Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
Yeah but if you can earn a fortune that you otherwise couldn't then a part of that being in stock that becomes worthless is hardly a counter argument.
The idea that the products were conceived as a con is ridiculous but no more so than the idea that the 'pros' didn't make a fortune from them.
And it is more than that.
His argument has a substantive component of 'the asset class bounced back'!!! Thus the harm was short term and they recovered.
What you see coming out of 2009 was a substantive loss of the equity built up in the lower middle class in their homes was stripped away and they lost those homes, that were then purchased by these Alt Bank and Private Equity groups at discount prices and rented back to this growing class of renters who were prior owners.
So yes, from the thousand foot view the asset class did bounce back but there was a significant shift such that the bounce back greatly benefited more of the rich.
It has spawned a now growing asset class, which prior to 2009 was not very niche of looking as single family dwellings for rentals as something big business now considers. There is a big shift now to much of the existing inventory being bought up by PE, etc, inflating prices and forcing those who would otherwise buy, to now rent.