Home loan forgiveness

[syrenn]

There's an opinion in today's WSJ about a guy named Ed DeMarco. He's the acting head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, an independent regulator of Fannie and Freddie. He's basically the cop that prevents bad policy decisions that taxpayers would have to pay for. F&F are already some 141 billion in the hole, so his job is to make sure the situation doesn't get appreciably worse.

Which brings us to the question of principle write downs, when lenders would reduce the mortgage principle amount for loans owned by F&F. IOW, a bailout, just in time for the 2012 election, another stimulus plan that bypasses Congress, imagine that.

Except Mr DeMarco won't play ball, he says the taxpayers loseout in the deal, which is true. He says principal forgiveness is not within his statuatory mandate, and Congress should be the ones to appropriate money to fund the idea if they wish.

Hard to argue with that, but of course the democrats are outraged. Bear in mind we've seen several housing relief programs in the lst few years, none of which have worked. And how fair is it to reduce somebody's mortgage but not somebody else's?

So, this all leads to the question: what do you think of the idea of lowering somebody's mortgage principle with the US taxpayers paying for it? I can see extending the mortgage period out to 40 or even 50 years, or requiring a lower loan interest. What's your opinion?

Why should tax payers pay for a house you choose to buy? Why should the tax payers pay for MORE of a house then you can afford?

Better question....if we bail them out with their home...and they live there for the next 20 years...and they end up with 150% positive equity...should they split the profits with the tax payer?

The bail out should not be free... a note should be signed to pay it back.

 

[FactFinder]

Why should tax payers pay for a house you choose to buy? Why should the tax payers pay for MORE of a house then you can afford?

Better question....if we bail them out with their home...and they live there for the next 20 years...and they end up with 150% positive equity...should they split the profits with the tax payer?

The bail out should not be free... a note should be signed to pay it back.

I agree but with reasonable terms based on a pragmatic analysis of what the market should be not what the gougers would like it to be.

 

[syrenn]

Home loan forgiveness

Yeah, for all those cheated during the housing bubble, they should have their terms renegotiated on an honest table.

Why?

They signed the loan. If they thought the house was to much money, or more then they could afford, they had every right and option to walk away.


No one was cheated, it was the era of over bidding.

Yeah, you are talking about oppressed people who were sweet talked by those who knew better. Tell it to your grandma.

LOL

People know what they can and cant afford. Who doesn't want a house 4 times bigger and better then they can pay for or ever afford?

Who doesn't want something for nothing? Oppressed is not the word.... greedy is more like it.

 

[syrenn]

Better question....if we bail them out with their home...and they live there for the next 20 years...and they end up with 150% positive equity...should they split the profits with the tax payer?

The bail out should not be free... a note should be signed to pay it back.

I agree but with reasonable terms based on a pragmatic analysis of what the market should be not what the gougers would like it to be.

The market bears what people are willing to pay.

 

[FactFinder]

The bail out should not be free... a note should be signed to pay it back.

I agree but with reasonable terms based on a pragmatic analysis of what the market should be not what the gougers would like it to be.

The market bears what people are willing to pay.

and it doesn't bear what people are fleeced to pay.

 

[Zander]

Screw 'em. Life is risky. Government is not your mommy.

 

[FactFinder]

Screw 'em. Life is risky. Government is not your mommy.

In this case it has nothing to do with government. It has to do with the way markets work, governed by God. Cheat the system either direction...YOU PAY!

 

[syrenn]

I agree but with reasonable terms based on a pragmatic analysis of what the market should be not what the gougers would like it to be.

The market bears what people are willing to pay.

and it doesn't bear what people are fleeced to pay.

No one fleeced them. They wanted the house, and signed a loan to pay for what they wanted.

 

[FactFinder]

The market bears what people are willing to pay.

and it doesn't bear what people are fleeced to pay.

No one fleeced them. They wanted the house, and signed a loan to pay for what they wanted.

yeah yeah, including fine print and assurances "Ah, don't worry about that balloon payment. You will making more than enough to cover that and ARM just means you have our firm arm to rest against. Just sign here and all is ok."

 

[syrenn]

and it doesn't bear what people are fleeced to pay.

No one fleeced them. They wanted the house, and signed a loan to pay for what they wanted.

yeah yeah, including fine print and assurances "Ah, don't worry about that balloon payment. You will making more than enough to cover that and ARM just means you have our firm arm to rest against. Just sign here and all is ok."

Yeah i got that same song and dance..... Sell before the balloon payment comes due and make a fortune. I also got the song and dance about tripling the loan we wanted....get a car, do some remolding, have a vacation..... yadayadayada.

We new what we needed, we new what we could afford....We also put 1k down.

Its called they gambled on the market and lost.

 

[FactFinder]

No one fleeced them. They wanted the house, and signed a loan to pay for what they wanted.

yeah yeah, including fine print and assurances "Ah, don't worry about that balloon payment. You will making more than enough to cover that and ARM just means you have our firm arm to rest against. Just sign here and all is ok."

Yeah i got that same song and dance..... Sell before the balloon payment comes due and make a fortune. I also got the song and dance about tripling the loan we wanted....get a car, do some remolding, have a vacation..... yadayadayada.

We new what we needed, we new what we could afford....We also put 1k down.

Its called they gambled on the market and lost.

Some are sophisticated and understand others not. Guess who got fleeced. A young couple out of college, naiive, idealistic, trusting. Yeah, I favor Wall Street hounds over those sons of bitches.

 

[Wiseacre]

I say it's the govt's fault for creating ARMs in the first place and then relaxing the rules for qualifying nd underwriting mortgages, and then basically forcing banks to make loans to people that couldn't afford the houses they bought.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not we should reduce somebody's mortgage principle. Only way I can support it is if the taxpayer gets their money back before anybody gets and equity out of it.

 

[Trajan]

There's an opinion in today's WSJ about a guy named Ed DeMarco. He's the acting head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, an independent regulator of Fannie and Freddie. He's basically the cop that prevents bad policy decisions that taxpayers would have to pay for. F&F are already some 141 billion in the hole, so his job is to make sure the situation doesn't get appreciably worse.

Which brings us to the question of principle write downs, when lenders would reduce the mortgage principle amount for loans owned by F&F. IOW, a bailout, just in time for the 2012 election, another stimulus plan that bypasses Congress, imagine that.

Except Mr DeMarco won't play ball, he says the taxpayers loseout in the deal, which is true. He says principal forgiveness is not within his statuatory mandate, and Congress should be the ones to appropriate money to fund the idea if they wish.

Hard to argue with that, but of course the democrats are outraged. Bear in mind we've seen several housing relief programs in the lst few years, none of which have worked. And how fair is it to reduce somebody's mortgage but not somebody else's?

So, this all leads to the question: what do you think of the idea of lowering somebody's mortgage principle with the US taxpayers paying for it? I can see extending the mortgage period out to 40 or even 50 years, or requiring a lower loan interest. What's your opinion?

page 1 of your typical mortgage agreement is whats called a HUD 1, its spells out costs, a few pages back is the breakdown of payment terms to deed, which when you use an Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) is accompanied by the rate information, it tells you what you are paying NOW and what you will pay when your ARM expires, in dollars and cents....

I submit, if you cannot read that simple explanation, you should not be buying a home, period. Anything there after is just excuses.

 

[syrenn]

yeah yeah, including fine print and assurances "Ah, don't worry about that balloon payment. You will making more than enough to cover that and ARM just means you have our firm arm to rest against. Just sign here and all is ok."

Yeah i got that same song and dance..... Sell before the balloon payment comes due and make a fortune. I also got the song and dance about tripling the loan we wanted....get a car, do some remolding, have a vacation..... yadayadayada.

We new what we needed, we new what we could afford....We also put 1k down.

Its called they gambled on the market and lost.

Some are sophisticated and understand others not. Guess who got fleeced. A young couple out of college, naiive, idealistic, trusting. Yeah, I favor Wall Street hounds over those sons of bitches.

Don't give me that young couple crap. I was 23 when we took about our first loan. I knew what we could afford and pay for. We did not sign for what we would have wanted though.

Did they not have to pass basic math for that college education? I though the whole point of college was to make you less naive?

 

[FactFinder]

There's an opinion in today's WSJ about a guy named Ed DeMarco. He's the acting head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, an independent regulator of Fannie and Freddie. He's basically the cop that prevents bad policy decisions that taxpayers would have to pay for. F&F are already some 141 billion in the hole, so his job is to make sure the situation doesn't get appreciably worse.

Which brings us to the question of principle write downs, when lenders would reduce the mortgage principle amount for loans owned by F&F. IOW, a bailout, just in time for the 2012 election, another stimulus plan that bypasses Congress, imagine that.

Except Mr DeMarco won't play ball, he says the taxpayers loseout in the deal, which is true. He says principal forgiveness is not within his statuatory mandate, and Congress should be the ones to appropriate money to fund the idea if they wish.

Hard to argue with that, but of course the democrats are outraged. Bear in mind we've seen several housing relief programs in the lst few years, none of which have worked. And how fair is it to reduce somebody's mortgage but not somebody else's?

So, this all leads to the question: what do you think of the idea of lowering somebody's mortgage principle with the US taxpayers paying for it? I can see extending the mortgage period out to 40 or even 50 years, or requiring a lower loan interest. What's your opinion?

page 1 of your typical mortgage agreement is whats called a HUD 1, its spells out costs, a few pages back is the breakdown of payment terms to deed, which when you use an Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) is accompanied by the rate information, it tells you what you are paying NOW and what you will pay when your ARM expires, in dollars and cents....

I submit, if you cannot read that simple explanation, you should not be buying a home, period. Anything there after is just excuses.

Now let's look at the real world. A young couple getting slammed with 20 offers a week in their studio apartment. "Pre Qualified" You can move into your 2 bedroom dream home tomorrow.! Easy financing. No down payment. No Worries. Trust Us. Keep your eyes on the prize. That paperwork crap is just formality.

 

[Trajan]

I say it's the govt's fault for creating ARMs in the first place and then relaxing the rules for qualifying nd underwriting mortgages, and then basically forcing banks to make loans to people that couldn't afford the houses they bought.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not we should reduce somebody's mortgage principle. Only way I can support it is if the taxpayer gets their money back before anybody gets and equity out of it.

here you, go, meet James Johnson;

he was the chairman of F&F and played a very adept game at keeping the org. free of political interference, he was the brains behind the Trillion dollar mortgage prgm that F&F engaged in, in the 1990's to swallow the mort. market and, he was also, never called to testify( nor interviewed by anyone ) before the senate/houe panels convened to do an analysis on how and why the housing market went boom.


Oh and hes also now caught up in;

Another Obama fundraiser is investor in car company that won federal loan

An investment firm whose vice chairman has been an adviser and fundraiser for President Obama saw one of its portfolio companies win approval this year for $50 million in loans from the administration’s clean-energy loan program.

Washington-based Perseus says its affiliation with James A. Johnson, a major fundraiser for Obama’s campaign, played no role in persuading the Energy Department to award the loan to Vehicle Production Group, a Miami start-up that is manufacturing wheelchair-accessible cars and taxis.


snip-

Johnson had supported Obama as a young senator and, later, was briefly part of a three-member team leading his vice presidential search committee. But Johnson resigned in June 2008 amid revelations that he had received $7 million in deeply discounted mortgage loans from the chief executive of Countrywide, a company that had helped fuel the rise of subprime home mortgages. He said the controversy was a distraction for Obama’s campaign.

Johnson has personally donated $55,400 to Obama’s two presidential campaigns, federal donation records show, including a $35,800 check listed on Aug. 29 to Obama’s reelection effort. Pearl donated $1,500 to Obama’s campaign in 2008.

more at-
Another Obama fundraiser and adviser is investor in car company that won federal loan - The Washington Post

 

[syrenn]

There's an opinion in today's WSJ about a guy named Ed DeMarco. He's the acting head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, an independent regulator of Fannie and Freddie. He's basically the cop that prevents bad policy decisions that taxpayers would have to pay for. F&F are already some 141 billion in the hole, so his job is to make sure the situation doesn't get appreciably worse.

Which brings us to the question of principle write downs, when lenders would reduce the mortgage principle amount for loans owned by F&F. IOW, a bailout, just in time for the 2012 election, another stimulus plan that bypasses Congress, imagine that.

Except Mr DeMarco won't play ball, he says the taxpayers loseout in the deal, which is true. He says principal forgiveness is not within his statuatory mandate, and Congress should be the ones to appropriate money to fund the idea if they wish.

Hard to argue with that, but of course the democrats are outraged. Bear in mind we've seen several housing relief programs in the lst few years, none of which have worked. And how fair is it to reduce somebody's mortgage but not somebody else's?

So, this all leads to the question: what do you think of the idea of lowering somebody's mortgage principle with the US taxpayers paying for it? I can see extending the mortgage period out to 40 or even 50 years, or requiring a lower loan interest. What's your opinion?

page 1 of your typical mortgage agreement is whats called a HUD 1, its spells out costs, a few pages back is the breakdown of payment terms to deed, which when you use an Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) is accompanied by the rate information, it tells you what you are paying NOW and what you will pay when your ARM expires, in dollars and cents....

I submit, if you cannot read that simple explanation, you should not be buying a home, period. Anything there after is just excuses.

Bingo. You know exactly what you are getting yourself in for.

 

[FactFinder]

Yeah i got that same song and dance..... Sell before the balloon payment comes due and make a fortune. I also got the song and dance about tripling the loan we wanted....get a car, do some remolding, have a vacation..... yadayadayada.

We new what we needed, we new what we could afford....We also put 1k down.

Its called they gambled on the market and lost.

Some are sophisticated and understand others not. Guess who got fleeced. A young couple out of college, naiive, idealistic, trusting. Yeah, I favor Wall Street hounds over those sons of bitches.

Don't give me that young couple crap. I was 23 when we took about our first loan. I knew what we could afford and pay for. We did not sign for what we would have wanted though.

Did they not have to pass basic math for that college education? I though the whole point of college was to make you less naive?

Somehow I think it was a different age that you & I grew up in than what I see today. The cold hard world was much more obvious then. Now it is all marketing hype about how we are all in it together. That is till the shit hits the fan.

 

[Mad Scientist]

ALLEGEDLY. I do not believe BofA can move their derivative debt to FDIC protected accounts, nor do I believe there's any way they can pawn off their debt onto the taxpayers unless the idiots in Washington allow them to do so. Ain't happening, they may end up in bankruptcy, but there's no way Obama would lay 75 trillion in debt on us. Nor would a repub president either, not a chance.

Read the following article and let me what you don't understand so I can explain it:
HOLY BAILOUT - Federal Reserve Now Backstopping $75 Trillion Of Bank Of America's Derivatives Trades - Home - The Daily Bail

 

[Mad Scientist]

page 1 of your typical mortgage agreement is whats called a HUD 1, its spells out costs, a few pages back is the breakdown of payment terms to deed, which when you use an Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) is accompanied by the rate information, it tells you what you are paying NOW and what you will pay when your ARM expires, in dollars and cents....
I submit, if you cannot read that simple explanation, you should not be buying a home, period. Anything there after is just excuses.

Bingo. You know exactly what you are getting yourself in for.

Did they tell you that they don't own the note?
Did they tell you they sold it (numerous times) to investors as "derivatives"?

No they didn't. Because it wasn't in the Loan Paperwork was it?

How can you pay your mortgage to a person, company or bank that doesn't have the note? Isn't that fraud?

Yes it is and it makes that contract invalid.