• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Underwater homeowners get no interest loan for up $50,000....

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jhhnn said:
Utterly ridiculous. Spidey knows he's a hypocrite, revels in it, seeks every advantage from it. He's the center of the Universe- Hell, the only reason that the Universe exists at all. And the whole bit about taxes denies reality. Let's say that people who think taxes need to be raised voluntarily pay more- increased revenues will just enable wing nuts to call for more tax cuts for themselves, so that those willing to pay more will necessarily pay even more... If the most selfish among us could pay nothing, they would, and if they could derive enormous income from govt contracts at the same time, hey, no problemo...
Click to expand...

My favorite thing about you is that you think you're any different than spidey.
 
JD50 said:
My favorite thing about you is that you think you're any different than spidey.
Click to expand...

Spidey's issue is that he rails against "big government" and lavish pay of government workers and officials, yet his wife is a government worker. He brags about her paycheck and her pension, saying that it will be the "gravy" in their retirement. He's nothing more than the typical teabagger who rails against "big government" but doesn't want his Medicare and SS touched. He is a hypocrite and should be reminded of it every single day.
 
Sweet, sweet 80% full salary gravy after she cashes in all her sick days the last year it will be more like 150% full salary gravy. Yum.

It was my money to begin with. I'm just getting it back.
 
spidey07 said:
Sweet, sweet 80% full salary gravy after she cashes in all her sick days the last year it will be more like 150% full salary gravy. Yum.

It was my money to begin with. I'm just getting it back.
Click to expand...

Perfect example. The guy thinks society lives to support him. He's a selfish liberal prick.
 
LegendKiller said:
Spidey's issue is that he rails against "big government" and lavish pay of government workers and officials, yet his wife is a government worker. He brags about her paycheck and her pension, saying that it will be the "gravy" in their retirement. He's nothing more than the typical teabagger who rails against "big government" but doesn't want his Medicare and SS touched. He is a hypocrite and should be reminded of it every single day.
Click to expand...

Again, how is that any different from those that want higher taxes yet they continue to pay as little in taxes as possible? At least he's honest about it.
 
spidey07 said:
Sweet, sweet 80% full salary gravy after she cashes in all her sick days the last year it will be more like 150% full salary gravy. Yum.

It was my money to begin with. I'm just getting it back.
Click to expand...

As if you pay more in taxes supporting the school district than her total pay & benefit package.

Apparently, everybody's money is just your money finding its way home, huh?

Maybe her pension system will realize what righties everywhere are saying about govt pensions- that they're too generous... change the rules on her shortly before retirement. Epic raving and foaming at the mouth would ensue, I'm sure...
 
blackangst1 said:
How so if its interest free? Also, its not a handout...its a loan that the homeowner is still responsible for should they short sale or default (in most cases).
Click to expand...

because the banks gets $50k worth taxpayer money towards the price of the home for free, which they wouldn't have gotten otherwise and would have had to fight for in court.
 
blackangst1 said:
How so if its interest free? Also, its not a handout...its a loan that the homeowner is still responsible for should they short sale or default (in most cases).
Click to expand...

because the banks get the money free and clear regardless? Even worse is the homeowner will likely get into trouble again at some point and when they do they are going to be in an even bigger bind so the bank will probably end up with the house anyway. This way they get the house plus an extra 30-50K they wouldnt otherwise have gotten.
 
Darwin333 said:
FROM hud but who does the money actually go to? Answer, the banks.
Click to expand...

Not the way Im reading it.

HUD----> homeowner. And it looks like the process is mitigated by a non-profit. Im not seeing anything where a bank is involved. Here's a link

Darwin333 said:
because the banks get the money free and clear regardless? Even worse is the homeowner will likely get into trouble again at some point and when they do they are going to be in an even bigger bind so the bank will probably end up with the house anyway. This way they get the house plus an extra 30-50K they wouldnt otherwise have gotten.
Click to expand...

No, thats incorrect. The 30-50k is a LOAN to the CONSUMER that MUST be paid back.

If Im wrong please provide some links to support what youre saying because the link I provided and a bit of Googleing on my part shows my position is correct.
 
the way the banks cash in:

1. joe schmoe gets accepted for emergency loan and gets approved for 50k.

2. 50k is wired to bank that has his mortgage.

3. bank deducts amount back-owed, plus: (penalties, fees, service charges, interest, reinstatement fee, etc) that the bank had 0% chance of collecting in the first place.

4. bank wires to joe the 'remainder' of the money and tells him he's current

5. bank reports record profits amid housing crunch

6. joe finds himself in trouble one or two years from now and does not qualify for the loan waiver.

wash, rinse, repeat
 
Last edited:
Spikesoldier said:
the way the banks cash in:

1. joe schmoe gets accepted for emergency loan and gets approved for 50k.

2. 50k is wired to bank that has his mortgage.

3. bank deducts amount back-owed, plus: (penalties, fees, service charges, interest, reinstatement fee, etc) that the bank had 0% chance of collecting in the first place.

4. bank wires to joe the 'remainder' of the money and tells him he's current

5. bank reports record profits amid housing crunch

6. joe finds himself in trouble one or two years from now and does not qualify for the loan waiver.

wash, rinse, repeat
Click to expand...

edit: nvm
 
Last edited:
blackangst1 said:
Not the way Im reading it.

HUD----> homeowner. And it looks like the process is mitigated by a non-profit. Im not seeing anything where a bank is involved. Here's a link


No, thats incorrect. The 30-50k is a LOAN to the CONSUMER that MUST be paid back.

If Im wrong please provide some links to support what youre saying because the link I provided and a bit of Googleing on my part shows my position is correct.
Click to expand...

Please provide proof that the homeowner actually recieves cash in hand to do with as they please which may or may not include paying money towards their loan to a bank.

Otherwise the money MUST be paid to a bank which is then applied to a loan that said bank holds far greater risk than said homeowner. The bank gets the money and the homeowner owes it to someone else, what is so hard to understand about that? If and when the homeowner defaults again, is the bank ahead or behind do to this program? How about the homeowner?

My math says the homeowner now owes more money but the bank has received more money. Exactly how does your math differ from mine?
 
Last edited:
Darwin333 said:
Please provide proof that the homeowner actually recieves cash in hand to do with as they please which may or may not include paying money towards their loan to a bank.

Otherwise the money MUST be paid to a bank which is then applied to a loan that said bank holds far greater risk than said homeowner. The bank gets the money and the homeowner owes it to someone else, what is so hard to understand about that? If and when the homeowner defaults again, is the bank ahead or behind do to this program? How about the homeowner?

My math says the homeowner now owes more money but the bank has received more money. Exactly how does your math differ from mine?
Click to expand...

No where did I imply the homeowner gets funds in cash to them directly. However, it is the homeowner who is 100% responsible for said loan. If you read the link I posted, you would have read this:
Fiscal Agent to perform funds control, payment distribution, and note processing functions. HUD will also to contract with an entity which has extensive loan servicing and funds control capabilities to provide general accounting and fiscal control services, including collecting payments from borrowers, distributing payments to servicers on a monthly basis, performing accounting, managing loan balances, and providing payoff information. The fiscal agent would also provide note processing function and services for the program such as recording liens, storing the note and handling the payoffs at the end of the program. Once the note/ mortgage is placed and the homeowner’s final balance is determined, the loan servicing function will be transferred to HUD FHA for longer term management.


Use of Funds for Arrearages: On behalf of the homeowner, the fiscal agent shall use loan funds to pay 100% of arrears (mortgage principal, interest, mortgage insurance premiums, taxes, hazard insurance, and ground rent, if any).


Use of Funds for Continuing Mortgage Assistance: The fiscal agent will make monthly mortgage payments to the servicer of the first lien mortgage in excess of the payments made by the homeowner


Repayment of HUD Note: Following the last payment on behalf of the homeowner, the fiscal agent will process the homeowner’s "HUD Note" and record a mortgage with a specific loan balance. The note and mortgage will be in the form of a five year declining balance, zero interest, nonrecourse loan, and the mortgage shall be in the form of a secured junior lien on the property.
Click to expand...


So, as you can see, the bank holding the mortgage gets payments, issued by a third party HUD non profit, on a monthly basis. After the loan is dispursed, a lien is put on the property by HUD, which must be repaid by the homeowner.

The bank gets the money and the homeowner owes it to someone else, what is so hard to understand about that?
Click to expand...
I never implied anything else.

If and when the homeowner defaults again, is the bank ahead or behind do to this program?
Click to expand...
There are strict financial rules around this program, if you read the guidelines. Including the homeowner going through a type of counselling. But to answer your question, of course the bank benifits by receiving the monthly allotment, but so does the homeowner. So what?
 
Last edited:
blackangst1 said:
No where did I imply the homeowner gets funds in cash to them directly. However, it is the homeowner who is 100% responsible for said loan. If you read the link I posted, you would have read this:


So, as you can see, the bank holding the mortgage gets payments, issued by a third party HUD non profit, on a monthly basis. After the loan is dispursed, a lien is put on the property by HUD, which must be repaid by the homeowner.



I never implied anything else.



There are strict financial rules around this program, if you read the guidelines. Including the homeowner going through a type of counselling. But to answer your question, of course the bank benifits by receiving the monthly allotment, but so does the homeowner. So what?
Click to expand...

My point is very simple, the bank benefits far more and the homeowner could very easily be harmed instead of helped by this program. No matter what the bank will benefit though, so my question to you is "In your opinion, who is this program designed to really help"? Which side will see the greater benefit?
 
the DRIZZLE said:
You can oppose policy and still take advantage of it. I think lots of tax deductions are bad policy but doesn't mean I don't claim them when I'm allowed to.
Click to expand...

Well, yeh, but you don't rave on mindlessly and endlessly about the Ebil Gubmint, or a scream loudly about paying taxes as if you were an emo & entitled teenage princess being flayed alive.

In other words, you're not an obnoxious, self righteous, self aggrandizing, moralizing, immature & emotionally crippled wanker wrt your posting... nor in real life, I suspect.
 
Darwin333 said:
My point is very simple, the bank benefits far more and the homeowner could very easily be harmed instead of helped by this program. No matter what the bank will benefit though, so my question to you is "In your opinion, who is this program designed to really help"? Which side will see the greater benefit?
Click to expand...

I get where youre coming from. I guess Im not quite that cynical.

In my opinion? Mostly the homeowner. IF the homeowner, after benefiting from this plan, gets his/her financial house in order and prevents forecolsure (the $$$, the counselling, etc). If the homeowner defaults, that also depends. If he short sells, he wins. It is far more expensive for the bank to eat negative equity, and the homeowner can qualify for a new mortgage in 3 years. If it forecloses? It's a draw. On one hand the homeowner's credit is fucked, on the other its very expensive to keep a foreclosed home on a bank's books, and it negatively affects their bottom line.

*shrug* Just my opinion. It seems all youre looking at is the $$$ coming in to the mortage bank. There's more to it than that.
 
blackangst1 said:
I get where youre coming from. I guess Im not quite that cynical.
Click to expand...

After seeing program after program like this that were intended to be "backdoor bailouts" I am definitely that cynical. Its just like the $8K homebuyer credit. Anyone with a bit of sense knew that housing had not bottomed by a long shot and the market is simply to big for the .gov to continue to artificially keep it inflated. The majority of people who participated in that program it will be the most expensive "free" anything they have ever received.

OTOH, it sure as hell helped the banks. Not only did it move houses that might have otherwise foreclosed but it also let them write a crap ton more loans, most of which were backed by the .gov.

In my opinion? Mostly the homeowner. IF the homeowner, after benefiting from this plan, gets his/her financial house in order and prevents forecolsure (the $$$, the counselling, etc). If the homeowner defaults, that also depends. If he short sells, he wins. It is far more expensive for the bank to eat negative equity, and the homeowner can qualify for a new mortgage in 3 years. If it forecloses? It's a draw. On one hand the homeowner's credit is fucked, on the other its very expensive to keep a foreclosed home on a bank's books, and it negatively affects their bottom line.

*shrug* Just my opinion. It seems all youre looking at is the $$$ coming in to the mortage bank. There's more to it than that.
Click to expand...

Statistically speaking, the homeowner is liable to get into trouble again. There is a reason they are currently in trouble. I am sure it will be a godsend to a few who temporarily lost employment or something similar and maybe even a few who will save the extra money they have for those few years to float them further or improve their financial situation (pay off CCs etc..). I would be willing to wager that the above is the exception and not the rule though.

OTOH, the people who fall behind a year or two after the program ends are now in even deeper trouble and are extremely likely to default. The bank gets the house anyway but they have received a great deal of additional money on that property they wouldn't otherwise have. With the kind of leverage the .gov has with a program like this I would have at least liked to have seen a requirement for the lender to waive all fees related to them being behind on their payments but that isn't going to happen in either of our lifetimes.
 
Throckmorton said:
Wait, how is it irresponsible to be "upside down"?
Click to expand...

A lot of the cases aren't due to irresponsibility but a lot were. Being upside down alone doesn't mean you are in serious financial trouble unless you are forced to sell for some reason (job moved or for a new job).

I couldn't really care if I was upside down right now or not because being able to live in my home is worth the note, I can easily afford it, and I have no intention on moving. OTOH, if I purchased more home than I could afford and I was upside down I would be in a serious bind because I couldn't flip the house in order to get out of the note I can no longer afford.

Even worse, some people are upside down because of fancy loan products like option ARMs were they only pay a portion of the interest for a few years with the rest of it being added to the loan. Until you reach your negative amortization cap you can keep paying less than the interest being accrued so the amount you owe keeps going up instead of staying flat or going down. When you reach that cap your note can quadruple and you bes fucked.
 
When I saw this thread title, the only thing that came to mind was 'OH FOR FVCKS SAKES'

How much more money is the United States going to spend on miscreants who mismanaged their finances?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top