Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The bank lent you money that you contractually agreed to pay back with interest after meeting the qualifications for said loan. You sought the loan from them, they didn't put a gun to your head. The bank has a butt load of government regulations they have to follow to ensure you are being treated fairly. How exactly was the bank "treating you"? This is like asking someone to hit you in the head with a hammer and then complaining because it left a mark.
The bank made a bad investment along with the homeowner. It is no different than a business loan. If a bank invests in a business and the business goes belly-up....the bank takes a loss too.
The bank needs to make an offer to the potentially defaulting homeowner so that both share some of the loss. The all or nothing policy of most banks encourages the borrower to choose nothing
If banks were free to make mortgage loans to only those customers who were decent to good risks, we wouldn't have the problem we do today. The government forces banks to make loans to people with questionable means to repay them and then the banking industry is made out to be the bad guy when people default. Like I said earlier, if you make $30,000 per year, you can't afford a $200,000 home. But it happens. If banks were free to say NO, they would never make such loans. Their profit comes from people paying interest on loans, not from repossessing the collateral and selling it for pennies on the dollar.
It's doubtful that the folks in the linked article have anywhere close to 85% equity, if any at all. But in the real world, if you were lucky enough to have that kind of sweet equity in your house, and you walked away (ie: 100k home you would in essence have $85k in cash in your hand) that's your bad. The bank wouldn't owe you anything at all and surely we can all understand that.
Wow, what a perfect banker attitude! "My money is mine, and so is yours!"
Sorry bub but a mortgage isn't a rent to own contract. If there's money left over after the bank and everyone gets paid, its owed to the borrower.
You haven't provided any evidence of these banks being dishonest.
Have you been following the news for the past couple years?
Yes. I wasn't aware that some banks having a financial problem due to dishonest practices means that all banks are lying to everyone. That doesn't seem logical.
What evidence is there that any of these banks lied to these people?
Wow. You've basically admitted the bankruptcy of your moral outlook.
They signed LOAN DOCUMENTS. They have a LEGAL CONTRACT obligating them to pay.
Admitting that one intends to violate the terms of a contract doesn't make such a violation moral.
Slow down for a moment. We bought a house and the bank stupidly sent us a document that allowed us to avoid the remaining $12,000 owed on our old house. No kidding. The administrative assistant to the VP blew the paperwork drill is what happened.
So I called the VP and told him "what will you give me" for tearing up the document. He told me "nothing", that "mistakes happen." What? I told him if the tables were reversed he would be holding our feet to the fire. He refused to admit he was wrong.
Called the lawyer and executive VP for the bank (same person), arranged a meeting to which the big Veep forced the little Veep to come and apologize and give us what we wanted. Good for the big Veep, piss on the little Veep.
Yeah, banks are not noted for honesty or compassion.
So, I say, let the defaulters stay if the banks don't want to rewrite the contracts. Screw them.
Its completely logical once you realize that the lies presupposed the "fact" that housing prices would continue to go up. If they had kept going up the banks would be fine. They didn't. The banks, and the customers they lied too, got fucked.
The bank made a bad investment along with the homeowner. It is no different than a business loan. If a bank invests in a business and the business goes belly-up....the bank takes a loss too.
The bank needs to make an offer to the potentially defaulting homeowner so that both share some of the loss. The all or nothing policy of most banks encourages the borrower to choose nothing
If banks were free to make mortgage loans to only those customers who were decent to good risks, we wouldn't have the problem we do today.
bush encouraged banks to make loans to people who could not afford them.
USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership
Nothing-down options are available on the private mortgage market, but, in general, they require the borrower to have pristine credit. Bush's proposed change would extend the nothing-down option to borrowers with blemished credit.
The FHA isn't a direct lender, but guarantees loan payments for mortgages on moderately priced owner-occupied property. The FHA guarantee now permits private lenders to finance as much as 97% of the purchase price of a home for millions of low- and middle-income borrowers.
In the proposal soon to be delivered to Congress, Bush would allow the FHA to guarantee loans for the full purchase price of the home, plus down-payment costs. As a practical matter, the FHA would guarantee mortgages as high as 103% of the value of the underlying property.
The most recent government figures show a national home ownership rate of 68.4%, the highest ever. But less than half of black and Latino householders own the home in which they live. Bush has a goal of 5.5 million new minority homeowners this decade.
FHA loans carry higher risks of delinquency and foreclosure than do private mortgages, and the proposed change presumably will lead to greater losses to the government than the current program does.
If banks were free to make mortgage loans to only those customers who were decent to good risks, we wouldn't have the problem we do today.
bush encouraged banks to make loans to people who could not afford them.
USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership
Nothing-down options are available on the private mortgage market, but, in general, they require the borrower to have pristine credit. Bush's proposed change would extend the nothing-down option to borrowers with blemished credit.
The FHA isn't a direct lender, but guarantees loan payments for mortgages on moderately priced owner-occupied property. The FHA guarantee now permits private lenders to finance as much as 97% of the purchase price of a home for millions of low- and middle-income borrowers.
In the proposal soon to be delivered to Congress, Bush would allow the FHA to guarantee loans for the full purchase price of the home, plus down-payment costs. As a practical matter, the FHA would guarantee mortgages as high as 103% of the value of the underlying property.
The most recent government figures show a national home ownership rate of 68.4%, the highest ever. But less than half of black and Latino householders own the home in which they live. Bush has a goal of 5.5 million new minority homeowners this decade.
FHA loans carry higher risks of delinquency and foreclosure than do private mortgages, and the proposed change presumably will lead to greater losses to the government than the current program does.
Bush is not my favorite guy, but he was carrying out policies that began with Clinton and the Republican congresses in the 1990s. Both parties are invested in this mess.
'Force me out if you can': Homeowners vs. banks - The Week
A growing number of homeowners particularly those whose properties have plunged in value in recent years are voluntarily ceasing payments on their mortgages and telling banks, "Force me out if you can," reports The New York Times. These loud-and-proud defaulters are using the money to stabilize their finances and even treat themselves to a few luxuries. Are these freeloaders taking advantage of overwhelmed banks, or did the banks deserve it for "snookering homeowners with loans that got them in over their heads"?
bush encouraged banks to make loans to people who could not afford them.
USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership
Bush is not my favorite guy, but he was carrying out policies that began with Clinton and the Republican congresses in the 1990s. Both parties are invested in this mess.
That's just bizarre. How did Clinton force bush to continue Clinton's policies?
Its completely logical once you realize that the lies presupposed the "fact" that housing prices would continue to go up. If they had kept going up the banks would be fine. They didn't. The banks, and the customers they lied too, got fucked.
Can you tell me which bank told these customers that the housing prices would continue to go up? Next can you tell me why anyone believe that bullcrap?
If banks were free to make mortgage loans to only those customers who were decent to good risks, we wouldn't have the problem we do today.
bush encouraged banks to make loans to people who could not afford them.
USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership
Nothing-down options are available on the private mortgage market, but, in general, they require the borrower to have pristine credit. Bush's proposed change would extend the nothing-down option to borrowers with blemished credit.
The FHA isn't a direct lender, but guarantees loan payments for mortgages on moderately priced owner-occupied property. The FHA guarantee now permits private lenders to finance as much as 97% of the purchase price of a home for millions of low- and middle-income borrowers.
In the proposal soon to be delivered to Congress, Bush would allow the FHA to guarantee loans for the full purchase price of the home, plus down-payment costs. As a practical matter, the FHA would guarantee mortgages as high as 103% of the value of the underlying property.
The most recent government figures show a national home ownership rate of 68.4%, the highest ever. But less than half of black and Latino householders own the home in which they live. Bush has a goal of 5.5 million new minority homeowners this decade.
FHA loans carry higher risks of delinquency and foreclosure than do private mortgages, and the proposed change presumably will lead to greater losses to the government than the current program does.
Fucking hell. It has nothing to do with minority homeowners.
The majority of subprime loans were NOT TO LOW-INCOME PEOPLE. They were to the middle class. They weren't to people who shouldn't have been homeowners, they were to people who bought bigger homes than they could afford, at the urging of the banks.
Bush is not my favorite guy, but he was carrying out policies that began with Clinton and the Republican congresses in the 1990s. Both parties are invested in this mess.
That's just bizarre. How did Clinton force bush to continue Clinton's policies?
Stupid question that has nothing to do with the suggestion; Sangha, drag your red herring elsewhere because it and your argument stink. You are bizarre if you deny that Bush was involved in the mess. I merely point out that both parties are involved. You do understand that, don't you?
Its completely logical once you realize that the lies presupposed the "fact" that housing prices would continue to go up. If they had kept going up the banks would be fine. They didn't. The banks, and the customers they lied too, got fucked.
Can you tell me which bank told these customers that the housing prices would continue to go up? Next can you tell me why anyone believe that bullcrap?
Most of them did. And people believed it because housing prices had gone up for the previous 10 years or so. It was called a housing bubble, maybe you've heard of it? Everyone wanted to get in on it. And then it burst, and everyone got fucked.
Nik, can it, please.
Almost everyone from the homeowner to all the middle wo/men to the banks are responsible. Greed is what was responsible.
Can you tell me which bank told these customers that the housing prices would continue to go up? Next can you tell me why anyone believe that bullcrap?
Most of them did. And people believed it because housing prices had gone up for the previous 10 years or so. It was called a housing bubble, maybe you've heard of it? Everyone wanted to get in on it. And then it burst, and everyone got fucked.
Bullshit. Banks are required to provide disclosures and disclaimers. It is what is known as the fine print and any smart consumer will pay attention to it when the lender points it out as he is required to do. Banks can't and don't make guarantees on what the market will do.
Most of them did. And people believed it because housing prices had gone up for the previous 10 years or so. It was called a housing bubble, maybe you've heard of it? Everyone wanted to get in on it. And then it burst, and everyone got fucked.
Bullshit. Banks are required to provide disclosures and disclaimers. It is what is known as the fine print and any smart consumer will pay attention to it when the lender points it out as he is required to do. Banks can't and don't make guarantees on what the market will do.
No, they don't make guarantees. But they are in a position of power are supposed knowledge and people trust them.
Bullshit. Banks are required to provide disclosures and disclaimers. It is what is known as the fine print and any smart consumer will pay attention to it when the lender points it out as he is required to do. Banks can't and don't make guarantees on what the market will do.
No, they don't make guarantees. But they are in a position of power are supposed knowledge and people trust them.
Position of power? They provide a service and compete with the bank down the street. Until you sign on the dotted line, you are free to walk out of the office. What is up with people wanting to blame everyone else and not taking any personal responsibility? No lender ever puts a gun to anybody's head and forces them to take out a loan. In fact, they will deny the loan if the person doesn't qualify. Once they agree on terms and the contract is done, the person taking out hte loan has an obligation to repay it with interest under the terms of the loan which were made abundantly clear by regulation. If a person defaults on the loan they willingly agreed to, they lose everything.
Bullshit. Banks are required to provide disclosures and disclaimers. It is what is known as the fine print and any smart consumer will pay attention to it when the lender points it out as he is required to do. Banks can't and don't make guarantees on what the market will do.
No, they don't make guarantees. But they are in a position of power are supposed knowledge and people trust them.
Position of power? They provide a service and compete with the bank down the street. Until you sign on the dotted line, you are free to walk out of the office. What is up with people wanting to blame everyone else and not taking any personal responsibility?
No lender ever puts a gun to anybody's head and forces them to take out a loan. In fact, they will deny the loan if the person doesn't qualify.
