View Full Version : Obama loses a big one in the Senate
b756561
04-30-2009, 10:54 PM
Today "The Chosen One" lost a major vote in the Senate. By a vote of 51-45 the Senate turned down Obama's request for judges to be able to order a lending institution to reduce the principal on a homeowners loan. Check it out. http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/30/news/economy/cramdown/index.htm?postversion=2009043015
drgnbkr
04-30-2009, 11:17 PM
Today "The Chosen One" lost a major vote in the Senate. By a vote of 51-45 the Senate turned down Obama's request for judges to be able to order a lending institution to reduce the principal on a homeowners loan. Check it out. http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/30/news/economy/cramdown/index.htm?postversion=2009043015
Whatever...it's probably a token deal..
Curious as to what you think the benefits are of this being voted down.
b756561
04-30-2009, 11:40 PM
Curious as to what you think the benefits are of this being voted down.
As the story said, "Senate Republicans and some moderate Democrats were concerned about the bill's impact and about the growing resentment among homeowners in good standing." I played by the rules, I bought a house I could afford to pay for. Are they going to lower the amount I owe on my house? Yeah right. Everybody needs to learn you can't have steak on a hamburger budget. In the long run they, and the country, will be better off.
http://smiliesftw.com/x/mad_1.gif
Just to be clear we re talking about people in BK who can't pay. Since they can't pay, they will be foreclosed on the and the bank will take a bath. It will also drive down home prices in that area, and the country as a whole. Because these customers are in BK, they will not be qualifying for any new mortgage in several years, so the chances of them being able to sell at a lower principal balance and make money and roll into another property is pretty unlikely.
FYI-most of the mods that will be done where there is principal reduction, will not be permanent reduction. Most of the terms, w/lower interest rates are for five years with the terms going back up at that point. The entire UPB is still there, just at a balloon at the end.
b756561
05-01-2009, 12:06 AM
FYI-most of the mods that will be done where there is principal reduction, will not be permanent reduction. Most of the terms, w/lower interest rates are for five years with the terms going back up at that point. The entire UPB is still there, just at a balloon at the end.
I'm sure that all those good, but misguided, democrats in the Senate, not to mention all those bad and shameful republicans, must feel differently from the way you feel. But it did barely fail so I'll give you credit for that one. Still, how much help can this really be to BK people? Are you actually trying to tell me they will have enough for a balloon payment? I WAS born on a farm, but it WASN'T yesterday. And for those that are permanent reduction, please see my earlier post. If it is in the banks best interest, they will already be exploring that option. If it isn't, then the judges don't need to be forcing it down their throats. This is all personal opinion, but I'm the person and this is my opinion.
http://smiliesftw.com/x/fruit.gif
The balloon will come due at the end of 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 years. This recession may last long but not that long. At that point, you might think they can refi the cram down part or sell to cover that.
Apparently you may have been born yesterday smiley man.
b756561
05-01-2009, 12:34 AM
The balloon will come due at the end of 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 years. This recession may last long but not that long. At that point, you might think they can refi the cram down part or sell to cover that.
Apparently you may have been born yesterday smiley man.
No, I have lived long enough to see what happens with balloon payments. I've known too many good people who got snowed into those. Low payments on a car or truck for 5 or 6 years and then boom the balloon is due. I've never seen one who had the money saved up. Oh on paper it looks good, but in real life, it just doen't normally happen. Let's face it, if you are good enough, smart enough, to be putting that money aside every month, then you are smart enough to find a better way. One not so risky.
Some of these smilies are cute. I'm really having fun with them. You see, I'm easily amused. Gotta go. http://smiliesftw.com/x/oshitgay.gif
No, I have lived long enough to see what happens with balloon payments. I've known too many good people who got snowed into those. Low payments on a car or truck for 5 or 6 years and then boom the balloon is due. I've never seen one who had the money saved up. Oh on paper it looks good, but in real life, it just doen't normally happen. Let's face it, if you are good enough, smart enough, to be putting that money aside every month, then you are smart enough to find a better way. One not so risky.
Some of these smilies are cute. I'm really having fun with them. You see, I'm easily amused. Gotta go.
5-6 years on a depreciating asset vs. 20-30-40-50 on an appreciating(the last two years being the exception) asset. I see the similarity.
Let's say they defer 40k on a 400k mortgage. You think that in 20 years the asset might be worth more than 40k?
Balloon on deferred mort principal a bit different than a 08 Mustang in five years.
mojotrain
05-01-2009, 01:36 AM
As the story said, "Senate Republicans and some moderate Democrats were concerned about the bill's impact and about the growing resentment among homeowners in good standing." I played by the rules, I bought a house I could afford to pay for. Are they going to lower the amount I owe on my house? Yeah right. Everybody needs to learn you can't have steak on a hamburger budget. In the long run they, and the country, will be better off.
http://smiliesftw.com/x/mad_1.gif
I think, "the growing resentment among homeowners in good standing" is a much a victory as anything. Some one is listening to the ones paying the bills. It's a hard lesson for the gimmys to learn but once they do the country will be better off.
mojotrain
05-01-2009, 01:41 AM
5-6 years on a depreciating asset vs. 20-30-40-50 on an appreciating(the last two years being the exception) asset. I see the similarity.
Let's say they defer 40k on a 400k mortgage. You think that in 20 years the asset might be worth more than 40k?
Balloon on deferred mort principal a bit different than a 08 Mustang in five years.
If you can't pay, don't buy. A lesson learned. It's that simple.
b756561
05-01-2009, 09:03 AM
5-6 years on a depreciating asset vs. 20-30-40-50 on an appreciating(the last two years being the exception) asset. I see the similarity.
Let's say they defer 40k on a 400k mortgage. You think that in 20 years the asset might be worth more than 40k?
Balloon on deferred mort principal a bit different than a 08 Mustang in five years.
Again, if it is in the banks best interest, they will already be exploring that option. If it isn't, then the judges don't need to be forcing it down their throats. It should not be up to the borrower, they are in over their heads already. It should not be up to the judges, it's not their money being given away. It is and it should be up to the people lending the money. If the borrower doesn't like that, NO ONE is forcing them to take the loans to begin with. They made the bad choices. They should be the ones to suffer from their actions, not the banks and society in general.
In your book, when does PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY come in? Must the government do everything for everybody at all times? I'm so sick and tired of hearing the same old thing, "It's not my fault." It's those big, bad banks. It's not my fault, I had a bad childhood. It's not my fault, I didn't know I was going to lose my job, I didn't know the economy was going to tank, I didn't know my wife was going to divorce me, blah, blah, blah. It's not my fault, it's not my fault, it's not my fault. Good people sometimes make bad decisions. Tough, live with it. It IS their fault no matter what kind of excuse they try to give. THEY borrowed the money, THEY got in the difficult position, THEY are defaulting on their loans, THEY need to pay the price for THEIR bad decisions.
stevefoxsc
05-01-2009, 09:27 AM
As the story said, "Senate Republicans and some moderate Democrats were concerned about the bill's impact and about the growing resentment among homeowners in good standing." I played by the rules, I bought a house I could afford to pay for. Are they going to lower the amount I owe on my house? Yeah right. Everybody needs to learn you can't have steak on a hamburger budget. In the long run they, and the country, will be better off.
http://smiliesftw.com/x/mad_1.gif
actually HEB had a steak sale check this. Burger went for 7.45 for a pack of 6
ribeye's were going for 2-3.
b756561
05-01-2009, 09:33 AM
actually HEB had a steak sale check this. Burger went for 7.45 for a pack of 6
ribeye's were going for 2-3.
Looks like I'm shopping at the wrong store.
Firebird
05-01-2009, 10:01 AM
Again, if it is in the banks best interest, they will already be exploring that option. If it isn't, then the judges don't need to be forcing it down their throats. It should not be up to the borrower, they are in over their heads already. It should not be up to the judges, it's not their money being given away. It is and it should be up to the people lending the money. If the borrower doesn't like that, NO ONE is forcing them to take the loans to begin with. They made the bad choices. They should be the ones to suffer from their actions, not the banks and society in general.
In your book, when does PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY come in? Must the government do everything for everybody at all times? I'm so sick and tired of hearing the same old thing, "It's not my fault." It's those big, bad banks. It's not my fault, I had a bad childhood. It's not my fault, I didn't know I was going to lose my job, I didn't know the economy was going to tank, I didn't know my wife was going to divorce me, blah, blah, blah. It's not my fault, it's not my fault, it's not my fault. Good people sometimes make bad decisions. Tough, live with it. It IS their fault no matter what kind of excuse they try to give. THEY borrowed the money, THEY got in the difficult position, THEY are defaulting on their loans, THEY need to pay the price for THEIR bad decisions.
Once upon a time in America most people believed that if you made stoopid loans or took out stoopid loans....you eventually had to man up and take your haircut. Thhose days are long since gone...
The way I see it, folks like you want the borrower to take personal responsibility. Folks like Obama want the bankers to take personal responsibility. Very few think they both should take personal responsibility. A fool and his money are soon parted.....works both ways.
Again, if it is in the banks best interest, they will already be exploring that option. If it isn't, then the judges don't need to be forcing it down their throats. It should not be up to the borrower, they are in over their heads already. It should not be up to the judges, it's not their money being given away. It is and it should be up to the people lending the money. If the borrower doesn't like that, NO ONE is forcing them to take the loans to begin with. They made the bad choices. They should be the ones to suffer from their actions, not the banks and society in general.
In your book, when does PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY come in? Must the government do everything for everybody at all times? I'm so sick and tired of hearing the same old thing, "It's not my fault." It's those big, bad banks. It's not my fault, I had a bad childhood. It's not my fault, I didn't know I was going to lose my job, I didn't know the economy was going to tank, I didn't know my wife was going to divorce me, blah, blah, blah. It's not my fault, it's not my fault, it's not my fault. Good people sometimes make bad decisions. Tough, live with it. It IS their fault no matter what kind of excuse they try to give. THEY borrowed the money, THEY got in the difficult position, THEY are defaulting on their loans, THEY need to pay the price for THEIR bad decisions.
Not at all, I am a pragmatist. My question is to what you thought the benefits are. They appear to be to show those dumb people a lesson. That's a dumb reason in my opinion. We are where we are and it is what it is.
Many people are in their homes and should never have gotten the loans because they simply could not afford them. Many people are in their homes and have had an event, job loss/reduction in income/medical event that has caused them not to be able to afford them. Traditionally medical events are a leading cause of filing bankruptcy.
Note, all of this is in regards to people in bankrutcy, as I stated earlier ther e is little chance of them qualifying for another mortgage any time in the near future. Without drastic measures the banks will foreclose.
Foreclosure is not a good option for anyone, the homeowner, the bank, or the community. The housing market is a key driver of this problem we are in now. Having more people not paying anything on their homes, sending more properties into REO, so the banks can sit on them, which is driving down those home prices and the remainder of the housing market as well isn't really attractive to me.
At least we'll show some people somehing though.
Firebird
05-01-2009, 10:15 AM
Not at all, I am a pragmatist. My question is to what you thought the benefits are. They appear to be to show those dumb people a lesson. That's a dumb reason in my opinion. We are where we are and it is what it is.
Many people are in their homes and should never have gotten the loans because they simply could not afford them. Many people are in their homes and have had an event, job loss/reduction in income/medical event that has caused them not to be able to afford them. Traditionally medical events are a leading cause of filing bankruptcy.
Note, all of this is in regards to people in bankrutcy, as I stated earlier ther e is little chance of them qualifying for another mortgage any time in the near future. Without drastic measures the banks will foreclose.
Foreclosure is not a good option for anyone, the homeowner, the bank, or the community. The housing market is a key driver of this problem we are in now. Having more people not paying anything on their homes, sending more properties into REO, so the banks can sit on them, which is driving down those home prices and the remainder of the housing market as well isn't really attractive to me.
At least we'll show some people somehing though.
Maybe so but the point is that as a lender....I have no responsibility to check and see what kind of loan I am making or what kind of debt I am buying. I don't need to take responsibility for my money. The only responsibility I have is to wring that damn creditor for all he is worth. And the U.S. government needs to help me do it:)
mad_fan
05-01-2009, 10:26 AM
I would have no issue with this proposal if they made it available to all Americans...
I have a few years left on my 15 year mortgage and would love to reduce my $500 per month house payment to say $300...and have the option to pay for balance at the end...or drag it out to 30 years...
It's the banks problem for lending me the money in the first place...
And I'd use the money to stimulate the economy...everybody wins...
Firebird
05-01-2009, 10:29 AM
I would have no issue with this proposal if they made it available to all Americans...
I have a few years left on my 15 year mortgage and would love to reduce my $500 per month house payment to say $300...and have the option to pay for balance at the end...or drag it out to 30 years...
It's the banks problem for lending me the money in the first place...
And I'd use the money to stimulate the economy...everybody wins...
It is open to all Americans...all you have to do is go bankrupt.:)
Firebird
05-01-2009, 10:34 AM
If you can't pay, don't buy. A lesson learned. It's that simple.
If he can't pay you back, don't lend. Another simple lesson learned.:)
mad_fan
05-01-2009, 10:38 AM
It is open to all Americans...all you have to do is go bankrupt.:)
But I can't declare bankruptcy...I'm responsible...:o
mad_fan
05-01-2009, 10:40 AM
If he can't pay you back, don't lend. Another simple lesson learned.:)
No kidding...
If the administration could just get that through their heads...they'd quit pressuring the banks to loan...
Firebird
05-01-2009, 10:41 AM
No kidding...
If the administration could just get that through their heads...they'd quit pressuring the banks to loan...
I agree.
Firebird
05-01-2009, 10:46 AM
But I can't declare bankruptcy...I'm responsible...:o
Speaking as someone very closey affiliated with a creditor's attorney, he assures me that everyone who declares bankruptcy is irresponsible.;)
15Adragon
05-01-2009, 10:47 AM
I agree.
Watch out for those conservative tendencies. They could gradually overtake you. ;)
mad_fan
05-01-2009, 10:49 AM
Speaking as someone very closey affiliated with a creditor's attorney, he assures me that everyone who declares bankruptcy is irresponsible.;)
It's like getting an STD...:rolleyes:
mad_fan
05-01-2009, 10:52 AM
I agree.
Just for the fun of it...I'm going to go downstairs to the BoA (not my mortgage lender)...and see if they'll give me some money...
I owe about $25,000 on a $110,000 home...
What do you think they'll lend me???
Firebird
05-01-2009, 10:54 AM
Just for the fun of it...I'm going to go downstairs to the BoA (not my mortgage lender)...and see if they'll give me some money...
I owe about $25,000 on a $110,000 home...
What do you think they'll lend me???
You'll have to ask them...I am "responsible"...and thus have not taken on any debt.:)
But I imagine that if you bring in some copies of your tax returns...you might could wring some water out of that stone.
mad_fan
05-01-2009, 10:58 AM
You'll have to ask them...I am "responsible"...and thus have not taken on any debt.:)
But I imagine that if you bring in some copies of your tax returns...you might could wring some water out of that stone.
Well I figure if I get sick...and can't work...and have a second on my house...a judge will reduce my payment anyway...so I might be better off consuming more know...I could use the money to buy all kinds of stuff I 'want'...
Just for the fun of it...I'm going to go downstairs to the BoA (not my mortgage lender)...and see if they'll give me some money...
I owe about $25,000 on a $110,000 home...
What do you think they'll lend me???
$63k. Getting the procesing done will be a pain. Also, much ahrder than 2 years ago to get the underwriting done on a BFS. Apps are easy these days, approvals are hard.
Well I figure if I get sick...and can't work...and have a second on my house...a judge will reduce my payment anyway...so I might be better off consuming more know...I could use the money to buy all kinds of stuff I 'want'...
MAny times, people that are sick and can't work have other things on their mind than making/saving a buck off their home.
b756561
05-01-2009, 12:14 PM
MAny times, people that are sick and can't work have other things on their mind than making/saving a buck off their home.
You are correct. And the world is not a perfect place. I feel sorry for them. Does that mean I want to help them pay their bills? Are they going to be there to help me in my time of need? I do seriously doubt it. Therefore I have made sure that I and my family are protected. We have money invested in school bonds (not a high profit maker I know, but it is a safe one,) we keep all our outstanding debt very low, we have lived in the same house for over 25 years, we never buy a new car unless we have our other vehicles paid for, and my wife and I always have a second part-time job just to keep our options open. That money goes straight to savings and always has. If need be, we could pay off all our debt and still live comfortably for quite some time. In case of illness or death we have very good insurance that we pay heavily for and we have a very strong and supportive extended family unit to fall back on if worse comes to worse. Why do we have all this? Why do we work hard and save such a large amount each month? Well, my credit rating is above 800, I take pride in the fact that we don't have to depend upon someone else for our livelyhood, and I believe in personal responsibility. I started with nothing (and I still have most of it left) and I am where I am through hard work on my part. Yes, others can take responsibility for their own lives and do the same thing I have. But no, why should they when the government can take it away from me and just give it to them.
http://smiliesftw.com/x/pity.gif
Firebird
05-01-2009, 12:27 PM
You are correct. And the world is not a perfect place. I feel sorry for them. Does that mean I want to help them pay their bills?
Who's asking you to help pay their bills? Under the bankruptcy plan as presented, part of the bills simply wouldn't get paid. The lender would take a haircut. No one is asking you to pay their mortgage. I could understand your rage if they were, but on this particular issue it just seems like you want to have the pleasure of watching people get foreclosed on. Regardless of what that might do to overall property values in your neighborhood.....
mad_fan
05-01-2009, 12:33 PM
Where's oktober??? I need to buy some 'lifestyle insurance'...while I wait on the government to get it right...
b756561
05-01-2009, 12:51 PM
Who's asking you to help pay their bills? Under the bankruptcy plan as presented, part of the bills simply wouldn't get paid. The lender would take a haircut. No one is asking you to pay their mortgage. I could understand your rage if they were, but on this particular issue it just seems like you want to have the pleasure of watching people get foreclosed on. Regardless of what that might do to overall property values in your neighborhood.....
I like that, "Under the bankruptcy plan as presented, part of the bills simply wouldn't get paid." Excuse me, but you must not be thinking this all the way through. When part of the bills simply wouldn't get paid, when the lenders have to "take a haircut" where do you think they get the money from to cover these losses? Do you think it just magically appears in their bank accounts? Remember, SOMEONE always has to pay the bills. TINSTAAFL - There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. That is always the very first thing taught in an Economics class. No matter what it is, SOMEBODY has to pay for it somewhere down the line. To stay in business the lending institution must make a profit. When they have to "take a haircut" on a loan, when the bills simply don't get paid, they have to replace that lost principal and interest with money from somewhere else. Where is that somewhere else? They have to raise the rates on other customers to make up the shortfall. The lending institution does not take the loss, John Q. Public does when they pay the higher rates for the money they borrowed. Yes they are asking me to help pay their mortgage. Someone always has to pay, is it going to be me or them? I say them.
http://smiliesftw.com/x/pity.gif
Firebird
05-01-2009, 12:55 PM
I like that, "Under the bankruptcy plan as presented, part of the bills simply wouldn't get paid." Excuse me, but you must not be thinking this all the way through. When part of the bills simply wouldn't get paid, when the lenders have to "take a haircut" where do you think they get the money from to cover these losses? Do you think it just magically appears in their bank accounts? Remember, SOMEONE always has to pay the bills. TINSTAAFL - There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. That is always the very first thing taught in an Economics class. No matter what it is, SOMEBODY has to pay for it somewhere down the line. To stay in business the lending institution must make a profit. When they have to "take a haircut" on a loan, when the bills simply don't get paid, they have to replace that lost principal and interest with money from somewhere else. Where is that somewhere else? They have to raise the rates on other customers to make up the shortfall. The lending institution does not take the loss, John Q. Public does when they pay the higher rates for the money they borrowed. Yes they are asking me to help pay their mortgage. Someone always has to pay, is it going to be me or them? I say them.
http://smiliesftw.com/x/pity.gif
Don't take out a loan...and you'll be OK. Enjoy the fact that now people are willing to pay more to use your money.:)
Amazingly, bankruptcy relief has been part of the legal system for years now.......
mad_fan
05-01-2009, 12:58 PM
Don't take out a loan...and you'll be OK. Enjoy the fact that now people are willing to pay more to use your money.:)
Amazingly, bankruptcy relief has been part of the legal system for years now.......
And seemingly...working for years now...
b756561
05-01-2009, 01:06 PM
....Amazingly, bankruptcy relief has been part of the legal system for years now.......
I have no problem with bankrupcy. I have a problem with a judge having the power to make a lender forgive part of a loan on a home mortgage. If you will go back to the beginning of this thread, you will see that is what I have been talking about. I just think it is wrong to give a judge the power to do that.
http://smiliesftw.com/x/joshersweeeee.gif
I like that, "Under the bankruptcy plan as presented, part of the bills simply wouldn't get paid." Excuse me, but you must not be thinking this all the way through. When part of the bills simply wouldn't get paid, when the lenders have to "take a haircut" where do you think they get the money from to cover these losses? Do you think it just magically appears in their bank accounts? Remember, SOMEONE always has to pay the bills. TINSTAAFL - There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. That is always the very first thing taught in an Economics class. No matter what it is, SOMEBODY has to pay for it somewhere down the line. To stay in business the lending institution must make a profit. When they have to "take a haircut" on a loan, when the bills simply don't get paid, they have to replace that lost principal and interest with money from somewhere else. Where is that somewhere else? They have to raise the rates on other customers to make up the shortfall. The lending institution does not take the loss, John Q. Public does when they pay the higher rates for the money they borrowed. Yes they are asking me to help pay their mortgage. Someone always has to pay, is it going to be me or them? I say them.
So, what happen now to the homeowner, the lender and you when they can't pay?
mad_fan
05-01-2009, 01:29 PM
So, what happen now to the homeowner, the lender and you when they can't pay?
Their house is probably nicer than mine...and I can afford more house...I might just buy it if it hits the market...
Their house is probably nicer than mine...and I can afford more house...I might just buy it if it hits the market...
What did the BoA guy say?
mad_fan
05-01-2009, 01:32 PM
What did the BoA guy say?
SHE said no problem...
AFTER pulling up my money market account...;)
b756561
05-01-2009, 01:35 PM
So, what happen now to the homeowner, the lender and you when they can't pay?
This answer assumes that the bank and the homeowner can't work out a solution and the worst case scenerio takes place, the lender forecloses on the house. Hopefully the homeowner will learn from his mistake and not borrow more than he can afford in the future. He may have to move to a smaller house or an apartment, maybe buy a double-wide. But this is where he should have been to begin with. Buy small, work your way up. The lender will put the house on the market and hopefully at least break even. Even if he doesn't the lender will, most likely, sell the house at a price larger than the homeowner would have paid for it if the judge had ordered a reduction in principal. He may lose some but he won't lose as much. As for me, I'm paying my bills. I did not buy way above my means. Hopefully I won't have to worry about bankrupcy. If I do, I will have no one to blame but myself.
Unlike what you wrote earlier, I take no pleasure in seeing others get foreclosed on. However, I DO believe in Personal Responsibility. I could buy a bigger house, I could buy newer and faster cars. I could try to impress everybody by spending every dime I earn. Instead I live within my means and I don't get into financial trouble to begin with. Is that really asking too much of others to do the same thing?
This answer assumes that the bank and the homeowner can't work out a solution and the worst case scenerio takes place, the lender forecloses on the house. Hopefully the homeowner will learn from his mistake and not borrow more than he can afford in the future. He may have to move to a smaller house or an apartment, maybe buy a double-wide. But this is where he should have been to begin with. Buy small, work your way up. The lender will put the house on the market and hopefully at least break even. Even if he doesn't the lender will, most likely, sell the house at a price larger than the homeowner would have paid for it if the judge had ordered a reduction in principal. He may lose some but he won't lose as much. As for me, I'm paying my bills. I did not buy way above my means. Hopefully I won't have to worry about bankrupcy. If I do, I will have no one to blame but myself.
Unlike what you wrote earlier, I take no pleasure in seeing others get foreclosed on. However, I DO believe in Personal Responsibility. I could buy a bigger house, I could buy newer and faster cars. I could try to impress everybody by spending every dime I earn. Instead I live within my means and I don't get into financial trouble to begin with. Is that really asking too much of others to do the same thing?
Do you know what banks lose when selling homes out of REO?
SHE said no problem...
AFTER pulling up my money market account...;)
And her answer was?
mad_fan
05-01-2009, 01:47 PM
And her answer was?
They can start the paperwork in the local branch...but can't approve anything...
Suggested it would be easier on me if I did it online...
So much for personal banking...:D
They can start the paperwork in the local branch...but can't approve anything...
Suggested it would be easier on me if I did it online...
So much for personal banking...:D
Approvals are hard to come by. Not impossible at all, but almost as difficult as the HAMP stuff rolling out....
b756561
05-01-2009, 02:02 PM
Originally Posted by b756561 http://www.5atexasfootball.com/forum/vB/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.5atexasfootball.com/forum/vB/showthread.php?p=1180087#post1180087)
The lender will put the house on the market and hopefully at least break even. Even if he doesn't the lender will, most likely, sell the house at a price larger than the homeowner would have paid for it if the judge had ordered a reduction in principal. He may lose some but he won't lose as much. As for me, I'm paying my bills. I did not buy way above my means. Hopefully I won't have to worry about bankrupcy. If I do, I will have no one to blame but myself.
Do you know what banks lose when selling homes out of REO?
I would assume the highlighted statement above should answers that question.
However to be perfectly truthful, I actually have no idea what an REO is. Not my line of expertise. Since you are writing about it, I have to assume you do have expertise with it.
As I said before, I would expect the lender and the homeowner to work out something they can both live with before it gets to the point of foreclosure. If they can't then the lender must feel he can get more profit from selling the house on the open market than he can by working out a deal with the homeowner. Again, it is in the lenders best interest to work something out with the homeowner if they can. I just have a problem with a judge having the power to order the lender to take the least favorable path to the benefit of the homeowner. It was the homeowner who didn't keep his end of the bargain, not the lender. If someone gets punished for that, it should be the one who broke the bargain. I'm not saying the lender can't work out a reduction with the homeowner, I'm simply saying I do not believe a judge should be able to force him into doing it at his (the lenders) disadvantage.
Argue this with yourself for a while. I'm hungry, think I'll go to lunch. http://smiliesftw.com/x/cheeseburger3.png
15Adragon
05-01-2009, 02:08 PM
Reminds me of a song from the 80's... "Money for nothing and your (fill in the blank with whatever you want) for free.."
Originally Posted by b756561 [URL="http://www.5atexasfootball.com/forum/vB/showthread.php?p=1180087#post1180087"]
I would assume the highlighted statement above should answers that question.
However to be perfectly truthful, I actually have no idea what an REO is. Not my line of expertise. Since you are writing about it, I have to assume you do have expertise with it.
As I said before, I would expect the lender and the homeowner to work out something they can both live with before it gets to the point of foreclosure.
If they can't then the lender must feel he can get more profit from selling the house on the open market than he can by working out a deal with the homeowner. Again, it is in the lenders best interest to work something out with the homeowner if they can. I just have a problem with a judge having the power to order the lender to take the least favorable path to the benefit of the homeowner. It was the homeowner who didn't keep his end of the bargain, not the lender. If someone gets punished for that, it should be the one who broke the bargain. I'm not saying the lender can't work out a reduction with the homeowner, I'm simply saying I do not believe a judge should be able to force him into doing it at his (the lenders) disadvantage.
Argue this with yourself for a while. I'm hungry, think I'll go to lunch.
OK wimpy, REO = Real Estate Owned, meaning the bank has gone through the FC process. Once a customer is in BK, there really is no dealing with the cutomer, the bank deals w/the court and that's it. They will likely be paying a reduced amount stipulated by the court. Many times they default and thelender can pursue a FC, but either way the process is extended greatly. I mean greatly.
In any case, a conservative estimate is about a 40% haircut on the new value of the home, which almost certainly is below the value the home was appraised, at the time of loan origination. You are probably closer to 55% of the original value after FC/eviction costs, marketing the home, # of days on the market etc.
So who pays that price? You and me, in terms of the interest we pay. That's business as usual what has gone on for years.
Sooo, back to the original answer you gave when asked what you saw as the benefit to this not passing.
As the story said, "Senate Republicans and some moderate Democrats were concerned about the bill's impact and about the growing resentment among homeowners in good standing." I played by the rules, I bought a house I could afford to pay for. Are they going to lower the amount I owe on my house? Yeah right. Everybody needs to learn you can't have steak on a hamburger budget. In the long run they, and the country, will be better off.
Again you seem more concerned with people learning a lesson than the banks taking a bath.
Firebird
05-01-2009, 02:22 PM
OK wimpy, REO = Real Estate Owned, meaning the bank has gone through the FC process. Once a customer is in BK, there really is no dealing with the cutomer, the bank deals w/the court and that's it. They will likely be paying a reduced amount stipulated by the court. Many times they default and thelender can pursue a FC, but either way the process is extended greatly. I mean greatly.
In any case, a conservative estimate is about a 40% haircut on the new value of the home, which almost certainly is below the value the home was appraised, at the time of loan origination. You are probably closer to 55% of the original value after FC/eviction costs, marketing the home, # of days on the market etc.
So who pays that price? You and me, in terms of the interest we pay. That's business as usual what has gone on for years.
Sooo, back to the original answer you gave when asked what you saw as the benefit to this not passing.
Again you seem more concerned with people learning a lesson than the banks taking a bath.
He also seems to be operating under the assumption that the debtor has a "lender" to deal with in any meaningful sense of the word.
mad_fan
05-01-2009, 02:23 PM
OK wimpy, REO = Real Estate Owned, meaning the bank has gone through the FC process. Once a customer is in BK, there really is no dealing with the cutomer, the bank deals w/the court and that's it. They will likely be paying a reduced amount stipulated by the court. Many times they default and thelender can pursue a FC, but either way the process is extended greatly. I mean greatly.
In any case, a conservative estimate is about a 40% haircut on the new value of the home, which almost certainly is below the value the home was appraised, at the time of loan origination. You are probably closer to 55% of the original value after FC/eviction costs, marketing the home, # of days on the market etc.
So who pays that price? You and me, in terms of the interest we pay. That's business as usual what has gone on for years.
Sooo, back to the original answer you gave when asked what you saw as the benefit to this not passing.
Again you seem more concerned with people learning a lesson than the banks taking a bath.
I think we'd pay either way...
Both courses reduce cash flow...and a bank is going to make up the difference...
I think we'd pay either way...
Both courses reduce cash flow...and a bank is going to make up the difference...
That...
was my....point...
dragonpants
05-01-2009, 02:26 PM
Just to be clear we re talking about people in BK who can't pay. Since they can't pay, they will be foreclosed on the and the bank will take a bath. It will also drive down home prices in that area, and the country as a whole. Because these customers are in BK, they will not be qualifying for any new mortgage in several years, so the chances of them being able to sell at a lower principal balance and make money and roll into another property is pretty unlikely.
FYI-most of the mods that will be done where there is principal reduction, will not be permanent reduction. Most of the terms, w/lower interest rates are for five years with the terms going back up at that point. The entire UPB is still there, just at a balloon at the end.
What about the converse oh half empty one. What about the entrepreneurs that will come in and buy these homes and turn and make a profit, expand their business and pay more taxes.
When are people going to accept responsibility for their actions. If you bought a house you could not afford and are going to lose it then you have to suffer the consequences not expect the government to take care of it for you. The past year it has been more difficult to pay my bills so I have to make sacrifices in other parts of my life.
It all goes back to accountability and do not even get me started on predatory lending. The people read or should have and signed a contract. Again not taking responsibility.
He also seems to be operating under the assumption that the debtor has a "lender" to deal with in any meaningful sense of the word.
Most lenders will, even moreso as of next week. But getting them on the phone is an issue. Several articles about that recently.
Firebird
05-01-2009, 02:28 PM
What about the converse oh half empty one. What about the entrepreneurs that will come in and buy these homes and turn and make a profit, expand their business and pay more taxes.
When are people going to accept responsibility for their actions. If you bought a house you could not afford and are going to lose it then you have to suffer the consequences not expect the government to take care of it for you. The past year it has been more difficult to pay my bills so I have to make sacrifices in other parts of my life.
It all goes back to accountability and do not even get me started on predatory lending. The people read or should have and signed a contract. Again not taking responsibility.
Yeah, pied...you're forgetting about how vital it is that we get the house flipping model back on its feet! That's exactly what this country needs.
What about the converse oh half empty one. What about the entrepreneurs that will come in and buy these homes and turn and make a profit, expand their business and pay more taxes.
When are people going to accept responsibility for their actions. If you bought a house you could not afford and are going to lose it then you have to suffer the consequences not expect the government to take care of it for you. The past year it has been more difficult to pay my bills so I have to make sacrifices in other parts of my life.
It all goes back to accountability and do not even get me started on predatory lending. The people read or should have and signed a contract. Again not taking responsibility.
I have no idea what the first statemment means.
In regards to the investors, I really don't see how that fits into this conversation, although your points can be accurate, but in this market they would likely have to wait until the housing prices increase. I think a good argument could be made, by having more people in their homes and not having an even bigger glut of bank owned properties on the market would be more beneficial to raising home prices.
mad_fan
05-01-2009, 02:34 PM
That...
was my....point...
So as a shareholder and customer...I'm getting burned by the non-performer with or without a change in the law...
Kick 'em out...if they won't leave on their own...
I'd rather my bank own a house it didn't want...
I have no idea what the first statemment means.
In regards to the investors, I really don't see how that fits into this conversation, although your points can be accurate, but in this market they would likely have to wait until the housing prices increase. I think a good argument could be made, by having more people in their homes and not having an even bigger glut of bank owned properties on the market would be more beneficial to raising home prices.
http://rightwingchicky.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/389px-an_advertisement_of_the_federalist_-_project_gutenberg_etext_16960.jpg
So as a shareholder and customer...I'm getting burned by the non-performer with or without a change in the law...
Kick 'em out...if they won't leave on their own...
I'd rather my bank own a house it didn't want...
got...it...
Firebird
05-01-2009, 02:37 PM
So as a shareholder and customer...I'm getting burned by the non-performer with or without a change in the law...
Kick 'em out...if they won't leave on their own...
I'd rather my bank own a house it didn't want...
When your subdivisions are full of empty houses with no buyer....the real winner is the American People.
mad_fan
05-01-2009, 02:37 PM
Yeah, pied...you're forgetting about how vital it is that we get the house flipping model back on its feet! That's exactly what this country needs.
It's not the country...it California, Nevada, Florida...
It's only the country when they start handing out the bill...
http://rightwingchicky.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/389px-an_advertisement_of_the_federalist_-_project_gutenberg_etext_16960.jpg
weird
mad_fan
05-01-2009, 02:38 PM
When your subdivisions are full of empty houses with no buyer....the real winner is the American People.
I see this all over Texas..:rolleyes:
Firebird
05-01-2009, 02:39 PM
Use a community bank that made good loans...:)
I see this all over Texas..:rolleyes:
You do if you don't live in bfe Texas.
It's not the country...it California, Nevada, Florida...
It's only the country when they start handing out the bill...
You would likely want to include AZ with those four.
mad_fan
05-01-2009, 02:42 PM
Use a community bank that made good loans...:)
True...You don't see their customers on Dateline explain how they were to stupid to know what their house payment was going to be in 2009...
b756561
05-01-2009, 03:06 PM
......So who pays that price? You and me, in terms of the interest we pay. That's business as usual what has gone on for years.
Sooo, back to the original answer you gave when asked what you saw as the benefit to this not passing.
Again you seem more concerned with people learning a lesson than the banks taking a bath.
Bingo. You are catching on. It is not the banks who did not keep the bargain, it was the homeowners. Why should the bank take the brunt of the hit instead of the ones who caused it to begin with? Yes, I want them to learn a lesson. There are way too many people in this country who think and live as if today is the only day that counts. What about tomorrow when the bills come due? Are they not responsible? Let's change this whole thing around. Let's say the lender is not doing well because of bad lending practices. Let's say the homeowner, through his own hard work and thriftyness, now has a large amount of assets sitting in the bank. Should the lender be able to go to a judge and get the mortgage increased to make it easier on the lender? The homeowner borrowed $200,000 for a house. Can, and should, the judge be able to now order him to pay the bank $300,000 because the lender is in financial trouble. Something tells me you will think this is different. It was the homeowner who didn't keep his end of the contract, why do you insist that the bank be punished for it?
Bingo. You are catching on. It is not the banks who did not keep the bargain, it was the homeowners. Why should the bank take the brunt of the hit instead of the ones who caused it to begin with? Yes, I want them to learn a lesson. There are way too many people in this country who think and live as if today is the only day that counts. What about tomorrow when the bills come due? Are they not responsible? Let's change this whole thing around. Let's say the lender is not doing well because of bad lending practices. Let's say the homeowner, through his own hard work and thriftyness, now has a large amount of assets sitting in the bank. Should the lender be able to go to a judge and get the mortgage increased to make it easier on the lender? The homeowner borrowed $200,000 for a house. Can, and should, the judge be able to now order him to pay the bank $300,000 because the lender is in financial trouble. Something tells me you will think this is different. It was the homeowner who didn't keep his end of the contract, why do you insist that the bank be punished for it?
That might be the dumbest post I have seen on this board in a month. That's saying something.
mad_fan
05-01-2009, 03:10 PM
You do if you don't live in bfe Texas.
Because we don't have an economy in bfe???
Firebird
05-01-2009, 03:15 PM
True...You don't see their customers on Dateline explain how they were to stupid to know what their house payment was going to be in 2009...
Nor have I heard their execs whining about how the Democrats made them give loans to illegal immigrant gardeners.....
mad_fan
05-01-2009, 03:16 PM
Nor have I heard their execs whining about how the Democrats made them give loans to illegal immigrant gardeners.....
They were too small to 'qualify' for that program...
JagFan
05-01-2009, 03:17 PM
What's next? Does the government bail out all the people with credit card debt?
Firebird
05-01-2009, 03:18 PM
Bingo. You are catching on. It is not the banks who did not keep the bargain, it was the homeowners. Why should the bank take the brunt of the hit instead of the ones who caused it to begin with? Yes, I want them to learn a lesson. There are way too many people in this country who think and live as if today is the only day that counts. What about tomorrow when the bills come due? Are they not responsible? Let's change this whole thing around. Let's say the lender is not doing well because of bad lending practices. Let's say the homeowner, through his own hard work and thriftyness, now has a large amount of assets sitting in the bank. Should the lender be able to go to a judge and get the mortgage increased to make it easier on the lender? The homeowner borrowed $200,000 for a house. Can, and should, the judge be able to now order him to pay the bank $300,000 because the lender is in financial trouble. Something tells me you will think this is different. It was the homeowner who didn't keep his end of the contract, why do you insist that the bank be punished for it?
If that really is your opinion, then I am guessing you have a problem with bankruptcy in general and not just the current proposals.
We're working on it though. I can tell you though, that the proudest I have ever been to be an American was in 2005 when our Congress finally got its priorities straight and realized that when someone goes bankrupt, Visa takes its place in line before child support......I had a tear in my eye and a lump in my throat that day.
Firebird
05-01-2009, 03:20 PM
What's next? Does the government bail out all the people with credit card debt?
No, see my post below. We fixed that problem in 2005........
Firebird
05-01-2009, 03:20 PM
They were too small to 'qualify' for that program...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't CRA primarily focused on community banks?
JagFan
05-01-2009, 03:29 PM
No, see my post below. We fixed that problem in 2005........
When does it stop? We have become a country of victims and all the victims expect someone else to help them out and fix the problem. And of course it is not their fault that the ugly mean banker gave them the loan in the first place. Where is the personal responsibility?
Can the bankers and borrowers not work it out themselves? The banks know that it is in their best interest to work out something with the borrower. They will make more money in the long run. Why have a judge force the issue? All that does is make the lawyers rich. Ah, trial lawyers, Dems best friends:)
mad_fan
05-01-2009, 03:31 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't CRA primarily focused on community banks?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
b756561
05-01-2009, 03:37 PM
[quote=pied;1180176]That might be the dumbest post I have seen on this board in a month. That's saying something.[/quot
Okay pied I can accept that comment. Never have I ever claimed to be a smart man. And the older I grow the more apt I am to doubt my own judgement, and to pay more respect to the judgement of others. (B.F.) Now tell me which part was the dumb part. The part about people taking personal responsibility for their actions or the part about judges not having the right to change a contract to the disadvantage of one of the litigants. Didn't like my analogy did you? Well surprise, surprise. Who would have thunk it. Seriously, would we want a judge to have that power? No you wouldn't and neither would I. So why on God's green Earth would we want to give a judge the power to do it the other way around?
Now I'm not saying it was dumb but I am at a loss as to the post by JOH. http://smiliesftw.com/x/dump.gif
When does it stop? We have become a country of victims and all the victims expect someone else to help them out and fix the problem. And of course it is not their fault that the ugly mean banker gave them the loan in the first place. Where is the personal responsibility?
Can the bankers and borrowers not work it out themselves? The banks know that it is in their best interest to work out something with the borrower. They will make more money in the long run. Why have a judge force the issue? All that does is make the lawyers rich. Ah, trial lawyers, Dems best friends:)
Did you read any of this thread before posting?
Because the customers are in bankruptcy.
Which does more to hurt YOUR property value, a neighbor in bankruptcy paying a reduced amount, or a foreclosed property? FYI-both are happening in Flower Mound.
mad_fan
05-01-2009, 03:43 PM
Did you read any of this thread before posting?
Because the customers are in bankruptcy.
Which does more to hurt YOUR property value, a neighbor in bankruptcy paying a reduced amount, or a foreclosed property? FYI-both are happening in Flower Mound.
I'm willing to live with this...for another 3.82 years...
JagFan
05-01-2009, 03:48 PM
Did you read any of this thread before posting?
Because the customers are in bankruptcy.
Which does more to hurt YOUR property value, a neighbor in bankruptcy paying a reduced amount, or a foreclosed property? FYI-both are happening in Flower Mound.
What is good about the government getting involved? Who benefits from that?
[quote=pied;1180176]That might be the dumbest post I have seen on this board in a month. That's saying something.[/quot
Okay pied I can accept that comment. Never have I ever claimed to be a smart man. And the older I grow the more apt I am to doubt my own judgement, and to pay more respect to the judgement of others. (B.F.) Now tell me which part was the dumb part. The part about people taking personal responsibility for their actions or the part about judges not having the right to change a contract to the disadvantage of one of the litigants. Didn't like my analogy did you? Well surprise, surprise. Who would have thunk it. Seriously, would we want a judge to have that power? No you wouldn't and neither would I. So why on God's green Earth would we want to give a judge the power to do it the other way around?
Now I'm not saying it was dumb but I am at a loss as to the post by JOH.
My point is that we are already paying the price of people not paying on their mortgages. That has not changed and is more or less unaffected by this legislation. I think most of us would be, net better than the other way because of appreciated home prices. The banks may/may not be better off, accepting a cram down repayment vs. foreclosure.
Personally I don't really care if someone who has filed BK has learned personal responsiblity or not. I hope they do, but it likely will not impact me one iota. Now if many of my neighbors are foreclosed on, that can have real tangible ramifications for me. The chances of these borrowers being able to engage in similar behavior in the near future(7-10 years) is about nil these days.
So back to my original question last night, what benefits do you see from this not passing?
What is good about the government getting involved? Who benefits from that?
The government is involved when they declare bankruptcy. Who do you think makes the bankruptcy laws? Am I on planet Mars here?
b756561
05-01-2009, 03:49 PM
If that really is your opinion, then I am guessing you have a problem with bankruptcy in general and not just the current proposals........when someone goes bankrupt, Visa takes its place in line before child support.
The only problem I have with the current bankrupcy law is just what you mentioned. Don't even get me started on credit cards. I have heard they cause more bankruptcies than all other reasons combined. They are unsecured loans and as such should be at the bottom of the list when a bankrupts assets are distributed. The key word here, is unsecured. Once again let me remind you, my beef is not with bankruptcy, but with a judge being able to order a lender to forgive part of a loan simply to make it easier on the homeowner and at the disadvantage of the lender. A home like a car is a secured loan which to me sets it apart from unsecured credit card loans.
I'm willing to live with this...for another 3.82 years...
You're not buying crap in Flower Mound for $125... go back to bfe
JagFan
05-01-2009, 03:52 PM
The government is involved when they declare bankruptcy. Who do you think makes the bankruptcy laws? Am I on planet Mars here?
Who would benefit if this bill had passed and why are you for it? What good would come out of it? I really want to know why it should have passed.
I am fully aware of who makes the bankruptcy laws. I do think you are on planet Mars most of the time. :p
drgnbkr
05-01-2009, 03:54 PM
That might be the dumbest post I have seen on this board in a month. That's saying something.
Which part are you having trouble with? The post makes good sense to anyone who believes that borrowers might need to read the loan docs they are signing. Should all of us prop up those who failed to understand the loans they were agreeing with?
Who would benefit if this bill had passed and why are you for it? What good would come out of it? I really want to know why it should have passed.
I am fully aware of who makes the bankruptcy laws. I do think you are on planet Mars most of the time. :p
The most important person to me as to who would benefit, would be me. and you and b756561 and mad_fan and all other home owners in my opinion. The ess homes that go to foreclosure and sit for sale owned by the bank, the better we are.
The banks are taking a bath one way or the other, that's a given. Understanding that some BK judges might be horse's *****, most have a clue abuot what is doable and will end up cutting about to give about as close a cash flow as the lender would see in a FC.
Which part are you having trouble with? The post makes good sense to anyone who believes that borrowers might need to read the loan docs they are signing. Should all of us prop up those who failed to understand the loans they were agreeing with?
You already are.
mad_fan
05-01-2009, 04:02 PM
You're not buying crap in Flower Mound for $125... go back to bfe
I might be..:)
b756561
05-01-2009, 04:02 PM
Did you read any of this thread before posting?
Because the customers are in bankruptcy.
Which does more to hurt YOUR property value, a neighbor in bankruptcy paying a reduced amount, or a foreclosed property? FYI-both are happening in Flower Mound.
I ask which does more to hurt YOUR property value, a homeowner in bankruptcy or a lender and a homeowner working out a solution acceptable and workable for both? Because I'll tell you right now, if I was in that position as a homeowner and I knew a bankruptcy judge could order my lender to reduce the principal on my loan if we didn't work out a deal before hand, you bet I'd be filing bankruptcy. I'd be stupid not to. Right now the lender and the homeowner have a reason to work together. Pass this law and it will no longer be to the advantage of the homeowner to stay out of bankruptcy.
JagFan
05-01-2009, 04:06 PM
The most important person to me as to who would benefit, would be me. and you and b756561 and mad_fan and all other home owners in my opinion. The ess homes that go to foreclosure and sit for sale owned by the bank, the better we are.
The banks are taking a bath one way or the other, that's a given. Understanding that some BK judges might be horse's *****, most have a clue abuot what is doable and will end up cutting about to give about as close a cash flow as the lender would see in a FC.
I get where you are coming from and you are right it is happening here in FM. I know four neighbors that are suffering financially. Three worked with the banks and were able to refi so they could stay in their homes. The other had a lot of other things going on besides the mortgage. IMO most people that find themselves in bankruptcy have more problems than just their mortgage and a cut would not help because of the other problems. Nobody ever wins in bankruptcy. It happens though and it must go through a process. As hard as it is we must let it cycle through.
I ask which does more to hurt YOUR property value, a homeowner in bankruptcy or a lender and a homeowner working out a solution acceptable and workable for both? Because I'll tell you right now, if I was in that position as a homeowner and I knew a bankruptcy judge could order my lender to reduce the principal on my loan if we didn't work out a deal before hand, you bet I'd be fileing bankruptcy. I'd be stupid not to. Right now the lender and the homeowner have a reason to work together. Pass this law and it will no longer be to the advantage of the homeowner to stay out of bankruptcy.
Neither.
While it may drive some BK filings higher, I am comfortable with the BK penealties regarding access to credit that most would stay away. In addition, the court has to decide as to what the customer can afford, based on a pretty thorough underwriting. If they default on those payments, they don't stay for free, the lender will file to remove the BK and foreclose and the buyer will be out.
In any acse, I believe many more borrowers in default or iminent default will be going the HAMP route first.
I get where you are coming from and you are right it is happening here in FM. I know four neighbors that are suffering financially. Three worked with the banks and were able to refi so they could stay in their homes. The other had a lot of other things going on besides the mortgage. IMO most people that find themselves in bankruptcy have more problems than just their mortgage and a cut would not help because of the other problems. Nobody ever wins in bankruptcy. It happens though and it must go through a process. As hard as it is we must let it cycle through.
Who do you think bore the costs of those refis they were able to work out wth the banks?
b756561
05-01-2009, 04:15 PM
The banks may/may not be better off, accepting a cram down repayment vs. foreclosure.......So back to my original question last night, what benefits do you see from this not passing?
pied perhaps we just need to agree to disagree on this one. I do not think a judge should have the right to do this and you think they should. From the looks of it, I'm not going to change your opinion on this matter and you have given me no reason to change my opinion. Soooooo......on to bigger and better arguments on.......gee, what else would you like to spend several hours arguing about?
http://smiliesftw.com/x/walamabanana.gif
JagFan
05-01-2009, 04:16 PM
Who do you think bore the costs of those refis they were able to work out wth the banks?
The banks because they refinanced at a lower interest rate. The advantage here is that they did it without courts or congress. When it gets to the point of bankruptcy there are to many other factors going on that I don't put a lot of faith in the borrower to be able to pay back. We will still have people loosing their homes. It will draw it out even longer.
The banks because they refinanced at a lower interest rate. The advantage here is that they did it without courts or congress. When it gets to the point of bankruptcy there are to many other factors going on that I don't put a lot of faith in the borrower to be able to pay back. We will still have people loosing their homes. It will draw it out even longer.
This law is for those already in bankruptcy. If the borrower can not pay the money back they will be foreclosed on regardless if they are in bankruptcy or not. it may take a bit longer but the result is the same and that has no impact on this law.
pied perhaps we just need to agree to disagree on this one. I do not think a judge should have the right to do this and you think they should. From the looks of it, I'm not going to change your opinion on this matter and you have given me no reason to change my opinion. Soooooo......on to bigger and better arguments on.......gee, what else would you like to spend several hours arguing about?
No my premise was that not passing the law so we could teach people a lesson is short sighted. The effect on the law's passing was probably more detrimental to myself and property value vs. the possibility that I will have to pay more at the bank.
mad_fan
05-01-2009, 04:26 PM
No my premise was that not passing the law so we could teach people a lesson is short sighted. The effect on the law's passing was probably more detrimental to myself and property value vs. the possibility that I will have to pay more at the bank.
But thinking this thing will go on forever and creating a new class of victims isn't short sighted...
JagFan
05-01-2009, 04:28 PM
This law is for those already in bankruptcy. If the borrower can not pay the money back they will be foreclosed on regardless if they are in bankruptcy or not. it may take a bit longer but the result is the same and that has no impact on this law.
I understand that. You go in and file bankruptcy. The judge makes the bank work with you on the mortgage. I guess the other creditors are just SOL. How many do you think will be able to pay the new agreement that the judge ordered? If they can't then they will foreclose. It is just drawing it out for a lot of those people. I guess I would just rather let it go through the system now rather than later.
By the way LISD is closed next week. They will probably close the privates as well.
But thinking this thing will go on forever and creating a new class of victims isn't short sighted...
Go down and tell the BoA lady that you have filed BK and see if she thinks she can still qualify you.
b756561
05-01-2009, 04:36 PM
No my premise was that not passing the law so we could teach people a lesson is short sighted. The effect on the law's passing was probably more detrimental to myself and property value vs. the possibility that I will have to pay more at the bank.
Come on pied, that was never my major concern. My concern was that a judge should not have the power to FORCE a lender to make a deal that is harmful to the lender. Go back and read my posts. While personal responsibility is high on my gripes, there should be no doubt of what my major concern was.
Now, what about arguing about something concerning football? I don't care what, just throw something out there.http://smiliesftw.com/x/hung.gif
mad_fan
05-01-2009, 04:36 PM
Go down and tell the BoA lady that you have filed BK and see if she thinks she can still qualify you.
She'll tell me to use the cash in my money market account...she's that way...
mad_fan
05-01-2009, 04:38 PM
Come on pied, that was never my major concern. My concern was that a judge should not have the power to FORCE a lender to make a deal that is harmful to the lender. Go back and read my posts. While personal responsibility is high on my gripes, there should be no doubt of what my major concern was.
Now, what about arguing about something concerning football? I don't care what, just throw something out there.http://smiliesftw.com/x/hung.gif
I would favor bailing out the parents of good football players...
b756561
05-01-2009, 04:41 PM
I would favor bailing out the parents of good football players...
mad_fan I like the way you think........even if I can't always follow it. http://smiliesftw.com/x/D_thumb.gif
Come on pied, that was never my major concern. My concern was that a judge should not have the power to FORCE a lender to make a deal that is harmful to the lender. Go back and read my posts. While personal responsibility is high on my gripes, there should be no doubt of what my major concern was.
Now, what about arguing about something concerning football? I don't care what, just throw something out there.
When I asked you what you thought the benefits would be this was your response.
As the story said, "Senate Republicans and some moderate Democrats were concerned about the bill's impact and about the growing resentment among homeowners in good standing." I played by the rules, I bought a house I could afford to pay for. Are they going to lower the amount I owe on my house? Yeah right. Everybody needs to learn you can't have steak on a hamburger budget. In the long run they, and the country, will be better off.
]
What did I miss?
JagFan
05-01-2009, 04:42 PM
mad_fan I like the way you think........even if I can't always follow it. http://smiliesftw.com/x/D_thumb.gif
Where do you get your smilies?
Now, what about arguing about something concerning football? I don't care what, just throw something out there.http://smiliesftw.com/x/hung.gif
I just started a thread on the College board, and have been posting on the Jesuit thread as well. This is for off topic discusions.
b756561
05-01-2009, 04:45 PM
Where do you get your smilies?
http://smiliesftw.com/ie.php#
I think they are cute.
http://smiliesftw.com/x/smilie.gif
b756561
05-01-2009, 04:46 PM
I just started a thread on the College board, and have been posting on the Jesuit thread as well. This is for off topic discusions.
I'll check it out.http://smiliesftw.com/x/catfight.gif
JagFan
05-01-2009, 04:50 PM
http://smiliesftw.com/ie.php#
I think they are cute.
http://smiliesftw.com/x/smilie.gif
Thanks
The King
05-01-2009, 04:54 PM
If you can't pay, don't buy. A lesson learned. It's that simple.
More people need to learn this!!!
Also
" Spend Less than you make" helps a bunch
mad_fan
05-01-2009, 04:56 PM
mad_fan I like the way you think........even if I can't always follow it. http://smiliesftw.com/x/D_thumb.gif
I never get tired of hearing that...:rolleyes:
b756561
05-01-2009, 04:56 PM
More people need to learn this!!!
Also
" Spend Less than you make" helps a bunch
http://smiliesftw.com/x/D_thumb.gif
The early bird gets the worm!!!
Firebird
05-01-2009, 05:32 PM
I understand that. You go in and file bankruptcy. The judge makes the bank work with you on the mortgage. I guess the other creditors are just SOL. How many do you think will be able to pay the new agreement that the judge ordered? If they can't then they will foreclose. It is just drawing it out for a lot of those people. I guess I would just rather let it go through the system now rather than later.
By the way LISD is closed next week. They will probably close the privates as well.
Ummm...Ch. 7bankruptcy basically is telling your creditors that they are SOL. That's the purpose of it. The bankruptcy trustee takes all your stuff...sells it....and you walk away. Creditors take a bath in any bankruptcy.
I think it's also important to note that the new law doesn't mean that a judge HAS to cramdown your mortgage, just that he can. Most bankruptcy judges, believe it or not, are not activists looking to help out the po' folk. Chances are good that most of the people who would have qualified for a cram down would have eventually gotten back working and started making their payments again.
We probably need to bring back indentured servitude though, you are right.
Ummm...Ch. 7bankruptcy basically is telling your creditors that they are SOL. That's the purpose of it. The bankruptcy trustee takes all your stuff...sells it....and you walk away. Creditors take a bath in any bankruptcy.
I think it's also important to note that the new law doesn't mean that a judge HAS to cramdown your mortgage, just that he can. Most bankruptcy judges, believe it or not, are not activists looking to help out the po' folk. Chances are good that most of the people who would have qualified for a cram down would have eventually gotten back working and started making their payments again.
We probably need to bring back indentured servitude though, you are right.
Welcome to Mars.
JagFan
05-01-2009, 05:41 PM
Ummm...Ch. 7bankruptcy basically is telling your creditors that they are SOL. That's the purpose of it. The bankruptcy trustee takes all your stuff...sells it....and you walk away. Creditors take a bath in any bankruptcy.
I think it's also important to note that the new law doesn't mean that a judge HAS to cramdown your mortgage, just that he can. Most bankruptcy judges, believe it or not, are not activists looking to help out the po' folk. Chances are good that most of the people who would have qualified for a cram down would have eventually gotten back working and started making their payments again.
We probably need to bring back indentured servitude though, you are right.
I know what Chapter 7 is and I also know what 11 and 13 are. The debtors are going to ask well if we can do this with our mortage then why not all of it. That's why the SOL on the others.
Again my question to all of this stimulus, bailout and bills is when and where does it stop? It is time to stop with this and let it all go through the cycle. Let's give the stimulus a little more time.
drgnbkr
05-01-2009, 09:24 PM
You already are.
Answer the question for once!:rolleyes: Good grief...Do you just hang around here to try and aggravate people...? You have no position other than the opposing.
mad_fan
05-01-2009, 09:28 PM
Answer the question for once!:rolleyes: Good grief...Do you just hang around here to try and aggravate people...? You have no position other than the opposing.
How do you feel about me just hanging around...and asking questions???
signed,
pied
mad_fan
05-01-2009, 09:29 PM
Welcome to Mars.
Venus rules...
signed,
NOW...
drgnbkr
05-01-2009, 09:31 PM
How do you feel about me just hanging around...and asking questions???
signed,
pied
:rolleyes:
Answer the question for once!:rolleyes: Good grief...Do you just hang around here to try and aggravate people...? You have no position other than the opposing.
huh?what question is that?
drgnbkr
05-01-2009, 11:18 PM
huh?what question is that?
:rolleyes:
Firebird
05-01-2009, 11:20 PM
How do you feel about me just hanging around...and asking questions???
signed,
pied
I don't mind pied hanging out...and wasting all my time....I think he's just what the board needed.
Signed,
Rick Ocasek
b756561
05-01-2009, 11:47 PM
[quote=Firebird;
We probably need to bring back indentured servitude though, you are right.[/quote]
HEY, now there's something to think about. But what about that 13th. Amendment crap? You know, the part that says "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude.......shall exist within the United States.....I'm not sure how to get around that part, but if you can think of a way, let me know. I could sure appreciate having some people doing my work for me. Yes Sir, I can sit back and watch people work for me all day long. Really, I think I could do that. It's not something in my heritage, but I am getting old and cranky. If someone wants to make a smart*** statement like that, then I can sure run with it.
Firebird
05-01-2009, 11:51 PM
HEY, now there's something to think about. But what about that 13th. Amendment crap? You know, the part that says "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude.......shall exist within the United States.....I'm not sure how to get around that part, but if you can think of a way, let me know. I could sure appreciate having some people doing my work for me. Yes Sir, I can sit back and watch people work for me all day long. Really, I think I could do that. It's not something in my heritage, but I am getting old and cranky. If someone wants to make a smart*** statement like that, then I can sure run with it.
There is your key word......
Of course, they wouldn't work for YOU...because as has been discussed before, unless you're a creditor, it really doesn't concern you.
b756561
05-02-2009, 12:30 AM
There is your key word......
Of course, they wouldn't work for YOU...because as has been discussed before, unless you're a creditor, it really doesn't concern you.
There you go. Darn, you really hit the nail on the head that time. http://smiliesftw.com/x/whine.gif
mojotrain
05-02-2009, 01:04 AM
If he can't pay you back, don't lend. Another simple lesson learned.:)
We know why the banks lent the money to people who couldn't afford to pay it back. The fact is the financial responsibility should fall in the lap of the buyers. You know that if they don't have credit to buy other desired items because of bank/credit problems and if they really want something, then they will somehow pay cash for those items. They will buy goods they can't afford. If they are having credit problems due to over buying on a house and can't get credit but buy items with cash, who will you lay the responsibility on then?
mojotrain
05-02-2009, 01:06 AM
Answer the question for once!:rolleyes: Good grief...Do you just hang around here to try and aggravate people...? You have no position other than the opposing.
Bullseye!
Answer the question for once!:rolleyes: Good grief...Do you just hang around here to try and aggravate people...? You have no position other than the opposing.
My position is that many are outrgaged for the wrong reasons.
Being outraged because people will be getting something for nothing is dumb, in this case. We are talking about a bill for people ALREADY IN BANKRUPTCY.
Here are the scenarios:
The homeowner is foreclosed on, and forced out of their home and the bank takes a bath and passes those losses on to their remaining customers
The judge reviews the finances of the homeowner, determines what they can pay, the homeowner defaults, is foreclosed on, forced out of their homes, and the bank passes the losses on to their remaining customers
The judge reviews the finances of the homeowner, determines what they can pay and the customer pays long term and stays in their home.
As a neighbor, and bank customer, there is only one scenario that has a real tangible affect on me. The effect of the BK cramdown losses opposed to the normal foreclosure/REO process of a homeowner already in BK are negligble to the remaining customers. The effect, both short term and long term of more foreclosures in my/your neighborhood is bad.
From a selfish point of view, I would rather have people in their homes, and not costing me money or property value, then have people not in their homes, not costing me money, and deteriorating property value.
I have stated each of these points several times in this thread.
Firebird
05-04-2009, 10:22 AM
My position is that many are outrgaged for the wrong reasons.
Being outraged because people will be getting something for nothing is dumb, in this case. We are talking about a bill for people ALREADY IN BANKRUPTCY.
Here are the scenarios:
The homeowner is foreclosed on, and forced out of their home and the bank takes a bath and passes those losses on to their remaining customers
The judge reviews the finances of the homeowner, determines what they can pay, the homeowner defaults, is foreclosed on, forced out of their homes, and the bank passes the losses on to their remaining customers
The judge reviews the finances of the homeowner, determines what they can pay and the customer pays long term and stays in their home.
As a neighbor, and bank customer, there is only one scenario that has a real tangible affect on me. The effect of the BK cramdown losses opposed to the normal foreclosure/REO process of a homeowner already in BK are negligble to the remaining customers. The effect, both short term and long term of more foreclosures in my/your neighborhood is bad.
From a selfish point of view, I would rather have people in their homes, and not costing me money or property value, then have people not in their homes, not costing me money, and deteriorating property value.
I have stated each of these points several times in this thread.
I can completely understand why people would be angry that others seemingly don't have to pay full price for their homes when they were responsible and did. However, if I am a homeowner and the choice is a forclosure in this market or my neighbors getting to stay in their house, most times I choose letting my neighbors stay.
What's also amazing is that so many people are stating that they have no problem with current BK law, just the proposal. Current BK law under chapter 13 allows a judge to "cram down" to market value loans on a car (over 2.5 years old), on an office building, on a second mortgage, on a second home, or an investment property, etc. The only thing he can't cram down is the mortgage on the house people actually live in. The judge won't always agree to do so (and often won't on things like vacation homes) but he can.
Seems pretty bass-ackward to me. Seems as though the desire to see these irresponsible debtors get their comeuppance and get kicked out into an apartment or hotel is outweighing common sense and good policy.
Seems pretty bass-ackward to me. Seems as though the desire to see these irresponsible debtors get their comeuppance and get kicked out into an apartment or hotel is outweighing common sense and good policy.
Pretty much my point. When someone declares BK, they are screwed for some time. To me that penalty is severe enough and appropriate. If the judge feels after looking at their financial situation that they can stay in their home and not affect me, great.
I guess some people feel that they should be able to keep their car instead, or didn't know the laws, or are just mad, or just don't like Obama.
Firebird
05-04-2009, 10:41 AM
Pretty much my point. When someone declares BK, they are screwed for some time. To me that penalty is severe enough and appropriate. If the judge feels after looking at their financial situation that they can stay in their home and not affect me, great.
I guess some people feel that they should be able to keep their car instead, or didn't know the laws, or are just mad, or just don't like Obama.
The policy was enacted as a way for the feds to encourage home ownership. The thinking went that by making sure that the creditor would get the house back even in bankruptcy, they'd be encouraged to make loans on better terms for consumers and get more people into houses. It's a good thing we've had cheap money for houses all these years, there haven't been any repurcussions to that.
No one ever thinks when they sign the dotted line that they'll be going bankrupt. Everyone is always responsible and thinks about things, especially on the board, but it happens all the time. Treating home mortgages like other debts under the bankruptcy code would absolutely mean some higher rates, bigger down payments, stricter means tests when you came in for a loan. The way things have shaken out, perhaps those are good goals to shoot for. Make the cost of buying a house reflect the real cost of lending. The government needs to be neutral when setting policies on home ownership rather than activist.
JagFan
05-04-2009, 10:42 AM
I can completely understand why people would be angry that others seemingly don't have to pay full price for their homes when they were responsible and did. However, if I am a homeowner and the choice is a for closure in this market or my neighbors getting to stay in their house, most times I choose letting my neighbors stay.
What's also amazing is that so many people are stating that they have no problem with current BK law, just the proposal. Current BK law under chapter 13 allows a judge to "cram down" to market value loans on a car (over 2.5 years old), on an office building, on a second mortgage, on a second home, or an investment property, etc. The only thing he can't cram down is the mortgage on the house people actually live in. The judge won't always agree to do so (and often won't on things like vacation homes) but he can.
Seems pretty bass-ackward to me. Seems as though the desire to see these irresponsible debtors get their comeuppance and get kicked out into an apartment or hotel is outweighing common sense and good policy.
To me it's not about people getting what's coming to them. It seems this putting off the inevitable. By the time people get to BK there are a lot of things going on besides just the mortgage. It tells me they were not able to work out a refi or anything else before they ended up there.
Will this help some yes, but I just think it would drag it out. My hope in all of this mess is that people learn not to borrow what they cannot pay back, banks don't lend what they know cannot be paid back, and politicians don't try to make things happen for people that they know cannot pay it back.
I guess I look at it as it can have an impact my property value now or next year, sadly either way it will impact it.
Firebird
05-04-2009, 10:43 AM
To me it's not about people getting what's coming to them. It seems this putting off the inevitable. By the time people get to BK there are a lot of things going on besides just the mortgage. It tells me they were not able to work out a refi or anything else before they ended up there.
Will this help some yes, but I just think it would drag it out. My hope in all of this mess is that people learn not to borrow what they cannot pay back, banks don't lend what they know cannot be paid back, and politicians don't try to make things happen for people that they know cannot pay it back.
I guess I look at it as it can have an impact my property value now or next year, sadly either way it will impact it.
Allowing mortgage cram downs would go a long way towards fixing that problem.
JagFan
05-04-2009, 10:47 AM
Allowing mortgage cram downs would go a long way towards fixing that problem.
How? Really asking, not trying to be cute.
To me it's not about people getting what's coming to them. It seems this putting off the inevitable. By the time people get to BK there are a lot of things going on besides just the mortgage. It tells me they were not able to work out a refi or anything else before they ended up there.
Will this help some yes, but I just think it would drag it out. My hope in all of this mess is that people learn not to borrow what they cannot pay back, banks don't lend what they know cannot be paid back, and politicians don't try to make things happen for people that they know cannot pay it back.
I guess I look at it as it can have an impact my property value now or next year, sadly either way it will impact it.
I understand that, but they seemingly have. They have filed bankruptcy and won't be borrowing any money for some time. There could be a few people that will be able to and will take advantage of this, but I believe that the number that will file bankruptcy in order to reduce their house payment will be very small.
If the borrower is able to stay in their house, even under a BK cram down it will have no affect on your property value.
Firebird
05-04-2009, 11:00 AM
How? Really asking, not trying to be cute.
The current bankruptcy code dealing with mortgages on primary residences is designed to "encourage home ownership."
What that really means is that it's designed to make mortgages cheap and available. The bank knows that it can always foreclose on that property,even if you go into bankruptcy. Therefore means tests standards for those loans are lower than those for other types of loans for real property, rates are better, you often have to come up with less money upfront, etc. The bank can afford to be looser with their money than they would otherwise. Even opponents of the changes like Heritage admit that this is the primary point of treating residences different. They oppose the change because it will make money for houses more expensive:
Problems with Cramdowns
Granting judges the power to modify mortgages in this way would:
Raise mortgage costs. The added risk that a mortgage contract would not be repaid as written would require lenders to demand increased down payments from mortgage borrowers—as much as $60,000 for a median house. In addition, lenders would also require higher interest rates and fees as compensation for taking on the added risk of losing money if the loan is crammed down. While all borrowers, no matter their creditworthiness, would face higher rates on mortgages, the biggest increases would fall on first-time homebuyers and moderate and lower-income families—those who could least afford the additional costs
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2409.cfm
However, I think that there's a lot of evidence that the "ownership society" (read: debtor's society) and easy, cheap mortages to those moderate and lower income families got us to where we are today. If you are of the opinion that American debt and consumer spending is out of control, then the one sure way to fix that problem is not to harp endlessly about personal responsibility, but to make money more expensive. More expensive mortgages=fewer people buying homes they can't afford. Simple, really.
JagFan
05-04-2009, 11:04 AM
I understand that, but they seemingly have. They have filed bankruptcy and won't be borrowing any money for some time. There could be a few people that will be able to and will take advantage of this, but I believe that the number that will file bankruptcy in order to reduce their house payment will be very small.
If the borrower is able to stay in their house, even under a BK cram down it will have no affect on your property value.
This whole thing has had a big impact on property values. Granted more in some states and areas than others but it has. If a person is forclosed on now and they have to move it does impact it, if we put off the forcloser by this cramdown and they cannot pay then it will impact it later. I would rather go through it now rather than next year. I guess I don't hold out hope that most will be able to keep up with the new payments. I am very cynical this week so I am looking at things as half empty.
This whole thing has had a big impact on property values. Granted more in some states and areas than others but it has. If a person is forclosed on now and they have to move it does impact it, if we put off the forcloser by this cramdown and they cannot pay then it will impact it later. I would rather go through it now rather than next year. I guess I don't hold out hope that most will be able to keep up with the new payments. I am very cynical this week so I am looking at things as half empty.
You shouldn't be, the markets appear to be up!
Your assumption is that 100% of the loans will go to foreclosure. My assumption is that the delta between the FC cost and the cram down FC cost is so minimal that the cost will not be a significant impact for thevast overwhlming amount of customers. Those most affected, will be those with marginal credit, most likely to default.
I will state again, that no property values are impacted by people paying a reduced amount on their homes.
JagFan
05-04-2009, 11:19 AM
The current bankruptcy code dealing with mortgages on primary residences is designed to "encourage home ownership."
What that really means is that it's designed to make mortgages cheap and available. The bank knows that it can always foreclose on that property,even if you go into bankruptcy. Therefore means tests standards for those loans are lower than those for other types of loans for real property, rates are better, you often have to come up with less money upfront, etc. The bank can afford to be looser with their money than they would otherwise. Even opponents of the changes like Heritage admit that this is the primary point of treating residences different. They oppose the change because it will make money for houses more expensive:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2409.cfm
However, I think that there's a lot of evidence that the "ownership society" (read: debtor's society) and easy, cheap mortages to those moderate and lower income families got us to where we are today. If you are of the opinion that American debt and consumer spending is out of control, then the one sure way to fix that problem is not to harp endlessly about personal responsibility, but to make money more expensive. More expensive mortgages=fewer people buying homes they can't afford. Simple, really.
Sounds simple. I see the point of making money more expensive, but won't that punish the responsible people as well?
Sounds simple. I see the point of making money more expensive, but won't that punish the responsible people as well?
It may, but I believe that it will not. The people most affected will be the most risky. I would use the BK reform act of 2005 as an example. A record number of filers and huge percentage increased had minimal if any affect on the vast majority of customers, including the responsible people as well.
JagFan
05-04-2009, 11:26 AM
You shouldn't be, the markets appear to be up!
Your assumption is that 100% of the loans will go to foreclosure. My assumption is that the delta between the FC cost and the cram down FC cost is so minimal that the cost will not be a significant impact for thevast overwhlming amount of customers. Those most affected, will be those with marginal credit, most likely to default.
I will state again, that no property values are impacted by people paying a reduced amount on their homes.
I got your point, at this time it will not but when and if they are forclosed on it will. The percentage of people still not being able to make the payments is my problem. I don't know that a majority will be able to keep up. I guess that is my fear.
I am not cynical because of the economy. The death here in FM has me looking at everything rather cynically right now. Watching the news and all the arguing does not help. I can't focus at the office and have a 7th grader out of school this week so I am trying to keep him busy and not focus to much on anything.
Firebird
05-04-2009, 11:29 AM
Sounds simple. I see the point of making money more expensive, but won't that punish the responsible people as well?
See pied's response. I'd also restate the maxim that no one think's they're being irresponsible when they sign the note. As a corrolary, I'd also say that cheap money makes a lot of people feel responsible when they aren't.
But you are correct in that it would make buying a house more expensive. Knowing what we do now about real estate speculation and overheated housing markets, do you think that setting the threshold higher is a bad thing?
JagFan
05-04-2009, 11:40 AM
See pied's response. I'd also restate the maxim that no one think's they're being irresponsible when they sign the note. As a corrolary, I'd also say that cheap money makes a lot of people feel responsible when they aren't.
But you are correct in that it would make buying a house more expensive. Knowing what we do now about real estate speculation and overheated housing markets, do you think that setting the threshold higher is a bad thing?
No, it is not a bad thing. But will it stay that way? I guess I don't trust congress to really stop there. After this will they put pressure again to make housing affordable to low to moderate incomes?
I guess my question is will congress learn their lessons as well? (both sides)
No, it is not a bad thing. But will it stay that way? I guess I don't trust congress to really stop there. After this will they put pressure again to make housing affordable to low to moderate incomes?
I guess my question is will congress learn their lessons as well? (both sides)
I don't think they are going to pressure anyone to not amke housing affordable for low to moderate incomes, nor should they be in my opinion.
Not certain if you are familiar w/HASP or HAMP.
Here is a link to the description of HAMP.
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:wG-DbbE0cYIJ:www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/guidelines_summary.pdf+homeowner+assistance+modifi cation+program&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
and HASP:
http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/tg33.htm
JagFan
05-04-2009, 11:58 AM
I don't think they are going to pressure anyone to not amke housing affordable for low to moderate incomes, nor should they be in my opinion.
Not certain if you are familiar w/HASP or HAMP.
Here is a link to the description of HAMP.
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:wG-DbbE0cYIJ:www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/guidelines_summary.pdf+homeowner+assistance+modifi cation+program&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
and HASP:
http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/tg33.htm
Those sound like good things. I am all for people working on getting their mortages redone before they hit BK. If they can work with their lenders and come to a compromise then it is good for everyone.
I do hope that congress will learn the lessons of this mess and not go back to how they were before. Only time will tell.
Those sound like good things. I am all for people working on getting their mortages redone before they hit BK. If they can work with their lenders and come to a compromise then it is good for everyone.
I do hope that congress will learn the lessons of this mess and not go back to how they were before. Only time will tell.
I agree witht he first point, and hope that everyone, borrowers/lenders/govt. learns a lesson from this. Looking at history, it seems unlikely. My assumption is that moer regulations will be put in place, things will improve, and people will want regulations loosened. We will be back here at some point.
JagFan
05-04-2009, 12:04 PM
I agree witht he first point, and hope that everyone, borrowers/lenders/govt. learns a lesson from this. Looking at history, it seems unlikely. My assumption is that moer regulations will be put in place, things will improve, and people will want regulations loosened. We will be back here at some point.
My fear.
mad_fan
05-04-2009, 12:23 PM
http://makinghomeaffordable.gov/other_options_refinance.html
mad_fan
05-04-2009, 12:26 PM
http://makinghomeaffordable.gov/other_options_refinance.html
http://makinghomeaffordable.gov/other_options_modification.html
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.