Jake Silverman

If I'm a developer and I'm going to take a 10% loss on the remaining units that I have unsold, I'm either going to do that by taking them into inventory now and

bleeding out on my inventory loan payment each month and then maybe eventually going delinquent or having to sell them to the market at a loss and continually chase the market down.

And that allows for maybe more organic price discovery, which I would prefer, right?

Or

I go delinquent and the lender takes them back and they sell them at a loss.

Either way, I end up in a loss position or the government buys them at a deep discount and I realize the loss that way.

I don't think that this is appropriate, period, and I agree with you and I'm not trying to say that I do, but if that's what they're proposing...

I think that they're doing so to make it more palatable than, hey, we're going to give these guys the original strike price of the pre-con YOLO buyers who were paying $1,200 or $1,400 a foot, and they're going to materialize all of their profits.

That's beyond a bailout at that point.

That's my assumption here.

Like, I don't think it's governments are never proactive.

Well, I underwrote that this was the case three years ago.

We calculated at values then when they're down 10% from that.

But Ben and I ran a report for a couple of guys that we calculated there was like 30 billion in unrealized losses in the market.

And the exposure to the capital stack, the construction loans for this was your charter banks.

when the government steps in to bail out these entities, that is an admission that this is a systemically significant event and that it requires government support for them to do it.

Should we let all of these entities fail so that we can experience what I would call economic Darwinism and evolution by natural selection?

Yes, I agree with that.

I totally agree.

And I think it's really easy for most people to say that, but also most people are not positioned like,