8 ms·

Foreclosure helps homeowners and the economy

14 points by quoderat 18y ago

indiejade 18y ago
From the article: Mr. Su is a real-estate consultant and a former REO broker. Maybe whomever submitted this article should have titled it: "Foreclosure helps real-estate consultants and brokers" Basically what it boils down to is that there needs to be a smaller gap between cost of ownership and rents in an area. Diminishing this gap will reduce the "power" that 99.9999999999999 percent of real-estate people have leveraged during the last eight years. The only way to reduce this gap is by paying people in the real estate profession less: get them to divulge their pay in dollars, not percents. Unfortunately, with the current "mortgage meltdown," people in real estate are the first ones getting paid! Whether a home is getting foreclosed upon or simply just "sold," Realtors always get paid. I studied their games. I know how they play it.
- zzzmarcus 18y ago
  You start off with an implied ad-hominem attack; just because he's a broker doesn't mean he's only looking out for himself or that doesn't know the industry works in every day. Then you summarize the article by basically stating the exact opposite of the premise of the article which is actually closer to: "foreclosure helps home owners who are in trouble while at the same time helping the finance industry recover." Then you state that there should be a smaller gap between the cost of ownership and renting. Fine, this is probably easy enough for everyone to agree with. But you, unlike the author of the article who talks about supply and demand equalizing the market through the foreclosure process, say that the solution is somehow for real estate professionals to "divulge their pay in dollars, not percents." First of all realtors, by divulging the percentage they are paid of a transaction, are already divulging their pay in dollars since everyone who is a party to the transaction knows the amount of the transaction. It's simple math. Second, someone is paying real estate professionals for a service that apparently worth what realtors and brokers charge. The market is sustaining their fees, if the service they provided wasn't valuable, someone would step in and do it cheaper. Third, even if real estate professionals didn't make a cent off transactions, even if there were no realtors or brokers, it doesn't change the core problem or anything suggested the article's solution. They aren't the ones who control market values or financing.
  - michaelneale 18y ago
    >You start off with an implied ad-hominem attack As a side point - if in a discussion someone brings up someone elses professional background/employer/affiliation (the implication being that it undermines their authority) is that really an ad-hominem attack?
    - 3pt14159 18y ago
      Technically, yes, but ad hominem circumstantial, as it is called, is generally acceptable in public discourse if the primary party making the argument will see direct gain AND the logic behind his argument is also reduced, independent of the speaker. Say Joe (a libertarian) is arguing for legalization of smut films in public theaters. Frank (a smut rental store owner) is arguing the opposite case. Joe may say, "you shouldn't tell adults what they can or cannot watch in a theater because that encroaches on their rights." Frank will then reply, "Don't listen to him, he's just the quack libertarian 'round here, this is about protecting our public places for our kids." Joe's reply of, "18+ theaters are out of the accessible areas of children and therefore his argument is flawed, and furthermore Frank is most likely primarily concerned about reduced profits of smut rentals due to market substitution towards theater movies." Frank's original reply - That Joe is a "quack libertarian" is invalid because it exposes no hidden motive on Joe's part. Joe's reply is valid because the public should understand all reasons why Frank does not want a public smut theater or they may fall for a "lie of omission" and because Joe attacked Frank's primary argument.
      - zzzmarcus 18y ago
        Great explanation. I learned something. So maybe my critique of her comment being an implied ad hominem is unfair "Mr. Su is a real-estate consultant and a former REO broker." Still, it's not obvious that he stands to profit off more foreclosures based on his status as a consultant, and the fact that he was formerly a broker seems to lend credibility to his expertise rather than detracting from it.
      - michaelneale 18y ago
        Thanks - good explanation.
- indiejade 18y ago
  Watch: http://kcet.org/socal/2008/09/foreclosure-alley.html http://kcet.org/socal/2008/09/foreclosure-alley.html Which party is hurrying the transaction such that the owners of the belongings in the home don't even have time to move out or to coordinate efforts with an ecologically-friendly recycling charity? The Realtors. Everything into a landfill? Seriously? Realtors make $ by flipping properties like flipping burgers. They are the only ones who are "thriving" from such a mortgage mess. It should, for all practical purposes, be illegal. P.S. The video starts off slow; watch until where Lisa Ling starts reporting. Take note of who is paying the dude to "paint the grass green".
  - zzzmarcus 18y ago
    That is just flat out wrong. Even the story states repeatedly that a foreclosure doesn't just sneak up on you. Why those people left behind all their belongings is beyond me, but it wasn't because it happened all of a sudden. Like the story mentions, they know months in advance. Everything in the story about why the stuff is left is speculation. Even if realtors did cause foreclosures to somehow sneak up on people, it has nothing to do with what causes people to end up in foreclosure in the first place. You're going after the wrong target.
    - ardit33 18y ago
      it is probably crap they didn't need anyways. Foreclosure people are probably moving to smaller places, or going to live with family. People are only keeping stuff that they really need.
      - zzzmarcus 18y ago
        They show large TV's and family pictures, nice furniture etc. being thrown out. It really is insane that people wouldn't at least try to Craigslist some of that stuff. If the reporters were really trying to do their jobs correctly they'd have found some of the people who ditched all their stuff and asked them why they left it. Instead, they resort to speculation.
    - indiejade 18y ago
Cunard2 18y ago
When I see the words "clean" and "capable" to describe markets and new buyers of forclosed properties, and the word "evil" used to describe loan modification, I think that: 1) clean is the opposite of dirty. The unfettered market is clean, he says. 2) capable. Who doesn't want to be in that category? Capable! Yes. I am capable. And THAT is the reason (sigh of relief) that I am not being forclosed upon. This article says: "loan modification is not only ineffective, it is evil." So. If you're incapable...don't come crying to me. because it would be evil to offer help..... "Get a job.", then. Thanks Rupert.

14 points by quoderat 18y ago

From the article: Mr. Su is a real-estate consultant and a former REO broker. Maybe whomever submitted this article should have titled it: "Foreclosure helps real-estate consultants and brokers" Basically what it boils down to is that there needs to be a smaller gap between cost of ownership and rents in an area. Diminishing this gap will reduce the "power" that 99.9999999999999 percent of real-estate people have leveraged during the last eight years. The only way to reduce this gap is by paying people in the real estate profession less: get them to divulge their pay in dollars, not percents. Unfortunately, with the current "mortgage meltdown," people in real estate are the first ones getting paid! Whether a home is getting foreclosed upon or simply just "sold," Realtors always get paid. I studied their games. I know how they play it.

zzzmarcus 18y ago
You start off with an implied ad-hominem attack; just because he's a broker doesn't mean he's only looking out for himself or that doesn't know the industry works in every day. Then you summarize the article by basically stating the exact opposite of the premise of the article which is actually closer to: "foreclosure helps home owners who are in trouble while at the same time helping the finance industry recover." Then you state that there should be a smaller gap between the cost of ownership and renting. Fine, this is probably easy enough for everyone to agree with. But you, unlike the author of the article who talks about supply and demand equalizing the market through the foreclosure process, say that the solution is somehow for real estate professionals to "divulge their pay in dollars, not percents." First of all realtors, by divulging the percentage they are paid of a transaction, are already divulging their pay in dollars since everyone who is a party to the transaction knows the amount of the transaction. It's simple math. Second, someone is paying real estate professionals for a service that apparently worth what realtors and brokers charge. The market is sustaining their fees, if the service they provided wasn't valuable, someone would step in and do it cheaper. Third, even if real estate professionals didn't make a cent off transactions, even if there were no realtors or brokers, it doesn't change the core problem or anything suggested the article's solution. They aren't the ones who control market values or financing.
- michaelneale 18y ago
  >You start off with an implied ad-hominem attack As a side point - if in a discussion someone brings up someone elses professional background/employer/affiliation (the implication being that it undermines their authority) is that really an ad-hominem attack?
  - 3pt14159 18y ago
    Technically, yes, but ad hominem circumstantial, as it is called, is generally acceptable in public discourse if the primary party making the argument will see direct gain AND the logic behind his argument is also reduced, independent of the speaker. Say Joe (a libertarian) is arguing for legalization of smut films in public theaters. Frank (a smut rental store owner) is arguing the opposite case. Joe may say, "you shouldn't tell adults what they can or cannot watch in a theater because that encroaches on their rights." Frank will then reply, "Don't listen to him, he's just the quack libertarian 'round here, this is about protecting our public places for our kids." Joe's reply of, "18+ theaters are out of the accessible areas of children and therefore his argument is flawed, and furthermore Frank is most likely primarily concerned about reduced profits of smut rentals due to market substitution towards theater movies." Frank's original reply - That Joe is a "quack libertarian" is invalid because it exposes no hidden motive on Joe's part. Joe's reply is valid because the public should understand all reasons why Frank does not want a public smut theater or they may fall for a "lie of omission" and because Joe attacked Frank's primary argument.
    - zzzmarcus 18y ago
      Great explanation. I learned something. So maybe my critique of her comment being an implied ad hominem is unfair "Mr. Su is a real-estate consultant and a former REO broker." Still, it's not obvious that he stands to profit off more foreclosures based on his status as a consultant, and the fact that he was formerly a broker seems to lend credibility to his expertise rather than detracting from it.
    - michaelneale 18y ago
      Thanks - good explanation.
indiejade 18y ago
Watch: http://kcet.org/socal/2008/09/foreclosure-alley.html http://kcet.org/socal/2008/09/foreclosure-alley.html Which party is hurrying the transaction such that the owners of the belongings in the home don't even have time to move out or to coordinate efforts with an ecologically-friendly recycling charity? The Realtors. Everything into a landfill? Seriously? Realtors make $ by flipping properties like flipping burgers. They are the only ones who are "thriving" from such a mortgage mess. It should, for all practical purposes, be illegal. P.S. The video starts off slow; watch until where Lisa Ling starts reporting. Take note of who is paying the dude to "paint the grass green".
- zzzmarcus 18y ago
  That is just flat out wrong. Even the story states repeatedly that a foreclosure doesn't just sneak up on you. Why those people left behind all their belongings is beyond me, but it wasn't because it happened all of a sudden. Like the story mentions, they know months in advance. Everything in the story about why the stuff is left is speculation. Even if realtors did cause foreclosures to somehow sneak up on people, it has nothing to do with what causes people to end up in foreclosure in the first place. You're going after the wrong target.
  - ardit33 18y ago
    it is probably crap they didn't need anyways. Foreclosure people are probably moving to smaller places, or going to live with family. People are only keeping stuff that they really need.
    - zzzmarcus 18y ago
      They show large TV's and family pictures, nice furniture etc. being thrown out. It really is insane that people wouldn't at least try to Craigslist some of that stuff. If the reporters were really trying to do their jobs correctly they'd have found some of the people who ditched all their stuff and asked them why they left it. Instead, they resort to speculation.
  - indiejade 18y ago

Cunard2 18y ago

When I see the words "clean" and "capable" to describe markets and new buyers of forclosed properties, and the word "evil" used to describe loan modification, I think that: 1) clean is the opposite of dirty. The unfettered market is clean, he says. 2) capable. Who doesn't want to be in that category? Capable! Yes. I am capable. And THAT is the reason (sigh of relief) that I am not being forclosed upon. This article says: "loan modification is not only ineffective, it is evil." So. If you're incapable...don't come crying to me. because it would be evil to offer help..... "Get a job.", then. Thanks Rupert.