Obama's plan includes mortgage prinicpal reduction!

[thegimp03]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
So how do I make it look like I'm an irresponsible home owner so I can get my slice of the irresponsibility pie?

"Obama, can you cut me a check, too? Please? Pretty please?"

$75B is going to do nothing to help most of these people. $5k each? (Numbers of $75B / 13.8M homeowners affected in Yahoo Finance article posted earlier). Please, $5k is at most 3 months mortgage for most of these people. Maybe they should have learned and understood the risk that 5/1 ARMs involve before they signed the papers. What happens 3 months from now when these people need more money again? Do they suddenly feel entitled to more help from the gov't?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
So how do I make it look like I'm an irresponsible home owner so I can get my slice of the irresponsibility pie?

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: thegimp03

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
So how do I make it look like I'm an irresponsible home owner so I can get my slice of the irresponsibility pie?

"Obama, can you cut me a check, too? Please? Pretty please?"

$75B is going to do nothing to help most of these people. $5k each? (Numbers of $75B / 13.8M homeowners affected in Yahoo Finance article posted earlier). Please, $5k is at most 3 months mortgage for most of these people. Maybe they should have learned and understood the risk that 5/1 ARMs involve before they signed the papers. What happens 3 months from now when these people need more money again? Do they suddenly feel entitled to more help from the gov't?

Yes.

"I voted for Obama, I helped him out, now he's gonna help me out."

 

[Starbuck1975]

This housing stimulus is simply a sound byte for Obama to project a perception that he has the situation under control...our tax dollars will fund what is essentially a PR move.

 

[jpeyton]

Let's see...if i was a bank and a borrower was facing foreclosure would I:

1) Foreclose on yet another property in the midst of the biggest real estate recession in recent memory, let the property sit empty for months while I dedicate more time/resources to finding a new buyer at a cut-rate price...

Or

2) Renegotiate the mortgage with the borrower, keep the money rolling in.

It's not a surprise that many lenders have VOLUNTARILY chosen option 2 before Obama even suggested it.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Robor
Then stop making partisan statements when both sides share blame.

This is a statement by a D and will likely get passed on party lines by the D's with the R's in opposition, just like the "stimulus" bill. That's the great part about being a life-long independent: I get to make fun of all the idiots rather than just half of them.

Good for you. While you are content with being a cynical skeptic trying to say , "I told you so!" as much as humanly possible, the rest of us will do our best to objectively discuss and work towards solutions to the problems. Enjoy your ride on our wagon.

You aren't solving jack shit.

He's solving the problem by taking money from smart people and giving it to dumb people. Solving the problem is the goal, the theft necessary to achieve it is irrelevant.

 

[Zebo]

March 5th rules will be released, but tomorrow I'm getting a 125 loan just predicting what's up. buying Gold anyway so I "lost it."

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Let's see...if i was a bank and a borrower was facing foreclosure would I:

1) Foreclose on yet another property in the midst of the biggest real estate recession in recent memory, let the property sit empty for months while I dedicate more time/resources to finding a new buyer at a cut-rate price...

Or

2) Renegotiate the mortgage with the borrower, keep the money rolling in.

It's not a surprise that many lenders have VOLUNTARILY chosen option 2 before Obama even suggested it.

If you were a bank, option #2 would look even better since taxpayers would be helping.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: Genx87...

Why wouldnt they let them short sell? That doesnt make sense. Does the bank want another foreclosed home that is depreciating faster than a car in their inventory?

From what I've been reading, that's exactly what is happening. Banks mortgage lenders are foreclosing rather than rewrite the mortgage terms and its forcing otherwise potentially avoidable foreclosures.

It has to do with the rules the servicers have to work under, and their liability and to the lender for rewriting the loan. Also, multiple creditors are often involved and there is no quick agreement on who is going to take the loss and by how much.

Its so complicated that the loans don't get modified and are simpler to shove into foreclosure proceedings and hammer out terms there.

The changes to the servicers rules are very important to try and stem the tide of foreclosures and begin to work thru the housing mess, and try to keep people in homes and not grenade the value of the entire neighborhoods around them. Also, the gov't takes a share of the loss to facilitate the lenders amending the agreements in exchange for an equity share in the property.

Deals like this are important to begin to break up the logjam of lending and losses so the economy can start to unfuck itself.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Let's see...if i was a bank and a borrower was facing foreclosure would I:

1) Foreclose on yet another property in the midst of the biggest real estate recession in recent memory, let the property sit empty for months while I dedicate more time/resources to finding a new buyer at a cut-rate price...

Or

2) Renegotiate the mortgage with the borrower, keep the money rolling in.

It's not a surprise that many lenders have VOLUNTARILY chosen option 2 before Obama even suggested it.

If you were a bank, option #2 would look even better since taxpayers would be helping.

Word. And if you were a taxpayer facing foreclosure, you would be glad to help.

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Let's see...if i was a bank and a borrower was facing foreclosure would I:

1) Foreclose on yet another property in the midst of the biggest real estate recession in recent memory, let the property sit empty for months while I dedicate more time/resources to finding a new buyer at a cut-rate price...

Or

2) Renegotiate the mortgage with the borrower, keep the money rolling in.

It's not a surprise that many lenders have VOLUNTARILY chosen option 2 before Obama even suggested it.

If you were a bank, option #2 would look even better since taxpayers would be helping.

Word. And if you were a taxpayer facing foreclosure, you would be glad to help.

And if you're not a taxpayer facing foreclosure, but just a taxpayer, maybe you don't want to help.

 

[Bitek]

BTW.. I love all the dipshit Republicons of the High Temple of Fiscal Responsibly trashing all the economic CPR as wasteful spending, all the while they just had tenure over a $5T run up of the national debt and the myriad of foolish decisions that added to it.

What's their encore act? Got another bailout bill they can vote down so the market can collapse another 700 points? Fuck everybody let's just do economic Armageddon, but at least our children won't have to pay for it?

We don't live on our own private economic island where the outside world can't effect us. We are all on the same ship, and a breach in stowage can take down the whole fucking thing. You may have a lifevest, but your ass is still swimming.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Bitek
BTW.. I love all the dipshit Republicons of the High Temple of Fiscal Responsibly trashing all the economic CPR as wasteful spending, all the while they just had tenure over a $5T run up of the national debt and the myriad of foolish decisions that added to it.

I just love being lumped into a group of people I have been opposing for the last 8 years.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Let's see...if i was a bank and a borrower was facing foreclosure would I:

1) Foreclose on yet another property in the midst of the biggest real estate recession in recent memory, let the property sit empty for months while I dedicate more time/resources to finding a new buyer at a cut-rate price...

Or

2) Renegotiate the mortgage with the borrower, keep the money rolling in.

It's not a surprise that many lenders have VOLUNTARILY chosen option 2 before Obama even suggested it.

If you were a bank, option #2 would look even better since taxpayers would be helping.

Word. And if you were a taxpayer facing foreclosure, you would be glad to help.

And if you're not a taxpayer facing foreclosure, but just a taxpayer, maybe you don't want to help.

So I guess the million dollar question is, will this move produce a net gain or loss in votes?

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Bitek
BTW.. I love all the dipshit Republicons of the High Temple of Fiscal Responsibly trashing all the economic CPR as wasteful spending, all the while they just had tenure over a $5T run up of the national debt and the myriad of foolish decisions that added to it.

I just love being lumped into a group of people I have been opposing for the last 8 years.

Hey if you are putting yourself in there, that's all you.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87
So how would one qualify for this?

The same way one puts a square peg in a round hole.

There are many myths about these mortgage programs, but the notion that they help people keep homes they could never afford is the biggest and most inaccurate.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Here's what infuriates me:

The multipart plan will for the first time commit government money to spur loan modifications. One likely component will be interest-rate subsidies for at-risk borrowers, with the government matching the servicer's rate reduction. Borrowers would have to take an affordability test to see whether they could handle the monthly payment on the reworked loan.

"Our focus will be on using the full resources of the government to help bring down mortgage payments and to reduce mortgage interest rates," Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said last week as he announced the administration's financial stability plan.



So in other words, we're going to give more perks to those who shouldnt have qualified for a mortgage in the first place by offering you the same bennies as those who DID qualify...at taxpayers expense. Fuck that.

It infuriates you because your reading comprehension is so bad. So I bolded an important part for you.

These programs aren't about helping people keep homes they couldn't afford in the first place. They're about mitigating investor losses by getting/helping borrowers to pay something and stemming the growing tide of foreclosures from destroying what little is left of the housing market utterly.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
At this point what's the alternative?

Fuck them

Who?

Those who would receive direct assistance from this.

You mean investors forced to foreclose on defaulted borrowers when they could be getting something from them (in the way of monthly payments when they otherwise aren't allowed to get anything less than full reinstatement on defaulted loans), and homeowners facing massive value depreciation competing because the market consists of more REO's and distressed sales than voluntary? Because THAT is who is getting direct assistance from this.
Because make no mistake, a customer who can't pay his mortgage, or who could pay except his other obligations are too high, is not helped here, and is encouraged to sell the property so the investors can cut their losses before the house depreciates any further.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Let's see...if i was a bank and a borrower was facing foreclosure would I:

1) Foreclose on yet another property in the midst of the biggest real estate recession in recent memory, let the property sit empty for months while I dedicate more time/resources to finding a new buyer at a cut-rate price...

Or

2) Renegotiate the mortgage with the borrower, keep the money rolling in.

It's not a surprise that many lenders have VOLUNTARILY chosen option 2 before Obama even suggested it.

If you were a bank, option #2 would look even better since taxpayers would be helping.

Word. And if you were a taxpayer facing foreclosure, you would be glad to help.

And if you're not a taxpayer facing foreclosure, but just a taxpayer, maybe you don't want to help.

You'd be an idiot not to get the help. Do you not take the Standard Deduction? The Home interest deduction? The EIC? etc?

Zebo universal truth #1 - is tax something get less of it. Subsidize something get more of it. Therefore I look to this program to eclipse 1 Trillion, despite claims of 75B, even Mr. Kelvrick will probably partake.

 

[Slew Foot]

I dont see any reason for anyone to pay off any debts. you wait and bitch long enough, Obama will come bail you out.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
I dont see any reason for anyone to pay off any debts. you wait and bitch long enough, Obama will come bail you out.

In this piece http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29256639/ it makes it clear you don't even have to be in the rears to get it, only establish a market value below the principal owed. Like I said I'm taking a loan out immediately.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Genx87
So how would one qualify for this?

By shooting your likely-near-stellar credit rating down into the 400's. Basically just stop paying your mortgage, and be able to hide your income well enough such that they can't find it.

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Let's see...if i was a bank and a borrower was facing foreclosure would I:

1) Foreclose on yet another property in the midst of the biggest real estate recession in recent memory, let the property sit empty for months while I dedicate more time/resources to finding a new buyer at a cut-rate price...

Or

2) Renegotiate the mortgage with the borrower, keep the money rolling in.

It's not a surprise that many lenders have VOLUNTARILY chosen option 2 before Obama even suggested it.

If you were a bank, option #2 would look even better since taxpayers would be helping.

Word. And if you were a taxpayer facing foreclosure, you would be glad to help.

And if you're not a taxpayer facing foreclosure, but just a taxpayer, maybe you don't want to help.

You'd be an idiot not to get the help. Do you not take the Standard Deduction? The Home interest deduction? The EIC? etc?

Zebo universal truth #1 - is tax something get less of it. Subsidize something get more of it. Therefore I look to this program to eclipse 1 Trillion, despite claims of 75B, even Mr. Kelvrick will probably partake.

I take the standard deduction, everyone does at least the standard deduction. At least, if they paid taxes. I don't even have a house yet though, why should I help pay for those who made a bad decision? If the housing market had not burst, I'd be completely priced out in my area. Would I get a bailout to help me buy a home?

 

[Starbuck1975]

BTW.. I love all the dipshit Republicons of the High Temple of Fiscal Responsibly trashing all the economic CPR as wasteful spending, all the while they just had tenure over a $5T run up of the national debt and the myriad of foolish decisions that added to it.

I love it when Democrats choose to live in the past because their leadership has no vision for the future.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
I dont see any reason for anyone to pay off any debts. you wait and bitch long enough, Obama will come bail you out.

In this piece http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29256639/ it makes it clear you don't even have to be in the rears to get it, only establish a market value below the principal owed. Like I said I'm taking a loan out immediately.

No servicer will grant a principal balance suspension solely on negative equity. There has to be a legitimate hardship.
The biggest confusion that people seem to have here is a belief that lenders are merely cutting principal balances. That is not so. They are suspending them, meaning that the borrower doesn't have to make payments on the suspended amount. That doesn't go away though, and the borrower is expected to repay it at maturity or when the loan otherwise comes due (like if the house is sold or refinanced).
In the case of short payoffs (i.e. short sales), lenders are allowed to pursue the deficiency in every case except California purchase money loans.