NY Times Article About Price Protection for Home Sellers

after looking over the site, it seems t me that the company under-states the exent of price declines so as to reduce the size of he claims they pay. My house is NOT worth $808,000 as the site says. Any thoughts?

i think its your bedtime. sweet dreams.

Let's see...... Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were under capitalized to do essentially this same thing........

They have 100% of the reserves required to meet claims according to THEIR model, and they do not have big money backing them up (no reinsurance). Heads, they win, tails you lose. It's really criminal that the Times publishes this marketing crap in the same exact paper where they describe the problems on page 1. Is this editor really that stupid?

At least the FMs have the implicit full faith and credit of the U.S. taxpayer, 30yrs.

you missed my point: if THEY failed WITH "the implicit full faith and credit of the U.S. taxpayer", then why would you trust anyone with almost infinitely LESS?

"Is this editor really that stupid? "

Having read the Real Estate section of the NY Times for over 3 decades, I can tell you that there have been many, many times where I have seen page 1 articles where i just shook my head that ANYONE would believe the BS in them, much less having been 'fact checked', etc.

I got your point, but I think you missed mine. Freddie/Fannie creditors are still getting paid (the ones for whom FM was/is providing insurance), so how exactly have they failed in the eyes of the insuree? Hell, even the preferred are still being paid (too much pain for the regional banks if Uncle Sam didn't step up for them), just the common got wiped out. You think Uncle Sam is going to step up when these knuckleheads blow up? Buying insurance from too-big-to-fail quasi-government companies with an implicit govt backing wraught with moral hazard is one thing: you might get paid when things blow up, as turned out to be the case this time. To do so from these guys takes a certain level of stupid.

Isn't it a little late for the insurance? This would have been an effective product BEFORE the crash.

inonada, Fanny and Freddy failed. Flat fact. It was ONLY the backing that saved the creditors. So the point is the same as you are making, YOU NEED TO HAVE THAT, otherwise.........