Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 9:32 AM EDT - U.S. Markets close in 6 hrs 28 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

ProShares Ultra Real Estate Message Board

  • nyxout nyxout Jan 27, 2010 12:26 PM Flag

    I can wait

    took 5+ years to buld up the bad debt by financials and consumers. It will take 5 years to flush all the bad $ out of the system. We are at the half way point. Time will solve the problem despite what the govt may or may not do. As a business owner and commercial property owner, all the "experts" use to recommend taking all the cash out of every asset and fully leveraging. That is just the attitude that got us into this economic mess. I'm holding URE from my original purchase in the $3 range. I can afford to wait. I don't need the ST tax rate in my bracket. I'm guessing URE will trend to $15 within the next 24 months and probably sooner as in anticipation of lower debt ratios. My next buy point is early march. I will hold through the current rumours and populas politics. These are just spped bumps in the road.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Please enough of this partisan hogwash. Both parties are the same and will use whatever fringe affiliate for their own ends. But they are only the puppets to the puppeteers -- the rich political donors, of which Acorn is not. GWB did nothing to stem the tide of the irresponsible lending. In fact he embraced it because it helped to fuel his "economic recovery" after the 2001 recession.

    • they did pressure the banks just not the big banks. Then liberals assist with pressuring via distribution of public funding. ACORN is a puppet for the liberals. ACORN did have paid representatives protesting in front of access doors at household. continue to blame the banks for everything because it is the populace thing to do. you be watching too many obama speeches. Dodd and Frank knew nothing about what was happening.....was a total surprise to them. geeez, why do we bother to have congressional committies?

    • "The borrowers don't have to borrow if they don't agree with the rates. ACORN objective is to have low rates for high risk individulas.......isn't that what essential assisted with the financal crisis? Easy money for all with no regard for risk."

      Yes, and the only thing that enabled that to actually proceed is that bankers found a way to profit from it.

      You really think that a political lobby could pressure the big wall st banks into distributing their own capital against their will? You're pretty naive if you think that's possible. These people own everything and control everything. They do as they like. No one calls the shots on them. ACORN is irrelevant.

    • do your D&D and look back at the share price of household relative to the issues with ACORN. You will see a direct correlation. you would need to look around the year 2002. ACORN desires to stop predatory lending practices. However, they also desire financials to loan to low income individuals. Generally lower income individuals tend to be higher risk. all lenders follow state law in usuary rates and the rate charged reflects the risk. The borrowers don't have to borrow if they don't agree with the rates. ACORN objective is to have low rates for high risk individulas.......isn't that what essential assisted with the financal crisis? Easy money for all with no regard for risk. Then the financials package all the loans good or bad and re-sell. Nobody really undestood the underlying securities risk they loan originators didn't care because the loans were being packaged and re-sold. The buyers assumed a normal default rate even though the loans contained high risk loans at very low rates. Risk is fine if the reward refelcts the risk. A 10%+ default rate is acceptable if the avg return is 12% but certainly not a 10% or greater default rate at a 6% return. Not only was aCORN promoting but the democrats as well. I'll do high risk loans all day long at 20%+ and if those individuals really want to borrow money, they will in turn pay a higher rate. If not, they can go look elsewhere. I tire of reading about how the financials are at sole fault when the feds legislated the process and irresponsible consumers continued to borrow beyond their means.

    • NYX,

      Hate to wake you up from your dreamworld, but all one needs to do is follow the money.

      ACORN? Are you serious? ACORN and its constituency are flat broke.

      Dick Fuld, James Cayne and Alan Schwatz by contrast are billionaires despite the losses they suffered when the stocks of their respective companies tanked.

      Now tell me again, who benefitted? Banks and the politicians that they owned are the only ones.

      Saying that ACORN citizens benefitted is like saying that someone who gets suckered into buying stock at the very top as it is racing upwards only to hold on for the dump was a beneficiary of holding for two seconds at the top.

      That's what this was, a residential real estate pump and dump, but all the brokers kept their fees.

    • Acorn is nothing but a political punching bag, nothing more. Since the fiasco did not critically wound all banks, did this "coerced" legislation target some financial institutions more than others? Why is it that Golden Sachs and Wells Fargo did not need some sort of bailout as badly as Countrywide, Merrill, and AIG did?

      Blame the greed of banks, the complicity of the government and the Fed, and the ignorance of consumers and buyers during the bubble. But please leave this election propaganda that is Acorn out of it; it wasn't powerful enough to defeat Bush Jr. for 2 terms.

    • All of you are right and wrong. Please remember, the banks were legislated by congress to this point. the entire point of the legislation was to make it easier for banks to profit and provide easy money to the general population. ACORN was instrumental in this process attacking entities that provide interest rates that reflected high risk loans. Somehow this was wrong according to ACORN. In the end, the govt promted issuing loans that never shoud be issued. everyoe was happy until it all fell apart. balme the banks if you want, but the govt worked hand in hand with the financials to promote the new system of easy money. Don't believe me....go back and take a look at Household Finance being forced into a deal with HSBC. Household Finance stock was virtually driven into the ground. My whole point is, despite what the govt does or doesn't do, the private sector will eventually recover. It will take time as much of the debt needs to be flushed out of the system. took 5+ years to acumulate the debt and will take 5+ years to flush it all out. if the govt assumes the bad debt on its books, we accomplished nothing due to the fact the debt was just transferred elswhere....it still exists in the economy. I'm guessing the washington folks would rather assume the debt so the consumer and private business will not be carrying debt on the books and feel more comfortable to spend. As this happens, govt revenues will increase. However, govt rarely is capable of reducing debt itself. If I remember correctly, 12% of the feds expenditures are to pay the interest on the debt (this # was from sometime back. It may be higher now).

    • Totally agree and I would add that Bernake hardly made any secret about the fact that his strategy in the early going was a full hearted attempt to artifically inflate his way out of this. Or in other words, blowing up another bubble.

      Amazingly, Bernake did this with no restrictions. Bankers then have taken this aid, declared victory, and once again paid out huge bonuses based on unsustainable and false increases in the market values of everything from RRE to CRE to commodities to stock to bonds.

      Unbelievably, 99% of Americans still do not understand this. They're just mad because someone told them to be mad and because they cant buy their next 10 iPods. They have no idea why that is.

    • Wait a second, how much of the new government intervention has actually helped main street? Most of it went to save Wall Street and the financial institutions by re-inflating overpriced assets. Those same institutions are returning little or nothing to us, save for higher borrowing costs. The official unemployment rate is only 10%, but the real one is well higher.

      By supporting artificial valuations of assets, the government is actually building a bubble to replace the old one. Do you think the electorate or the government will be able to reform themselves to avert the ensuing damage?

      A better solution would have been to let those big inefficient institutions fail so that they can be replaced by leaner and more resilient ones and extend the existing social net to mainstreet.

    • Like Crammer says you guys are nuts....you know nothing...you nothing.....
      Artificial boost to economy is very important and if you don't do that then line up in the bread and soup lines and dump all your grains in the ocean becuase nobody has money or money has no value. Just thank you USG that it is taking global lead in this process and making us all float. Tarp, stimulus and railroad building will make us float and if works we would be outa woods and if it dowsn't or people like you would not let it works due to your greed then.....the worst war in the history is inevitable. Half of the world population will be destroyed in hunger and half will die and many will be disable to even work. People like you will be also either dead or mentally diable to function.

      I am not religious fanatic but scared to see us go down and not do anything to prevent. I have nothing to do with parties and politics but if you know the solution then please be first and post the sound solution. Just say thanks Lord that we are still floating even in the midst 10.5 unemployment.

      in the end My appologies for harseness.

    • View More Messages
 
URE
82.850.00(0.00%)9:30 AMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.