hblask 1 Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 tweaking fannie and freddie in late 2004 would not have significantly changed the outcome.I can tell you from personal experience that the incentives during 2004-2007 were severely out of whack. I'm a very conservative investor, more of a buy and hold type. Yet I got drawn into the leveraged real estate debacle. I knew the end was near, but the rates and loan deals were so good that under any except the worst scenarios, borrowing more money was a good idea. Unfortunately, the worst scenario is what we got, and that's how so many of us got into trouble. Banks were begging me to take out bad loans at no cost to me. I did the math, if real estate even grew at all, even 1%, it would be a great deal for me.So yeah, reforming the institutions that created bad incentives could've shut that spigot off overnight. I did it for 3.5% and no money down. I wouldn't have for 6% and 20% down. Whether shutting off that spigot was politically feasible is another question. Link to post Share on other sites
JoeyJoJo 18 Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 I bought my house with zero down and I'm pretty happy about it too. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now