.What good are they then?Get a Walmart card,your own safe and start doing more owner financing deals,Postal money orders are great.

0

aichempty 4 years, 10 months ago

Banks don't lend money to people without equity. Anymore. It's all gone.

Even if you own your own home, there's nobody who can buy it if the bank forecloses on it. It's not worth anything to anybody but the people living in it who don't have to pay to live there anymore.

Interesting concept. Wealth without value.

0

seeuski 4 years, 10 months ago

"Greenspan, who until recently was insisting that the best use of the projected surpluses was to pay off the national debt, said Thursday that the surplus estimates have gotten so large that he now believes there will be enough money to pay off the debt and cut taxes too.

In testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, Greenspan said that if the surplus projections come true — $5 trillion over the next 10 years — the government will be able to eliminate the $3.4 trillion in debt held by the public and have enough left over to reduce taxes." "Prior to Thursday, Greenspan said don't count your surplus chickens until the eggs are hatched. But now … Dr. Greenspan suddenly is a believer in budget projections," said Paul Kasriel, chief economist at Northern Trust Co. in Chicago. " "He was very open about his views about how dramatically the economy has slowed," said David Jones, chief economist at Aubrey G. Lanston & Co. in New York.

The surplus was based on 10 year estimates? I stand behind my assessment of what transpired after this story which destroyed those projections namely 9/11. Neither one of us will be the winner in this argument but why even bother? It's what THIS White House is doing NOW which is important going forward. Isn't it time to stop blaming Bush and hold Obama accountable for HIS agenda? Listen to trump.

0

kathy foos 4 years, 10 months ago

They dont loan money to people with equity,good jobs,and in good standing with them.Quit blaming this on people that have lost their homes.The dirty little secret is that theyare not loaning out anything for any reason.

0

kathy foos 4 years, 10 months ago

Quote for you bubba:New York Times,Feb 2,2010,by David Streitfeld,"During the boom,it was the banks that helped drive prices to unrealistic levels by lowering credit standards and unleashing a wave of speculative houseing demand."So what is really going on here?Maybe now they are doing a turnover on property so that they can do it again.Double their money.Oh they soooo created this situation,and on top of it they actually have people feeling sorry for them.Go figure.

0

seeuski 4 years, 10 months ago

As long as sun continues to read the NYT they will have a rating and Obama might just go forward with a bailout to keep their presses rolling.

0

housepoor 4 years, 10 months ago

Sun is right, people with great credit and a decent down are struggling to get a loan and thats on a single fam, want a condo forget it.

0

bubba 4 years, 10 months ago

OK sun, so your quote shows that housing prices rose because banks loosened lending standards (this is not in question, as it is true). But the economy did not crash because housing prices rose - it crashed because they fell. Why did they fall? Because of so many distressed sales dragging markets down. What causes a distressed sale? When someone cannot afford to repay their mortgage. Why can't people repay mortgages? Because they borrowed more than they can afford. Why did they do that? Because the bank was willing to loan it to them. Why was the bank willing to loan that money to them? Because they were able to sell the loan on the secondary market, so they don't care if it get's repaid. Why was there a secondary market? Because banks needed to find ways to make more risky loans due to government pressure to make more loans. Why would the government put pressure on banks to make more loans? To fuel economic growth. And besides, refusing a loan on the basis of a borrower's inability to pay it back would be discriminatory, in addition to harmful to the economy.

Our elected officials for decades have attempted to find ways to increase homeownership in the US, because that equates to financial well-being in many people's minds. As a result, numerous policies were put in place to encourage banks to loosen lending standards. When more money is available to buy homes, demand for homes increases, which means prices go up. This isn't a bad thing, as long as the money supply doesn't dry up. But massive foreclosures caused the money supply to dry up.

The government officials are culpable because they made an incorrect assumption about the benefit of increasing home ownership.

The Banks are culpable, because they made incorrect assumptions about the correlation of real estate prices in different parts of the country.

The Borrowers are culpable because they made incorrect assumptions about housing prices always increasing and defaulted when they were proven wrong.

To place the blame squarely on 1 of those three groups is naive at best...

0

kathy foos 4 years, 10 months ago

You have a very good way of expressing yourself Bubba,and explaining the situation in an almost beautiful way.Is there a solution that the banks have brought forward to try to rectify the problem?Are they just like victims sitting and waiting it out?Very intelligent people are bankers and it is such an important issue surely they are also pondering the possibilitys for a happier ending for their depositors business,not just those bonus schedules.Im not even that bright and Im trying.Maybe that would be a hands on meeting(voluntary) with surviving mortgague holders to see how they are doing and help encourage at least,if trouble is looming then a back up plan of even free counseling on how to hold on.If this domino effect isnt slowed or stopped soon,consumer confidence restored,we are seriously going to crash out and its not far off.Thanks housepoor for the reality back up,the people you would assume to be a given ,still in good enough shape with a job,the banks know that they will probably loose that job before this lets up and they have no faith in any of us out here because they know that its all going to get much worse because they arent going to play any financial games anymore,and the economy will not stand up.

0

ybul 4 years, 10 months ago

The Banks just like the Buyers drank the koolaid years ago and thought prices were just going to go higher. Now the banks are realizing that people can not spend 10 years worth of income (no taxes, no money for food, clothes, etc) on shelter.

Maybe the banks are going back and looking at the numbers they used to lend based upon income, one could only afford a mortgage that is 30% of net income. Also, they also realize that rates are at historic lows and given our trade imbalance need to rise. This will make their loans face value when rates adjust to more realistic market rates (not free market rates as there still will be forces that are trying to manipulate them for whatever reason.

home price are going to adjust, if you can not afford the adjustment then try to sell your house, rent and buy in at a lower price. The adjustment phase just began here and will take time to work itself out. Affordable housing is around the corner as banks maybe came to their senses and quit drinking the greed Kool-aid that is rampant in this country.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 10 months ago

Regardless of the quality of the borrower, it is extremely dangerous to be doing a large number of highly leveraged loans because if some fail then it puts all at risk. The numbers of low down loans going back to 2004 showed that there was a looming problem of over leverage in the housing markets. And instead of doing anything about it by increasing capital requirements or such, Greenspan said that markets get things right.

The historical standard of 20% down made a whole lot of sense because it meant the borrower had the financial discipline to save a substantial amount of money and has enough equity to withstand a market decline.

Personally, I do not blame many of these people that bought with virtually nothing down. It was a gamble placed with other people's money so why not take the bet? If the market continues up then they would have made money. And they almost no money invested to lose if the market declined.

Quite a number of banks and such did not go aggressively into the 0% down market or the subprime markets. They passed up the "easy and quick" profits and continued to make quality loans. Any pressure to loan more to lower income without down payments was easily resisted by banks. It was not government pressure that convinced Washington Mutual and so on to aggressively loan money. They were making money hand over fist loaning money to whomever they could find.

The real mistake made to vastly expand the financial crisis is that AIG was allowed to insure the mortgage backed securities without any reserves and Moody's accepted money to rate them as investment quality. How that happened should be criminal.

And then why the Bush Admin with TARP simply paid of AIG's counterparties 100% should also be criminal. They should have noticed how much JP Morgan, Goldman and so on had made on these securities and told them that if the government is going to save the financial system then they are going to take a loss on the AIG insured securities. And the losses should have been deep enough that the shareholders should have actually cared about the money being paid as bonuses.

The Washington politicians (Congress, Bush, Obama) have failed the people by allowing the rich to be bailed out with government money. They couldn't let the financial system fail, but they didn't have to be nearly so generous with the big banks. They could have said you take this deal or we pay off (and take stock in) those that take their deals and you get to fight over the remains of a liquidated AIG. The proper state of post bailout affairs should be Wall Street being so upset with Washington, not Washington giving billions to Wall Street and then being upset with Wall Street. If you give or loan someone a lot of money and are upset about where the money went then you did not set proper terms for the loan.

0

Duke_bets 4 years, 10 months ago

sun- If you have no skills to provide food for the family, you are the problem. You failed to save a few bucks when the going was good? You signed up for some adjustable rate mortgage with 0% down.

Your solution to the economy is borrowing more money to people who can't pay it back? Really? Foreclosures and Bankruptcies are off the charts. Should banks lend more money to bustouts in order to cure the problem? No!

The consumer is and always will be the problem.

BTW, I'm a consumer and my house is paid for and the kids are fed well.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 10 months ago

Duke, But someone without skills that is not providing for their family is not my problem other than costing me some donated cans of food so they are not "the problem".

"The problem" is when someone else loans that person money and is surprised when the loan goes bad. And this someone else managed to be so big and write so many other cross party guarantees that if they fail then they take down other financial institutions. Then their problem becomes my problem.

Where the system failed is how over leveraged loans led to a major crisis in Wall Street investment firms. We have had real estate declines before and things like the S&L crisis, but that never threatened the viability of Wall Street. That this threaten Wall Street shows how deeply things got screwed up.

0

Steve Lewis 4 years, 10 months ago

Scott is right.

Sure there were 3 parties to the mortgage bust, but the mortgage problem had been leveraged (30 to 1?) into something much, much bigger by the big banks and by the big banks alone.

Poor loan rating and securitization was banking bad move #1. Bundling of mortgages into securities was bad move #2. Selling unsecured insurance policies for those securities (derivatives) was bad move #3. These last two were exponentially profitable for the banks, and created the fiscal black hole that forced taxpayers to bailout the banks.

We still don't know how much black hole remains. The banks have derailed possible regulation of derivatives. Without that regulation, the only safe move for us is to not allow any bank to be "too big to fail". By any ethic other than our own financial survival, these big banks should be dead right now.

0

kathy foos 4 years, 10 months ago

I just talked to a sixtish friend with a 850 credit score and applied at a local bank and was only offered a 9% interest rate for what ever the loan was for and he declined.I havent lost my home but see that my business is very vulnerable to this sagging economy and am concerned that if this black hole doesnt stop I will be next and intend to do whatever I can to avoid that.The banks are not helping with anything useful to anyone,Dont accuse people of being inferior that cant control their income because of this ecomony,hopefully you are a billionaire duke so that you dont ever have it touch you,most of us are regular people .Oh and I do have skills lots of them,as I live in a seasonal area and must be flexable for the seasons.If the pay sucks is it workers fault?Yeah Im in business now for myself,whoopie!The economy might take me out too then Ill be a worker again,it would be nice to have financial support from the business community,but they are so scared to do anything (lenders) ,its affecting ability to function at any kind of normal economy recovery,even people with a good amount of wealth are being turned to high interest or nothing,

0

sledneck 4 years, 10 months ago

I have a substantial credit line @ average of 4.375 %. I secured most of it AFTER the financial crisis hit. I am not using most of it because I am scared, very scared, that the worst is yet to come. If banks keep making stupid loans I am SURE the worst is yet to come. If I was a banker I would not loan a freakin dime right now. Not loaning $$$ proves they are smart... not in the nice business but in the $$$ business.

Until the government gets off banks asses they will not open up. This is logical. Banks cleverly used the tarp money to build their reserves back to what they should have been all along. If our retarded big brother had not given the banks our money maybe they would be weak and more willing to negotiate. Bankers smart. Government stupid! (and when I say government I mean americans)

It greatly concerns me to see people swinging when a carry-over loan might help them but giving $$$ to a $$$ addict is as wrong as giving jack daniels to an alcoholic.

Solomon observed that the borrower is servant to the lender. For all those who hate the thought of big business running the show I have a couple questions. What will you do when your big brother is on its knees begging for a nickle from the banks it ripped just a few months earlier? What will your interest rate be? How did big brother help you by loaning $$$ to the banks? Your'e the sucker. Your retarded big brother played you for the fool and funded the banks while leaving you swinging!

America is addicted to debt and banks are the dealer on the corner. Blame banks if you wish but the problem is the people. Americans can't take the pain of paying as they go. Americans sided with government and they got rolled over... again.

0

kathy foos 4 years, 10 months ago

Many of your points are true(all?)but what is your solution then sledneck?Maybe a functioning compromise of reduced lending instead of frozen or rip-off lending, .Fact is this system evolved in the way it has,it is what it is now(sucky) and something needs to be done now about it!.Simple ,no putting it off and waiting for a lender. The government has dumped the people financially and let this whole thing destroy us,and so that is bad,but the apathy about what can be done is just unpatriotic.Maybe helping each other out on a local level in a brand new creative way will work.If someone has some money and is scared of the stock markets or banks,they should join small ,local,lending groups,start over,loan to 700 buyers,Phooey on the banks.Lets straighten out this crap ourselves,why not?Thats what has to happen,creative new business ventures that safely operate for the good of everyone involved,it could save our ownership from other countrys and their control,Im afraid they are buying up our country as we speak.

0

Steve Lewis 4 years, 10 months ago

Unbelievable. Sled: Banks clever. Government dumb. October 2008 never happened?

Obviously you've figured it out - we'd have a better economy and more jobs if we had just let AIG and Chase go down. Not. The truth is you both would have lost a helluva lot more at this point if it weren't for that bailout.

Bundling of mortgages into securities and selling unsecured insurance policies for those securities (derivatives) were the bankers' doing. This was the black hole of $trillions and it had absolutely nothing to do with "addiction to debt".

Get real.

0

housepoor 4 years, 10 months ago

Your right lewi that is guy is a kook. I'm sure he also thinks it was GOD's will that we attacked Iraq.

0

aichempty 4 years, 10 months ago

The government is truly stupid, and I could give you hundreds of examples from my own personal experience working with them, for them and in spite of them to prove it.

When you cannot lose all your money and go out of business, incompetence is perpetuated and money just gets wasted.

I'll give a $50,000,000 example. There was a military system I helped to test which failed Operational Test and Evaluation, and was then purchased anyway. The law says that systems intended for use in combat have to undergo OT&E, but does not require that they pass. In this case, it was built by a company in the northeast that was located in the district of a powerful Congressman. A special appropriation "supplement" was passed by Congress to fund it. So, we all get to pay taxes to pay a company to build something that has exactly the same operational benefit to our forces as the dead-weight ballast it replaced when installed.

Congress has allowed banks to charge usurous interest rates to make up for taking risks on people who can't handle credit because the only way to grow our economy is to make funds available for people to buy things. The problem is that environmental regulations, taxes and other government interference has made it uneconomical to do business in the United States, so all the jobs from manufacturing and extractive industries that build wealth in this country have gone overseas. Wealth is not "cash." It's property that is worth something because it provides income, such as oil wells, factories and farms.

We cannot exist as a strong economy if the only thing we do is import goods manufactured elsewhere and then let everybody who handles them along the line take a cut until they are ultimately consumed. We are paying for oil wells and factories in other countries, which produce things that can be sold in lots of places besides the United States. We have been living on the margin for a long time now, and it turns out that an awful lot of what we've been spending has been borrowed. It had to come to an end.

We've got to take the same view of energy and other natural resources that Japan used to take for rice; self-sufficiency. Not because others can deny us a supply of the stuff, but because the ability to produce it and sell it represents a part of our national wealth.

Housing prices were bid up way ahead of the actual value of the labor and materials that went into them because of easy credit. Banks lent money because the government allowed them to take unwarranted risks. Lots of bankers made a lot of money at it.

So,yes, bankers are clever and government is stupid. Anybody ought to be able to see that for themselves.

0

bubba 4 years, 10 months ago

Unfortunately, yes, the government is stupid. Even more unfortunately, in this country, the people (us) are the government. Take this example:

Right now, the rate at the discount window is less than the yield on treasuries. Banks are under tremendous pressure to reduce risk and show profits (from regulators). Since banks can borrow from the fed discount window at a lower rate than they can earn on treasuries, they are taking no risk whatsoever by borrowing money from the government (aka the taxpayer, aka us) and loaning it back to the government (aka the taxpayer, aka us) at a higher rate. So effectively we are loaning the banks billions and billions of dollars so that they can loan it back to us at a higher rate, so that we can afford to loan it to them. They are posting billions of dollars in profits on this spread, while the rest of us sit around and complain that we can't get financed for stuff.

So I would have to agree that the bankers are a lot more clever than the government officials who we have selected to sit at that negotiating table for us.

0

ybul 4 years, 10 months ago

Bubba,

You see you are wrong, the banks own the federal reserve, not the US government. The banks are borrowing money from their organization and then loaning it to us taxpayers for a profit at the bank level. Then at the reserve level they also make money as many times there is no cost of borrowing for the federal reserve. If the federal reserve shows a profit it is supposed to forward that the the federal govt.. However, we have never been able to audit the federal reserve to ensure that their profit is what is being dispersed to the govt.

One of the Rothschilds, a member of the European aristocracy, stated that he does not care who governs a country, as long as he is involved in the coining of that countries money. He is a major player in the federal reserve and others from around the world. It is nice that they can print money when needed yet the rest of us have to go and earn it the old fashioned way.

0

kathy foos 4 years, 10 months ago

wow,that is so unreal that no one is able to audit the federal reserve for profit,Id say the plumbing is broke for sure and needs updates for proper functioning,just like a bad business,time to re-evatuate,and make a good ,solid plan to control every penny like a good business,its our money(or national debt)that is at stake.I think that more financiers should run for office instead of a bunch of any bodys that arent trained .Im sure you saw that the national debt is $ 40,000.00 for every man, woman and child in this country now.

0

bubba 4 years, 10 months ago

Sun, 'unreal' is a good choice of words, as the assertion that the federal reserve has never been audited is completely untrue. Yes, large banks have to buy shares of the federal reserve in order to become member banks, but those shares do not change in value, and they pay a fixed dividend. The 'federal reserve cannot be audited' line is nothing more than a conspiracy theory that resurfaces every few years, most recently as a function of a guy named Ron Paul's failed presidential campaign. (The Fed is audited by the Government Accountability Office annually)

I do agree that there should be more people who understand finances in office, but we seem to keep putting lawyers up there. Of course, the first and only MBA (who would presumably have studied finance and economics more than most attorneys) to be elected president was one GW Bush, and many would say that that was a disaster.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.