Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
or you blaming the man that got pick pocketed, for being robbed by the gentleman that bumped in to him.
again no. there was no consent thus it was theft and therefore a crime.
No one signs a mortgage without realizing they are signing a mortgage.
skull, these banks and mortgage companies and financial institutions did a disservice to their stockholders by not being good fiduciaries of their money....they did not practice good business practice to issue loans to people that could afford them now but would not be able to when the terms changed....they lost their stock holders A LOT, AND AWFUL LOTof money simply because they decided to loosen their own lending practices and loan to people that could not pay it back....
they took a chance with their stock holders's money and loaned it to people that they should not have loaned it to......simple as that....why they would make such foolish business decisions after decades of knowing better is beyond me....? it was a ponzi scheme it seems.... of passing the risky debt along, and as long as it didn't land with anyone then it all worked fine....
These mortgages were NOT given to people due to CRA.... these were creative mortgages and risky at that, created by these financial institutions ALL ON THEIR OWN....WITH NO RELATION to CRA....cant say that enough.....
if you were the person getting the loan, wouldnt you think the bank would not loan you money you could not afford?
To ME, that was a GIVEN....I was sweating my ass off....hoping and praying Bank of America would approve matt and me for our loan on our house in Massachusetts...why, did these business people decide that making money now was more important than losing money later?
care
Illinois To Sue Countrywide Over "Unfair And Deceptive" Mortgages
Preditory lending is real and is being prosecuted
or you blaming the man that got pick pocketed, for being robbed by the gentleman that bumped in to him.
again no. there was no consent thus it was theft and therefore a crime.
No one signs a mortgage without realizing they are signing a mortgage.
skull, these banks and mortgage companies and financial institutions did a disservice to their stockholders by not being good fiduciaries of their money....they did not practice good business practice to issue loans to people that could afford them now but would not be able to when the terms changed....they lost their stock holders A LOT, AN AWFUL LOTof money simply because they decided to loosen their own lending practices and loan to people that could not pay it back....
i never said the banks didn't practice poor business did I? Those banks should have been allowed to pay the ultimate price for being poor stewards rather than being propped up with taxpayer money. and investors know the risks when they invest. Or is it your contention that all investors even though they are given a prospectus that clearly states the risks of investing be bailed out as well?
lending policies were loose because the fed was lending money at negative rates and no other reason. if interest rates were allowed to rise growth, especially in real estate, would have slowed but it would have been sustainable.
they took a chance with their stock holders's money and loaned it to people that they should not have loaned it to......simple as that....why they would make such foolish business decisions after decades of knowing better is beyond me....? it was a ponzi scheme it seems.... of passing the risky debt along, and as long as it didn't land with anyone then it all worked fine....
ibid
These mortgages were NOT given to people due to CRA.... these were creative mortgages and risky at that, created by these financial institutions ALL ON THEIR OWN....WITH NO RELATION to CRA....cant say that enough.....
I don't remember ever mentioning CRA
if you were the person getting the loan, wouldnt you think the bank would not loan you money you could not afford?
If i were a person applying for a loan Iwould make damn sure I would be able to pay it back. It is not the bank's responsibility to ensure I pay, only to assess the risk that I won't pay.
To ME, that was a GIVEN....I was sweating my ass off....hoping and praying Bank of America would approve matt and me for our loan on our house in Massachusetts...why, did these business people decide that making money now was more important than losing money later?
but in actuality, even with housing values declining, if a mortgage is being serviced (and the vast majority of loans are being serviced) the bank has only lost money on paper. In reality the bank has on its books an account receivable for the next thirty years or so and we all know that 75% of the money you pay is interest in the first 15 years of a thirty year loan. the problem here is mark to market accounting rules not home values.
I have behaved completely resposibly throughput my life. I have positioned myself as best as anyone could for this mess. I told people all through the Bush housing inflation that they cause to NOT take money out of their home, to not buy expensive cars and to save, save, save. That being said I am willing to do what is nessessary to fix this problem for many reasons.
1. I care about my fellow Americans.
2. I care about the long term viability of my country.
3. I care that childern will be living on the streets.
4. I care about the economy being pushed to a point that we will remain a weak third world type country while Countries like China and Russia will emerge before we do and OWN the world markets because they were willing to invest back in their own countries and we werent.
5. I care about the infrastructure of this country crumbling to the extent that we are not able to compete when the world economy does emerge.
6. I care that many of these people (fellow Americans) you chose to hate were actually lied to by their lending institution.
When will you people stop hating your fellow American long enough to pull together and do what NEEDS to be done to fix this country?
again no. there was no consent thus it was theft and therefore a crime.
No one signs a mortgage without realizing they are signing a mortgage.
skull, these banks and mortgage companies and financial institutions did a disservice to their stockholders by not being good fiduciaries of their money....they did not practice good business practice to issue loans to people that could afford them now but would not be able to when the terms changed....they lost their stock holders A LOT, AND AWFUL LOTof money simply because they decided to loosen their own lending practices and loan to people that could not pay it back....
they took a chance with their stock holders's money and loaned it to people that they should not have loaned it to......simple as that....why they would make such foolish business decisions after decades of knowing better is beyond me....? it was a ponzi scheme it seems.... of passing the risky debt along, and as long as it didn't land with anyone then it all worked fine....
These mortgages were NOT given to people due to CRA.... these were creative mortgages and risky at that, created by these financial institutions ALL ON THEIR OWN....WITH NO RELATION to CRA....cant say that enough.....
if you were the person getting the loan, wouldnt you think the bank would not loan you money you could not afford?
To ME, that was a GIVEN....I was sweating my ass off....hoping and praying Bank of America would approve matt and me for our loan on our house in Massachusetts...why, did these business people decide that making money now was more important than losing money later?
care
Hmmm, I remember going through 'pre-qualification' when looking for my home in 1995. They said I qualified for a loan of $180k. I said, 'No way!' I was making $22k per year! BUT, I had $30k to put down. Why wouldn't someone making $80k know they shouldn't take out a loan for $700k or more? Then borrow against the 'increased value'? Problems of their own making.
I took out a loan for $100k, in 10 years it was down to around $80k. Then I borrowed $15k in equity line, when the valuation was close to $300k. Now the valuation is around $200k, but well above what I owe. Doesn't take a genius.
I have credit cards with limits that allow me to borrow up to $45k, should I use that, just cause it's there?
Sorry Care, I'm not for tossing people on the street, but keeping them in homes they couldn't and can't afford? No.
Do you know how they do prequalification? Basically you say so and so is prequal for $700K, just enter the number and print out the page.Hmmm, I remember going through 'pre-qualification' when looking for my home in 1995. They said I qualified for a loan of $180k. I said, 'No way!' I was making $22k per year! BUT, I had $30k to put down. Why wouldn't someone making $80k know they shouldn't take out a loan for $700k or more? Then borrow against the 'increased value'? Problems of their own making.
During the boom prices of houses went through the roof. Have a fun time back even 5 yrs ago finding a home under $250K that wasn't in the ghetto or so far out of the city that the taxes are insane and the school blow! Basically the boom shot home value to insane prices! You have to consider this fact also!I took out a loan for $100k, in 10 years it was down to around $80k. Then I borrowed $15k in equity line, when the valuation was close to $300k. Now the valuation is around $200k, but well above what I owe. Doesn't take a genius.
You lose your job and see how quick your theory goes out the window! Besides the theory behind subprime was refinance to a 2 yr ARM clean up your credit by paying off your credit cards and then refinance to a conventional rates.I have credit cards with limits that allow me to borrow up to $45k, should I use that, just cause it's there?
Yes people are irresponsible. In other eras I would 100% agree, but again we closing in on a depression. Soon very soon we will be at 20%+ unemployment!Sorry Care, I'm not for tossing people on the street, but keeping them in homes they couldn't and can't afford? No.
if you are married, your money is your husband's money and your husband's money is your money.
that's how it works, no?
And any assets acquired while the two of you are married are JOINT assets.
My mother never worked, and all that my parents have, is hers as well.
Same with me and matt, all that is mine is his, all that is his is mine.
if you are married, your money is your husband's money and your husband's money is your money.
that's how it works, no?
And any assets acquired while the two of you are married are JOINT assets.
My mother never worked, and all that my parents have, is hers as well.
Same with me and matt, all that is mine is his, all that is his is mine.
I didn't bring up CRA. Because of the lack of transparency, we really DON'T know where the most toxic loans are. My guess, and yes, it's only a guess, are not the poor-no income, no downpayment, but rather substantial income, no down payment, wanting a lifestyle not earned yet. Multiple loans on the same property, no collateral. Ala, McMansions. For some reason, I don't feel like crying them a river or bailing them out.skull, these banks and mortgage companies and financial institutions did a disservice to their stockholders by not being good fiduciaries of their money....they did not practice good business practice to issue loans to people that could afford them now but would not be able to when the terms changed....they lost their stock holders A LOT, AND AWFUL LOTof money simply because they decided to loosen their own lending practices and loan to people that could not pay it back....
they took a chance with their stock holders's money and loaned it to people that they should not have loaned it to......simple as that....why they would make such foolish business decisions after decades of knowing better is beyond me....? it was a ponzi scheme it seems.... of passing the risky debt along, and as long as it didn't land with anyone then it all worked fine....
These mortgages were NOT given to people due to CRA.... these were creative mortgages and risky at that, created by these financial institutions ALL ON THEIR OWN....WITH NO RELATION to CRA....cant say that enough.....
if you were the person getting the loan, wouldnt you think the bank would not loan you money you could not afford?
To ME, that was a GIVEN....I was sweating my ass off....hoping and praying Bank of America would approve matt and me for our loan on our house in Massachusetts...why, did these business people decide that making money now was more important than losing money later?
care
Hmmm, I remember going through 'pre-qualification' when looking for my home in 1995. They said I qualified for a loan of $180k. I said, 'No way!' I was making $22k per year! BUT, I had $30k to put down. Why wouldn't someone making $80k know they shouldn't take out a loan for $700k or more? Then borrow against the 'increased value'? Problems of their own making.
I took out a loan for $100k, in 10 years it was down to around $80k. Then I borrowed $15k in equity line, when the valuation was close to $300k. Now the valuation is around $200k, but well above what I owe. Doesn't take a genius.
I have credit cards with limits that allow me to borrow up to $45k, should I use that, just cause it's there?
Sorry Care, I'm not for tossing people on the street, but keeping them in homes they couldn't and can't afford? No.
and who are these people that can not afford their homes now kathianne?
let's say the 6% are loans to "the people who could not afford them, the CRA candidates" that you all try to blame Clinton for when there was NO BIGGER PROMOTER OF HOME OWNERSHIP for those with lesser means than President Bush the last 8 years....he challenged the banks to come up with creative means to get more poor and lower middle class people in to homes....he didn't ask them to be downright STUPID though....they did that all on their own...
Care, are you listening to yourself? I've never read anything by you that would demonstrate a lack of responsibility on your part, including sweating whether or not you'd get your mortgage. Yet, here you are saying that the 'bank' or whomever, should just wipe clean the loan, rewrite it to today's valuation, making it ok.WHO ARE THE OTHER 94% annie? Who are they? All people that bought homes too big for them? 2nd mortgages to finance the kid's college or car?
Banks did NOT MAKE many of these loans, financial institutions and mortgage companies are the ones that did from what I have read....
Would you continue to pay your mortgage if your house now is WORTH 100,000 dollars LESS than your mortgage? the 60% of the people paying their mortgages now.... even though their homes are worth MUCH LESS than their mortgage are the ones that will be next to just let their homes foreclose....
This will continue to do WONDERS for our confidence and our economy....NOT!
NO RECESSION has had a recovery, without a housing recovery....THIS should be our focus...
These people CAN AFFORD their homes now, at the going price...why not just refinance them at that...? the loss is then limited to the decline in home value only and not the cost of going through the legal expense of foreclosure and having the asset sit on the market for a year or two idle along with millions of other homes, not making a dime? And they are LOSING value every day they sit on the market for those 2 years before finally sold....while all along they could be getting monthly mortgage payments, giving them more money and quicker than the foreclosure route?
That's like saying that we should give back the investments made by those who lost money on the Edsel. For crying out loud! If I pay way too much for some good, why should someone 'bail me out?' I need to be careful where I'm putting my money, the little I have of. Along this line of reasoning, why shouldn't I get a check for the '100k' more my home was 'worth' two years ago, now gone? What about my loses in my retirement fund? Who's going to make that 'whole'? Oh yea.
I would love to see something for everyone, regarding homes....for everyone to be able to refinance with a 4% fixed interest rate or buying a new home at a 4% fixed interest rate, including the ones that have faithfully paid their mortgages and not just the ones that are late or over their head....this type of thing would make it tasty for the good guys as well, and maybe bring a small, gentle, but consistent, rally of housing?
Oh and matt and me did not prequalify, we just found a home and applied for the mortgage....we had to give our blood first to them,. in paperwork and information about our assets and debt and salaries and savings accounts and 401ks and all kinds of crap before we knew or found out we qualified for the mortgage....it was scarey, as our first experience together....and this was for a VA loan, so we needed no downpayment because the government "covers" you for it in a promise to the bank, if you defaulted on it.....
But anyway, you are right....when it all came back and we got approved, they said we qualified to buy a home almost $100k more than we paid for this house...
We just did not want to be mortgaged strapped, liked our vacations and stuff.... so from the beginning, we were looking for a smaller home...
I was shocked that the bank said we could buy a home as much as they said though...
But these loans given that went in to foreclosure were loans that had very dangerous terms..... and they were given with no thought on who they gave them to, no proof of jobs even on some of them...it was unthought of, the kind of loans some of them issued...mind boggling....this could have only happened, if they KNEW the risk of these loans would not be on themselves....imo
care
I am 20 years old. Just starting my life out. I live within my means, and i don't purchase things ie. cars, HOUSES, boats, etc. etc. that I can't afford. And to hear about all these houses being forclosed because people decided to bite off more than they can chew, well call me a Redneck Republican, but its not my job to pay there bills. I would rather be considered a "Idiot Cowboy" who can pay his or her own bills rather than make millions of people pay them for me. I dont care that there trying to help people from there houses being forclosed, the point is, they should have spent a little more time going over there income, and making sure they could afford what they were doing. Instead they were worried about living in a classy more expensive neighborhood to look good. My parents spent 20 years of there life serving this country to then retire and now work for the government. Now at the age of 45, 48 after YEARS AND YEARS of hard work, they just bought there dream house. They waited this long, knowing that if they would have done it any earlier they couldnt have afforded it. My point is I dont want to, and shouldnt have to pay my neighbors bills. Its not my job, nor do I owe it to anyone.
[It's a system you have to put money in to fix the economy. Why is that so hard to understand?
if you are married, your money is your husband's money and your husband's money is your money.
that's how it works, no?
And any assets acquired while the two of you are married are JOINT assets.
My mother never worked, and all that my parents have, is hers as well.
Same with me and matt, all that is mine is his, all that is his is mine.
Guess you never been married! Your money is you wife's money and your wife's money is her money!
[It's a system you have to put money in to fix the economy. Why is that so hard to understand?
Are you missing the reason for anger from those who follow the rules, and have worked and continue to work for what they have?
Why is it so hard for you to understand that some are unwillling to pay those who gamed the system.
Didn't your mommy read you the story of "The Ant and the Grasshopper"?
no, bitch, all you complain about are those that DIDNT cause the messSo have we all. But you in your naivete believe that the government is incapable of waste, corruption and malfeasance. you believe that giving more money to government is the answer when government has been so irresponsible with the money it already takes from us.
Have you not seen my posts since I arrived here?
I have been complaining about it from day one.
[It's a system you have to put money in to fix the economy. Why is that so hard to understand?
Are you missing the reason for anger from those who follow the rules, and have worked and continue to work for what they have?
Why is it so hard for you to understand that some are unwillling to pay those who gamed the system.
Didn't your mommy read you the story of "The Ant and the Grasshopper"?
That may be the case but do you want the economy to fail? Why do you have such a problem help out your fellow Americans? And are you refering to the thousands here in the US who are poverty stricken as the ones who "gamed" system?
Not true there are many ways to check this. Besides this will not be as big of a amount of the cases that you are making them to be.The problem is far more complex than you implied in your original post. Add to your calculations:
1) There is no way to determine whether those being bailed out are yuppies with an investment, crooks looking to flip a house for a quick profit, someone who purchases a second or third vacation house, or the ones that you imagine, with five kids, two jobs and a sudden illness.
Very very true, but if the government ignores this unique situation they wouldn't be doing their job either. The mortgage meltdown is not just effecting the banks and the people in foreclosure its effecting everyone. If we are not careful it can drag everyone down. I care more about me and my family than my neighbor, but I am smart enough to know that if my neighbors all start going down, eventually I will go down with them.2) The government was not design to do those things which caused the problem, nor throw around the funds which may or may not solve the problem.
First off my biggest growing clients right now are loan modification programs. The banks are doing this on their own. The banks should be able to take the bail out money and do what they want with it. They need to take it with stipulation. If they don't like it give it back or don't take it! Bottom line, banks make stipulation when you get a mortgage, such as a responsibility to pay your taxes, get HOI, get flood insurance, that you live in the home and keeping up the home's condition. If you don't like the stipulation then don't take the loan. Same with the banks, who are taking bailout money,3) I am opposed to any government plan which would change the terms of a legal contract (mortgage). Or we are no longer a nation of laws.
Look being to far to the left is bad, but being to far to the right can cause problems also. Fiscal flexibility is needed at time. Although most times I prefer to lean right fiscally.4) You seem to be confusing charity with public policy. Conservatives believe in voluntary community and charity, based on duties to each other, as opposed to involuntary collectivism. BTW, this is why conservatives are known to give far more charity than liberals.
That is a fair statement, as one might say I back the Obama plan, which I don't. I just think we need to do something. But this just doesn't seem right.5) In my post, I said neither that I didn't want to help my felllow Americans, nor did I say that I wanted the economy to fail. You've jumped to conclusions in a rather simple minded way.
