Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate > Foreclosures, Short Sales, and REOs
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-26-2011, 12:39 PM
 
1 posts, read 1,350 times
Reputation: 11

Advertisements

I went through loan modification and I state:
This program was created by the current president Mr.Change and is presentet as help to homeowners, but in reality it is purposed to evicting weak mortgage payers from their homes by fraud replacing them with strong ones in attempt of fixing of economy. It did not fail as it has accomplished what it was created for.
Hey Yankees, your government has turned into your enemy, but you are not aware of it !!! Vow! What a nation of morons!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-26-2011, 05:52 PM
 
Location: Just south of Denver since 1989
11,815 posts, read 34,287,950 times
Reputation: 8935
I do not believe that. HAMP is hampered by the lack of accountability on the servicer's part.

How can the Federal Government mandate to the private sector how they must resolve legal binging contracts?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2011, 12:48 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque
5,548 posts, read 16,030,354 times
Reputation: 2756
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2bindenver
How can the Federal Government mandate to the private
sector how they must resolve legal binging contracts?
Because the banks ( in the "private," bailed-out sector ) went on a bender
in the time of the Real Estate bubble.

So in, essence, your incorrect speeling above, is correct.

The banks were binging(*) on free money from
the government to make huge profits until they didn't.

Then they were bailed out.

Then they pretended to pay the taxpayers out when they
were bailed out of their bailout debt with another bailout.

Yup. binging is abolutely correct in this context ( even if it isn't really a word ).

(*)
binging, the active form of binge. I just invented it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2011, 01:03 PM
 
Location: Boise, ID
8,046 posts, read 28,367,082 times
Reputation: 9470
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyKid View Post
Math. According to the article. "11 million mortgage borrowers are in potential danger of default"... So - what do they say, about 1/2 the homes are owned outright?

So using your number and the info in this article

[(80mil - 40mil) / 11mil] = 27.5

That says about 27% of all mortgages are in danger? That'll curl your toes if you're heavy into the MBS - and seriously, what pension fund isn't?

I have to wonder how they define "in potential danger of default" though. Does that mean that they have actually had a notice of defualt filed, or missed payments, or does it simply mean that their home has lost value?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2011, 01:32 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque
5,548 posts, read 16,030,354 times
Reputation: 2756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacerta
... or does it simply mean that their home has lost value?
It's got to be that. -- That plus under water.

The thing is, just because a home is under water, doesn't mean it's in "danger of default."
For a normal, fixed-rate loan, if the borrower still has their job(s) then they continue to "rent," but not default.
For a normal, fixed-rate loan, if the borrower lost their job(s), but have savings then they continue to "rent," but not default.

Of course, once the "magic number" of $100k under water is reached, then it's anyone's guess.
( $100k under water is really $120-150k or so due to selling/repair costs. )
Strategic Default, for most people, is a sound financial choice at that point.
( It's not like being $110k under is really any different than being $90k under. )

As more inventory and more houses hit the market, more defaults, strategic or not will happen
as a result of dropping prices begetting more defaults. It's the ( new ) circle of ( housing ) life.
The only way to stop that from happening is hundreds of billions of dollars of direct federal aid.

... "aid?" Did I say "aid?" I meant subsidy. More subsidy. ...

Last edited by mortimer; 03-02-2011 at 01:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2011, 01:37 PM
 
Location: Union County
6,150 posts, read 9,973,074 times
Reputation: 5831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacerta View Post
I have to wonder how they define "in potential danger of default" though. Does that mean that they have actually had a notice of defualt filed, or missed payments, or does it simply mean that their home has lost value?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer View Post
It's got to be that.

That plus under water.
I take as having missed a payment...

What's interesting (having gone back and re-read the article) is how high the default stats are for HAMP folks. Even after getting modified they're falling behind again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2011, 01:51 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque
5,548 posts, read 16,030,354 times
Reputation: 2756
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyKid
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer
That plus under water.
I take as having missed a payment...
My house is under water and I don't make enough to pay the mortgage.
It's been that way for three years. I haven't missed a payment.

Every payment requires less ounces of gold than the previous one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyKid
HAMP folks. Even after getting modified they're falling behind again.
That's because in order to qualify for HAMP, you have to already be in default. People with no job, no hope
of a job, paying 8-9%, selling their possessions are deemed to be "not in distress" and not eligible.

HAMP was designed to fail from the get-go. It was another form of bail-out for the banks. The
government gave the banks $75B to "process" ( and deny ) most of the people applying for the program.

Had HAMP been aimed at people who are current, but just paying above-market rates,
trying to do the right thing, maybe the housing market would have stabilized a little bit.

Rates went to 4%, but pretty much, no one who is paying over 6% ever got refinanced or modified.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2011, 02:02 PM
 
Location: Union County
6,150 posts, read 9,973,074 times
Reputation: 5831
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer View Post
My house is under water and I don't make enough to pay the mortgage.
It's been that way for three years. I haven't missed a payment.

Every payment requires less ounces of gold than the previous one.
So yeah - I wouldn't put you in the "danger" category personally.

Quote:
That's because in order to qualify for HAMP, you have to already be in default. People with no job, no hope
of a job, paying 8-9%, selling their possessions are deemed to be "not in distress" and not eligible.

HAMP was designed to fail from the get-go. It was another form of bail-out for the banks. The
government gave the banks $75B to "process" ( and deny ) most of the people applying for the program.

Had HAMP been aimed at people who are current, but just paying above-market rates,
trying to do the right thing, maybe the housing market would have stabilized a little bit.

Rates went to 4%, but pretty much, no one who is paying over 6% ever got refinanced or modified.
Preaching to the choir - paying the banks to trial people instead of keeping people modified was an awesome deal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2011, 02:26 PM
 
8,584 posts, read 9,060,078 times
Reputation: 5890
I went through a home mod 3 times, failed the first two, approved for the third one but I turned it down. What a joke. The third deal had me paying more than my original 30 fixed rate. All of this over two late payments because of an ill family member and medical costs. All is well now but I swear I'll never will do business with a large wall street bank again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2011, 03:29 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque
5,548 posts, read 16,030,354 times
Reputation: 2756
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmking
I went through a home mod 3 times, ...
... large wall street bank again.
Was it the same bank that issued you your original 30-year?

Let me guess; they won't just give you a simple refinance because
you are "too big of a risk." You already owe them the money, can
pay for a conventional refinance that would lower your rate and
make you less likely to default, but you're not allowed to.

These are the geniuses that we "had to" give the big bonuses
to so that they wouldn't jump ship to some other company.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate > Foreclosures, Short Sales, and REOs
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top