Things are pretty rough. I have Regions and National City Stock. Nat City has lost over 89% of it's value through last week. Regions dividends are down from 43 cents to 10 cents. Nat City went from 43 to 21 to 1 cent.

Through 9/15, I have been losing over $30,000 a day on the value of just those two stocks in 2008.

How is this mess affecting you?

Russ

Band work is slower than normal, and the Band-in-a-Box aftermarket business is slower than normal.

I guess I have to thank the Republicans for the economic crisis since they have held the reigns for the last 8 years. And what have they given us? High oil prices and a bank crisis that needs a bail-out.

Hmmmm

Remember the Reagan and Bush I years? What did we get? High gas prices and a bank (S&L) crisis that needed a bail out.

Seems like a pattern here.

And John McCain (who's campaign is being largely financed by Big Oil) says he is the candidate for change? Why don't I believe that?

(hit me once, shame on you, hit me twice, shame on me).

I am a registered independent, but the way the last couple of republican regimes have been handled, I now think twice before voting republican.

I didn't vote for Clinton, but the economy was better when he was at the helm.

I'm going Obama this fall. IMHO the lesser of the two evils.

I wonder if we would be in this mess if the people who signed the dotted line for their mortgages would actually.... PAY THEM! How about a little personal responsibility? I think there is plenty of blame to go around on this one....

Not trying to start anything. Just an observation.

I agree. I have a brother-in-law who bought a $500,000.00 home several years ago, and hasn't had a regular job in 10 years (he's an ARTIST, don't you know). He went to Countrywide and had an accountants statement prepared saying he had a Trust Fund of millions of dollars. I manage a family revocable trust, and he is entitled to an inheritance, but only when his father passes away. He kept asking for copies of the trust documents, and his brother-in-law is an accountant.

Now, he's calling monthly begging for loans out of the trust, and the trust, which is heavily invested in regional bank stocks, has loast several millions in value. That means that he won't get enough to pay off his mortgage, and he's over 60 yerars old. On top of that, the value of his house has gone down and he is "upside down" as are many of the sub-prime people.

I have three large financial institutions as clients, and what we are seeing is people who have good credit, but are just walking away from their mortgage...throwing the keys at the bank and sometimes destroying the home inside, because they owe more than the home is worth. One institution is paying a cash bonus to homeowners undergoing foreclosure or planning to "walk" if they don't do damage to the home.

You're right. Whatever happened to living within your budget and paying your bills?

But, the complaints against the institutions loaning money...in some cases, a total of 125% of the cost of the home to buyers like my brother-in-law are valid. These guys should be shot. Now, hundreds of thousands of retirees who were living on dividends from stock in financial institutions have seen their income stop and their entire life savings disappear. The paper loss to individuals is in the trillions.

And, the current bail-out proposal will mean that the executives in the financial sector and the polititians who facilitated their crooked dealings are going to get bailed out, and individuals are going to pay, either through the taxes needed to fund the bail-out, or through losses on financial stock holdings.


What a mess!


Russ



[This message has been edited by captain Russ (edited 10-02-2008).]

I bought a house I could afford and live within my means why should I now have to bail out the wall street fat cats. Ya know none of that bailout money is going to trickle down to the average guy.
It's not gonna stop one family from losing their homes but it will allow the execs to throw their million dollar parties and finance the golden parachutes of many more.
If I sell you a bad hamburger at McDonalds I get fired but if I drive the company into bankruptcy and put thousands out of work and thousands more lose their pensions I get a 125 million dollar bonus to leave before I do more damage.

[This message has been edited by mikeathome1 (edited 10-02-2008).]

As of yesterday, we have taken about a $280,000 hit, but are watching a slow recovery with cautious optimism. I hate the concept of a bailout but I also understand the consequences of the alternative. Oh, what the hell; I can't live THAT much longer.

chas

PS: start worrying about me if you see my Nord C1 up for sale .

Chas, here's hoping that we both live long enough to refine the art of harassing each other on a regular basis.

Now, THAT's something to look forward to...broke or not!


Be well,

Russ

The present situation is a result of the moral
decay in our societies.

Chickens come home to roust and unfortunately
the innocent suffer along with everyone else.

But hang on have faith things can only get better.

Cousin Ken

Still, I can't get over the fact that twice now, the Republicans have made it easy for the banks to give out bad loans and the result of which was you and I (the taxpayers) paying off those loans to the bank.

I can't get over the fact that twice now the Republicans have given us a gas crisis while the oil companies make record profits after record profits after record profits. (Funny, if my neighborhood baker has to pay more for flour, he makes less profit).

And I can't get over the fact that some people believe that the current Republican candidate (the one who has all 4 major oil companies financing his campaign) is the candidate who will make things better.

At least Clinton (who I didn't vote for) gave us a balanced budget and good economic times.

Personally, if McCain and his trailer-trash, gun toting, ecology hating, running mate get elected, the USA may not be able to recover.

Sorry to be on such a rant, but we have allowed the NeoCons and their "trickle down" economy to make the super-rich richer and the other 95% of us poorer twice now. I don't think we should give them the chance to do it again.

Notes you may be a tad off course.

"Still, I can't get over the fact that twice now, the Republicans have made it easy for the banks to give out bad loans and the result of which was you and I (the taxpayers) paying off those loans to the bank"

This is where it all started

September 30, 1999
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the ** ***Clinton Administration *** to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''
Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.
Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.
In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.
Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.
In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.
The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

Crooked real estate appriasers and the whole industry is to blame. I don't have the answers but a bail out program with a bunch of PORK in the middle will do no one any good, that is the problem with our government. Efficiency certainly isn't a hall mark either.