<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Surprise! Commercial Real Estate Woes Will Hit Wall Street</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/03/surprise-commercial-real-estate-woes.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/03/surprise-commercial-real-estate-woes.html</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:38:01 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/03/surprise-commercial-real-estate-woes.html#comment-4683</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/03/surprise-commercial-real-estate-woes-will-hit-wall-street/#comment-4683</guid>
		<description>Pauslon speech to the Association of Business Economists: &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&quot;The current public discussion often conflates the number of so-called &quot;underwater&quot; homeowners – that is, those with mortgages greater than the value of their house – with projections of foreclosures. Let&#039;s be precise: being underwater does not affect your ability to pay your mortgage, nor create a government responsibility for assistance. Homeowners who can afford their mortgage should honor their obligations --- and most do. &lt;br/&gt;Obviously, being underwater is not insignificant to homeowners in that position. But negative equity does not necessarily result in foreclosure. Most people buy homes as a long-term investment, as a place to raise a family and put down roots in a community. Homeowners who can afford their payments and don&#039;t have to move, can choose to stay in their house. And let me emphasize, any homeowner who can afford his mortgage payment but chooses to walk away from an underwater property is simply a speculator – and one who is not honoring his obligations.&quot;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;If wonder if Pauson is telling the banks, lawyers and companies some of which have publicly talked about &quot;walking&quot; away from the commercial real estate financial obligations that they should also honor their obligations if they can afford to pay,  versus making a smart business decision to re-allowcate their capital to a superior investment?  I have not heard him make that statement to businesses, has anyone?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pauslon speech to the Association of Business Economists: </p>
<p>&#8220;The current public discussion often conflates the number of so-called &#8220;underwater&#8221; homeowners – that is, those with mortgages greater than the value of their house – with projections of foreclosures. Let&#8217;s be precise: being underwater does not affect your ability to pay your mortgage, nor create a government responsibility for assistance. Homeowners who can afford their mortgage should honor their obligations &#8212; and most do. <br />Obviously, being underwater is not insignificant to homeowners in that position. But negative equity does not necessarily result in foreclosure. Most people buy homes as a long-term investment, as a place to raise a family and put down roots in a community. Homeowners who can afford their payments and don&#8217;t have to move, can choose to stay in their house. And let me emphasize, any homeowner who can afford his mortgage payment but chooses to walk away from an underwater property is simply a speculator – and one who is not honoring his obligations.&#8221;</p>
<p>If wonder if Pauson is telling the banks, lawyers and companies some of which have publicly talked about &#8220;walking&#8221; away from the commercial real estate financial obligations that they should also honor their obligations if they can afford to pay,  versus making a smart business decision to re-allowcate their capital to a superior investment?  I have not heard him make that statement to businesses, has anyone?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: woland</title>
		<link>http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/03/surprise-commercial-real-estate-woes.html#comment-4674</link>
		<dc:creator>woland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/03/surprise-commercial-real-estate-woes-will-hit-wall-street/#comment-4674</guid>
		<description>&quot;An even bigger problem is the firms&#039; own holdings of leftover, unsold commercial-mortgage backed securities&quot;.&lt;br/&gt;Looks like somebody&#039;s going to be eating leftovers for &lt;br/&gt;quite a while.  Better get some hot sauce.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;An even bigger problem is the firms&#8217; own holdings of leftover, unsold commercial-mortgage backed securities&#8221;.<br />Looks like somebody&#8217;s going to be eating leftovers for <br />quite a while.  Better get some hot sauce.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
