CNN admits “Trump's right: The economy is doing well and he deserves some credit”

[SkepticThinker]

Money in my pocket is not the only thing that counts although what really matters is a foreseeable future for every human being. A life worth living for and a society where we can be judged by our actions and not by our thought. Where we can thrive as humans with human needs.

That is why I don't like Obama and Sanders, they are fundamentally against such values.

Why on earth do you think that?

 

[Revoltingest]

@Revoltingest
@1robin

I'm going make some subjective observations and speculations here.

Many of you are arguing that Obama's economy was not as successful as previous recoveries. The data is clear and there is an agreement with various economists on that subject so I am not arguing that. Obama's economy was a slow recovery when compared to other recoveries.

But, that shouldn't confuse the point that Obama's economy was always a positive trend. As @Quetzal pointed out, it was a stable economic growth. Obama never led us into a recession, depression or a bubble.

I don't judge Obama (or other presidents) for what happened on their watch.
Rather, it's about the actions they took or allowed to be taken, & the expected
consequences.
Even with a strong economy, eg, Clinton's reign, I take him to task for doing
things which had adverse economic effect, eg, greatly increased incarceration.
That has long term damage.

Economic rise or burst can be two sides of the same coin when discussing depression and especially bubbles. How do you think Bush's economy resulted with one of the worst crashes in US history?

Bush wasn't responsible for prior administrations setting the stage for things going south....
- The housing price bubble fueled by risky lending.
- Poor domestic security
- Hostile relations with the Islamic world.
Bush had been in office for less than a year when 9/11 happened.
It wouldn't be reasonable to expect him to reverse decades of bad
policy.....not that he even tried anyway.
But he was responsible for whipping up war frenzy. And of course,
Congress was complicit. The high cost of the wars (couple trillion
dollars so far) is an economic damper

The next part is subjective about defining a good economy. Some would want a quick rise, but if it's too large of an explosion then we place ourselves in areas of inflation where the value of money and capital actually do not represent their real-world equivalents. This is the cause of crashes seen with the start-ups and the housing bubble.

There are a couple sources of inflation.....
1) Government expanding the money supply faster than economic growth.
This fuels housing bubbles by incentivizing purchases as a hedge against inflation.
2) Demand & supply.
This isn't necessarily bad when it provides efficient resource allocation.
But it's bubblegenic when heavy home subsidies send prices higher than
the value of a home's utility.

I won't argue that Obama had one of the slowest recoveries. That point is proven and done with. But he has one of the most stable economy created because of that fact that it was slow. He handed Trump a good economy. My point all along was the trend, the rate of change and the differential. Obama, when normalized over his 8 years always had a positive trend. This would be seen as the second differential of any of the data (unemployment, gdp, ...) along his 8 years.

Stable because of a slow recovery...I don't see a causal connection.
Moreover, we still have the same housing market instabilities we had before.
Increased domestic security is stabilizing, but that wasn't Obama's doing.
We're at risk of things going south again if another trigger like 9/11 occurs.

Trump is now setting policies to unleash the economy. I've already said this would be easy to do. We can forego social and environmental issues to focus on the economy. So will he also see a crash by doing this but then having to sacrifice on other issues. We will see. But I will given him and Obama credit for what we are seeing today as I've already said many times.

Trump is also doing things to potentially harm the economy, eg, increasing mid east tensions could result in war.

Let's be truthful here.

If you insist.

We are all speculating and giving our opinions on the economies. What we can't do is refute the data and facts. If you speculate that specific policies had effects on the economy then I expect data and charts to show a correlation between that policy and various measurements of the economy. Show me actual data, then I might be more accepting of your speculations.

Correlations to demonstrate causation are hideously difficult in economics.
So many variables.....chaotic events with massive effect.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Why on earth do you think that?

Why would I not? Actions create opinions and an avoidance of insight into one's actions is mere ignorance. Obama has expressed intent on curbing my freedoms and did so months in his election which ruined my smoking experience at the hand of others not involved in the matter. Tried robbing me of my own money with his healthcare as the poor do not interest him and then attempted start a race war. Berner is a socialist, he is already an decrepit evil man.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Absolutely and demonstratively false.

What you're doing is taking the position of a "materialist", but only if that materialism helps you-- to hell with anyone else. Both Obama and Sanders push their idea for the betterment of all in our country, not just some. They opposed the Trump cuts that will badly hurt the poor and many of the elderly, plus it is already ramping-up the deficit that our kids and grandkids will have to pay for.

But you don't care-- you have more money in your pocket, right?

What you are saying is beyond false as it is not what I stated. Obama curbed freedoms even for smokers all the way to the poor like myself. So why are you so hostile to me cause I am poor and doing better under Trump? Again proving my point.

 

[suncowiam]

Correlations to demonstrate causation are hideously difficult in economics.
So many variables.....chaotic events with massive effect.

Yes, that's the issue I have when we have all these economists or would-be economists, including ourselves, speculating on policies.

I can't refute many of the things you say. it sounds logical and so on. But on the other side, you can't really prove many of your own assertions.

Anywhos... I'm probably beating a dead horse to a red bloody pulp..

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, that's the issue I have when we have all these economists or would-be economists, including ourselves, speculating on policies.

I can't refute many of the things you say. it sounds logical and so on. But on the other side, you can't really prove many of your own assertions.

Anywhos... I'm probably beating a dead horse to a red bloody pulp..

I can't prove anything.

Interesting story....
A friend was working on his PhD in economics. He noticed that his mathematical
models would have wildly different results with small changes in assumptions.
He realized that he was learning much math, but that he knew little of economics.
He quit the field, & went into health care analytics.

So I think we're better off using reasoning than statistics.
We all get to opine without mathematical rigor.

 

[suncowiam]

I can't prove anything.

Interesting story....
A friend was working on his PhD in economics. He noticed that his mathematical
models would have wildly different results with small changes in assumptions.
He realized that he was learning much math, but that he knew little of economics.
He quit the field, & went into health care analytics.

So I think we're better off using reasoning than statistics.
We all get to opine without mathematical rigor.

Well... Does your reasoning match the actual numbers? Because we do not have to guess what Obama did in terms of statistics.

What I said of his trend being steady and positive holds true when filtered against the statistics...

 

[Revoltingest]

Well... Does your reasoning match the actual numbers?
Because we do not have to guess what Obama did in terms of statistics.

Economic statistics show what happened...although from a limited perspective.
They don't show why.

What I said of his trend being steady and positive holds true when filtered against the statistics...

I disagree that measures his administration took were good for the economy.
Certainly, denying assistance to homeowners being foreclosed upon is harmful.
And while this will slow recovery, I see no reason that it provides stability.
Let's consider what caused the instability.
High LTV loans & unrealistically high prices pose problems.
If a home's value falls due to poor local economics, then the owner has no equity,
& typically cannot afford the costs of selling, principal payoff, & moving to where
the work is. Without good employment, the property goes into foreclosure.
This causes a loss not just for the homeowner, but also for the lender.
(They lose money on foreclosures.) And on top of that, when the bank
sells the home at a loss, the loss becomes taxable income for the borrower.
The IRS takes it's pound of flesh always.

The Obama administration did nothing to remove these risk factors.
They even exacerbated the problem with regulatory incentives to
foreclose rather than renegotiate.

Recent tax reform reduces the housing bubble incentive by limiting
tax subsidies for borrowing & property taxes. It's impossible to show
statistically how prices would be relatively lower, but one can reason
that if costs go up, then borrowers will qualify for smaller loans.

 

[metis]

What you are saying is beyond false as it is not what I stated. Obama curbed freedoms even for smokers all the way to the poor like myself. So why are you so hostile to me cause I am poor and doing better under Trump? Again proving my point.

I am not hostile to you but am dismayed that you don't consider the big picture that deals with all Americans and not just you. Many poor people have compassion towards others, probably more so than the wealthy do, so poverty is no excuse to ignore the plight of those in the lower income brackets and the elderly that are going to be negatively affected by Trump's tax cuts that strongly favors the wealthy.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am not hostile to you but am dismayed that you don't consider the big picture that deals with all Americans and not just you. Many poor people have compassion towards others, probably more so than the wealthy do, so poverty is no excuse to ignore the plight of those in the lower income brackets and the elderly that are going to be negatively affected by Trump's tax cuts that strongly favors the wealthy.

This raises a question.....
Are there really net tax cuts?
Sure, some rates were reduced, but some deductions were cut also.
One reduces, & the other increases taxes. Which effect is greater?
There are indications that tax revenue is up.
Ref....
Trump Tax Cuts: Are They Paying For Themselves? | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD
Increased economic activity could account for it.
I don't know.

 

[suncowiam]

Economic statistics show what happened...although from a limited perspective.
They don't show why.

I disagree that measures his administration took were good for the economy.
Certainly, denying assistance to homeowners being foreclosed upon is harmful.
And while this will slow recovery, I see no reason that it provides stability.
Let's consider what caused the instability.
High LTV loans & unrealistically high prices pose problems.
If a home's value falls due to poor local economics, then the owner has no equity,
& typically cannot afford the costs of selling, principal payoff, & moving to where
the work is. Without good employment, the property goes into foreclosure.
This causes a loss not just for the homeowner, but also for the lender.
(They lose money on foreclosures.) And on top of that, when the bank
sells the home at a loss, the loss becomes taxable income for the borrower.
The IRS takes it's pound of flesh always.

The Obama administration did nothing to remove these risk factors.
They even exacerbated the problem with regulatory incentives to
foreclose rather than renegotiate.

Recent tax reform reduces the housing bubble incentive by limiting
tax subsidies for borrowing & property taxes. It's impossible to show
statistically how prices would be relatively lower, but one can reason
that if costs go up, then borrowers will qualify for smaller loans.

What you say does not actually mirror my own reality of the housing market. I'm actually an investor of residentials as you might suspect from our previous conversations.

Foreclosing could be the safer path for both borrowers and lenders. It is cutting lost from borrowers that could not guarantee their end of the bargain and giving it to new borrowers that could but at a more restrictive requirement. One of my properties is a foreclosure. There was a huge foreclosure boom in the market to reignite the housing market.

I see your argument about renegotiation but I think it's a system that allowed for both the original borrowers to negotiate or new borrowers to buy in. We can't say one system was better than the other because it will depend on the final deal, for the bank, for the original borrower and for the new borrower...

 

[Revoltingest]

Foreclosing could be the safer path for both borrowers and lenders. It is cutting lost from borrowers that could not guarantee their end of the bargain and giving it to new borrowers that could but at a more restrictive requirement. One of my properties is a foreclosure. There was a huge foreclosure boom in the market to reignite the housing market.

I vigorously disagree regarding how preference for foreclosure was favored under Obama's
reign. I prefer giving the lender a free hand to decide how to reduce losses.
Since you're familiar with the residential industry, you know that distressed properties
lose much value as soon as the home owner (former) loses equity &/or vacates.
Such properties aren't properly maintained, are at greater risk of vandalism/theft,
endure much higher insurance costs, & are harder to sell with long lead times.
Overall losses can be reduced when renegotiating loans with borrowers who are capable
of handling better loan terms, eg, reduced principal, lower monthly payments.
Also, bail-outs would be far more effective per dollar spent if given to borrowers rather
than the lenders. This would keep both parties healthy, unlike the policy of letting
borrowers suffer, & protecting the lenders.

This might sound rather socialist or generous with taxpayer money, but I seek
the most cost effective policy possible in our existing political environment.
A doctrinaire libertarian solution wouldn't be even remotely politically possible.

I see your argument about renegotiation but I think it's a system that allowed for both the original borrowers to negotiate or new borrowers to buy in. We can't say one system was better than the other because it will depend on the final deal, for the bank, for the original borrower and for the new borrower...

If a bank would prefer to renegotiate, but the fed says no, this worsens the
problem. I also favor income tax forgiveness for borrowers who have
forgiven principal & interest. Again, this isn't out of generosity, but rather
it's a policy which would enable more people to survive the disaster.

I've been there & done that....I've paid income tax on principal waived,
& had to prove this cash on hand in order to qualify for new loans.
By deft & luck, I managed. Many others could not, causing great loss.

 

[1robin]

Did you honestly read all the articles you posted? Or did you just grab headlines that supported your views?

For the purposes for which they were initially supplied I only looked at the articles lead ins.

Like I said earlier, your articles did not fully support your view and added caveats that you did not choose to mention. Do I need to link those articles for you again?

Those articles were designed to do two things. Show that Obama's recovery was very slow and that he spent unimaginable amounts of money to achieve what he did. They succeeded 100% at those two goals. Now if you will ever do what I asked you two last night we can dig further into articles and graphs. What I supplied so far was done with high speed but if I feel your point merits investment to challenge we can slow things down a bit and be more thorough.

Anyways... So you chose to add bold face and colored fonts in your final comment as if that made it more organized. Too bad, you didn't start that way and could have used your own advice for all the long responses before.

No, it was to show you an example of an option available to you to format your post in a better way.

Let me conclude. I agree with you that Obama didn't have the best recovery. Did I say he did? He recovered and had a very stable growth. He then presented a good economy for Trump to make better. He didn't have a bad economy nor did he have continuous failing trends.

So is this your official position that you wish to defend that I asked for last night?

 

[1robin]

How do you think Bush's economy resulted with one of the worst crashes in US history? .

I will just add a few points. You asked why the economy crashed in Bush's term. Many reasons but the main reason was that Carter invented a housing bubble which Clinton doubled down on. Conservatives tried every trick in the book to warn congressional lefties that a housing bubble was set to but but were shrugged off without serious consideration.

While I am arguing that Obama's recovery was slow my point is compounded because it was slow despite his shoveling money into the fire as fast as he could go. Supposedly he spent well over 1.5 trillion directly to end the recession and we only got anemic growth as the end result. A huge part of my point is the lack of bang for our buck with Obama. people just don't appreciate what is being said when talking about trillions of dollars. Obama's version was bad but both sides do it. I just heard on the radio that the current budget is running a trillion deficit. Doing this year after year unless your in an interstellar war is economic suicide. Forget the social policies of the left and right we are going to be an economic wasteland within our children's lifetime.

 

[suncowiam]

I will just add a few points. You asked why the economy crashed in Bush's term. Many reasons but the main reason was that Carter invented a housing bubble which Clinton doubled down on. Conservatives tried every trick in the book to warn congressional lefties that a housing bubble was set to but but were shrugged off without serious consideration.

While I am arguing that Obama's recovery was slow my point is compounded because it was slow despite his shoveling money into the fire as fast as he could go. Supposedly he spent well over 1.5 trillion directly to end the recession and we only got anemic growth as the end result. A huge part of my point is the lack of bang for our buck with Obama. people just don't appreciate what is being said when talking about trillions of dollars. Obama's version was bad but both sides do it. I just heard on the radio that the current budget is running a trillion deficit. Doing this year after year unless your in an interstellar war is economic suicide. Forget the social policies of the left and right we are going to be an economic wasteland within our children's lifetime.

Sorry, as I don't have much time tonight to respond.

You said you proved 100% two points from a previous comment.

1) Obama's recovery was one of the slowest.

2) Obama invested a lot and his return was low.

Point 1, we've discussed and I agreed to that. You have not proven point 2 actually. You linked an article that only showed how much Obama spent. It never suggested or compared his spending to other economies. Referencing total cash spent without reference to other comparables does not show the value of the cash. A dollar in the 1900s is not worth the same dollar in the 2000s due to inflation. For a fair comparison, we have to normalize the cash spent against cost of commodities, services, inflation and assets. Then that will paint a fair picture of how much each president spent against the other.

Anyhows... I probably won't get back to this for a while. I have a busy weekend.

Thanks

 

[1robin]

Sorry, as I don't have much time tonight to respond.

You said you proved 100% two points from a previous comment.

1) Obama's recovery was one of the slowest.

2) Obama invested a lot and his return was low.

Point 1, we've discussed and I agreed to that.

Ok.

You have not proven point 2 actually.

Keep in mind that in the post where I supplied that data my claim was that Obama's recovery was slow despite his spending over $700 billion in just one stimulus bill. That is what my sources proved. Your using them for some other purpose and we will see what I need to do to meet this new challenge.

You linked an article that only showed how much Obama spent.

That is pretty much exactly what I intended to do.

It never suggested or compared his spending to other economies. Referencing total cash spent without reference to other comparables does not show the value of the cash. A dollar in the 1900s is not worth the same dollar in the 2000s due to inflation. For a fair comparison, we have to normalize the cash spent against cost of commodities, services, inflation and assets. Then that will paint a fair picture of how much each president spent against the other.

Well I have seen the numbers comparing what he spent compared to other presidents. It depends on what magic is used in the math but Obama is always up there at the top of the peak but the amount of money I am talking about in this case is what he spent specifically to try and counter the depression. That is the amount of money when compared to his results that I think make his recovery weak IMO.

Anyhows... I probably won't get back to this for a while. I have a busy weekend.

That is fine I am kind of burned out on debating at the moment anyway.

Thanks

 

[metis]

Just a reminder that it was both Bernanke and Paulson, both conservative economists, that advised Obama to put forth the stimulus package. As a matter of fact, that which was passed was half of what Bernanke recommended. In his second term, once the economy was moving forward, then his administration sharply cut back on spending, as he should have according to both conservative and Neo-Keynesian economists (read Stiglitz's "Freefall" for more details on that).

Trump's tax cuts that is feeding the deficit big time, otoh, was passed at a time when unemployment was low and the economy doing well, which no serious conservative would ever recommend doing with this being the case.

 

[suncowiam]

Well I have seen the numbers comparing what he spent compared to other presidents. It depends on what magic is used in the math but Obama is always up there at the top of the peak but the amount of money I am talking about in this case is what he spent specifically to try and counter the depression. That is the amount of money when compared to his results that I think make his recovery weak IMO.

It was low but it lasted for his entire presidency of 8 years. I like charts and data because, IMO, it paints the overall picture much better than the speculations you, I, and others are offering.

The overall production of his 8 years could have been more than others even if previous economies had a better recovery. It is the aggregate of the full presidency that we have to consider. If any recoveries is followed by a recession or depression, than that needs to be considered also during a presidency. Bush's recovery was suggested to be better than Obama's. This was used as a comparison to prove that Obama's was low. But we know, that Bush created one of the worst financial bubble with the ensuing crash and crisis. So, that article didn't consider the overall sum of Bush's entire economy.

As I noted before, we have to consider that a bursting economy is in more danger of bubble because the value of cash is not correctly backed by it's physical collateral or asset. IMO, we simply cannot suggest a bigger slope or burst is a better economy. The bigger burst places our economy more at risk. It is the steady rate of gain that I would argue creates a long lasting good economy. Consider how this parallels the various forms of investment. The bigger the potential, the more risky of loss. Bonds and CDs have the lower risks but have steady gains. Stocks have the highest risk because the collateral is more of ideal or confidence of the company or product.

IMO, if the overall first order differential of a presidency's economy is positive then I will consider that a good economy. The higher the number, the better the economy.

Again, I disclose fully that these are my speculations and opinions.

 

[suncowiam]

I vigorously disagree regarding how preference for foreclosure was favored under Obama's
reign. I prefer giving the lender a free hand to decide how to reduce losses.
Since you're familiar with the residential industry, you know that distressed properties
lose much value as soon as the home owner (former) loses equity &/or vacates.
Such properties aren't properly maintained, are at greater risk of vandalism/theft,
endure much higher insurance costs, & are harder to sell with long lead times.
Overall losses can be reduced when renegotiating loans with borrowers who are capable
of handling better loan terms, eg, reduced principal, lower monthly payments.
Also, bail-outs would be far more effective per dollar spent if given to borrowers rather
than the lenders. This would keep both parties healthy, unlike the policy of letting
borrowers suffer, & protecting the lenders.

This might sound rather socialist or generous with taxpayer money, but I seek
the most cost effective policy possible in our existing political environment.
A doctrinaire libertarian solution wouldn't be even remotely politically possible.

If a bank would prefer to renegotiate, but the fed says no, this worsens the
problem. I also favor income tax forgiveness for borrowers who have
forgiven principal & interest. Again, this isn't out of generosity, but rather
it's a policy which would enable more people to survive the disaster.

I've been there & done that....I've paid income tax on principal waived,
& had to prove this cash on hand in order to qualify for new loans.
By deft & luck, I managed. Many others could not, causing great loss.

In general, I would agree with you that the business should have more freedom to do business as it pleases.

BUT... Let's keep in mind that it was primarily the lender's role for lending out too much cash that was part of the cause of Bush's real estate bubble crash. Bush didn't regulate their lending practices enough so the cash that flowed was not properly backed by the actual value of the physical property. We know this in hindsight. Specifically, it was the money lent to fixer uppers whose business model was to recuperate the property and resell for profit. The main problem with this model was that if the buyers could not sell with in a short period of time, then they would start draining cash because they did not have a long term annual income. So many simply defaulted but we don't blame borrowers for trying to borrow cash. We have to blame businesses, specifically, the lenders for having bad risk management.

So, in that perspective, Obama was right to regulate the lenders. He handcuffed them to create a foreclosure boom for other buyers that knew the previous model was not sustainable. He cut losses and solely placed the losses on the government and the lenders, because that was where the mismanagement came from.

Original borrowers had to default and be protected by filing bankruptcy. New borrowers can come in and continue the economy but at more sustainable values.

 

[Revoltingest]

BUT... Let's keep in mind that it was primarily the lender's role for lending out too much cash that was part of the cause of Bush's real estate bubble crash.....

I wouldn't call it "Bush's crash", given that the underlying risk factors preceded him.
This was also true of the trigger, ie, 9/11, which was the result of numerous long
standing domestic & foreign policies. High LTV loans, loans to risky borrowers,
heavy ownership subsidies, & institutionalized inflation were the norm before his
administration. Those created both the price bubble & the dangers of it bursting.

Note also that these risky practices continued, & some were even made worse under
the Obama administration, eg, foreclosing on properties unnecessarily, causing much
financial loss & personal turmoil. His relief programs for homeowners specifically
excluded borrowers in trouble. A single late loan payment made one ineligible
(a friend found this out by applying).

....Bush didn't regulate their lending practices enough so the cash that flowed was not properly backed by the actual value of the physical property. We know this in hindsight.
k

I agree that high LTV loans are too risky. But prior & subsequent presidents & Congress
are continuing the same policies. It would've been politically impossible for Bush to
convince Congress to stop high LTV & other risky lending because the political fallout
would've been unendurable.
There's a powerful lobby of homeowners who want to borrow to the hilt, & have governments
(state & fed) subsidize the interest & property tax expenses. Note that in commercial real
estate lenders typically wanted about 30% equity as a condition of lending. This would be
a much more reasonable requirement for homes. Then, were there an economic decline,
owners would still have equity, & could afford to sell & move to where work is.

Specifically, it was the money lent to fixer uppers whose business model was to recuperate the property and resell for profit. The main problem with this model was that if the buyers could not sell with in a short period of time, then they would start draining cash because they did not have a long term annual income. So many simply defaulted but we don't blame borrowers for trying to borrow cash. We have to blame businesses, specifically, the lenders for having bad risk management.

I saw very few investors buying properties to fix up for the purpose of reselling. (This never
looked profitable to me.) So I don't believe they were a significant portion of borrowers.
Moreover, such investors typically cannot finance the cost of improvements. so they bring
cash to the deal to enable adding equity. This is low risk.

To buy a property for quick resale has a high hurdle, ie, about 10% total transfer costs,
in addition to carrying costs. And any profit earned is short term gain, so it's taxed at
ordinary income tax rates. This is uninspiring.

So, in that perspective, Obama was right to regulate the lenders. He handcuffed them to create a foreclosure boom for other buyers that knew the previous model was not sustainable.

A "foreclosure boom" meant that assets were taken from some owners, & sold at a distressed
property discount. Aside from this not creating any value, it's a heinous practice because
of the woe caused those who lose their properties. A great deal of real wealth is lost to
physical damage & lawyers (who suck vast sums from the process).

If those assets could've been kept in the hands of owners still capable of paying off
the loan, this would've been the more financially & socially responsible thing to do.

He cut losses and solely placed the losses on the government and the lenders, because that was where the mismanagement came from.

I disagree that this cuts losses. When a loan goes bad, & the property is sold for
less than the principal & interest owed. This actually increases losses relative to
renegotiating with the original borrower/owner. The lender should be the one who
decides how to minimize his own losses. It should not be decided by some broad
policy mass foreclosure without regard for the borrower's or lender's interests.

Original borrowers had to default and be protected by filing bankruptcy. New borrowers can come in and continue the economy but at more sustainable values.

There's still a net loss with this approach. Instead of foreclosing, &
selling at a loss to a buyer, renegotiating the loan with the existing
borrower at more favorable payment terms can result in a lower loss.
Costs avoided by doing this:
- Legal costs
- Carrying costs between acquisition & sale (eg, opportunity cost, interest,
maintenance, insurance, property taxes, utilities, management)
- Damage due to vacancy or hostile evicted party
- Buyer loan origination costs
- Buyer acquisition costs
- Original borrower's income tax liability for the lender's loss