White house reaches mortgage deals

[cedski]

My comment to you was based on this remark.......So one would assume......that you are saying that brokers have come to some type of consensus in this forum......if we happen to diagree with your position........my point and statement stand.

 

you decided to single me out in post #34 arguing that I did not post when "fed injected money into the capitol markets."(see below) you then claim that I only presented hype not facts. you went on to post about how this bailout was not law, etc. as I pointed out later I never claimed it was "law" nor did I ever claim all brokers agree with it. I also did not say all brokers in this forum agree. I said "prevailing broker opinion".....So there is a difference between "prevailing and consensus".....

 

Main Entry: con·sen·sus

Pronunciation: \kən-ˈsen(t)-səs\

Function: noun

Usage: often attributive

Etymology: Latin, from consentire

Date: 1843

1 a: general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports…from the border — John Hersey> b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>

2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief

usage The phrase consensus of opinion, which is not actually redundant (see sense 1a; the sense that takes the phrase is slightly older), has been so often claimed to be a redundancy that many writers avoid it. You are safe in using consensus alone when it is clear you mean consensus of opinion, and most writers in fact do so.

 

pre·vail·ing (pr-vlng)

adj.

1. Most frequent or common; predominant.

2. Generally current; widespread.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

pre·vailing·ly adv.

pre·vailing·ness n.

Synonyms: prevailing, prevalent, current

These adjectives denote what exists or is encountered generally at a particular time. Prevailing applies to what is most frequent or common at a certain time or in a certain place: took a poll to find the prevailing opinion.

Prevalent suggests widespread existence or occurrence but does not imply predominance: a belief that was prevalent in the Middle Ages.

Current often stresses the present time and is frequently applied to what is subject to frequent change: current psychoanalytic theories.

 

Seems like they mean the same thing to me.....I could be wrong.......

 

which certainly is not saying the "consensus opinion" of brokers in this forum. I could be wrong here.......but to use your own words once again......Where do you find anything thats says that there is a prevailing opinion and when you edit your own quotes......I believe the comment was "I forgot one must conform to the prevailing broker opinions to venture into the mortgage forum."[/color]........So once again my statements stands......

 

later you said "I think you made an assumption here that us "brokers" agree with the agreemtn when in fact it will directly affect our income by reducing the number of people who will need to refi out of there ARMS." what orifice did you pull that assumption out of? Well lets see......if the prevailing opinion.......is that brokers agree with this change.....then my logic is sound.....and one doesn't need an orifice to reach a logical conclusion..... my complaints/rants/etc in thread were not targeted at brokers or the mortgage industry. until you decided to single me out for your unconstructive assumptions I was mainly commenting on the (potential) moral hazard.

 

and frankly if you had a clue you'd see that I have posted about the weakening dollar but in the MM forum not here. [/u]......hege......I wish i had the time to chase you all over this forum and read your insightful posts......Im sure i would then become a lot more edjumacted.....yes thats sarcasm......

 

So to adress your comments.......

 

Moral hazard in finance

Financial bail-outs of lending institutions by governments, central banks or other institutions can encourage risky lending in the future, if those that take the risks come to believe that they will not have to carry the full burden of losses. Lending institutions need to take risks by making loans, and usually the most risky loans have the potential for making the highest return. A moral hazard arises if lending institutions believe that they can make risky loans that will pay handsomely if the investment turns out well but they will not have to fully pay for losses if the investment turns out badly. Taxpayers, depositors, other creditors have often had to shoulder at least part of the burden of risky financial decisions made by lending institutions.[1]

 

Moral hazard can also occur with borrowers. Borrowers may not act prudently (in the view of the lender) when they invest or spend funds recklessly. For example, credit card companies often limit the amount borrowers can spend using their cards, because without such limits those borrowers may spend borrowed funds recklessly, leading to default.

 

These lenders are not being bailed out.....This is not a law.......The math makes sense if you review the numbers on foreclosre that i posted earlier and those numbers are conservative.......if makes fiscal sense....So how can you have a "moral hazard" when the servicers already have the guidelines in place to mitigate losses.......This was nothing but a political move on everyones favorite subject........the mortgage industry......

[pryan67]

let's just all drop it, ok?

[Pam]

Tone it down, fellas. OR I'll have to pull out a different kind of ARM.

[hegemony]

cedski should not be allowed to insult other members of creditboards.

[hurricanesfans27]

dang this one got out of whack quickly

[Pam]

Heg, disagreeing with you is not insulting you.