I should clarify that I meant in foreclosure, not default. I think that default would also include people that are 30 days late on a payment. I could be confusing my terminology. And I'm sure that we are much higher than that rate now due to mounting unemployment figures. But last year when banks first started failing we were dealing with a foreclosure rate that was certainly large but was not in the hundreds and hundreds of million dollar range. What took banks down was their peripheral exposure.
Judah On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > No, actually, you don't. If it was just people defaulting on ARM's, > that could be handled fairly easily. It would suck of course. But the > amount of money involved is nothing compared to what we are dealing > with and could have been manageable. > > I linked before to figures showing what percentage of defaults were in > play and what percentage of those were non-conforming loans. As of > late last year we still had not even hit a 1.5% default rate. 2% of > mortgages in default would not bring down the banking industry. The > panic, the sudden loss of value, was all of the things tied to each > mortgage. Take away the derivatives and we are not in a recession. > > Judah > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:287254 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
