Off-Topic: Analysis?

Bear Creek Reservoir Topics

(Bear Creek Reservoir Specific)

9 messages

Updated 11/3/2023 6:12:58 AM

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

83,787 messages

Updated 7/26/2024 4:03:04 PM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,199 messages

Updated 7/19/2024 2:31:51 AM

Bear Creek Reservoir Fishing

(Bear Creek Reservoir Specific)

0 messages

Updated

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,171 messages

Updated 6/27/2024 7:05:46 AM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,261 messages

Updated 5/28/2024 6:31:10 AM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,979 messages

Updated 6/26/2024 5:03:03 AM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Welcome, Guest

Select View Mode: [ classic | beta | recent ]

	Name:	4691 -
	Subject:	Analysis?
	Date:	10/9/2008 12:06:09 AM

I think the time value of money must always be considered; otherwise the analysis is not valid and misleading. As described on the McCain site, the tax payer covers the difference between the current loan and the new market price adjusted loan. The payments on the new loan will not compensate for that immediate loss; only applies to principle and interest of the new loan. And even if the time value of money is ignored, what if the homeowner sells the house in a few years and pays the new loan in full? In that case, the tax payer would not recoup any of the their money that covered the spread between orginal loan and new loan. But I just can't make myself agree with the analysis that the interest paid on a lessor principle (obligation) is equivalent. Somebody will always lose in this deal...the tax payer. Can everyone that lives in an area where housing costs have decline get a new government loan at curernt market value and let tax payers absorb difference? What's the criteria for qualification?