# A depression: What should government do to help mortgagees?



## metric (31 March 2009)

i dont know the figures, but many aussies have a house mortgage. in the event of a depression, should the gov and banks come to an agreement to help home owners keep their mortgaged homes? is there precident?

should there be a percentage of equity owned in the home before the aid kicks in, so as to not try and save those whom have borrowed too much, but help those whith a manageable mortgage in in normal circumstances?

how may it work?


----------



## Struzball (31 March 2009)

*Re: A depression. What should gov do to help mortgagees?*

It woudln't be much of a depression if you got to keep your home now would it? 

And my opinion is they should do nothing, I'm not a home owner, but if I were and knew i wouldn't be able to service my mortgage during hard times I would have sold months ago not waited around for the govt to bail me out.


----------



## Beej (31 March 2009)

*Re: A depression. What should gov do to help mortgagees?*

Please, can you all just calm down! There is nothing new under the sun.... in the immortal first penned by Douglas Adams:

DON'T PANIC!

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## Wysiwyg (31 March 2009)

*Re: A depression. What should gov do to help mortgagees?*



Beej said:


> Please, can you all just calm down! There is nothing new under the sun.... in the immortal first penned by Douglas Adams:
> 
> DON'T PANIC!
> 
> ...




LOL .... All part of the easing process to ensure an orderly parade to the fire exit

ps ... i`m a swinging optimist/realist.


----------



## Jikx (31 March 2009)

A depression can never happen again thanks to one thing - fiat money. 

The government can print all the money it wants to starve off depression, although the reverse is also true with super-inflation.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (31 March 2009)

*Re: A depression. What should gov do to help mortgagees?*



Beej said:


> Please, can you all just calm down! There is nothing new under the sun.... in the immortal first penned by Douglas Adams:
> 
> DON'T PANIC!
> 
> ...




That's what they said back then too.....




> "...despite its severity, we believe that the slump in stock prices will prove an intermediate movement and not the precursor of a business depression such as would entail prolonged further liquidation..."
> - Harvard Economic Society (HES), November 2, 1929
> 
> "... a serious depression seems improbable; [we expect] recovery of business next spring, with further improvement in the fall."
> - HES, November 10, 1929


----------



## nunthewiser (31 March 2009)

*Re: A depression. What should gov do to help mortgagees?*



Uncle Festivus said:


> That's what they said back then too.....





 but its different this time


----------



## MR. (31 March 2009)

It's always different.......... are just the waves the same?

Read yesterday that one of the surprising things in 1929 was that the "bad news kept on coming". It was written in Time (not that's of any importance) but the picture on the cover was of nations at the G20 in a row boat calling "all together now" as a massive water fall is just behind them.

all sells magazines!


----------



## Happy (31 March 2009)

*Re: A depression. What should gov do to help mortgagees?*



Struzball said:


> ..
> they should do nothing
> 
> ..




But it might be impossible; in currently fashion for blaming everybody for your trouble it is almost certainty, that if somebody loses work will blame Government for it.

I am almost 100% sure that the Government will impose some kind of restriction on banks in repossessions.


----------



## Nyden (1 April 2009)

*Re: A depression. What should gov do to help mortgagees?*



Happy said:


> But it might be impossible; in currently fashion for blaming everybody for your trouble it is almost certainty, that if somebody loses work will blame Government for it.
> 
> I am almost 100% sure that the Government will impose some kind of restriction on banks in repossessions.




I sincerely hope not. What next, give money back to punters who have lost in the (stock) market? Home buyers should know the risks when buying in, and if they do buy in with inadequate funds, poor job security, and completely oblivious to the risks that a mortgage entails - then it is their own blooming fault when things go bad. It isn't the banks fault, it isn't the governments fault, its their own fault. I know I won't be shedding a tear.


----------



## Stormin_Norman (1 April 2009)

they should do nothing.

all this government intervention trying to maintain the problems and not letting the solution occur is like burning money on the fireplace in winter.


----------



## Sean K (1 April 2009)

They should give me a $20K kennas bonus for each house I'm going to buy on the cheap.


----------



## jonnycage (1 April 2009)

i had a couple of punts go sour on the weekend also, i would like to reclaim,
manly just should have won!!

jc


----------



## tech/a (1 April 2009)

4 Practical solutions for depression AND hyperinflation.

Both are likely in a lifetime.

(1) Banks forgo either all or part interest and tack it on to the end of the loan. The longer its suspended the more you pay back.

(2) As Obama has done in the US limit payments to 33% of income for a period.

(3) Government covers the % needed for survivorship to banks for X period and is paid back through a tax levy.

(4) Insurance companies come up with a product that can be claimed upon in times of hardship to cover mortgage stress.

These periods to come to an end as Governments strive for equilibrium, all are workable in my view.

Not to many visionaries out there their solution is printing money and throwing it hap hazardly in the air.


----------



## doctorj (1 April 2009)

tech/a said:


> (4) Insurance companies come up with a product that can be claimed upon in times of hardship to cover mortgage stress.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenders_mortgage_insurance

This only manages the bank's (or investors' in the case of a securitsed loan), but then should you really offer insurance on something like that where the home owner can stay in the home?

There's no way such a product could be offered by a non-govt organisation.  It just wouldn't make a dime - ruined by adverse selection and moral hazard.


----------



## Temjin (1 April 2009)

I don't get it, why the Government "must" do something? It is because if they don't, then there is no reason for them to exist? 

The best solution is to simply let the free market works. Those who have live beyond their means and could not afford to keep their home should simply declare bankrupices. It's their fault in the first place.

And for banks who lend the money to these non-worthy borrowers, the will have to write off the loss in FULL. If they are insolvent as a result of it, then they should simply fill bankrupcy, punish the shareholders / bond holders, sell the good assets to those who could manage it properly and dump all the bad ones. 

Any form of government interventions would only make matter worse because it is hindering the market's attempt to CORRECT itself. Who are going to pay for all these "interventions" anyway? With most developed countries have little to no budget surplus left, the money would obviously be borrowed and the future taxpayers will certainly foot the bills.

Would it accelerate the negative effect of depression? Of course it would! But the faster the mal-investments are cleaned out, the faster the economy will recover so things will pick up again.

But seriously, do I expect the governments would just quietly sit down and let things sort it out themselve? Probably no, because there would be public outrage since almost everybody have been "conditioned" to think the government MUST ALWAYS DO SOMETHING to save the economy. A totally flawed thinking.


----------



## c-unit (1 April 2009)

Temjin said:


> I don't get it, why the Government "must" do something? It is because if they don't, then there is no reason for them to exist?
> 
> The best solution is to simply let the free market works. Those who have live beyond their means and could not afford to keep their home should simply declare bankrupices. It's their fault in the first place.
> 
> ...




Couldn't have said it better myself. If I was an American with a home and no mortgage, and I was paying for the bail out of my debt-ridden, unemployed neighbour, I'd be fuming. 

Considering it was the American authorities (Greenspan, Bush & Co) that caused all this mess, we need smaller government not bigger.


----------



## tech/a (1 April 2009)

doctorj said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenders_mortgage_insurance
> 
> There's no way such a product could be offered by a non-govt organisation.  It just wouldn't make a dime - ruined by adverse selection and moral hazard.




Why not.

You could have various variables to qualify cover just like hospital cover---you want fries with that Sir?.
Off the top of my head.

(1) un employed for X period--premium Y (no fault cover IE retrenched).
(2) interest rates above X% min 10% (say--nominate %) for X period ---premium Z

Clear and specific conditions with variable premiums.
I think youd be suprised how many would seriously look at this sort of cover and how many would actually claim.


----------



## centex (1 April 2009)

*Re: A depression. What should gov do to help mortgagees?*



Nyden said:


> I sincerely hope not. What next, give money back to punters who have lost in the (stock) market? Home buyers should know the risks when buying in, and if they do buy in with inadequate funds, poor job security, and completely oblivious to the risks that a mortgage entails - then it is their own blooming fault when things go bad. It isn't the banks fault, it isn't the governments fault, its their own fault. I know I won't be shedding a tear.




Spot on Nyden!



Temjin said:


> I don't get it, why the Government "must" do something? It is because if they don't, then there is no reason for them to exist?
> 
> The best solution is to simply let the free market works. Those who have live beyond their means and could not afford to keep their home should simply declare bankrupices. It's their fault in the first place.
> 
> ...




And Again!!

You make a poor financial decision - you bear the responsibility. Spoon feeding society on paralyzes it in the long run. People need to learn to take responsibility for their own actions.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (1 April 2009)

What should the Govmint do to help Mortgagees?

Oh I know how about..

The government should instigate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization and absorb the debts of all it's citizens. They should nationalize the means of production, distribution and exchange ensuring that every Mortagee has job security and a means of paying their state owned debts. The economy needs to have a five year plan for economic advancement that is centrally planned to drag us out of this mess and set us on the path to financial freedom. Private ownership of businesses with more than five people needs to be removed and ownership spread out to all our worthy comrades. Unt ve will declare war on ze great evils of want, disease, idleness, ignorance unt squalor. Zere vill be no more classes in our utopian society with common ownership of all assets for ze good of society. 

Viva ze Proletarian REVOLUTION....

What the hell is this red sickle and hammer doing here?

 
Cheers 

Sir O


----------



## moXJO (1 April 2009)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> What should the Govmint do to help Mortgagees?
> 
> Oh I know how about..
> 
> ...




It needs a new funky name to appeal to the masses, Ruddunisim?? Gilardist??
They can promote it on Rove. I'm sure everyone would lap it up.

Looking at the bailout packages,surely the Govt will intervene. Even if only to try and stem (slow) those needing more welfare support. And to stop the public outcry of families being turfed out on TV


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (1 April 2009)

moXJO said:


> It needs a new funky name to appeal to the masses, Ruddunisim?? Gilardist??
> They can promote it on Rove. I'm sure everyone would lap it up.
> 
> Looking at the bailout packages,surely the Govt will intervene. Even if only to try and stem (slow) those needing more welfare support. And to stop the public outcry of families being turfed out on TV




Ha! Ruddinism - that's Gold.

Of course we would then become

the People's Republic of Australian Territories

or PRAT's for short 

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## moXJO (1 April 2009)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> Ha! Ruddinism - that's Gold.
> 
> Of course we would then become
> 
> ...




Hey we are almost at PRAT's stage. Internet filter, civil rights erosion, Govt intervention in the market, Workplace reforms and Aus assets selling to the motherland, China

Ruddy hasn't been cuddling up to China officials for tips on charisma, that’s for sure


----------



## basilio (1 April 2009)

> What should the Govmint do to help Mortgagees?
> 
> Oh I know how about..
> 
> ...




Good one Sir Osis.. One could certainly make a case for stopping the march of rampant communism and so on.

I think the picture is a bit bigger than one sees at first glance. First it seems indisputable that the "greedy capitalistic system" as epitomized by the big banks have been totally .....ing criminal in their abuse of the financial structures of our society.  At least that's how I see the trillion dollar BS loans, financial derivatives, CDCs, and all the other techniques  basically employed to create obscene bonuses for the masters of the universe.

(If you think this might be overstating the situation you just havn't been reading )

Along the way almost the entire political system allowed the smokes and mirrors tricks to continue on the basis that "the market is always right" and "isn't it wonderful how wealthy you are now that your 2 bedroom hovel is "worth" $600,000".

So the average joe and jane in the street is facing a collapsing financial system which is threatening to destroy their jobs, their homes and whatever savings they might have accumulated. And how many of these people were responsible for the toxic debts ? the BS CDCs ? the Madoffs ?

The misery caused  by the great depression crushed the life from millions of people. At the time it directly lead to the rise of Nazi Germany and (believe it or not) the emigration of thousands of Amercians to Soviet Russia to enjoy the fruits of socialism.. (Not a good idea...) And America and UK were also very close to fascism. (There is something uplifting about strong men marching in uniforms who can take charge and "put the country to work")

On a self serving basis NO-ONE benefits from a collapsed society. Bank failures will destroy everyone. Throwing people out of their homes causes landlords to lose their income. Distressed and destroyed people become desperate. Do you really want to spend what you have left on personal bodyguards? 

Poverty borne disease doesn't discriminate between the "good guys" and the "bad guys". And one of the legacies of of the depression was a legion of shattered emotionally destroyed people whose children reflected the parents  lack of almost everything.

The world is going to go through very hard times. I suggest it is the governments job to try and keep body and soul together through this time and in the name of humanity resist the temptation to let "the marketplace" sort it all out. It's done enough damage already.

Okay this is a bit of a rave. But  I suggest the conversation we have on the subject needs to remember that democracy is about 3 meals deep and I suggest civilization is only about half a dozen feeds later. How many failed states do we want to see? Lets look for constructive solutions.

PS. Has anyone else seen "The Power of Community" . Worth a watch when considering how we might respond to dramatic collapses in national resources.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-66172489666918336


----------



## metric (1 April 2009)

Temjin said:


> I don't get it, why the Government "must" do something? It is because if they don't, then there is no reason for them to exist?
> 
> The best solution is to simply let the free market works. Those who have live beyond their means and could not afford to keep their home should simply declare bankrupices. It's their fault in the first place.
> .




on the first point i agree. on the second point..i wouldnt like to see newly unemployed losing a home with only a final 50k left to pay on a 300k home.


----------



## Temjin (1 April 2009)

metric said:


> on the first point i agree. on the second point..i wouldnt like to see newly unemployed losing a home with only a final 50k left to pay on a 300k home.




What differences does it make? 

But if this person do not have sufficient saving or other available assets to cover the mortgage repayments until he finds a new job, then it is really his fault. It does not matter if he has paid off 80%+ off his mortgage loan. 



			
				tech/a said:
			
		

> Why not.
> 
> You could have various variables to qualify cover just like hospital cover---you want fries with that Sir?.
> Off the top of my head.
> ...




This is the only thing that would align with the free market thinking. If these private insurance companies believe there is a market for it, and they could make a profit out of it, then they ALREADY HAVE done it a while ago. But if this was made mandatory by the law and with subsidies from the government, then no, it would make matter worse because it's not sustainable.


----------



## gav (1 April 2009)

I understand that those who purchase a house are making a financial decision, and need to be responsible for that decision.  Bu the govt has done everything possible to encourage FHB's into the market with huge grants and stamp duty discounts, all the while KNOWING unemployment is rising and will continue to rise.  Whether doing this was right or wrong, they have an obligation to these people.

If the government is not going to help people stay in their own home (when they dangled the incentives for them to buy), then they should cut all the help they give to property investors on their loans too (negative gearing, etc)


----------



## gfresh (1 April 2009)

It may not be the Great Depression in Australia, and we are much better off than the rest of the world... but step outside a little and look at the US, Japan, and UK, and scenes are not that dissimilar to those seen in the 30's: 

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/03/tent-cities-pop.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7297093.stm


----------



## doctorj (1 April 2009)

Temjin said:


> But if this was made mandatory by the law and with subsidies from the government, then no, it would make matter worse because it's not sustainable.



Exactly.  If it was unprofitable as an insurance (or compulsary), it's actually a tax and a subsidy, not an insurance at all.  Essentially the well off, or those in stable jobs and paying the "premium" (c/premium/tax) would be paying for the homes of those less well off.  



tech/a said:


> Why not.
> 
> You could have various variables to qualify cover just like hospital cover---you want fries with that Sir?.
> Off the top of my head.
> ...



Given my above comments, would you also support an increased level of income tax to keep people in homes?   Wouldn't that place ever more strain on people such as you, the ever struggling small business owner?

The reason why this wouldn't work as an (optional) insurance is this - only those in need of it would take it out.  Those who think they're likely to lose their job, those that don't like their job or those keen to slack off for a bit.  This is the adverse selection I referred to earlier.  Even if you included limitations making pay outs contingent on people being made redundant (as opposed to being fired) creates considerable moral hazard for two reasons - as you know, business owners make the underperformers redundant first and employers would feel tempted to structure the layoff as a redundancy rather than firing someone.


----------



## numbercruncher (1 April 2009)

Money renting debt slaves shall be sent to labour camps.


Flippent bankers who instigated the strife will be sent to maximum security prisons on off shore islands and face castration. ( we could alternatively harvest their organs for more worthy humans )


----------



## Glen48 (1 April 2009)

Call for Gold  based economy:
Patrick.net

Chinese and Russian leaders both plan to open debate on an SDR-based reserve currency as an alternative to the US dollar at the G20 summit in London this week, although the world may not yet be ready for such a radical proposal.

Related Articles

    *
      G20: Russia to play peripheral role at summit
    *
      US backing for world currency stuns markets
    *
      Geithner about-turn on dollar status shocks currency markets
    *
      Dollar surge will not stop America feeling the effects of a global crunch
    *
      Russia steps up high-risk battle on rouble

Mr Dvorkevich said it was "logical" that the new currency should include the rouble and the yuan, adding that "we could also think about more effective use of gold in this system".

The Gold Standard was the anchor of world finance in the 19th Century but began breaking down during the First World War as governments engaged in unprecedented spending. It collapsed in the 1930s when the British Empire, the US, and France all abandoned their parities.

It was revived as part of fixed dollar system until US inflation caused by the Vietnam War and "Great Society" social spending forced President Richard Nixon to close the gold window in 1971.

The world's fiat paper currencies have lacked any external anchor ever since. It is widely argued that the financial excesses and extreme debt leverage of the last quarter century would have been impossible - or less likely - under the discipline of gold.

Russia is a major gold producer with large untapped reserves of ore so it has a clear interest in promoting the idea. The Kremlin has already instructed the central bank of gradually raise the gold share of foreign reserves to 10pc.

China's government has floated a variant of this idea, suggesting a currency based on 30 commodities along the lines of the "Bancor" proposed by John Maynard Keynes in 1944.


----------



## GumbyLearner (1 April 2009)

Nada, zero, zippo, zilch.


----------



## Temjin (1 April 2009)

gav said:


> I understand that those who purchase a house are making a financial decision, and need to be responsible for that decision.  Bu the govt has done everything possible to encourage FHB's into the market with huge grants and stamp duty discounts, all the while KNOWING unemployment is rising and will continue to rise.  Whether doing this was right or wrong, they have an obligation to these people.




An obligation to these people? 

But what about the government's obligation to taxpayers like me who doesn't like to get in huge debt??? They are using MY TAX MONEY to pay for those who cannot save a deposit to buy a house in an overinflated market. 



			
				gav said:
			
		

> If the government is not going to help people stay in their own home (when they dangled the incentives for them to buy), then they should cut all the help they give to property investors on their loans too (negative gearing, etc)




You are exactly right and they very well should. But of course, it's a political suicide move because there are simply too much vested interest in it. And these pro-investment real estate investors would use the same argument about how the removal of negative gearing did back then when Paul Keating was in power. 

Perhaps a gradual removal of the negative gearing might be better. Instead of 100% of the expenses are deductible off a personal tax income, make it 75% and the slowly reduce it to none.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 April 2009)

Temjin said:


> What differences does it make?
> 
> But if this person do not have sufficient saving or other available assets to cover the mortgage repayments until he finds a new job, then it is really his fault. It does not matter if he has paid off 80%+ off his mortgage loan.



If someone had enough cash to cover unemployment for the duration foreseeable under a worse case scenario then that's more than $50K so they wouldn't have a mortgage to start with.

As for the general socialisation of losses argument, don't forget it *IS* the fault of government and bankers that houses are so expensive in the first place. In 2009 Australia, the concept of a $300K house ought to imply well above average income - doctors and lawyers etc. Sadly, even my own fairly average house here in Tassie is "worth" more than that. 

Fiat money and asset bubbles are the problem, and they weren't created by ordinary workers struggling to pay off a mortgage. The bankers, not the masses, are the ones who ought to lose. It's not as though the masses ever had the option of a "free" market given that the bankers control it for their own benefit.


----------



## gav (1 April 2009)

Temjin said:


> An obligation to these people?
> 
> But what about the government's obligation to taxpayers like me who doesn't like to get in huge debt??? They are using MY TAX MONEY to pay for those who cannot save a deposit to buy a house in an overinflated market.




Not all FHB's take on huge debt, or unable to save for a deposit.  The government knows unemployment is rising, yet offers incentives to those who are most likely to lose their jobs first.  In the current climate debt is encouraged and people who save are punished (take a look at the current interest rate on savings accounts).  Add to this the offering such a huge FHBG, yes I believe the government has an obligation.

And no, I don't think it is fair to those who are debt free.


----------



## tech/a (1 April 2009)

Seeing lots of blame,lots of criticism,even despair but very little practical suggestion.

Just like most political parties really.
No RUD----DER!


----------



## doctorj (1 April 2009)

tech/a said:


> Seeing lots of blame,lots of criticism,even despair but very little practical suggestion.
> 
> Just like most political parties really.
> No RUD----DER!



That's because there's no easy solution to this.  Else it would have been solved already and we'd all be talking cricket instead.

I don't know the answer to the crisis, but if you do, let me know so I can get to it.


----------



## Julia (1 April 2009)

Temjin said:


> An obligation to these people?
> 
> But what about the government's obligation to taxpayers like me who doesn't like to get in huge debt??? They are using MY TAX MONEY to pay for those who cannot save a deposit to buy a house in an overinflated market.



I couldn't agree more.  And the same goes for all the other areas where the tax dollars of those who have been conservative and responsible are for ever bloody bailing out those who are not.


----------



## singlefished (2 April 2009)

gav said:


> Not all FHB's take on huge debt, or unable to save for a deposit.  The government knows unemployment is rising, yet offers incentives to those who are most likely to lose their jobs first.  In the current climate debt is encouraged and people who save are punished (take a look at the current interest rate on savings accounts).  Add to this the offering such a huge FHBG, yes I believe the government has an obligation.
> 
> And no, I don't think it is fair to those who are debt free.




Obligation??? What about all the people who lost big $$$$ on the share market and their superannuation? We didn't see the government offering a "Share Buyers Grant" to curb the losses did we.

The Government should have saved themselves a fortune and let the free market decide what house prices should be, FHB's wouldn't have the Government to blame and a majority of existing homeowners would see only the last few years of capital gains eroded from their perceived market values. Some recent purchasers would have gone into negative equity for sure but that's better than the scenario of 42000 brand new homeowners going straight up the swanee if the market abruptly turns down since they've basically had no chance to repay much of their debt... and if they lose their job, well, they'll be out of the mortgage market for the next 7 years.

Practical suggestion for a solution, increase the grant for new builds to $28K and make *everybody* eligible - guaranteed employment for builders and suppliers, an end to this fictional shortage tripe, an end to this perceived rental crisis tripe, it'd bring PI's back into the market, good for the economy, etc... Government should also back up these grants with "job loss insurance" to cover interest only mortgage payments for these particular buyers over the next 3 year period for a max duration of 1 year unemployed. People could buy with confidence in this climate knowing that if they were out of work for a short period of time they wouldn't have the worry of losing their home because of it.

Remove the FHB incentive completely for existing property and let the free market take it's course. If the current prices are justified they'll hold up otherwise they'll gradually settle until the market gets interested again or the economy starts showing signs of sustainable recovery.


----------



## GumbyLearner (2 April 2009)

singlefished said:


> Obligation??? What about all the people who lost big $$$$ on the share market and their superannuation? We didn't see the government offering a "Share Buyers Grant" to curb the losses did we.
> 
> The Government should have saved themselves a fortune and let the free market decide what house prices should be, FHB's wouldn't have the Government to blame and a majority of existing homeowners would see only the last few years of capital gains eroded from their perceived market values. Some recent purchasers would have gone into negative equity for sure but that's better than the scenario of 42000 brand new homeowners going straight up the swanee if the market abruptly turns down since they've basically had no chance to repay much of their debt... and if they lose their job, well, they'll be out of the mortgage market for the next 7 years.
> 
> ...




You sound like one of the "socialist-elite". No pun intended. But I don't see why everyone else who are not involved in your industry should support what YOU claim to produce.

You build homes..fantastic! There is no knocking that.
But why should the average fella on factory wages pay for it? THAT IS MY QUESTION?
If the requirement of THE Federal Government of Canberra is for a factory worker or un/skilled labourer to subsidize the housing of another. Well then why would the same guy being taxed by the Rudd Government vote Labor? 

So he can pay more rent?

What a stupid system!


----------



## singlefished (2 April 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> You build homes..fantastic! There is no knocking that.




Now that has to be quote of the year!!!

You might want to try reading one of the *"house prices to..."* threads before coming back here with your tail between your legs 

.... and you've obviously missed the point entirely in your shortsighted haste to discredit the proposition.


----------



## tech/a (2 April 2009)

*93% are Employed *and if it hits the fan 90% will remain employed.

Yet its someone elses problem.
Someone else has to solve it.

There are many things we as individuals can do.
Look after your own affairs to start with.
As a nation look after our own affairs to start with.

Much more but everytime I put it up here its knocked by the losers.
I'll just look after my own backyard.
Ads in the paper this morning for 2 more employees and set to have another year of expansion.

If your in deep do do or look like getting in it *DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT*.

Like the guy who applied in the last draft 2mths ago who saw his company in strife and was looking before most others in the company were---he is still with us.


----------



## darnsmall (2 April 2009)

*Re: A depression. What should gov do to help mortgagees?*



Struzball said:


> It woudln't be much of a depression if you got to keep your home now would it?
> 
> And my opinion is they should do nothing, I'm not a home owner, but if I were and knew i wouldn't be able to service my mortgage during hard times I would have sold months ago not waited around for the govt to bail me out.




+1

If you're investing blindly not understanding whats happening in the world at the moment and hoping to hold onto your place in the event of a depression in Australia, then thats capitalism. If you make a poor choice you need to pay for it


----------



## metric (2 April 2009)

*Re: A depression. What should gov do to help mortgagees?*



darnsmall said:


> +1
> 
> If you're investing blindly not understanding whats happening in the world at the moment and hoping to hold onto your place in the event of a depression in Australia, then thats capitalism. If you make a poor choice you need to pay for it




what? like the banksters?

ohhhhh. its different for the ordinary citizen ...right?


----------



## tech/a (2 April 2009)

*Re: A depression. What should gov do to help mortgagees?*



metric said:


> what? like the banksters?
> 
> ohhhhh. its different for the ordinary citizen ...right?





Yes it certainly seems that way.
But if it were a singular bank problem then there would not be or have to be that level of bailout.

So it goes to reason that if it is a few Mortgagees then it wont attract support.

But if its 1000s then watch the support suggestions flow as is being attempted in the US.
Massive problems need massive solutions.
When its massive enough it will get attention.


----------



## enigmatic (2 April 2009)

One thing i never understood was the requirement for the first home owners grant... I sure i will come to buying my first home and will end up being not eligable due any number of reasons. However back to my point.

Surely having the first homebuyers grant of 7k->100k is only going to increase the average house price by 7->100k it isnt really helping anyone get in a new home. In all theory it is most likely increasing the average wage not necessarily the lower end proportionally which means that it would be even harder for new homebuyers to afford a new home.

I'm A little old school been brought up that way purchase what you can afford, the lack of this mind set however has caused what you can afford to be reduced as the idiots out there buying up what they cant afford have only inflated the prices.

It is actually dissapointed that In some way I am happy this recession is here although I'm sure if it hits home I wont be, but such is life Lucky for me I save for a rainy day unlike these Mortgage distressed people.


----------



## Uncertain Times (2 April 2009)

The other interesting thing they may already have been mentioned is that the majority of mortgages in the USA are fixed and have been done so at the 7-8% mark. 
Here in OZ are high proportion are variable and people have been actually seeing the interest rate decreases help them out. Most are saving and the rest are spending less on credit. 
I myself have finally got the house under control and after some very tough years with one full time income and one part time income and two kids under 4, we have actually been saving money.
The hardest part is changing the way you think. For years what we have wanted we have just gone out and bought. Now we think about it, write it on a list, think some more and then decide we can wait a little longer.
--
Personally I think less intervention is what a free market is about. 
You can't hold everybodies hand. 
Some people have to learn from their mistakes.


----------



## enigmatic (2 April 2009)

I'm Actually less worried about now and more worried about when things kick off again. Imagine all the people who have Purchased extremely expensive houses because they can afford it at current interest rates and soon find the interest rates increase and that payment they could manage becomes unmanagable.

Just a thought to consider!


----------



## Temjin (2 April 2009)

enigmatic said:


> I'm Actually less worried about now and more worried about when things kick off again. Imagine all the people who have Purchased extremely expensive houses because they can afford it at current interest rates and soon find the interest rates increase and that payment they could manage becomes unmanagable.
> 
> Just a thought to consider!




You can be very sure that interest rate will not rise until the entire global deleveraging process is completed. Look at Japan and see how long they kept their interest rate at close to 0% for. Does it mean asset prices in general (shares, house prices, etc) would rise because of this low official rate?  

Regardless, there is no easy solution out of this. Certain things can be done to help "calm" the people and assist them through the depression, but giving out free money and not teaching them a lesson will not work. 

I know a lot of people would feel they are a victim of all this. They purchased homes based on the beliefs that everything will be fine BECAUSE the media, the real estate promotors, and their friends say so. Unfortunately, life is not fair because they could have done a better job at their decision making process prior to making such a large committment. 

Like others have said and agreed, the irony is that the best thing to do with this massive problem is to DO nothing. Let it all crash and let both the deserved and the "think they are innocents" suffer.


----------



## darnsmall (2 April 2009)

*Re: A depression. What should gov do to help mortgagees?*



metric said:


> what? like the banksters?
> 
> ohhhhh. its different for the ordinary citizen ...right?




thats a question to ask the government. I think they all need to fail. I sure as hope the government doesn't bail out mortgages when the depression hits. Seriously though, what is wrong with people to get into the property market now because you could get $10k back when the global economy is in such a state. Everyone is talking rising unemployment, recession, uncertain future...and people are taking out loans? loans for a house no doubt? loans for a house while the price for that property hasn't crashed yet?

Well I guess this will be one way to teach a few people a valuable lesson about investment.


----------



## metric (5 April 2009)

Big banks reach agreement to prevent struggling families losing their homes

By Lisa Mayoh
The Sunday Telegraph
April 05, 2009 12:01am
Text size 


PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd will today announce 12 months of mortgage relief for the unemployed. 

In an unprecedented move, Australia's big-four banks have reached the landmark agreement to help prevent struggling families from losing their homes. 

Part of a comprehensive package of assistance for workers, the Commonwealth, National Australia, Westpac and ANZ banks will put a freeze on mortgage payments in hardship cases, The Sunday Telegraph reports.

Mr Rudd will announce the welcome relief at a community employment forum in Melbourne in front of 150 people, some of whom have recently been retrenched. 

In his speech, the Prime Minister says the stress of paying mortgage and car payments are "real bottom-line concerns around kitchen tables right across Australia''. 

steve of nsw "The immediate problem facing many families whose breadwinners have lost their jobs is the anxiety and fear that arises from, 'How do I pay my mortgage, how do I pay off my car?'' Mr Rudd says. 

"That's why, some time ago, I asked the Treasurer to negotiate an agreement with Australia's big-four banks on a comprehensive package of assistance to workers who lose their jobs.'' 

Mr Rudd says the move will provide for a better handling of borrowers in hardship through job loss. 

He says banks will postpone mortgage payments for up to 12 months, with interest to be capitalised into the loan. 

The banks are also considering extending the period of mortgage contracts and reducing payment amounts. 

Banks also indicated that on other loans, including car loans, where appropriate, they would consider interest-only repayment options. 

In another lifeline, the banks will also consider waiving fees in hardship cases. 

"Of course, these options won't be appropriate in every case, and banks will make assessments based on the borrower's ability to meet new contractual obligations,'' he says. 

"But the Government's purpose in its negotiations with the banks has been clear - to ask the banks to provide maximum flexibility for borrowers suffering temporary hardship. through enforced unemployment for the 12 months ahead. 

"I'd like to thank the banks for the goodwill they have demonstrated in this area.' 

However, the government were not able to explain when these measures would be put into effect and exactly who would be affected. 

http://www.news.com.au/business/money/story/0,28323,25291654-5013952,00.html


----------



## metric (5 April 2009)

heres a good point read on news.com ..



> Perfect way to kill the fat boys competition - do you think that anybody will have mortgage with some other mortgage provider than big 4??? Also current customers of non-big 4 will switch to the 'safe heaven'. Great - even a genius will not fix this mess later.
> Posted by: Jaca of Yeerongpilly 1:40am today
> Comment 5 of 15




http://www.news.com.au/comments/0,23600,25291654-2,00.html


----------



## darnsmall (5 April 2009)

metric said:


> Big banks reach agreement to prevent struggling families losing their homes
> 
> By Lisa Mayoh
> The Sunday Telegraph
> ...




super!!! maybe he can anounce investment relief and job relief and or maybe just call it wildcard relief; if i lose my job, make less on investments, don't get the jetsar sale i'm after; then the govt will refund me through one of the big four banks.

just super.
I hope he's lying, or the depression lasts years,


----------



## satanoperca (5 April 2009)

Temjin said:


> Like others have said and agreed, the irony is that the best thing to do with this massive problem is to DO nothing. Let it all crash and let both the deserved and the "think they are innocents" suffer.




Agree 100%. This is just getting ridiculous. 

Who will be next to be bailed out? Gamblers who lost everything at Crown.

It seems the mantra of Buy now, pay later is still strong with the Government.


----------



## Glen48 (5 April 2009)

What I can't work out is how they know you will be back working after 12 mths or will the banks give you another 12 at a reduced rate?
What if prices go down what a time bomb and these people are running the country , good for vote not for commonsense.


----------



## tech/a (5 April 2009)

tech/a said:


> 4 Practical solutions for depression AND hyperinflation.
> 
> Both are likely in a lifetime.
> 
> ...




Someone was listening.

Glen48
There wouldnt be a solution in the universe you'd be happy with.

And your solution is?
If you live your life full of "what ifs" one day you'll look back on life and just ponder at your amassed "What if's"
The only thing holding you and people like you back is FEAR.


----------



## kincella (5 April 2009)

what if ,
I had held onto my EXT......I recall holding  100,000 cost me .10 cents...have no idea , or why I sold them...but they hit $5.00 last friday
thats 500,000 I have missed out on......
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


----------



## Sean K (5 April 2009)

kincella said:


> what if ,
> I had held onto my EXT......I recall holding  100,000 cost me .10 cents...have no idea , or why I sold them...but they hit $5.00 last friday
> thats 500,000 I have missed out on......
> grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr



Your 10c probably turned in to $1.00 so you haven't lost out that much. And after the share consolidation, the sp tanked and you probably would have got out anyway. Don't worry, look for the next one. Another multibagger is just around the corner! Good luck!


----------



## Trevor_S (5 April 2009)

enigmatic said:


> Surely having the first homebuyers grant of 7k->100k is only going to increase the average house price by 7->100k it isnt really helping anyone get in a new home.




The FHOG is not about helping FHO into a house, it is about propping up the property market, for current homeowners, investors and banks. Even the current federal housing minister realised that BEFORE they introduce the current FHOG offering.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25285409-664,00.html



> During that interview (which was recorded and can be downloaded as a podcast on our website), I asked the minister: "Can you confirm that there will be no increase in the First Home Buyers Grant?"
> 
> Plibersek responded: "No there won't be. There won't be an increase in the First Home Buyers Grant, because we've seen from experience what happens when you provide a grant like that -- or increase it -- is that it goes straight into the pocket of the seller."




The unfortunate thing that often the right thing is not popular.  One of the reasons lots of people are getting annoyed with the Rudd show, some of us could of course see that coming from a mile away, the guy is a bureaucrat turned politician, he was never going to be anything except rhetoric and populist but that's what wins Government for a few terms until it gets us so far into the crap that even the short sighted start to question it.   

We have had more populist nonsense today, I am sure lots of short sighted voters will think it's a good idea to prop up the unemployed temporarily... except where you look a little further into it...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/property_and_mortgages/article5527137.ece



> "The Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML), whose members command 70 per cent of the home loans markets, said that for every repossession they put off for a year, up to 80 new loans would be refused."


----------



## nunthewiser (5 April 2009)

UNBLOODYBELIEVEABLE!!!!


ive had it!

sacking all my workers , sacking myself and goin on the dole 

hey why not ? LOL might actually go buy me a swanky new car actually first ..... might as welll , got no payments on it for a year .. lol get a car for a whole year boys lets go racing !

stuff it might go get a couple actually , might as well book up all the debt i can ....... yep sireee bob , i would like to say a big THANKYOU to all you taxpayers out there as it seems YOU can provide me with an awesome lifestyle and a way of life YOU can only just dream about for the next 12 months . oh bugga it , might even go bankrupt after my spending spree and no repayment plan timezone 


um any incentives to actually keep a job these days ?


----------



## metric (5 April 2009)

" the role of government is to pretend to fail...."

its not going to happen.


----------



## nunthewiser (5 April 2009)

ARRRRRRRRRRGH 

i am really annoyed so this rant continues 

grants to buy a house , stimulas payments , and now a free bloody holiday for 12 months . 

what about the battler , doing the shelf stacking to try and do the right thing to pay for his bloody car and there house !! with this latest hairbrained plan whats to stop them from goin on the dole and havin a holiday for 12 months !! 

seriously , sack all ya bloody workers and do em all a favour !


----------



## nunthewiser (5 April 2009)

um just on a side note 


ONCE all these ppl lookin at a payed ,no bill holiday of 12 months on the dole decide to join the rest of the smart buggas livin it large on the dole . WHO the he;ll is gunna pay the taxes to cover this latest number ?


----------



## nunthewiser (5 April 2009)

How many mr and mrs bloggs are out there stuck in a crappy low paid job? how many of them are actually in these jobs because they have no choice ? do the job pay the bills , no job no car no house. wonder when the last time they went on holiday ? 

cheer up guys you too can live the life in easy street ...... have a year off guys you deserve it .

anyone want a side bet with a nun ? 

my bet that within 3 months of this hairbrained scheme being passed that we see a massive jump in new unemployment claims.

i am a bourbon drinker but open to all manner of other wagers


----------



## kincella (5 April 2009)

I think its Hyundai will be giving a 'first car buyers grant'....saw it somewhere in the news this week...
so long as you do not already own a car....you will be able to get a new car for your dole bludging holiday,,,,
now before you get too excited about living on the dole....its worth about 400 per fortnight for a single person..plus 100 pf for rent assistance...but only if your rent exceeds 240 pf.....
so lets see..receive 500 pf dole and rent assistance...pay 240 rent...= 260 pf or 130pw to pay for food, electicity etc

go figure how does anyone live on that measly amount of money....well its a deterrent to most people...hence they prefer to work


----------



## nunthewiser (5 April 2009)

kincella said:


> I think its Hyundai will be giving a 'first car buyers grant'....saw it somewhere in the news this week...
> so long as you do not already own a car....you will be able to get a new car for your dole bludging holiday,,,,
> now before you get too excited about living on the dole....its worth about 400 per fortnight for a single person..plus 100 pf for rent assistance...but only if your rent exceeds 240 pf.....
> so lets see..receive 500 pf dole and rent assistance...pay 240 rent...= 260 pf or 130pw to pay for food, electicity etc
> ...






i have an employee with 2 children ,  on centrelink theycan recieve $ 1300 per fortnight for a couple with 2 kids ..and thats NOT including rent assistance NOR any bloody stimulas payments , NOR any health care card benefits NOR transport concessions or any other freebies they get given 

sounds sweet to me actually .....lol especially seeing as they can have a year off now without any mortgage payments/car payments 

will be expecting her notice as soon as this defective idea goes through

or maybe i should just do her a favour and sack her instead 

it was holden re the the first car buyers grant crud


----------



## Ageo (5 April 2009)

Im just curious to see whats gonna happen once all the bailouts/stimulus/print till your hearts content action is all over......... Personally the more they are doing the more they are delaying and perhaps adding to whats coming. The day i will even think of recovery is when all the markets become depressed and people are looking at survival (not investment etc..).


----------



## nunthewiser (5 April 2009)

HAHAHAHAHAHAAH

bugga you lot 

im gunna go buy a winnebago , sack myself then go round oz for a year on the dole ....... no mortgage payments(rented out for cash for a lil income on the side) , no winnebago payments , hell i might even go get a personal loan first also 


livin large 

a freewhelin travellin nun


----------



## Sean K (5 April 2009)

Ageo said:


> Im just curious to see whats gonna happen once all the bailouts/stimulus/print till your hearts content action is all over......... Personally the more they are doing the more they are delaying and perhaps adding to whats coming. The day i will even think of recovery is when all the markets become depressed and people are looking at survival (not investment etc..).



Isn't the theory that everyone is sitting on their cash not spending. Like, overly so. Not just saving as you'd expect, but hording. Like me....The aim is to get people to start having the confidence to start spending again. Not overly so to be in massive debt, but to spend. Extrapolate that to the investment banks...I suppose the risk is that we all return to being in massive debt, which we will, if we are allowed....Gotta regulate access to debt I think..


----------



## kincella (5 April 2009)

nun...ok so 409 each for a couple = 816 and 400 or so for the kids =1200
or if a disability support pension which is much more generous with other earnings its 475 each couple =  950pf plus the kids 400 =1350 pf
but since I was talking about a single person...its 453 plus rent 553 pf
govt is very generous with the kids ftb of about 200 pf each


----------



## nunthewiser (5 April 2009)

kincella said:


> nun...ok so 409 each for a couple = 816 and 400 or so for the kids =1200
> or if a disability support pension which is much more generous with other earnings its 475 each couple =  950pf plus the kids 400 =1350 pf
> but since I was talking about a single person...its 453 plus rent 553 pf
> govt is very generous with the kids ftb of about 200 pf each




i am only quoting what an employee has told me what they will or have recieved b4 entering employment with me 

i was shocked actually , not a bad lil number especially now she may not have to pay a mortgage or car payments for a while ... lol perhaps she might buy a winnebago also while still employed and come travelling with me courtesy of the good ole ozzie gift basket


----------



## kincella (5 April 2009)

I am sorry to say this....but I think somebody needs to say it.....its in the nicest possible way of course......
*Stop acting like Scaredy cats*
this thing is not going to last for years and years.....
:sheep::sheep::sheep::sheep:


----------



## Sean K (5 April 2009)

kincella said:


> I am sorry to say this....but I think somebody needs to say it.....its in the nicest possible way of course......
> *Stop acting like Scaredy cats*
> this thing is not going to last for years and years.....
> :sheep::sheep::sheep::sheep:



Sheep followed it up, they'll follow it down.


----------



## tech/a (5 April 2009)

Nun

So that $600/week
Take $250/week rent.
Running a car $100/week
Food $200/week
Clothing $50/week
School fees/Health cover/Power/Gas/Phone/Few personal items---oops no $$s

Why do you reckon he wants a job?

The Bank assistance (And its from the banks) is protecting their interests and NOT without qualification. Banks wont let you bludge---they WILL have your house.


----------



## nunthewiser (5 April 2009)

tech/a said:


> Nun
> 
> So that $600/week
> Take $250/week rent.
> ...





take out that 250 a week for rent as the employee has a mortgage hence there working for me 

no repayments for 12 months on mortgage, why not have a holiday cant afford one otherwise


----------



## satanoperca (5 April 2009)

While I strongly disagree with this, I can see how it fits in with the governments current actions. Mortgage holders may be influenced to keep spending/consuming/keeping the cash flowing rather than saving if they know there is a fall back for their mortgage if they default due to loss of employment.

Will this effect the national savings rate?

Know what have FHB using the FHBG got to loose if they get in trouble?


Posted in other thread, but just for those that may be interested in the possible repercussions of such a scheme.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/property_and_mortgages/article5527137.ece


----------



## drsmith (5 April 2009)

> Mr Rudd says the move will provide for a better handling of borrowers in hardship through job loss.
> 
> He says banks will postpone mortgage payments for up to 12 months, with interest to be capitalised into the loan.
> http://www.news.com.au/business/money/story/0,28323,25291654-5013952,00.html



This is a high stakes gamble on those who do become unemployed being able to regain employment within 12 months.

Part of the governments strategy should be to encourage home borrowers to use the current low interest rate cycle to build a buffer (say, through a home loan offset account) to cope with potential future unemployment/household underemployment.


----------



## enigmatic (5 April 2009)

This isnt helping the economy at all. 
In the end the people that are unemployed will need to pay off there houses, which you will find will still have an end date of the same as they started. 
Smaller time period more to repay higher interest (once economy recovers)

It has also come to my attention as I am a Potential new home buyer, that approvals have dropped by 50% and it has been suggested that due to the banks insuring that houses dont foreclose the restrictions on who can borrow money will be tightened.

I guess that is the only real benifit we may be able to restrict any further excessive debt. However doesnt really benifit hard working people like myself who have saved for 2years for a deposit on a house.


----------



## Temjin (5 April 2009)

This 12 months mortgage holiday package from the Big 4 is F--KING RIDICULOUS! What the hell? People who live beyond their means by buying a house they could not afford with little surplus saving, then lose their job and get a free ride out for 12 months?!! 

I did not expect a "bailout" for these mortgage borrowers would happen so early. The Big 4 must be pissing their pants about the consequences of a house price crash in Australia. (In fact, they are already having serious trouble with commercial property loans, but these just are not reported on mainstream media) 

Regardless, they are delaying the inevitable. This scheme would get TOO EXPENSIVE for the banks because job losses will continue to RISE and that when this holiday period is over, loan losses will increase because people still cannot afford the repayments due to the captialised interests. The government and the banks are gambling that the economy will be back to normal again in 12 months time and unemployment will go back to their "wishful NORMAL trend". 

This may all sounds like the banks are doing a favor to the public by taking on the losses. But you just watch when residential mortgage loan losses have increased to an unsustainable level and these Big 4s will argue that they are too big to fail and request a "bailout" by the government to cover those losses. Eventually someone will have to pay for it, either the banks or the government (i.e. taxpayers).


----------



## nunthewiser (5 April 2009)

better throw in that nice new winnebago im gunna buy before i go on the dole and not pay a cent on for 12 months also m8


----------



## -Bevo- (5 April 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> better throw in that nice new winnebago im gunna buy before i go on the dole and not pay a cent on for 12 months also m8




Why 12 months nun take afew years found this beauty idea posted on another forum you only have to work one week a year 
1 January 2010 : job
7 January 2010 : jobless - free 1 year no payments
1 January 2011 : job
7 January 2011 : jobless - free 1 year no payments
1 January 2012 : job
7 January 2012 : jobless - free 1 year no payments


----------



## nunthewiser (5 April 2009)

-Bevo- said:


> Why 12 months nun take afew years found this beauty idea posted on another forum you only have to work one week a year
> 1 January 2010 : job
> 7 January 2010 : jobless - free 1 year no payments
> 1 January 2011 : job
> ...




ah mate your a star ...... might go get my hawaian shirt ironed and bikini line waxed in anticipation of a rip  snorting 3 years......


----------



## bluelabel (6 April 2009)

The government should do nothing to help.  That has been my opinion all along too.  Let the manufacturers shut their doors, let the banks go bust, let macquarie loose its investments, let the mortgage borrowers who are up to their eyeballs in debt default.  These are the fools that put the world economy in this situation in the first place.  

Lessons learned = zero

It will all happen again soon cause people are too precious to learn a lesson. 

The question i ask is this... What is the use of having a capitalist economy when it isnt allowed to run its full course?  All we are doing is creating a false economy that is not indicitive of its true value and creating an even bigger debt bubble as the first one was not allowed to pop.

What about me, i work my ass off, keep my job, struggle to make repayments and loose my house anyway do i get a repreive cause i cant make repayments?  No, i have to loose my job before that happens.  What a joke.  

:bier:

blue


----------



## darnsmall (6 April 2009)

Temjin said:


> This 12 months mortgage holiday package from the Big 4 is F--KING RIDICULOUS! What the hell? People who live beyond their means by buying a house they could not afford with little surplus saving, then lose their job and get a free ride out for 12 months?!!
> 
> I did not expect a "bailout" for these mortgage borrowers would happen so early. The Big 4 must be pissing their pants about the consequences of a house price crash in Australia. (In fact, they are already having serious trouble with commercial property loans, but these just are not reported on mainstream media)
> 
> ...





lol, thats an awesome argumnent isn't it...too big to fail. I think that is the coolest line to come out of this financial crisis. I'm going to start using it in my meetings, future job interviews, next time my credit card doesnt' work at the supermarket, when our Qantas Airbus A380 loses power to all four engines at 30,000 ft, and when the rubber breaks.
It's pure brilliance...is this an example of mass hypnosis? why else has no one simply asked the question "why not?" or "stop talking ****"

I guess at the end of the day the govt needs to look after the idiots it's conned into helping prop up the property market, maybe out of mutal respect. They bought into the scam and the govt wants to look after them and punish the rest of us that didn't pitch in with a super irresponsibly dangerously over inflated mortage.

WWPCD?


----------



## darnsmall (6 April 2009)

bluelabel said:


> The government should do nothing to help.  That has been my opinion all along too.  Let the manufacturers shut their doors, let the banks go bust, let macquarie loose its investments, let the mortgage borrowers who are up to their eyeballs in debt default.  These are the fools that put the world economy in this situation in the first place.
> 
> Lessons learned = zero
> 
> ...





I wish the govt would spend up on infrastructure. I agree govts should spend in times of recession, but not to avoid or try and throw a few pieces of news paper over the mess.
Living in Sydney, we have terrible roads that justify the fleet of 4wd you now see as well as and our public transport is beyond belief for a country where people think we're part of the modern western world?
one would think schools and hospitals would be a good thing to spend some cash on.

maybe we should just privatise everything since the govt seems so damned incompetent, maybe we can outsource the govt to an Indian call centre


----------



## tech/a (6 April 2009)

*Its not a government initiative.*

Its a bank initiative.
Its simply a business decision from the banks to protect their AArse.
Rudd wants to make it his own.
Get a grip people its not costing the tax payer a cent.
The alternative however will cost you dearly.

This thread reflects 95% of the population and should be transfered to the losers thread where it belongs.

Rather than the coming together of minds its more a coming together of the mindless.


----------



## Trembling Hand (6 April 2009)

tech/a said:


> This thread reflects 95% of the population and should be transfered to the losers thread where it belongs.
> 
> Rather than the coming together of minds its more a coming together of the mindless.




Fine form this morning Tech


----------



## MrBurns (6 April 2009)

From the ABC  

Rudd meddles again, he just cant help himself, there will be no sign of an end to this until Rudd is gone and someone with some sense takes over.



> Mortgage relief deal prompts property bubble warning
> 
> 
> Some analysts are warning the Government's mortgage relief plan may further inflate the property bubble at the lower end of the market.
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/06/2535511.htm


----------



## MrBurns (6 April 2009)

tech/a said:


> *Its not a government initiative.*
> 
> Its a bank initiative.
> Its simply a business decision from the banks to protect their AArse.
> ...




Tech I don't believe that, under this the banks are OBLIGED to help out everyone who loses their job, they would much rather pick and choose who gets helped as they usually would.

What this does is create a debt bubble to the banks that may not be paid back because many still wont be able to pay after 12 months so houses come onto the market with more debt against them compounding the banks losses as the market will then freefall.


----------



## darnsmall (6 April 2009)

tech/a said:


> *Its not a government initiative.*
> 
> Its a bank initiative.
> Its simply a business decision from the banks to protect their AArse.
> ...




good point tech/a, attention to detail lesson learned. 
It's a little ambiguous as to what the agreement is and I haven’t read anywhere saying the govt will be footing the bill. Anyone know if the details of the plan have been made public? So far it seems the banks have come up with this and the govt supports it. Guaranteeing the banks; is that the same as nationalising them? It doesn’t seem far off to me, you’d expect to be able to throw some weight around if you were going to guarantee some ones capital?


----------



## gav (6 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Tech I don't believe that,* under this the banks are OBLIGED to help out everyone who loses their job, they would much rather pick and choose who gets helped as they usually would.*
> 
> What this does is create a debt bubble to the banks that may not be paid back because many still wont be able to pay after 12 months so houses come onto the market with more debt against them compounding the banks losses as the market will then freefall.




Mr Burns, FYI.  It seems the banks get to pick and choose after all...
It seems Krudd is just a puppet..

*
Govt loan repayment reprieve admission *
Monday, April 06, 2009  » 08:06am
http://bigpondnews.com/articles/TopStories/2009/04/06/Govt_loan_repayment_reprieve_319147.html

The Federal Government has admitted not every retrenched worker with a mortgage will benefit from its loan repayment reprieve.

Australia's four major banks will offer a 12 month relief from mortgage payments for the newly unemployed.

But smaller banks, credit unions, building societies and non-bank lenders who make up 20 per cent of the mortgage market are not part of the deal.

Treasurer Wayne Swan says negotiations are underway with smaller lenders about participation in the plan.

*Banks will decide which of its borrowers gain relief, by assessing their ability to meet new contractual obligations in the long term.*


----------



## tech/a (6 April 2009)

Trembling Hand said:


> Fine form this morning Tech




I hate anything with M in it--you know Monday---Morning----Morons---



MrBurns said:


> Tech I don't believe that, under this the banks are OBLIGED to help out everyone who loses their job, they would much rather pick and choose who gets helped as they usually would.
> 
> What this does is create a debt bubble to the banks that may not be paid back because many still wont be able to pay after 12 months so houses come onto the market with more debt against them compounding the banks losses as the market will then freefall.




There is *no obligation *its done on a case by case basis.
Go have a good read.


----------



## MrBurns (6 April 2009)

gav said:


> Mr Burns, FYI.  It seems the banks get to pick and choose after all...
> It seems Krudd is just a puppet..
> 
> *
> ...




Well if there's no obligation nothing's changed has it ........

The banks have always had that option and will exercise it if it makes businesss sense.

If thats the case this whole story is a beat up and BS, in other words a Rudd special.


----------



## MrBurns (6 April 2009)

> Treasurer Wayne Swan says negotiations are underway with smaller lenders about participation in the plan.




So Swanny is going to negotiate with other lenders to see if he can get them to do what they already do, that should keep him busy......idiot.


----------



## kincella (6 April 2009)

What is all the fuss about...the banks may decide not to help anyone...its just another furphy by the govt....to be seen to be doing something....but not actually doing anything at all....
but then again why all the fuss if you  lose your job and might need help...
am sure you would appreciate some help to keep your home

ps Tech/a....I was considering starting a thread 'mentors' here for some of you....and intended to nominate you plus others as people who would provide good mentoring advice....
but then saw your 'mindless post' 
other m's are mice and men..spot the difference


----------



## MrBurns (6 April 2009)

It will be front page news when the first hopeless ******** loses his job and cant get rmortgage relief from his bank, wait and see.


----------



## kincella (6 April 2009)

mr burns....the smaller lenders have not passed on the rate cuts...
a figure of 20% of home loans are held by these smaller players....are they the greedy ones and trying to stay afloat....or grab your home in the meantime, for the sake of 3 months repayments or less ?


----------



## pilots (6 April 2009)

*Re: A depression. What should gov do to help mortgagees?*



centex said:


> Spot on Nyden!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Centex, you hit the nail on the head, top post


----------



## MrBurns (6 April 2009)

kincella said:


> mr burns....the smaller lenders have not passed on the rate cuts...
> a figure of 20% of home loans are held by these smaller players....are they the greedy ones and trying to stay afloat....or grab your home in the meantime, for the sake of 3 months repayments or less ?




They would be trying to stay afloat no doubt, they dont want your home they want your regular payments but if you look shaky that want you off their books ASAP they cant afford to carry too many Rudd basket cases.


----------



## Temjin (6 April 2009)

I certainly understand that this type of initiative is nothing new at all because it has always been provided by the banks in good and bad times for their own interest. In fact, it's sound business decision at least for the banks to rather forego repayments for a certain period of time instead of reclaiming the asset on a defaulted loan and trying to sell IT in a downturn market. 

My question remains is, why the government is taking a role at it? 

If the BIG 4s are negotiating amoung themselves to "promote" this type of offer to the public, then it is just a simple act of free market. Unfortunately for the second tier banks though, they will be completely left out if they are unable to offer such a service or willing to actively promote it further.

But back to my original question. WHY the government is involved anyway? Yes, all the details we know so far point out that the banks are taking the risks to themselve, and the government will NOT COMMIT A SINGLE CENT behind it. It all sounds great! But why is the Rudd government announcing this WITH the banks, and not the banks just come forward and announce this plan individually or together? 

Unfortunately, details are still sketchy at the moment and none of us know the full details (or reasons) behind this initiative being negotiated behind closed doors. 

Is there a hidden agenda for the government to take part of it? 

Do they have any vested interest in making sure the house markets do not crash and for people without jobs to stay in their homes? (I bet they do!) 

I'm not going to make any claims because of a lack of evidences, but I would be willing to speculate that there is some kind of "non-official" guarantee from the government that they will support the BIG 4 in any way in the event of more loan losses. 

Regardless, those borrowers who take on this would be in a worst situation if they could not secure the right amount of income in time to cover the "increased" repayments after 12 months. And god forbids interest rate will not raise at all for the foreseeable future. (who knows though, Japan kept theirs at close to 0% for years....)


----------



## MrBurns (6 April 2009)

Temjin said:


> My question remains is, why the government is taking a role at it?




The little rodent just grandstands whenever possible.


----------



## aleckara (6 April 2009)

Temjin said:


> Do they have any vested interest in making sure the house markets do not crash and for people without jobs to stay in their homes? (I bet they do!)
> 
> I'm not going to make any claims because of a lack of evidences, but I would be willing to speculate that there is some kind of "non-official" guarantee from the government that they will support the BIG 4 in any way in the event of more loan losses.




Well in my eyes the guarantee is already public knowledge - the government guarantee. If banks take too many losses on loans then they may fail and the government would have to fork out the money. There are other issues as well such as the solvency of the country, and the fact that the country is a deficit nation (if our assets aren't going up how can we keep our solvency?)

I'm sure Rudd doesn't want to see house price crash - it would be highly unpopular with the majority of voters. After all it is the "risk-free" investment courtesy of Rudd and the taxpayer. They talk a lot about "jobs" too - mainly tradies and retail. Retail is really just a shopfront for China and tradies well, its great to be one of those in this country and no other. The jobs they seem to protect are the ones that are highly unionised, or politically popular.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (6 April 2009)

tech/a said:


> This thread reflects 95% of the population and should be transfered to the losers thread where it belongs.
> 
> Rather than the coming together of minds its more a coming together of the mindless.




The Tech/a filter - 

Agree with my view = enlightened & intelligent person?
Alternative view = mindless loser?

What we? are creating is a society of moral hazard whereby risk is diminished due to default (of debt) being too detrimental to the whole of a society increasingly reliant on ever increasing consumption without periodic purges of bad debt? The fiscal non return valve where the risk is socialised and the gain is privatised. Nothing new here, it's just we are being suckered into it because who's gonna knock back a freeby when the alternative is pain & reality?



aleckara said:


> Well in my eyes the guarantee is already public knowledge - the government guarantee. If banks take too many losses on loans then they may fail and the government would have to fork out the money.




One problem with that if it were to eventuate - the government doesn't have the money, either electronically or physically?


----------



## tech/a (6 April 2009)

Informed discussion with thought provoking in site = enlightened & intelligent person?

Un informed discussion and or/with no/little reference to subject matter. = mindless loser?

I'm working on my toxicity----will improve.


----------



## nunthewiser (6 April 2009)

> Rudd rolls out Struggle Street assistance package
> 
> 5th April 2009, 12:45 WST
> 
> ...




mmmmmm a goverment initiative with the banks agreement .....

seems that there has been plenty of "informed discussion " regarding MANY ramifications and other subjects to do with this matter .


----------



## nunthewiser (6 April 2009)

tech/a said:


> Informed discussion with thought provoking in site = enlightened & intelligent person?
> 
> Un informed discussion and or/with no/little reference to subject matter. = mindless loser?
> 
> I'm working on my toxicity----will improve.




and that post is actually hypocrisy at its finest 

no offence intended of course 

just an observation

have a loverly day


----------



## tech/a (6 April 2009)

Thank you.
I'm here to annoy.


----------



## nunthewiser (6 April 2009)

tech/a said:


> Thank you.
> I'm here to annoy.




COOL ........ as you were 

sorry for the disruption


----------



## kincella (6 April 2009)

thought provoking in site ??? or should it be insight.....


----------



## tech/a (6 April 2009)

In site----I'm a builder.


----------



## kincella (6 April 2009)

ok fair enuff...understood
cheers


----------

