Comments on: What is low income, moderate income in Silicon Valley (aka the Real Bay Area)

By: madhaus

madhaus — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 04:21:18 +0000

Fox is a symptom, not a cause, although at this point it’s a vicious circle.

By: DreamT

DreamT — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 03:31:21 +0000

Was wondering who Social Worker was responding to, when it dawned on me he was responding to burbed.
Why is it that out-of-towners struggle so much with anything that is not first-degree? Fox Networks’ influence?

By: Social Worker

Social Worker — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 02:08:58 +0000

I have never read such egotistical crap in my life. Count yourself fortunate!!!!!!!!! You could have been one of the very people you’re brow beating. I have the income, and was considering a move to your area. NO THANKS! I won’t want any of you as neighbors!!!!!!!!!

By: Pralay

Pralay — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:06:14 +0000

As for the corporate side, I’d venture that politics often prevail over common sense, particulary when a pot of gold is in the picture.
————-

It’s an utopian idea that corporates would work as regulator + profiteer. Enron-like things happened in the past and will happen in future. The only thing will change is the method of committing such crime.

———–
So, I do not believe that the next generation will be any smarter.
———–

They would not be smarter, but they will think they are smarter. Lots of crooks took notes from Enron and other corporate trials. They won’t do the same mistakes again, but eventually they will commit other mistakes.

By: Hellboy

Hellboy — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:54:17 +0000

RE would be correct if we had not morphed into such of a bailout nation. With “privatize the gains and socialize the losses” in play, I’m afraid not enough people actual learn their lessons.

By: DreamT

DreamT — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:34:53 +0000

RE – I see that your optimism in the investment potential of real estate extends to people’s ability to learn and remember past mistakes. I appreciate that.
Personally, I am less optimistic: on the consumer side, the victims are typically first buyers; also greed blinds reason (as in the cases where the same person buys many houses simultaneously with different lenders). As for the corporate side, I’d venture that politics often prevail over common sense, particulary when a pot of gold is in the picture. So, I do not believe that the next generation will be any smarter. I do plan to give my kid a clue, though.

By: Real Estater

Real Estater — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:33:51 +0000

DreamT,

I think after the sub-prime fiasco, banks will not sit on the hot stove again. They will be watching out for their own interest, which is a force more powerful than any regulation. In addition, consumers will not sit on the hot stove either, after seeing what happened in places like Stockton.

By: DreamT

DreamT — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:05:10 +0000

RE – You’re describing how loans are being processed today. We’re discussing structural safeguards to ensure that a “loan officer should be acting as the compliance officer.” Many banks have recently adopted more conservatives standards, yet there is nothing in place that I know of to guarantee that a loan officier acts as a compliance officer – besides the bank’s interest in doing so.
Or are you saying that you’re entirely fine in seeing the banks reverting back to loose standards, without improved governmental structure to enforce compliance, when the economy loosens up again?

By: Real Estater

Real Estater — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 04:28:20 +0000

DreamT,

I’m afraid I disagree. Under the current environment, they actually do check your credit score, do check your income, and do require a down payment.

By: DreamT

DreamT — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 04:05:59 +0000

RE, your qualifiers were not ignored. We described what _under the current environment_ prevents loan officers from being a reliable _first line of defence_: wrong incentives and inadequate compliance structure.