Investing Curiouscatblog

Tag: Economics

  • Freezing Mortgage Rates

    “If you owe the bank $100 that’s your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that’s the bank’s problem.” J. Paul Getty

    Individual mortgage holders are in the first situation; together they are in the second.

    I want to look into this whole situation of freezing some adjustable rates (that are scheduled to increase for adjustable rate mortgages) more – because I don’t really understand what is actually involved in the “agreement.” But my impression is that the government is paying nothing, giving no other incentives (like reducing taxes owed). With that being the case I can’t see why some people think it is bad. some people are saying it is unfair to people that were careful They don’t get this benefit. That makes little sense to me. One of the things you have to learn about investing and personal finance is there are no guaranties. You enter into mortgages with your best guess about what will happen (as the lender or the one receiving the loan).

    From my very surface understanding of what is involved is that the government used some moral suasion to try and get lenders to step up and provide more favorable terms than originally agreed to. I not that confident such a think we end up happening in practice but I don’t have a problem with the attempt. It is an interesting case where no single mortgage holder owes enough to harm the lenders but together the class does hold enough to harm them. So the lenders have gotten themselves into a situation where the problem is not just one for the mortgage holders but one that could harm them (because they have too much lent to the class – risky residential mortgages).

    The risk of a cascading bad impact. One waive of foreclosures triggers another and another… Thus creating huge losses for lenders. For that reason it makes sense to me that if (which is a huge if) they class of lenders can all agree to sacrifice some to avoid starting the runaway cascade of foreclosures they may benefit. Of course each individual lender would likely benefit if just everyone but them sacrificed.

    It seems to me if there really is some significant amount of freezing of loan rates that will have a significant impact on how much harm the foreclosures do to real estate prices and the economy. And so I can see how such an agreement could benefit everyone. But as I say I really need to read more about all this. And I am skeptical that individual lenders will try to limit there sacrifices and as each cuts back there sacrifice the risk of the cascade increases.

    An actually bailout – government money paying off those that took bad financial risks I would be very reluctant to support.

    Related: How Not to Convert Equity – Housing Inventory Glut – mortgage terms explained – 30 year fixed Mortgage Rates – Homes Entering Foreclosure at Record – Ignorance of Many Mortgage Holders – Beginning of the End of Housing Bubble? (April 2004)
    (more…)

  • Frontline Explores Kiva in Uganda

    Frontline World traveled to Uganda to explore the impact of microfinance and provide some great details on how Kiva is bringing economic opportunity to entrepreneurs. The site includes details and a nice webcast. It is great to see how people can connect directly using Kiva. And it is great to see how people can take small loans and some effort and financial literacy to make a living for themselves. The effort of these entrepreneurs to manage their finances would benefit many people in the rich world plan for retirement…

    As I have mentioned before, if you loan through Kiva send me a link to your Kiva page and I can add it to the Curious Cat Kivans page.

    Related: Make the World Better Using Capitalism – Helping People Help Themselves – Make the World Better – How Rich are You

  • China and the Sugar Industry Tax Consumers

    China to Raise Tariffs On Clothing Exports, from the Washington Post:

    The Chinese action would raise export duties on 74 categories of Chinese clothing from token amounts announced late last year to a range of 12 to 48 cents per garment, starting June 1.

    If the Chinese government must reduce the amount of the world textile trade that their country is taking, or face retaliation from other countries, this is a very smart move. Essentially China gets to tax the United States, Europe, etc. and be thanked for doing so by the governments of those countries. Such is the odd nature of international trade these days.

    The Chinese government is going to tax textiles being exported by China. Therefore when an American picks up a shirt at the mall it will include a new tax to the Chinese government and this is seen as a good thing by the American government. An alternative would be for the American government to tax imports. Then the tax paid by the American consumer would go to the United States government instead. It seems odd that the American government thinks it is better to pay a tax to the Chinese government than to the American government but that seems to be what their policy and statements support.
    (more…)