PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Governement makes deal with banks over housing crisis


dirk digler
02-09-2012, 03:37 PM
Seems to me the banks got off way too easy.



http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/09/news/economy/mortgage_settlement/index.htm?hpt=hp_t3

WASHINGTON (CNNMoney) -- In the largest deal to date aimed at addressing the housing meltdown, federal and state officials on Thursday announced a $26 billion foreclosure settlement with five of the largest home lenders.

The deal settles potential state charges about allegations of improper foreclosures based on robosigning, seizures made without proper paperwork.

The settlement includes the Justice Department and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, as well as 49 state attorneys general -- all but Oklahoma.

"We are using this opportunity to fix a broken system," said U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder at the news conference announcing the settlement.

The settlement sets up a federal monitor to oversee the process and try to prevent roadblocks and red tape that tripped many homeowners seeking help in earlier programs designed to address the housing crisis.

President Obama said the settlement will "begin to turn the page on an era of wrecklessness that has left so much damage in its wake."

"No action, no matter how meaningful, is going to by itself entirely heal the housing market," he said in separate remarks. "But this settlement is a start."

Most of the relief will go to those who owe far more than their homes are worth, known as being underwater on the loans (http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/01/30/housing-recovery/?iid=EL). That relief will come over the course of the next three years, with the banks having incentives to provide most of the relief in the next 12 months.

"This settlement is about homeowners, homeowners in distress," said Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller at the news conference with state and federal officials.

What the settlement means to you (http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/09/real_estate/mortgage_settlement/index.htm?iid=EL)

Principal reduction: At least $17 billion will go to reducing the principal owed by homeowners who are both underwater and behind on their mortgages.

The agreement calls for principal reduction for as many as 1 million people. But it's unlikely the money will go that far, because many people need more than the $17,000 average reduction that would result if the money is split among 1 million homeowners.

At the same time, total principal reduction could go higher -- to as much as $34 billion -- since the agreement requires deeper principal reductions for the most troubled loans.

Refinancing: Officials say up to 750,000 other underwater homeowners who are current on their mortgages will be able to refinance their current loans at lower rates. They will not receive a reduction in principal, but with mortgage rates now near record lows, they could receive substantial savings on their monthly payments.

The settlement sets aside $3 billion to account for the reduced interest payments the banks will receive after the refinancing.

Robosigning payments: About $1.5 billion of the settlement will go to homeowners who had their homes foreclosed upon between Jan. 1, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2011, and who meet other criteria. They will receive up to $2,000 each.

Accepting that payment does not preclude homeowners who lost their home in an improper foreclosure from suing the bank to recover damages, Donovan said.

vailpass
02-09-2012, 03:39 PM
Somewhere there are a few wrists that felt a slight sting for just a minute.

dirk digler
02-09-2012, 03:49 PM
Somewhere there are a few wrists that felt a slight sting for just a minute.

Can't imagine it stung a minute maybe a millisecond.

We have ruined your life and your credit but here is $2000 and you better think twice about suing us because we will drag it out and you will be dead before you get anywhere.

vailpass
02-09-2012, 04:01 PM
Can't imagine it stung a minute maybe a millisecond.

We have ruined your life and your credit but here is $2000 and you better think twice about suing us because we will drag it out and you will be dead before you get anywhere.

While we agree on the small dollar amount of the "punishment" we appear to disagree on who is at fault for individual's ruining their "life and credit". Those who took out mortgages they knew they couldn't afford deserve whatever repercussions they suffered.

Chiefshrink
02-09-2012, 04:06 PM
Makes a deal? How about "shakes down the banks" it forced them to make these loans to begin with!!! Marxism at its best !!!!

Such a f'n lie that people got tricked!!!!!

vailpass
02-09-2012, 04:21 PM
Makes a deal? How about "shakes down the banks" it forced them to make these loans to begin with!!! Marxism at its best !!!!

Such a f'n lie that people got tricked!!!!!

Nobody got tricked, all were willing accomplices. Clean Hands Doctrine.

dirk digler
02-09-2012, 04:40 PM
While we agree on the small dollar amount of the "punishment" we appear to disagree on who is at fault for individual's ruining their "life and credit". Those who took out mortgages they knew they couldn't afford deserve whatever repercussions they suffered.

I don't disagree for the most part. But some people got screwed and the banks don't even know who owns most of these houses due to their fraud.

That is one of the big reasons why a lot of these houses are still on the market.

Pioli Zombie
02-09-2012, 04:42 PM
This thread doesn't mention Gays. Im offended. Gay gay gay gay gay gay.

KC native
02-09-2012, 04:49 PM
This is absolutely horseshit. There should be people going to jail for this. I'll post an explanation on why this is a bad deal later when I get home.

BucEyedPea
02-09-2012, 04:55 PM
This is electioneering.

HonestChieffan
02-09-2012, 05:36 PM
Makes a deal? How about "shakes down the banks" it forced them to make these loans to begin with!!! Marxism at its best !!!!

Such a f'n lie that people got tricked!!!!!

Fannie and Freddie gets off again

2bikemike
02-09-2012, 06:07 PM
IMHO this is where TARP should have went in the first place. These are exactly the steps that should have been done 2 or 3 years ago instead of just handing the banks cash.

vailpass
02-09-2012, 06:09 PM
I don't disagree for the most part. But some people got screwed and the banks don't even know who owns most of these houses due to their fraud.

That is one of the big reasons why a lot of these houses are still on the market.

Oh yes, there is no end to the amount of culpability the lending institutions have on the backend.

whoman69
02-09-2012, 06:12 PM
While we agree on the small dollar amount of the "punishment" we appear to disagree on who is at fault for individual's ruining their "life and credit". Those who took out mortgages they knew they couldn't afford deserve whatever repercussions they suffered.

The op is about banks who performed robosigning. That fault lies entirely with the banks themselves. On other transactions the banks misled people to sign agreements they knew would fail in order to gain short term liquidity for the bank.

vailpass
02-09-2012, 06:15 PM
The op is about banks who performed robosigning. That fault lies entirely with the banks themselves. On other transactions the banks misled people to sign agreements they knew would fail in order to gain short term liquidity for the bank.

I was responding to a statement that the banks had ruined people's lives and their credit. Anytime someone signs an agreement they are responsible for the terms contained within the document they signed.

The banks are fully culpable for all the errors they made on the backend, obviously

KC native
02-09-2012, 09:47 PM
Fannie and Freddie gets off again

No, Bank of America, Countrywide, JP Morgan, Citi, et all get off again.

Chiefshrink
02-09-2012, 09:50 PM
Fannie and Freddie gets off again

Of course they do because first off Freddie and Fannie are Marxist Dem created and 2nd it's an election yr and Obama has no record to run on other than destroying capitalism/transformation of America:roll eyes:

Sooooooooo why not give the "illusion" of giving freebies away to all the parasites in our society.

Just so you know, these loans are only good for those people severely in the rears on mortgage payments and that have abused their equity in their homes.

For a lot us who didn't abuse our equity and have never missed any mortgage payments but just underwater home value wise we are SOL.

The dirty little secret to all of this, is that this program is designed to be an incentive for all the responsible people to start missing payments in order to qualify to get a better mortgage thus the continuation of the Marxist Dem economic plan to overwhelm the system(Cloward/Piven).

KC native
02-09-2012, 09:51 PM
Yves Smith kills it. Click though to the link. The post is chock full of links.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/02/the-top-twelve-reasons-why-you-should-hate-the-mortgage-settlement.html
As readers may know by now, 49 of 50 states have agreed to join the so-called mortgage settlement, with Oklahoma the lone refusenik. Although the fine points are still being hammered out, various news outlets (New York Times, Financial Times, Wall Street Journal) have details, with Dave Dayen’s overview at Firedoglake the best thus far.

The Wall Street Journal is also reporting that the SEC is about to launch some securities litigation against major banks. Since the statue of limitations has already run out on securities filings more than five years old, this means they’ll clip the banks for some of the very last (and dreckiest) deals they shoved out the door before the subprime market gave up the ghost.

The various news services are touting this pact at the biggest multi-state settlement since the tobacco deal in 1998. While narrowly accurate, this deal is bush league by comparison even though the underlying abuses in both cases have had devastating consequences.

The tobacco agreement was pegged as being worth nearly $250 billion over the first 25 years. Adjust that for inflation, and the disparity is even bigger. That shows you the difference in outcomes between a case where the prosecutors have solid evidence backing their charges, versus one where everyone know a lot of bad stuff happened, but no one has come close to marshaling the evidence.

The mortgage settlement terms have not been released, but more of the details have been leaked:

1. The total for the top five servicers is now touted as $26 billion (annoyingly, the FT is calling it “nearly $40 billion”), but of that, roughly $17 billion is credits for principal modifications, which as we pointed out earlier, can and almost assuredly will come largely from mortgages owned by investors. $3 billion is for refis, and only $5 billion will be in the form of hard cash payments, including $1500 to $2000 per borrower foreclosed on between September 2008 and December 2011.

Banks will be required to modify second liens that sit behind firsts “at least” pari passu, which in practice will mean at most pari passu. So this guarantees banks will also focus on borrowers where they do not have second lien exposure, and this also makes the settlement less helpful to struggling homeowners, since borrowers with both second and first liens default at much higher rates than those without second mortgages. Per the Journal:

“It’s not new money. It’s all soft dollars to the banks,” said Paul Miller, a bank analyst at FBR Capital Markets.

The Times is also subdued:

Despite the billions earmarked in the accord, the aid will help a relatively small portion of the millions of borrowers who are delinquent and facing foreclosure. The success could depend in part on how effectively the program is carried out because earlier efforts by Washington aimed at troubled borrowers helped far fewer than had been expected.

2. Schneiderman’s MERS suit survives, and he can add more banks as defendants. It isn’t clear what became of the Biden and Coakley MERS suits, but Biden sounded pretty adamant in past media presentations on preserving that.

3. Nevada’s and Arizona’s suits against Countrywide for violating its past consent decree on mortgage servicing has, in a new Orwellianism, been “folded into” the settlement.

4. The five big players in the settlement have already set aside reserves sufficient for this deal.

Here are the top twelve reasons why this deal stinks:

1. We’ve now set a price for forgeries and fabricating documents. It’s $2000 per loan. This is a rounding error compared to the chain of title problem these systematic practices were designed to circumvent. The cost is also trivial in comparison to the average loan, which is roughly $180k, so the settlement represents about 1% of loan balances. It is less than the price of the title insurance that banks failed to get when they transferred the loans to the trust. It is a fraction of the cost of the legal expenses when foreclosures are challenged. It’s a great deal for the banks because no one is at any of the servicers going to jail for forgery and the banks have set the upper bound of the cost of riding roughshod over 300 years of real estate law.

2. That $26 billion is actually $5 billion of bank money and the rest is your money. The mortgage principal writedowns are guaranteed to come almost entirely from securitized loans, which means from investors, which in turn means taxpayers via Fannie and Freddie, pension funds, insurers, and 401 (k)s. Refis of performing loans also reduce income to those very same investors.

3. That $5 billion divided among the big banks wouldn’t even represent a significant quarterly hit. Freddie and Fannie putbacks to the major banks have been running at that level each quarter.

4. That $20 billion actually makes bank second liens sounder, so this deal is a stealth bailout that strengthens bank balance sheets at the expense of the broader public.

5. The enforcement is a joke. The first layer of supervision is the banks reporting on themselves. The framework is similar to that of the OCC consent decrees implemented last year, which Adam Levitin and yours truly, among others, decried as regulatory theater.

6. The past history of servicer consent decrees shows the servicers all fail to comply. Why? Servicer records and systems are terrible in the best of times, and their systems and fee structures aren’t set up to handle much in the way of delinquencies. As Tom Adams has pointed out in earlier posts, servicer behavior is predictable when their portfolios are hit with a high level of delinquencies and defaults: they cheat in all sorts of ways to reduce their losses.

7. The cave-in Nevada and Arizona on the Countrywide settlement suit is a special gift for Bank of America, who is by far the worst offender in the chain of title disaster (since, according to sworn testimony of its own employee in Kemp v. Countrywide, Countrywide failed to comply with trust delivery requirements). This move proves that failing to comply with a consent degree has no consequences but will merely be rolled into a new consent degree which will also fail to be enforced. These cases also alleged HAMP violations as consumer fraud violations and could have gotten costly and emboldened other states to file similar suits not just against Countrywide but other servicers, so it was useful to the other banks as well.

8. If the new Federal task force were intended to be serious, this deal would have not have been settled. You never settle before investigating. It’s a bad idea to settle obvious, widespread wrongdoing on the cheap. You use the stuff that is easy to prove to gather information and secure cooperation on the stuff that is harder to prove. In Missouri and Nevada, the robosigning investigation led to criminal charges against agents of the servicers. But even though these companies were acting at the express direction and approval of the services, no individuals or entities higher up the food chain will face any sort of meaningful charges.

9. There is plenty of evidence of widespread abuses that appear not to be on the attorney generals’ or media’s radar, such as servicer driven foreclosures and looting of investors’ funds via impermissible and inflated charges. While no serious probe was undertaken, even the limited or peripheral investigations show massive failures (60% of documents had errors in AGs/Fed’s pathetically small sample). Similarly, the US Trustee’s office found widespread evidence of significant servicer errors in bankruptcy-related filings, such as inflated and bogus fees, and even substantial, completely made up charges. Yet the services and banks will suffer no real consequences for these abuses.

10. A deal on robosiginging serves to cover up the much deeper chain of title problem. And don’t get too excited about the New York, Massachusetts, and Delaware MERS suits. They put pressure on banks to clean up this monstrous mess only if the AGs go through to trial and get tough penalties. The banks will want to settle their way out of that too. And even if these cases do go to trial and produce significant victories for the AGs, they still do not address the problem of failures to transfer notes correctly.

11. Don’t bet on a deus ex machina in terms of the new Federal foreclosure task force to improve this picture much. If you think Schneiderman, as a co-chairman who already has a full time day job in New York, is going to outfox a bunch of DC insiders who are part of the problem, I have a bridge I’d like to sell to you.

12. We’ll now have to listen to banks and their sycophant defenders declaring victory despite being wrong on the law and the facts. They will proceed to marginalize and write off criticisms of the servicing practices that hurt homeowners and investors and are devastating communities. But the problems will fester and the housing market will continue to suffer. Investors in mortgage-backed securities, who know that services have been screwing them for years, will be hung out to dry and will likely never return to a private MBS market, since the problems won’t ever be fixed. This settlement has not only revealed the residential mortgage market to be too big to fail, but puts it on long term, perhaps permanent, government life support.

As we’ve said before, this settlement is yet another raw demonstration of who wields power in America, and it isn’t you and me. It’s bad enough to see these negotiations come to their predictable, sorry outcome. It adds insult to injury to see some try to depict it as a win for long suffering, still abused homeowners.

Chiefshrink
02-09-2012, 09:55 PM
IMHO this is where TARP should have went in the first place. These are exactly the steps that should have been done 2 or 3 years ago instead of just handing the banks cash.

TARP was nothing more and still is a giant SLUSH FUND for the FED GOVT to buy votes and never was intended to help save the American economy. Biggest F'N lie ever told to the American people that our economy would melt in 2wks if this bill didn't get passed:rolleyes:

KC native
02-09-2012, 09:55 PM
Of course they do because first off Freddie and Fannie are Marxist Dem created and 2nd it's an election yr and Obama has no record to run on other than destroying capitalism/transformation of America:roll eyes:

Sooooooooo why not give the "illusion" of giving freebies away to all the parasites in our society.

Just so you know, these loans are only good for those people severely in the rears on mortgage payments and that have abused their equity in their homes.

For a lot us who didn't abuse our equity and have never missed any mortgage payments but just underwater home value wise we are SOL.

The dirty little secret to all of this, is that this program is designed to be an incentive for all the responsible people to start missing payments in order to qualify to get a better mortgage thus the continuation of the Marxist Dem economic plan to overwhelm the system(Cloward/Piven).

You have no clue of what the fuck you are talking about. Shut the fuck up already. You've already said the financial crisis was manufactured which is ludicrous.

This is a handout to the big banks and no one else really.

KC native
02-09-2012, 09:56 PM
TARP was nothing more and still is a giant SLUSH FUND for the FED GOVT to buy votes and never was intended to help save the American economy. Biggest F'N lie ever told to the American people that our economy would melt in 2wks if this bill didn't get passed:rolleyes:

Again, you have no fucking clue. TARP was to keep our banks and the world's banks from melting down and wrecking world commerce.

Chiefshrink
02-09-2012, 10:02 PM
This is a handout to the big banks and no one else really.

Handout coming from who? Yes, Uncle Obama(Fed Govt) with the same orders and stipulations once again giving loans to people who can't afford them. :roll eyes:


Hey KC naive ! This is called "RINSE AND REPEAT" you moron!!:rolleyes:

KC native
02-09-2012, 10:06 PM
Handout coming from who? Yes, Uncle Obama(Fed Govt) with the same orders and stipulations once again giving loans to people who can't afford them. :roll eyes:


Hey KC naive ! This is called "RINSE AND REPEAT" you moron!!:rolleyes:

You have serious issues. Someone should report you to a local professional board. Well, that's if psuedo-therapists actually have professional associations.

This has nothing to do with new loans. This deal is to cut short the amount that the big banks should ultimately owe due to fraudclosure and other abhorrent practices..

I guess the rule of law doesn't mean shit to you.

Chiefshrink
02-09-2012, 10:08 PM
Again, you have no ****ing clue. TARP was to keep our banks and the world's banks from melting down and wrecking world commerce.

Melting down? Do you realize there is literally still over 300bil still not spent to save these so called collapsing banks around the world. And that we had to get this passed and all 757bil spent literally in 2wks or the whole world was financial toast?

Oh and where are all the great jobs and great economic numbers that were supposed to occur after all this happy spending?:rolleyes:

KC native
02-09-2012, 10:08 PM
Also, I bet you missed the big part about how Freddie and Fannie's put backs to the banks (money that the banks have to pay fannie and freddie because the loans they sold to them aren't performing like they should) are currently running about $5 Billion a quarter.

KC native
02-09-2012, 10:10 PM
Melting down? Do you realize there is literally still over 300bil still not spent to save these so called collapsing banks around the world. And that we had to get this passed and all 757bil spent literally in 2wks or the whole world was financial toast?

Oh and where are all the great jobs and great economic numbers that were supposed to occur after all this happy spending?:rolleyes:

Are you ignoring the fact that some banks have paid back TARP funds?

And no one promised great economic numbers nor jobs as a result of the bailouts. The bailouts were to prevent the global payment system from collapsing.

Chiefshrink
02-09-2012, 10:19 PM
You have serious issues. Someone should report you to a local professional board. Well, that's if psuedo-therapists actually have professional associations.

This has nothing to do with new loans. This deal is to cut short the amount that the big banks should ultimately owe due to fraudclosure and other abhorrent practices..

I guess the rule of law doesn't mean shit to you.

Seriously you buy into the "people were tricked" BS?:rolleyes:

I do not know of a single person who got tricked. Do you?

Foreclosure Expert on Entitlement Mentality
February 09, 2012

All Audio & Video »
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: We'll start in Collinsville, Connecticut, with Melissa. I'm glad you waited, and welcome to the program.

CALLER: Thank you, Rush, it's such a pleasure to talk to you so thanks for taking my call.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: I had to call in about this whole foreclosure matter because this is my business. I own what is called a loss mitigation company and my company negotiates short sales for homeowners who are in some stage of foreclosure --

RUSH: Okay, hang on just a second, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. I need you to slow down a little bit so I can hear you. And I want you to explain for people that don't know, when you negotiate a short sale for homeowners who are in some state of foreclosure, what does that mean? You mean you're negotiating a sale where the price is less than what they paid for it?

CALLER: Exactly, yep, a homeowner who owes more on a mortgage or mortgages, because often time these days there's more than one on the property. And they can't sell their house (unintelligible) to pay off the loans, and I go in and negotiate with their banks for how that loss is gonna be handled. So just in general numbers, let's say that they have a hundred thousand dollars in loans on their property, they can only sell the house for $80,000, so my job is to go in and negotiate with the bank for that $20,000 difference to either write it off, take the loss, let it go, or come up with some kind of an equitable arrangement with the homeowner to repay that difference.

RUSH: How often does that happen, that last option? How often is there a negotiation where the homeowner will pay something toward the difference?

CALLER: Well, more and more these days. I mean I should say that I've been in this business for almost a decade now, so I've seen a lot of changes in the housing market and I've seen a lot of changes in the economy. I see a large shift in the attitude of my clients, the homeowners, and what their level of responsibility should be here.

RUSH: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Tell us what that is. What is the shift?

CALLER: I have to tell you that over the past couple of years -- and I don't think it's a coincidence that it has been ushered in with Obama being elected -- I have a lot of clients these days that really feel that they should have no responsibility towards their mortgage.

RUSH: I was afraid you were going to say that. I somehow knew you were gonna say that. It all fits with this mode of dependency that we've been talking about today.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: The sense of entitlement.

CALLER: It is a big sense of entitlement. I get the classic, "The bank is getting a bailout, where is my bailout? The banks are making money, I should be let go of my mortgage," and I get the classic, "I was tricked into buying this house. I was tricked by the loan officer --"

RUSH: Wait a sec.

CALLER: I get that more and more.

RUSH: Have you ever asked them what that means, they were tricked into buying house?

CALLER: I do and I have to be very careful, because obviously I'm a conservative so I've learned as a business owner not to get into political discussions with my clients, but I do have to ask them, "You go to a closing, you sit down at an attorney's office or a title company. You sign documents to purchase a house. You do it front of a notary public. Are you not reading what you're signing?"

RUSH: That's not what I mean. I'm talking about before they even get the closing, like I was once tricked into buying a house with bad advice. I was told it would be the best investment I ever made. And it was just friends of mine. They said, "You're throwing money away renting. You've got to go buy a house." So I applied and got a loan, you know, mortgage and so forth. Turns out I couldn't end up affording it. I had to get out of it. The bank didn't trick me. I qualified, barely. I got tricked by conventional wisdom, by well meaning friends. But what Obama's talking about is that somebody's minding their own business and a banker comes along and says, "You know what, you need to buy a house. I'm here to make you a loan, and even though you can't afford it, don't worry, you're never gonna have to pay it," and then they find out they are gonna get bills. That's what Obama is trying to claim happened here. Do you know anybody who was minding their own business, had no desire to buy a house, and got tricked into buying one?

CALLER: Never. I've never. I've done personally over a thousand of these short sales in my career, and I've never seen somebody held a gunpoint, arm twisted behind their backs and forced to buy a house.

RUSH: Right. Now, closing, you know, the terms of the deal, all kinds of chicanery can happen there.

CALLER: Sure.

RUSH: And that might qualify as trickery. But Obama is trying to say that people who have no business being given loans were given loans. They were tricked, and I just have never heard anybody that I know who had a mortgage say they were tricked into applying for one, getting one, buying a house or whatever.

CALLER: I think the really sad thing, too, is that that attitude and people listen to the media, they listen to the radio, they read the newspaper, and now I have clients who are just your average, run-of-the-mill middle class hardworking homeowner that are adopting these strategies. They're asking for, you know, "Where's my bailout?" They're telling me that, you know, "Chase Bank made a profit last quarter so therefore they should eat the loss on my loan." They're grabbing little sound bites and adopting this attitude, and I find it really sad because it really has just jumped exponentially in the past couple of years.

RUSH: Well, I'm sure you're right and I'm not surprised. When people who are paying their mortgages, and at the time of the subprime mortgage crisis, by the way, despite the tenor of reporting and the crisis attached to it, the vast majority, well over 92 or 93% of the people were paying their mortgages, and then those people began to learn that there was this whole program out there for people who couldn't pay their mortgages, who were given mortgages, who were put in these houses all because it was affordable housing and they learned later it was called the subprime mortgage crisis or what have you.

The people who have been paying are now the ones saying, "Wait a second here, I'm the one paying. I'm the one meeting my responsibilities. I'm the one following through on my commitment. The people out there who aren't, I gotta pay for them, too? And I have to still keep paying for mine?" So I can understand the thinking of some people who might want to rebel, "Well, look, if these people aren't gonna pay, why should I? Why are they protected? Why are they privileged? Why are they are special, just because they have less money than I do? Why do they not have to pay for their house? I'm just not gonna pay anymore. Make 'em come take the house away."

END TRANSCRIPT

Chiefshrink
02-09-2012, 10:23 PM
And no one promised great economic numbers nor jobs as a result of the bailouts.

BULL F'N SHIT !!!!!


Go back to 2009 and listen to the idiot Joe Biden for that entire yr:roll eyes:

BTW, very little has been paid back.

HonestChieffan
02-09-2012, 10:37 PM
Blame the banks ignore personal responsibility ignore Fannie Freddy and cra

Blame and ignore facts, be a good democrat

La literatura
02-09-2012, 10:52 PM
Blame the banks ignore personal responsibility ignore Fannie Freddy and cra

Blame and ignore facts, be a good democrat

What's your take on this deal?

KC native
02-09-2012, 11:54 PM
Blame the banks ignore personal responsibility ignore Fannie Freddy and cra

Blame and ignore facts, be a good democrat

Every single thing, you've just mentioned has been blown out of the water repeatedly. I'm surprised this post doesn't have some ctrl+c and ctrl+v action going on.

KC native
02-09-2012, 11:55 PM
Seriously you buy into the "people were tricked" BS?:rolleyes:

I do not know of a single person who got tricked. Do you?

Foreclosure Expert on Entitlement Mentality
February 09, 2012

y."

END TRANSCRIPT

ROFL A rush limbaugh transcript as a source for an argument. OMFGWTFBBQ!!!101010101010010101010

Bump
02-10-2012, 12:08 AM
While we agree on the small dollar amount of the "punishment" we appear to disagree on who is at fault for individual's ruining their "life and credit". Those who took out mortgages they knew they couldn't afford deserve whatever repercussions they suffered.

not all of the cases are dumbasses living past their means. I bet, most cases aren't. The elite are gonna crash this shit on purpose and the shit is gonna hit the fan.

Taco John
02-10-2012, 01:14 AM
This is an awful deal and will only serve to bleed the market slowly rather than quickly. This major feature of this bill is that Obama will be well on his way out of office by the time the impact of this thing is realized.

LOCOChief
02-10-2012, 05:51 AM
This is absolutely horseshit. There should be people going to jail for this. I'll post an explanation on why this is a bad deal later when I get home.

Oh yes, yes please do.




you dumbass

LOCOChief
02-10-2012, 06:18 AM
Also, I bet you missed the big part about how Freddie and Fannie's put backs to the banks (money that the banks have to pay fannie and freddie because the loans they sold to them aren't performing like they should) are currently running about $5 Billion a quarter.


The capital ratio and regulation that's being imposed on healthy banks that didn't participate in any of the lending practices that got us here, didn't accept a dime of TARP are resulting no loans for small business, payroll for large business and even mortgages for well qualified home buyers.

If you think Fannie and Freddie are the good guys and all the banks are the culprits you're a bigger fucking jackass then even I thought you were which would be hard to do.

When it came to residential lending standard to banks and mortgage bankers 99.9999999% of everything originated for the last 20 years has been to agency salability standards- see Barney Frank if you don’t like it.

Just don’t reply and get back on that mower.

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 07:56 AM
Melting down? Do you realize there is literally still over 300bil still not spent to save these so called collapsing banks around the world. And that we had to get this passed and all 757bil spent literally in 2wks or the whole world was financial toast?

Oh and where are all the great jobs and great economic numbers that were supposed to occur after all this happy spending?:rolleyes:

You are stupid. Here is some facts from Forbes.

We did not know that the Fed has spent the mind-boggling total of $7.7 trillion in loans to many of the key financial institutions in the world during the 2008 meltdown; including $1.2 trillion in a single day, December 5th, 2008-- after other costly steps had been taken to put capital in the major banks, Citigroup (http://www.forbes.com/companies/citigroup/), Bank of America (http://www.forbes.com/companies/bank-of-america/), Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley (http://www.forbes.com/companies/morgan-stanley/)-- and a host of European banks as well.

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 08:02 AM
Blame the banks ignore personal responsibility ignore Fannie Freddy and cra

Blame and ignore facts, be a good democrat

Personal responsibility is a 2-way street.

The banks gave loans to people they knew would fail all in order to make more money and got bailed out.

People just got bent over.

petegz28
02-10-2012, 08:55 AM
Personal responsibility is a 2-way street.

The banks gave loans to people they knew would fail all in order to make more money and got bailed out.

People just got bent over.

And now who is getting bent over again? The people who were smart and financialy sound in the first place. So now people who are "underwater or behind" on their mortgages get principle reduction and those of us who are not behind or under water get dicked...again.

I don't care that you bought a house that is now worth less than what you paid. That's a chance you take with any investment, even a house.

As far a a re-fi program goes I think that is a better approach but people should still have to pay the amount they borrowed.

KC native
02-10-2012, 09:40 AM
The capital ratio and regulation that's being imposed on healthy banks that didn't participate in any of the lending practices that got us here, didn't accept a dime of TARP are resulting no loans for small business, payroll for large business and even mortgages for well qualified home buyers.

If you think Fannie and Freddie are the good guys and all the banks are the culprits you're a bigger fucking jackass then even I thought you were which would be hard to do.

When it came to residential lending standard to banks and mortgage bankers 99.9999999% of everything originated for the last 20 years has been to agency salability standards- see Barney Frank if you don’t like it.

Just don’t reply and get back on that mower.


You have no clue of what you're talking about. Fannie and Freddie only bought conforming mortgages until 2006. Once they were losing market share they made a business decision to buy subprime. There was no government mandate for them to operate in that space.

When you get basic facts right, then you can come sit at the big boy table you little angry racist boy.

Chiefshrink
02-10-2012, 09:44 AM
Personal responsibility is a 2-way street.

The banks gave loans to people they knew would fail all in order to make more money and got bailed out.

People just got bent over.

Wrong MORON!! The banks were FORCED by Freddie and Fannie(a la Fed Govt- a Marxist Dem party creation) to extensively lessen the borrowing criteria to allow the parasites of our society to qualify. If they didn't the Marxist Dem party would "Alinskyize"(demagogue) the banks with the same intensity they went after Palin.

Bottom line: The banks were damned if they didn't and they are currently being damned because they "supposedly" did but in actuality they were forced.

It's what Marxists do Dirk when they have control of the Media and $$ because then they can get away with it. You think if Dodd and Frank were Repubs they would still be walking free men? NO, they would be hanging by their necks in the public square!!

Amnorix
02-10-2012, 10:02 AM
Wrong MORON!! The banks were FORCED by Freddie and Fannie(a la Fed Govt- a Marxist Dem party creation) to extensively lessen the borrowing criteria to allow the parasites of our society to qualify. If they didn't the Marxist Dem party would "Alinskyize"(demagogue) the banks with the same intensity they went after Palin.

Bottom line: The banks were damned if they didn't and they are currently being damned because they "supposedly" did but in actuality they were forced.

It's what Marxists do Dirk when they have control of the Media and $$ because then they can get away with it. You think if Dodd and Frank were Repubs they would still be walking free men? NO, they would be hanging by their necks in the public square!!


So much stupidity in one brain. It's amazing to behold. You're like the Eighth Wonder of the World.

KC native
02-10-2012, 11:05 AM
Wrong MORON!! The banks were FORCED by Freddie and Fannie(a la Fed Govt- a Marxist Dem party creation) to extensively lessen the borrowing criteria to allow the parasites of our society to qualify. If they didn't the Marxist Dem party would "Alinskyize"(demagogue) the banks with the same intensity they went after Palin.

Bottom line: The banks were damned if they didn't and they are currently being damned because they "supposedly" did but in actuality they were forced.

It's what Marxists do Dirk when they have control of the Media and $$ because then they can get away with it. You think if Dodd and Frank were Repubs they would still be walking free men? NO, they would be hanging by their necks in the public square!!

So much stupidity in one brain. It's amazing to behold. You're like the Eighth Wonder of the World.
.

Pioli Zombie
02-10-2012, 11:08 AM
Im sorry, how does this topic help advance the agenda of the Gay community in any way. C'mon, focus people!!!

Donger
02-10-2012, 11:16 AM
We have ruined your life and your credit

I'm sorry, what? Were these people forced into taking out mortgages?

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 11:29 AM
I'm sorry, what? Were these people forced into taking out mortgages?

Nope.

Were the banks or mortgage compaines forced to give loans to people that couldn't afford it and knew they would end up foreclosing?

Donger
02-10-2012, 11:32 AM
Nope.

Were the banks or mortgage compaines forced to give loans to people that couldn't afford it and knew they would end up foreclosing?

No. But, IMO, the ultimate responsibility lies with the person taking out the loan.

blaise
02-10-2012, 11:40 AM
Unless fraud was involved why should anyone pay for your delinquent mortgage?

Donger
02-10-2012, 11:42 AM
Unless fraud was involved why should anyone pay for your delinquent mortgage?

Precisely.

Bob Dole
02-10-2012, 11:44 AM
Hooray. More rewards for dipshits who bought homes they couldn't afford, while those of us responsible enough to live within our means get nada.

blaise
02-10-2012, 11:46 AM
Hooray. More rewards for dipshits who bought homes they couldn't afford, while those of us responsible enough to live within our means get nada.

Half of them have probably financed cars they can't afford also.

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 11:48 AM
No. But, IMO, the ultimate responsibility lies with the person taking out the loan.

I think they share equal responsibility. IMO the banks should know better but it has come out they didn't care and started issuing loans with no proof of income etc. because they could turn around and bundle and sell them to make a ton of money.

Taco John
02-10-2012, 11:51 AM
Hooray. More rewards for dipshits who bought homes they couldn't afford, while those of us responsible enough to live within our means get nada.

Worse. We will pay for it by watching our equity turn into negative equity.

Donger
02-10-2012, 11:55 AM
I think they share equal responsibility. IMO the banks should know better but it has come out they didn't care and started issuing loans with no proof of income etc. because they could turn around and bundle and sell them to make a ton of money.

I don't expect my bank or any bank to "care" about me.

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 11:55 AM
Unless fraud was involved why should anyone pay for your delinquent mortgage?

IMHO the majority of home loans during 2004-2008 were probably fraud.

The reason why I think that is because alot of the mortgage companies and banks used robo-sigining even for foreclosures.

vailpass
02-10-2012, 12:08 PM
Nope.

Were the banks or mortgage compaines forced to give loans to people that couldn't afford it and knew they would end up foreclosing?

Dude.

vailpass
02-10-2012, 12:10 PM
not all of the cases are dumbasses living past their means. I bet, most cases aren't. The elite are gonna crash this shit on purpose and the shit is gonna hit the fan.

Whose fault do you think it is when people sign for mortgages they know they cannot afford? Do you believe that a person is responsible for understanding all of the terms of an agreement before entering into said agreement?

KC native
02-10-2012, 12:24 PM
The borrowers aren't the ones at fault. People come into banks all day trying to get loans, it's the banks' job (on behalf of shareholders) to make sure the person can pay it back.

The banks abdicated their responsibility to ensure they were lending to credit worthy people.

KC native
02-10-2012, 12:25 PM
Whose fault do you think it is when people sign for mortgages they know they cannot afford? Do you believe that a person is responsible for understanding all of the terms of an agreement before entering into said agreement?

It is the bank's fault. If the person couldn't afford it, then the bank should have never made the loan.

blaise
02-10-2012, 12:26 PM
The borrowers aren't the ones at fault. People come into banks all day trying to get loans, it's the banks' job (on behalf of shareholders) to make sure the person can pay it back.

The banks abdicated their responsibility to ensure they were lending to credit worthy people.

They (borrowers) have to have some responsibility. Bad underwriting doesn't excuse borrowing more than you can repay.

Donger
02-10-2012, 12:28 PM
The borrowers aren't the ones at fault. People come into banks all day trying to get loans, it's the banks' job (on behalf of shareholders) to make sure the person can pay it back.

The banks abdicated their responsibility to ensure they were lending to credit worthy people.

Well, gee, why would the banks make these sure to fail loans in the first place, then?

KC native
02-10-2012, 12:29 PM
Hooray. More rewards for dipshits who bought homes they couldn't afford, while those of us responsible enough to live within our means get nada.

The only people who really benefit from this are the banks. People should be going to jail for the messes they created with titles (MERS), for the fraudulent documents they've submitted, and their general disdain for the rule of law.

I fail to see why so many here get so upset by petty criminals but when we have clear cut institutional law breaking, they don't give a shit.

Donger
02-10-2012, 12:31 PM
The only people who really benefit from this are the banks. People should be going to jail for the messes they created with titles (MERS), for the fraudulent documents they've submitted, and their general disdain for the rule of law.

I fail to see why so many here get so upset by petty criminals but when we have clear cut institutional law breaking, they don't give a shit.

Which laws did these banks break, specifically?

KC native
02-10-2012, 12:31 PM
Well, gee, why would the banks make these sure to fail loans in the first place, then?

Because they were making loans so they could securitize them and reap fees at just about every step of the process.

Donger
02-10-2012, 12:32 PM
Because they were making loans so they could securitize them and reap fees at just about every step of the process.

And was that legal?

KC native
02-10-2012, 12:34 PM
Which laws did these banks break, specifically?

Read up on the whole fraudclosure bullshit. We've been over this several times out here and I'm on my phone.

But off the top of my head, the robo-signing shit is a glaring example. No person can review and sign several thousand documents a day. Or you could look at the made up documents banks have submitted in foreclosure processes when they couldn't find the orginals.

vailpass
02-10-2012, 12:35 PM
It is the bank's fault. If the person couldn't afford it, then the bank should have never made the loan.

You disgust me.

If it were up to people like you to build a country that country would be a cesspool of failure and corruption, a country full of underachievers who never could compete because they lacked the motivation and the sense of self determination and responsibility necessary to thrive in the first world.
They would name it Mexico.

Donger
02-10-2012, 12:35 PM
Read up on the whole fraudclosure bullshit. We've been over this several times out here and I'm on my phone.

But off the top of my head, the robo-signing shit is a glaring example. No person can review and sign several thousand documents a day. Or you could look at the made up documents banks have submitted in foreclosure processes when they couldn't find the orginals.

Is robo-signing against the law?

vailpass
02-10-2012, 12:36 PM
They (borrowers) have to have some responsibility. Bad underwriting doesn't excuse borrowing more than you can repay.

Wrong.
If a person jumps knows that sharks are killers but they jump into a tank full of sharks it is the shark's fault the person was eaten.

KC native
02-10-2012, 12:37 PM
And was that legal?

Securitization? Yes, it's legal if it's done properly. I have no problems with securitization.

Now the marketing and sale of some of the CMOs are going to get a few places in trouble but that's a different story.

Donger
02-10-2012, 12:38 PM
Securitization? Yes, it's legal if it's done properly. I have no problems with securitization.

Now the marketing and sale of some of the CMOs are going to get a few places in trouble but that's a different story.

And was this done "properly"? We can shorten this exercise by having you just name the specific laws that the banks broke, BTW.

KC native
02-10-2012, 12:38 PM
Is robo-signing against the law?

If you're putting up as evidence in court proceedings, yes. You can't attest that you reviewed and signed for a document when a computer did it for you.

Donger
02-10-2012, 12:40 PM
If you're putting up as evidence in court proceedings, yes. You can't attest that you reviewed and signed for a document when a computer did it for you.

Is it illegal to robo-sign loan documents?

KC native
02-10-2012, 12:42 PM
You disgust me.

If it were up to people like you to build a country that country would be a cesspool of failure and corruption, a country full of underachievers who never could compete because they lacked the motivation and the sense of self determination and responsibility necessary to thrive in the first world.
They would name it Mexico.

It is the bank's responsibility to protect shareholders' capital. It is not the responsibility of the bank's customers or potential customers to protect shareholder's capital.

Dayze
02-10-2012, 12:43 PM
we were foreclosed upon. our house payment was about 20-23% of our income; lost my job in Oct 08, and couldn't find another for 6 months; exhausted 401k and savings to stay current as long as possible; found new job at 42% reduction in pay...was the only job offer I received in 6 months. Granted, we had car payments, but nothing retarded. I had a 4 yr old/$13k car and the wife a 18k car.

it's stupid alot of people bought 300k homes on 50k/yr salaries, but there were alot that didn't. And don't even get me started on the reach around Wells Fargo gave us for a year. ("oh, we lost this document. fill it out again and resend it". "Oh, we lost it again". "Oh we need more information". "Oh, we're missing a page in your packet")

KC native
02-10-2012, 12:43 PM
And was this done "properly"? We can shorten this exercise by having you just name the specific laws that the banks broke, BTW.

I'm done with you. I'm on my phone. There's been mountains written on this. lrn2google.

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 12:45 PM
Is it illegal to robo-sign loan documents?

yes

It is a federal crime to sign someone else's name to a legal document. It is also illegal to sign your name to an affidavit if you have not verified the information you're swearing to. Both are punishable by prison.

KC native
02-10-2012, 12:45 PM
we were foreclosed upon. our house payment was about 20-23% of our income; lost my job in Oct 08, and couldn't find another for 6 months; exhausted 401k and savings to stay current as long as possible; found new job at 42% reduction in pay...was the only job offer I received in 6 months. Granted, we had car payments, but nothing retarded. I had a 4 yr old/$13k car and the wife a 18k car.

it's stupid alot of people bought 300k homes on 50k/yr salaries, but there were alot that didn't. And don't even get me started on the reach around Wells Fargo gave us for a year. ("oh, we lost this document. fill it out again and resend it". "Oh, we lost it again". "Oh we need more information". "Oh, we're missing a page in your packet")

No, you bought more home than you could afford/cp right wing gas bags.

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 12:48 PM
we were foreclosed upon. our house payment was about 20-23% of our income; lost my job in Oct 08, and couldn't find another for 6 months; exhausted 401k and savings to stay current as long as possible; found new job at 42% reduction in pay...was the only job offer I received in 6 months. Granted, we had car payments, but nothing retarded. I had a 4 yr old/$13k car and the wife a 18k car.

it's stupid alot of people bought 300k homes on 50k/yr salaries, but there were alot that didn't. And don't even get me started on the reach around Wells Fargo gave us for a year. ("oh, we lost this document. fill it out again and resend it". "Oh, we lost it again". "Oh we need more information". "Oh, we're missing a page in your packet")

I am sorry to hear that Dayze.

Donger
02-10-2012, 12:48 PM
we were foreclosed upon. our house payment was about 20-23% of our income; lost my job in Oct 08, and couldn't find another for 6 months; exhausted 401k and savings to stay current as long as possible; found new job at 42% reduction in pay...was the only job offer I received in 6 months. Granted, we had car payments, but nothing retarded. I had a 4 yr old/$13k car and the wife a 18k car.

it's stupid alot of people bought 300k homes on 50k/yr salaries, but there were alot that didn't. And don't even get me started on the reach around Wells Fargo gave us for a year. ("oh, we lost this document. fill it out again and resend it". "Oh, we lost it again". "Oh we need more information". "Oh, we're missing a page in your packet")

And do you think that you deserve to be given a principal reduction (if you are even eligible)?

Dayze
02-10-2012, 12:51 PM
I am sorry to hear that Dayze.

thanks man; appreciated :toast:

and by no means am I trying to excuse the morons who did buy way more than they could afford etc. So, hopefully it doesn't come across that way etc.

I remember finding out Friday morning out of the blue, that our office was closed as our company went bankrupt. completely shocked/out of the blue.

oh well. we've moved on; adjusted accordingly. Though, sucks starting over at 34 with regard to 401k. :mad:

Donger
02-10-2012, 12:52 PM
yes

Thanks Dirk. In that case, have at them.

Dayze
02-10-2012, 12:53 PM
And do you think that you deserve to be given a principal reduction (if you are even eligible)?

we were forclosed on in 2009. So, I'm not sure we qualify for anything. Admittedly though, I haven't been following this article/proposition closely.

edit - any negative equity we may have had (not sure what the house was auctioned for etc) was guaranteed by the VA. So I haven't been sued or anything by the lender. However, I can't use another VA loan until I sqaure up with them. Not that I had planned on using the VA in the future anyway due to the fee etc, but still. If wanted to use them, I'd have to square up.

KC native
02-10-2012, 12:55 PM
Thanks Dirk. In that case, have at them.

No more sophistry left in you for this thread? ROFL

Donger
02-10-2012, 12:57 PM
No more sophistry left in you for this thread? ROFL

No. Dirk provided a specific example of the illegality, unlike you.

I still don't absolve the borrower. Personal responsibility is something this country is sorely lacking.

Donger
02-10-2012, 01:11 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-09/foreclosure-deal-to-spur-new-wave-of-u-s-home-seizures-help-heal-market.html

The agreement will direct $17 billion to writing down debt to buffer about 1 million homeowners from foreclosure through mortgage forgiveness, forbearance or loan modification programs, according to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan. About 750,000 borrowers may get direct payments of as much as $2,000 to compensate them for servicing errors.

We closed an a new home in 2009. How do I find out if my loan included "servicing errors" so I can get me some of this free money?

blaise
02-10-2012, 01:16 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-09/foreclosure-deal-to-spur-new-wave-of-u-s-home-seizures-help-heal-market.html

The agreement will direct $17 billion to writing down debt to buffer about 1 million homeowners from foreclosure through mortgage forgiveness, forbearance or loan modification programs, according to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan. About 750,000 borrowers may get direct payments of as much as $2,000 to compensate them for servicing errors.

We closed an a new home in 2009. How do I find out if my loan included "servicing errors" so I can get me some of this free money?

They'll probably pay 50,000 government employees to process the paperwork and claim it as job growth.

La literatura
02-10-2012, 01:22 PM
I understand the argument laying the blame on the homebuyers, but at the same time, my concern is that the people with the most knowledge and expertise, and thus, those who are best able to avoid the problems in the first place, should hold a great share of responsibility. This is a similar principle to the cheapest cost avoider in negligence law. When we add to this fact to the widespread action this amounted to, and the avoider is even more suspect.

That said, I'm not too knowledgeable in this area and would appreciate critiques of my own analysis.

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 01:28 PM
thanks man; appreciated :toast:

and by no means am I trying to excuse the morons who did buy way more than they could afford etc. So, hopefully it doesn't come across that way etc.

I remember finding out Friday morning out of the blue, that our office was closed as our company went bankrupt. completely shocked/out of the blue.

oh well. we've moved on; adjusted accordingly. Though, sucks starting over at 34 with regard to 401k. :mad:

I can't imagine going through something like that. I have been extremely lucky. I am glad that you are getting back on your feet and hopefully with the economy slowly improving there will be better opportunities in the near future.

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 01:35 PM
I understand the argument laying the blame on the homebuyers, but at the same time, my concern is that the people with the most knowledge and expertise, and thus, those who are best able to avoid the problems in the first place, should hold a great share of responsibility.

Absolutely unequivocally this.

If I go to 3-4 doctors and they tell me I have a cancer and need an operation but when I am on the operating table they find out there is no cancer so in turn I am screwed out a couple hundred thousand dollars.

I guess that is my fault

KC native
02-10-2012, 01:37 PM
No. Dirk provided a specific example of the illegality, unlike you.

I still don't absolve the borrower. Personal responsibility is something this country is sorely lacking.

I said the same thing jackass. I guess since it wasn't in a quote box. it wasn't goocd enough for you.

ChiefsCountry
02-10-2012, 01:38 PM
As a real estate professional, Freddie and Fannie are two of the biggest piece of shits in the world. Government has made it so fucking hard for any bank to loan money, its riduliculous - hell intrest rates are under 4% and people with great credit, can't get loans. Our government is so fucked up - Democrats are so fucking stupid when it comes to business that they keep hurting it in all sectors.

blaise
02-10-2012, 01:38 PM
I understand the argument laying the blame on the homebuyers, but at the same time, my concern is that the people with the most knowledge and expertise, and thus, those who are best able to avoid the problems in the first place, should hold a great share of responsibility. This is a similar principle to the cheapest cost avoider in negligence law. When we add to this fact to the widespread action this amounted to, and the avoider is even more suspect.

That said, I'm not too knowledgeable in this area and would appreciate critiques of my own analysis.

We've signed three different mortgages. The lenders will always tell you you can afford more than you really can. They'll say,"You can qualify for ____." That's if you basically spend every free dime on your mortgage. Anyone with a brain should be able to instantly look at the amount and realize it's too much. That they'll be broke and if any expenses come up they'll be in trouble.

The problem is many people just aren't that smart and they just say, "Oh, wow. I can afford a $250,000 home. Ok, let's go look at houses."

It is bad underwriting, in my opinion, because you're setting the loans up for failure. The first thing you should be looking for, as a lender, is whether they can afford the payments. Even before you look at their credit.

But, buying a home isn't just a five minute deal. There's really ample opportunity to examine whether or not you can afford the mortgage.

Donger
02-10-2012, 01:41 PM
I said the same thing jackass. I guess since it wasn't in a quote box. it wasn't goocd enough for you.

No offense, but I tend not to believe you at face value.

KC native
02-10-2012, 01:44 PM
As a real estate professional, Freddie and Fannie are two of the biggest piece of shits in the world. Government has made it so fucking hard for any bank to loan money, its riduliculous - hell intrest rates are under 4% and people with great credit, can't get loans. Our government is so fucked up - Democrats are so fucking stupid when it comes to business that they keep hurting it in all sectors.

typical, a realtor that doesn't know shit about how the market works.

you are aware that fannie and freddie don't originate any loan right?

KC native
02-10-2012, 01:46 PM
No offense, but I tend not to believe you at face value.

that's because you're a sophist piece of shit

Donger
02-10-2012, 01:47 PM
that's because you're a sophist piece of shit

No, it's because you have a history of making rather extravagant claims without proof.

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 01:47 PM
We've signed three different mortgages. The lenders will always tell you you can afford more than you really can. They'll say,"You can qualify for ____." That's if you basically spend every free dime on your mortgage. Anyone with a brain should be able to instantly look at the amount and realize it's too much. That they'll be broke and if any expenses come up they'll be in trouble.

The problem is many people just aren't that smart and they just say, "Oh, wow. I can afford a $250,000 home. Ok, let's go look at houses."

It is bad underwriting, in my opinion, because you're setting the loans up for failure. The first thing you should be looking for, as a lender, is whether they can afford the payments. Even before you look at their credit.

But, buying a home isn't just a five minute deal. There's really ample opportunity to examine whether or not you can afford the mortgage.

It hasn't always been like that though which was a huge part of the problem. They use to have standards, checked your employment, credit and made sure you put 20% down. During the boom none of that happened.

blaise
02-10-2012, 01:47 PM
I'll add that if I defaulted on my mortgage I wouldn't blame anyone but myself. I wouldn't be saying the government had to bail me out. Unless there was fraud. In which case I don't know why the whole mortgage wouldn't be voidable anyway.

La literatura
02-10-2012, 01:49 PM
We've signed three different mortgages. The lenders will always tell you you can afford more than you really can. They'll say,"You can qualify for ____." That's if you basically spend every free dime on your mortgage. Anyone with a brain should be able to instantly look at the amount and realize it's too much. That they'll be broke and if any expenses come up they'll be in trouble.

The problem is many people just aren't that smart and they just say, "Oh, wow. I can afford a $250,000 home. Ok, let's go look at houses."

It is bad underwriting, in my opinion, because you're setting the loans up for failure. The first thing you should be looking for, as a lender, is whether they can afford the payments. Even before you look at their credit.

This is a problem, and if this problem is not factored in by the lenders, and it leads to a crisis that affects millions, then I think policies have to change to better address this problem. And the people who could have changed the policies are the lenders. If they don't change the policies, and we have a nation-wide crisis, then perhaps the force of regulatory law needs to come into effect and change things.

I've never signed a mortgage by the way, and I'm not an expert on personal finance. If some banker tells me that I'm going to be fine with such and such mortgage plan (which is actually not true at all), I'm still likely to believe the guy who should have a lot more knowledge about this than me. He's been doing this much longer, he's in a position of authority, and I'm not. That doesn't absolve me of all responsibility, but this situation doesn't seem to be one of no-fault banker.

KC native
02-10-2012, 01:53 PM
No, it's because you have a history of making rather extravagant claims without proof.

bullshit. links?

Donger
02-10-2012, 01:54 PM
bullshit. links?

You want links to all your claims of racism on this board (just one example)?

KC native
02-10-2012, 01:59 PM
You want links to all your claims of racism on this board (just one example)?

I've only called those who are racist, racists.

but humor me. I'd like to see whatever gotcha you think you have.

blaise
02-10-2012, 02:00 PM
This is a problem, and if this problem is not factored in by the lenders, and it leads to a crisis that affects millions, then I think policies have to change to better address this problem. And the people who could have changed the policies are the lenders. If they don't change the policies, and we have a nation-wide crisis, then perhaps the force of regulatory law needs to come into effect and change things.

I've never signed a mortgage by the way, and I'm not an expert on personal finance. If some banker tells me that I'm going to be fine with such and such mortgage plan (which is actually not true at all), I'm still likely to believe the guy who should have a lot more knowledge about this than me. He's been doing this much longer, he's in a position of authority, and I'm not. That doesn't absolve me of all responsibility, but this situation doesn't seem to be one of no-fault banker.

I doubt that's true. I'm sure you're smart enough to not just enter into what's probably going to be the biggest purchase in your life without examining how much you can realistically afford.
You really think you'd just go into a lending office and believe that? You examine trivial topics in DC with more detail than you would over a home purchase is what you're saying.
I just find that hard to believe. You're a law student, right? My wife's a lawyer, I know a lot of lawyers. I don't know one of them that would walk into a home purchase unprepared.
I hope that's not true.

Donger
02-10-2012, 02:01 PM
I've only called those who are racist, racists.

but humor me. I'd like to see whatever gotcha you think you have.

Okay. Take vailpass. Is he a racist?

La literatura
02-10-2012, 02:07 PM
I doubt that's true. I'm sure you're smart enough to not just enter into what's probably going to be the biggest purchase in your life without examining how much you can realistically afford.
You really think you'd just go into a lending office and believe that? You examine trivial topics in DC with more detail than you would over a home purchase is what you're saying.
I just find that hard to believe. You're a law student, right? My wife's a lawyer, I know a lot of lawyers. I don't know one of them that would walk into a home purchase unprepared.
I hope that's not true.

That was a hypothetical person, not actually me. And it was a hypothetical person that is very real. Not everyone is a lawyer. In fact, most people aren't. Most people don't have college degrees. I do think a reasonable person would tend to think a banker for a housing lender has enough experience and knowledge to know whether the person is able to meet the mortgage plan.

KC native
02-10-2012, 02:09 PM
Okay. Take vailpass. Is he a racist?

I thought you had something else asperger's boy. lane.

failpuss its definitely a racist. I'm far from the only one that thinks so. and I'm done with you for the day if this is the direction you're headed.

Donger
02-10-2012, 02:11 PM
I thought you had something else asperger's boy. lane.

failpuss its definitely a racist. I'm far from the only one that thinks so. and I'm done with you for the day if this is the direction you're headed.

You asked for examples. I am in process of providing you with what you asked for.

But, I don't blame you for being done, either.

KC native
02-10-2012, 02:16 PM
That was a hypothetical person, not actually me. And it was a hypothetical person that is very real. Not everyone is a lawyer. In fact, most people aren't. Most people don't have college degrees. I do think a reasonable person would tend to think a banker for a housing lender has enough experience and knowledge to know whether the person is able to meet the mortgage plan.

common sense and reality aren't allowed in dc. get back to the lounge.

blaise
02-10-2012, 02:17 PM
That was a hypothetical person, not actually me. And it was a hypothetical person that is very real. Not everyone is a lawyer. In fact, most people aren't. Most people don't have college degrees. I do think a reasonable person would tend to think a banker for a housing lender has enough experience and knowledge to know whether the person is able to meet the mortgage plan.

I think you might say a reasonable person would think that, but I bet a lot of people would disagree. I don't know for sure that I would say a reasonable person would think that. I say that because it's not that difficult to look at your monthly budget and see how much room you have.
Like I said, it's a process. There's really ample time to examine whether you can realistically afford the monthly payment.

vailpass
02-10-2012, 02:17 PM
It is the bank's responsibility to protect shareholders' capital. It is not the responsibility of the bank's customers or potential customers to protect shareholder's capital.

How does that impact the responsibility of the individual to act in a fiscally responsible manner?

blaise
02-10-2012, 02:19 PM
common sense and reality aren't allowed in dc. get back to the lounge.

I think common sense would actually say that a lender telling you a number that sounds high is probably not a realistic number for the borrower.
Common sense isn't just believing what people are trying to sell you. That's bad common sense.

vailpass
02-10-2012, 02:20 PM
I understand the argument laying the blame on the homebuyers, but at the same time, my concern is that the people with the most knowledge and expertise, and thus, those who are best able to avoid the problems in the first place, should hold a great share of responsibility. This is a similar principle to the cheapest cost avoider in negligence law. When we add to this fact to the widespread action this amounted to, and the avoider is even more suspect.

That said, I'm not too knowledgeable in this area and would appreciate critiques of my own analysis.

LMAO

KC native
02-10-2012, 02:20 PM
You asked for examples. I am in process of providing you with what you asked for.

But, I don't blame you for being done, either.

no you aren't providing examples. you're just bringing up your sour grapes.

La literatura
02-10-2012, 02:20 PM
I think you might say a reasonable person would think that, but I bet a lot of people would disagree. I don't know for sure that I would say a reasonable person would think that. I say that because it's not that difficult to look at your monthly budget and see how much room you have.
Like I said, it's a process. There's really ample time to examine whether you can realistically afford the monthly payment.

But is it not the case that several million people bought homes that they have ultimately found themselves completely or partially underwater on? Doesn't that suggest a real problem with industry practices?

Donger
02-10-2012, 02:21 PM
no you aren't providing examples. you're just bringing up your sour grapes.

Not so. I'm providing an example of you making claims that you don't back up with facts.

vailpass
02-10-2012, 02:21 PM
Absolutely unequivocally this.

If I go to 3-4 doctors and they tell me I have a cancer and need an operation but when I am on the operating table they find out there is no cancer so in turn I am screwed out a couple hundred thousand dollars.

I guess that is my fault

:spock:

La literatura
02-10-2012, 02:22 PM
LMAO

Worst critique ever.

KC native
02-10-2012, 02:23 PM
How does that impact the responsibility of the individual to act in a fiscally responsible manner?

the individual isn't making the loan. the bank is. it's their responsibility to ensure they are paid back

vailpass
02-10-2012, 02:23 PM
I've only called those who are racist, racists.

but humor me. I'd like to see whatever gotcha you think you have.

Cut out this chatter and get back to trimming my palm trees.

vailpass
02-10-2012, 02:25 PM
Worst critique ever.

By all means, tell us more about the individual mortgage experience.

vailpass
02-10-2012, 02:26 PM
the individual isn't making the loan. the bank is. it's their responsibility to ensure they are paid back

Welfare state boy, you crack me up. Holy frijoles!

blaise
02-10-2012, 02:26 PM
But is it not the case that several million people bought homes that they have ultimately found themselves completely or partially underwater on? Doesn't that suggest a real problem with industry practices?

Yes, I already said there's bad underwriting taking place. It's not like I have sympathy for the banks or lenders.

KC native
02-10-2012, 02:29 PM
But is it not the case that several million people bought homes that they have ultimately found themselves completely or partially underwater on? Doesn't that suggest a real problem with industry practices?

There were huge problems with industry practices. We had realtors and loan officers telling people real estate never goes down. They were saying "don't worry about when the paments reset, you can always refinance and then you'll have more equity." The front line people knew how to game the system to get loans through underwriting. It was an all around clusterfuck. The borrowers bear the least amount of responsibility in this whole fiasco.

Bob Dole
02-10-2012, 02:30 PM
we were foreclosed upon. our house payment was about 20-23% of our income;

Bob Dole's annual house payment is 6.5% of his individual gross income...

Sorry about your situation, but Bob Dole made a choice to buy something he could afford even if hit with something catastrophic like loss of employment.

Donger
02-10-2012, 02:31 PM
There were huge problems with industry practices. We had realtors and loan officers telling people real estate never goes down. They were saying "don't worry about when the paments reset, you can always refinance and then you'll have more equity." The front line people knew how to game the system to get loans through underwriting. It was an all around cluster****. The borrowers bear the least amount of responsibility in this whole fiasco.

Only if stupidity and/or ignorance are qualifiers for negating responsibility.

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 02:32 PM
:spock:

It may not be the best analogy but the point I was trying to make was that people normally trust bankers when it comes to getting a loan, like Jensen said they are knowledgeable and have the expertise just like doctors are.

If multiple doctors, hell even one doctor, tells me I have cancer I am going to tend to believe them.

If multiple mortgage companies\banks tell me I can get a $500,000 loan with 2% interest and afford the payments most people would tend to believe them. Mostly because we believe they looked at our income and credit history and wouldn't give out the loan if they didn't believe it themselves.

La literatura
02-10-2012, 02:32 PM
By all means, tell us more about the individual mortgage experience.

I cannot.

KC native
02-10-2012, 02:33 PM
Welfare state boy, you crack me up. Holy frijoles!

Ah yes, failpuss the internet tough guy is back. what's funny about this is that you're scared shitless of Hispanics in real life.

vailpass
02-10-2012, 02:34 PM
There were huge problems with industry practices. We had realtors and loan officers telling people real estate never goes down. They were saying "don't worry about when the paments reset, you can always refinance and then you'll have more equity." The front line people knew how to game the system to get loans through underwriting. It was an all around cluster****. The borrowers bear the least amount of responsibility in this whole fiasco.

Caveat emptor
Personal responsibility
Fiscal Responsibility

If you are too stupid to read a document you are signing, if you aren't capable of assessing an investment, then you shouldn't be borrowing hundreds of thousands of dollars.

vailpass
02-10-2012, 02:35 PM
Ah yes, failpuss the internet tough guy is back. what's funny about this is that you're scared shitless of Hispanics in real life.

Only if they try to drink out of the same water fountain I do.

blaise
02-10-2012, 02:36 PM
It may not be the best analogy but the point I was trying to make was that people normally trust bankers when it comes to getting a loan, like Jensen said they are knowledgeable and have the expertise just like doctors are.

If multiple doctors, hell even one doctor, tells me I have cancer I am going to tend to believe them.

If multiple mortgage companies\banks tell me I can get a $500,000 loan with 2% interest and afford the payments most people would tend to believe them. Mostly because we believe they looked at our income and credit history and wouldn't give out the loan if they didn't believe it themselves.

I disagree with that. That, or people are generally more stupid than I thought. I think the expectation is that a doctor has your best interests at heart. I think (and I hope most people think the same way) that the expectation is that a lender wants you to borrow the maximum amount you can afford because it helps his numbers. Are people generally that stupid?
You can find thousands of advice columns on home buying advice. There's books out there for the first time home buyer. That honestly makes me sad that there's this many suckers in the world.

Donger
02-10-2012, 02:37 PM
Ah yes, failpuss the internet tough guy is back. what's funny about this is that you're scared shitless of Hispanics in real life.

I won't speak for vailpass, but that Marco Rubio scares the crap out of me. Can't wait to vote for him.

He's Hispanic, isn't he?

KC native
02-10-2012, 02:40 PM
Only if stupidity and/or ignorance are qualifiers for negating responsibility.

Caveat emptor
Personal responsibility
Fiscal Responsibility

If you are too stupid to read a document you are signing, if you aren't capable of assessing an investment, then you shouldn't be borrowing hundreds of thousands of dollars.

When these people hold themselves out as experts and professionals and they have an informational advantage, they have a higher burden of responisibility when it comes to transactions that they hold themselves as experts and professionals in.

KC native
02-10-2012, 02:42 PM
I disagree with that. That, or people are generally more stupid than I thought. I think the expectation is that a doctor has your best interests at heart. I think (and I hope most people think the same way) that the expectation is that a lender wants you to borrow the maximum amount you can afford because it helps his numbers. Are people generally that stupid?
You can find thousands of advice columns on home buying advice. There's books out there for the first time home buyer. That honestly makes me sad that there's this many suckers in the world.

Yes, people are generally that stupid when it comes to finances. Also, much of the advice out there is put out by the industry.

vailpass
02-10-2012, 02:42 PM
It may not be the best analogy but the point I was trying to make was that people normally trust bankers when it comes to getting a loan, like Jensen said they are knowledgeable and have the expertise just like doctors are.

If multiple doctors, hell even one doctor, tells me I have cancer I am going to tend to believe them.

If multiple mortgage companies\banks tell me I can get a $500,000 loan with 2% interest and afford the payments most people would tend to believe them. Mostly because we believe they looked at our income and credit history and wouldn't give out the loan if they didn't believe it themselves.

Why on earth would people trust bankers or mortgage people or car salesman or anyone else who is making a profit off of them? This is a result of people being relying on someone else in place of doing their own due diligence and it should not be rewarded.

And why should we financially subsidize people who are guilty of making this mistake?

vailpass
02-10-2012, 02:43 PM
When these people hold themselves out as experts and professionals and they have an informational advantage, they have a higher burden of responisibility when it comes to transactions that they hold themselves as experts and professionals in.

No they don't.

Donger
02-10-2012, 02:43 PM
When these people hold themselves out as experts and professionals and they have an informational advantage, they have a higher burden of responisibility when it comes to transactions that they hold themselves as experts and professionals in.

If you have to be informed that taking out a loan on a house with nothing down is a bad idea, maybe you shouldn't be engaged in the transaction to begin with. These people should have remained renters where they belonged.

blaise
02-10-2012, 02:44 PM
How do they decide who gets the money is what I wonder. How do we know the people behind on their mortgage don't spend $250 on cable, phone and internet every month, or eat out at Applebees twice a week?

La literatura
02-10-2012, 02:45 PM
No they don't.

I agree with KCNative's point. Yes, they do.

KCUnited
02-10-2012, 02:47 PM
How do they decide who gets the money is what I wonder. How do we know the people behind on their mortgage don't spend $250 on cable, phone and internet every month, or eat out at Applebees twice a week?

Or just on the losing end of market risk. There are people who bought within their means who's homes aren't worth their remaining principal.

vailpass
02-10-2012, 02:49 PM
I agree with KCNative's point. Yes, they do.

Do car salesman owe you some sort of fiduciary duty? Swimming pool salesmen? Home theatre vendors?

blaise
02-10-2012, 02:50 PM
I wish I could get my principal reduced by $17,000. You know how many payments we'll have to make to get that much in principal reduced?

Donger
02-10-2012, 02:50 PM
Or just on the losing end of market risk. There are people who bought within their means who's homes aren't worth their remaining principal.

For me, the part of market risk is an important one. If someone closed on a home with less than 20% down, I have little sympathy. For those at the 20% down level or greater, I do.

La literatura
02-10-2012, 02:50 PM
Do car salesman owe you some sort of fiduciary duty? Swimming pool salesmen? Home theatre vendors?

Depending on the situation, if there is a wrong or malpractice related to their field, they owed you a heightened duty of responsibility that correlates to their field of profession.

bandwagonjumper
02-10-2012, 02:51 PM
I'm pretty sure the banks came out ahead.

KC native
02-10-2012, 02:53 PM
If you have to be informed that taking out a loan on a house with nothing down is a bad idea, maybe you shouldn't be engaged in the transaction to begin with. These people should have remained renters where they belonged.

I agree they should have remained renters. Unfortunately, our banks felt the need to loan these people stupid amounts of money. Again, the failure is on the lender's part.

Bob Dole
02-10-2012, 02:54 PM
How do they decide who gets the money is what I wonder. How do we know the people behind on their mortgage don't spend $250 on cable, phone and internet every month, or eat out at Applebees twice a week?

Or reproduce like rabbits.

Donger
02-10-2012, 02:54 PM
I agree they should have remained renters. Unfortunately, our banks felt the need to loan these people stupid amounts of money. Again, the failure is on the lender's part.

Remind me: weren't the lenders encouraged by certain politicians to turn renters into home owners?

KC native
02-10-2012, 02:57 PM
Remind me: weren't the lenders encouraged by certain politicians to turn renters into home owners?

Yea, your good ol' buddy Shrub and his home ownership society.

vailpass
02-10-2012, 02:57 PM
Depending on the situation, if there is a wrong or malpractice related to their field, they owed you a heightened duty of responsibility that correlates to their field of profession.

In the real world the consumer must always be aware of what he is buying, of the terms of any agreement into which he enters. He needs to know that it isn't anyone else's job to do these things for him; nobody is responsible for him but himself.
If you allow the very people who stand to profit from your business to tell you what to buy you have no recourse when you discover it was a bad deal so long as the seller broke no laws. And make no mistake, mortgage loans are something you buy.

Donger
02-10-2012, 02:58 PM
Yea, your good ol' buddy Shrub and his home ownership society.

I'm sorry, who?

KC native
02-10-2012, 02:58 PM
Do car salesman owe you some sort of fiduciary duty? Swimming pool salesmen? Home theatre vendors?

No they don't and those industries haven't blown up several times, so they're not nearly as regulated as finance.

KC native
02-10-2012, 02:59 PM
I'm sorry, who?

Bush dumbass.

La literatura
02-10-2012, 03:00 PM
In the real world the consumer must always be aware of what he is buying, of the terms of any agreement into which he enters. He needs to know that it isn't anyone else's job to do these things for him; nobody is responsible for him but himself.
If you allow the very people who stand to profit from your business to tell you what to buy you have no recourse when you discover it was a bad deal so long as the seller broke no laws. And make no mistake, mortgage loans are something you buy.

Just because the consumer should be aware does not mean there are no legal or ethical duties that should be and are placed on the seller. Almost the entire field of tort law is functioned on this very issue. The legal world doesn't operate as much on caveat emptor as you seem to think.

mikey23545
02-10-2012, 03:01 PM
In the real world the consumer must always be aware of what he is buying, of the terms of any agreement into which he enters. He needs to know that it isn't anyone else's job to do these things for him; nobody is responsible for him but himself.
If you allow the very people who stand to profit from your business to tell you what to buy you have no recourse when you discover it was a bad deal so long as the seller broke no laws.

Hopefully 4 years ago we learned the same things apply to presidential elections...

vailpass
02-10-2012, 03:05 PM
Just because the consumer should be aware does not mean there are no legal or ethical duties that should be and are placed on the seller. Almost the entire field of tort law is functioned on this very issue. The legal world doesn't operate as much on caveat emptor as you seem to think.

Ethical duties?ROFL
Legal duties? Of course. As I said, so long as the seller, or lender, doesn't violate any laws the customer has no recourse other than to appeal to the goodwill of the seller.

I closed my first mortgage when I was 18 Gypsum. I was aware of the rules, responsibilities and dangers. Hard cold fact in this world: watch your ass because nobody (outside of family/friends) is going to watch it for you.

Donger
02-10-2012, 03:07 PM
Bush dumbass.

Yes, I knew that. I just wanted to make you write his actual name.

So, he was the only one responsible for encouraging the lenders to ease their standards?

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 03:10 PM
I disagree with that. That, or people are generally more stupid than I thought. I think the expectation is that a doctor has your best interests at heart. I think (and I hope most people think the same way) that the expectation is that a lender wants you to borrow the maximum amount you can afford because it helps his numbers. Are people generally that stupid?
You can find thousands of advice columns on home buying advice. There's books out there for the first time home buyer. That honestly makes me sad that there's this many suckers in the world.

The key word in your answer is afford. Would you agree that during the housing boom that wasn't the case? That bankers\mortgage companies didn't care if you could afford it or not?

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 03:12 PM
Why on earth would people trust bankers or mortgage people or car salesman or anyone else who is making a profit off of them? This is a result of people being relying on someone else in place of doing their own due diligence and it should not be rewarded.

And why should we financially subsidize people who are guilty of making this mistake?

And why should we financially subsidize banks that broke the laws and caused the crisis yet gave the middle finger to the people who they screwed?

La literatura
02-10-2012, 03:14 PM
Ethical duties?ROFL
Legal duties? Of course. As I said, so long as the seller, or lender, doesn't violate any laws the customer has no recourse other than to appeal to the goodwill of the seller.

I closed my first mortgage when I was 18 Gypsum. I was aware of the rules, responsibilities and dangers. Hard cold fact in this world: watch your ass because nobody (outside of family/friends) is going to watch it for you.

Not sure what's funny about ethical duties; the reality is that they are coded for a variety of professions and practices, and are often the basis of a legal claim for breaching them.

This entire discussion is about how law should reflect ethical duties. "The consumer should be blamed" or "The lender should be held accountable" is a debate inherent about what ethical duties should be conscripted into legal duties. That's a huge part of the policy debate going on right now. And this thread, and my contributions to it, were about it.

I'm not interested in your particular facts and situations, as impressive as they may be, or how erroneously you see the "real world". I'm interested in the nationwide policies that are being shaped as a response to the housing mortgage problem.

vailpass
02-10-2012, 03:17 PM
And why should we financially subsidize banks that broke the laws and caused the crisis yet gave the middle finger to the people who they screwed?

Any law breading should be prosecuted, no doubt.

mikey23545
02-10-2012, 03:19 PM
Just wondering, since I don't feel like wading through all the posts in this thread...

Has anyone brought up the fact that it was Dems who pushed banks ever since the Carter administration to make loans to people who couldn't afford them?

Has anyone mentioned it was ACORN, Obama's brownshirts, who pleaded with poor blacks to come into their offices so they could facilitate all the paperwork to purchase houses they couldn't afford?

How about the legislation authored by Dems back in the 90's that financially punished financial institutions if they did not loan money to crack addicts and streetwalkers?

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 03:20 PM
Any law breading should be prosecuted, no doubt.

But they are not which is a problem.

I was just reading that mortgage companies were giving home loans to illegal aliens because they never did any verifying. Yet we bailed these assholes out.

La literatura
02-10-2012, 03:21 PM
Just wondering, since I don't feel like wading through all the posts in this thread...

No, we hadn't had the stupid "It's all the Democratic Party's fault" angle, yet. Thanks for your credible analysis.

vailpass
02-10-2012, 03:22 PM
Not sure what's funny about ethical duties; the reality is that they are coded for a variety of professions and practices, and are often the basis of a legal claim for breaching them.

This entire discussion is about how law should reflect ethical duties. "The consumer should be blamed" or "The lender should be held accountable" is a debate inherent about what ethical duties should be conscripted into legal duties. That's a huge part of the policy debate going on right now. And this thread, and my contributions to it, were about it.

I'm not interested in your particular facts and situations, as impressive as they may be, or how erroneously you see the "real world". I'm interested in the nationwide policies that are being shaped as a response to the housing mortgage problem.

My point is that there needs to be a balance between the two for the system to work and that the individual must be held accountable for his actions every bit as much as the lender must follow the laws.

Extremists who would absolve the individual of any responsibility and place all blame on the lenders are advocating for a system devoid of individual choice. Who, if not the individual, must act on behalf of the individual? Industry? Government?

Those who would say the lenders shouldn't be regulated or held to the laws as they are written are asking for system that would quickly sink under it's own weight.

vailpass
02-10-2012, 03:23 PM
But they are not which is a problem.

I was just reading that mortgage companies were giving home loans to illegal aliens because they never did any verifying. Yet we bailed these assholes out.

I probably don't need to tell you I'm not on board with that program.

La literatura
02-10-2012, 03:25 PM
My point is that there needs to be a balance between the two for the system to work and that the individual must be held accountable for his actions every bit as much as the lender must follow the laws.

Extremists who would absolve the individual of any responsibility and place all blame on the lenders are advocating for a system devoid of individual choice. Who, if not the individual, must act on behalf of the individual? Industry? Government?

Those who would say the lenders shouldn't be regulated or held to the laws as they are written are asking for system that would quickly sink under it's own weight.

What you aren't saying, however, is what your opinion on the laws are, whether there should be reforms, new standards, and new regulations, or more enforcement of continuing regulations, or getting rid of standards and regulations.

That's where the meat of the debate seems to be. Not just "lenders should follow the laws" but also "What should those laws be, and how should they be enforced?"

Since you're familiar with this, your opinion would be more valuable here.

vailpass
02-10-2012, 03:38 PM
What you aren't saying, however, is what your opinion on the laws are, whether there should be reforms, new standards, and new regulations, or more enforcement of continuing regulations, or getting rid of standards and regulations.

That's where the meat of the debate seems to be. Not just "lenders should follow the laws" but also "What should those laws be, and how should they be enforced?"

Since you're familiar with this, your opinion would be more valuable here.

Top of mind: No balloon loans. Conservative DTI ratios determine the amount that can be borrowed. Verified income. Mandatory 20% down payment plus 2 full payments to be held in escrow and used in case of hardship for first time borrowers.
Full disclosure of actual cost of loan including actual monthly payment including insurance. Fixed rates with the ability to refi once every 24 months.

HonestChieffan
02-10-2012, 04:31 PM
Top of mind: No balloon loans. Conservative DTI ratios determine the amount that can be borrowed. Verified income. Mandatory 20% down payment plus 2 full payments to be held in escrow and used in case of hardship for first time borrowers.
Full disclosure of actual cost of loan including actual monthly payment including insurance. Fixed rates with the ability to refi once every 24 months.

Sounds just like when I bought my first home

vailpass
02-10-2012, 05:02 PM
Sounds just like when I bought my first home

Yep.

planetdoc
03-21-2014, 11:24 AM
Wells Fargo foreclosure manual under fire (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/wells-fargo-foreclosure-manual-under-fire/2014/03/17/25cd383c-ae00-11e3-96dc-d6ea14c099f9_story.html)

Wells Fargo created an elaborate guide for how to produce missing documents to foreclose on homeowners, according to a lawsuit that has caught the attention of state and federal regulators.

The bank denies wrongdoing, but the allegations rekindle claims that lenders, including Wells Fargo, used forged and shoddy paperwork during the recession to quickly foreclose on struggling homeowners, a practice known as “robo-signing.” Those charges led to a $25 billion national mortgage settlement that was supposed to put an end to such abusive practices, but bankruptcy lawyer Linda Tirelli says nothing has changed.

“This is a blueprint for fraud,” said Tirelli, who attached a copy of the manual as evidence in the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in White Plains, N.Y. “The idea that this bank is instructing people how to produce these documents is appalling.”

Tirelli said she has long suspected Wells Fargo of manufacturing documents.

KC native
03-21-2014, 02:36 PM
All of the banks did this.

Dayze
03-21-2014, 09:33 PM
we used Wells Fargo and got foreclosed upon. after 9 months of sending paperwork multiple times (50 page documents were sent on 5 occasions....the same paperwork that had already been sent) to see about a loan modification.

By that time it was too late and we never did get a status on our loan mod. We finally, after a year of being dicked around, said Fuck you and moved out on our own terms. Fuck em.

Ill never use them again. they were completely inept. It would be one thing if the loan mod was rejected, but to not even hear anything back on it for 9+ months and needing to send the same paperwork in so many times.......ridiculous.