I would like to know what percentage of dollars loaned on sub-prime
terms went to poor folks trying to buy and occupy a home, and what
percentage went to investors and housing-market speculators whose
intention was to "flip" the house. Before sub-prime payments ballooned,
there was a 9-month housing surplus because builders/speculators
over-reacted to the demand, and they were stuck with unsold houses on
which they held such "temporary" mortgages with highly volatile and
explosive interest rates. Maybe a way of getting at this answer would
be to plot the loan-amounts, adjusted for regional cost-of-living, and
look at the distribution. My hunch is that only a small fraction of the
total dollars lent on sub-prime terms was for modestly priced
inner-suburb and urban homes.
Regards
Tim Romano
[log in to unmask] wrote:
> Dear Poundians,
>
> I do not usually read the NYTimes business section with my literary eyes
> open, but I think Pound would have been pleased to be quoted in an article
> by Ben Stein about the recent subprime lending problems:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/business/10every.html?_r=1&ex=1360386000&en=b576a27d7ff9655f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&st=cse&sq=unending+allure+of+the+free+lunch&scp=1&oref=slogin
>
> I hope this message finds you all well,
> Catherine Paul
>
> Associate Professor
> Department of English
> Clemson University
> Clemson, SC 29634-0523
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>