-
Got the Contributing Memberships stuff finally worked out and made up a thread as a sort of "How-To" to help people figure out how to participate. So if you need help figuring it out, here's the thread you need to take a look at -> http://www.corvetteflorida.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3581 Thank you, everyone! Rich Z.
This is going to get very interesting now
- Thread starter Coastal
- Start date
Well, that depends. There are always two sides to a coin. If you own rental properties and tenants suddenly refuse to pay and claim protection under this moratorium, how are you going to feel about it then? Are you really willing to give people free housing for a year? If the government is going to pay that monthly rent, whose pocket does that REALLY come out of?
If banks can't recoup the properties that outstanding debts are owed so they can try to liquidate them to recoup their losses, how will this affect the banks? Ready for another massive bailout?
Is having GANGS defying legal orders to vacate and confronting the legal executors of those eviction notices going to end up well for anyone?
If this starts a trend where people can simply defy a law at will, is this going to create a real comfortable environment in this country?
Who gets to pick which laws can be FORCIBLY defied?
If banks can't recoup the properties that outstanding debts are owed so they can try to liquidate them to recoup their losses, how will this affect the banks? Ready for another massive bailout?
Is having GANGS defying legal orders to vacate and confronting the legal executors of those eviction notices going to end up well for anyone?
If this starts a trend where people can simply defy a law at will, is this going to create a real comfortable environment in this country?
Who gets to pick which laws can be FORCIBLY defied?
floridaZ
New member
I'm with Rich here, they are walking a very fine line here. Plus, it's ACORN, so I already don't trust them. Anyway, I personally think that we're screwed because the gov't got their noses into the housing market... so sticking it further up the economy's ass with a moratorium can't make it any better, no matter how popular it may be with people getting evicted from their homes.
It just doesn't make sense for the gov't to keep a company they just put billions into from getting money. It also doesn't make sense to try and change the rules so that everyone who can't afford where they live can keep their house, it just can't happen that way. If you can't afford your house, sell it/let the bank have it and get an apartment/house that you can afford. That is just what makes sense to me, and I think that it would solve a lot of problems. The banks would still have it bad with all the foreclosures, but then at least the people would be able to afford their living expenses. Of course, this won't happen since so many people now think that they can get a free ride, so living responsibly is actually the less profitable course of action. :shrug01:
It just doesn't make sense for the gov't to keep a company they just put billions into from getting money. It also doesn't make sense to try and change the rules so that everyone who can't afford where they live can keep their house, it just can't happen that way. If you can't afford your house, sell it/let the bank have it and get an apartment/house that you can afford. That is just what makes sense to me, and I think that it would solve a lot of problems. The banks would still have it bad with all the foreclosures, but then at least the people would be able to afford their living expenses. Of course, this won't happen since so many people now think that they can get a free ride, so living responsibly is actually the less profitable course of action. :shrug01:
Shadow
New member
Rich,
Foreclosure and tenant eviction are two toally separate actions.
Forclosure is implimented by the lender for non-payment of a loan.
Tenant Eviction on the other hand can be implemented for a number or reasons to include non-payment of rent or an undesirabe tenant action as long as it doesn't violate the Federal Fair Housing guiidelines of race, religion, yada yada yada....
Staying in my freaking house and paying rent is not a loan!
Refusing to pay as you suggest above, is far different than being "able" to pay. If you've ever owned any rental properties, you'd realize that section 8 housing can be a gold mine for a land lord:thumbsup:
Tenants are prescreened by the gov't at thier expense, $$$ is guaranteed, and if they violate any of the sect.8 housing guidelines, they're out of there quicker than you can say GTFO:lmao: without all the hassel of eviction:thumbsup:
Now that's a win-win:thumbsup::thumbsup:
Sure, the money is federal and comes from the taxpayers, but if I'm going to pay taxes, I'd just as well benefit from it in some way.
As I understand it, a moritorium would extend only to loans, not tenancy.
I agree, however banks are not in the landlord business.
A moritorium on foreclosures might be a resonable idea
I don't know if a year os such a good idea, but some restructuring of subprimes need to be done and some relief needs to be provided to those whose financial situation has changed since the implementation of their original loan (assuming they were paying it up to date prior to this action), through legitmate job loss (ie: not criminal, drug related, or too lazy to work), medical and traumatic injury induced medical bills or the loss of a supporting spouse.
For those who were doing ok until such an event triggered a financial spiral, there needs to be some assistance.
It depends on how the feds go about handling the issue? There has to be a way in the end for the mortgaging institution to recoup thier $$$. Otherwise, the loan would result in a write off and the financial institution could collapse if not bailed out. Not a good thing at all.
Now, do they need to get all the interest that was guaranteed to them in the original contract?
In theory they should since it was a contract and should be enforceable.
In reality, nothing from nothing equals nothing!
If they stand a chance of gaining a minimal interest rate through restructuring versus ZIP, NADA, ZILCH, NOTHING from a foreclosure or bankruptcy, then I'd opt for the lower rate. Interest is nothing more than a fee for loaning the money in the first place. As long as the principle is replaced, the banks are out little if any real money. There are plenty of other ways for banks to remain solvent and in business. Take a look at the fees they charge you now for example:thumbsdown:
Can a bank sit on the outstanding debt for 6 months to a year?
Sure they can. It's no different that foreclosing on the residence and having to maintain it, pay taxes and insurance on it and trying to move it in a crap real estate economy. Actually, it's probably cheaper to let the homeowner remain in the home, forego the mortgage, require that the taxes and insurance are paid (or the feds could forego taxes on the property during the moratoium period if they really wanted to help!) and have the homeowner required as a part of the moritorium package, to maintain the home in good condition.
Again, this becomes a win-win as Mark stated, for both parties. The homeowner gets a reprieve from the ton of crap that's been dumped on them, the possibility exists that the economy will turn around, they may become gainfully employed and the balance will eventually be paid in full. All while not putting another "decent" (and I emphasze DECENT) family on the streets:thumbsup:
Those that do not fit into the categories I outlined above would face the normal foreclosure actions. Sorry, that wil piss some people off, but oh well:shrug01:
The fact is, if you are too lazy to work, you're a criminal or doper, you don't deserve a break (IMO). Hows that for politically incorrect?
I don't know about NY, but if the lawful process has been executed, gone through the courts and an order issued by the courts to execute the eviction, we'd execute it!
The human chain, should it decide to remain strong, would then be reinforced by stainless steel chains, and the whole mess could go to jail as one big happy f**king family:lmao::lmao:
Passive disobedience is still disobedience. And obstruction is still obstruction. And in FLORIDA it's still a criminal offense.:thumbsup:
If they want to prove a point, here's one for them...point is....you need more bail bondsmen! It takes too long for 1 person to do the paperwork to bail that many people out of jail at one time:lmao:
The fact is, many good, hard working, dedicated and forthright people have suddenly and through no fault of thier own, fallen on hard times and need a break. You can't have 20 hands all outstreatched for $$ at the same time and only enough $$ to fill 3 of them and survive. The numbers don't add up. The subprime lenders should have never made the loans in the first place!
If they are left holding the bag on one of thier loanshark moves, so be it. They reap what they sow:thumbsup:I have no remorse for them at all!
As for ACORN, They are in the same category as the UHURU "movement", and all the other groups of thier ilk.
They only lend themselves to assiting one segment of the community and have a very distorted view of right and wrong.:nonod:
As with other groups (KKK, Hells Angels, Outlaws, et al), they are known and proven radical and extremist groups and should be treated as such!!
Shadow
New member
That's a good point (ever listen to Dave Ramsey?).
Selling the place and getting into something one can afford is very sound advise.
Here's the problem:
Getting into an apartment after an eviction, bankruptcy or foreclosure is a nightmare!:nonod:
Unfortunately, after such an event, it's difficult, almost impossible to obtain decent housing without paying an arm, a leg and some other body part.
As long as there are protections in place to assure that those who legitimately fell on hard times through no fault of thier own (see the list above), have the ability to obtain housing somewhere, then it's all good:thumbsup:
And selling a house in this market is almost impossible. Add to that back payments that may be due, legal costs, potential liens and judgements...not too many investors lined up to buy now days.
I do the foreclosure sales for one of my clients on a weekly basis here in Tampa. You'd be surprised what the conversations are now compared to 6-12 months ago among investors.
Face it, people in this country need a break.
If the feds really cared, they'd change the damend tax tstructure to start with!
Then eliminate excess taxes, bring back some of the tax benefits that they removed over the years and finally, learn to live within thier own budget!!
As long as we have city, county, state and federal agencies whining, pissing and moaning about $$$ and refusing to live within a budget, then nothings going to change.
Our "leadership" needs to "lead" by "example."
This makes for rather interesting (and relevant) reading....
http://freethemarketman.wordpress.com/2008/04/30/the-cra-scam-and-its-defenders/
Truth is Treason in The Empire of LiesApril 30, 2008
The CRA Scam and its Defenders
By Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Ludwig von Mises Institute
“Liberal” economists are overjoyed by the bursting of the housing bubble, for it provides them with what they believe is another “market failure” story. “Most analysts see the sub-prime crisis as a market failure,” Robert Gordon gleefully declared in the April 7 online edition of The American Prospect magazine, edited by Robert Kuttner.
Gordon does not define what an “analyst” is, and does not cite any survey to support his claim. One suspects that his opinion is based on an informal survey of his like-minded, left-wing friends.
Gordon is a defender of the federal government’s 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) under which the Fed and other financial regulators have pressured/extorted banks into making more loans to less-than-creditworthy borrowers than they would normally be willing to risk. As such, Gordon believes in the following propositions:
runaway greed (”market failure”) on the part of lenders is the cause of the subprime crisis;
these same greedy lenders routinely ignore billions of dollars in potential profits in lower-income communities because of their systemic racism, stupidity, or both — hence the need for the CRA; and
no government agency, especially not the Fed, had anything to do with either the creation or bursting of the housing market bubble and the subprime crisis.
(If you think I’m establishing a straw-man argument, read Gordon’s article for yourself.) http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_crisis
The first two propositions flatly contradict each other, whereas the third is unequivocally false. Fed policy — which is not even mentioned by Gordon in an article that is ostensibly about the cause of the subprime crisis — is the cause of the boom-and-bust cycle that has caused the housing bubble and its bursting. Not “market failure” but Fed policy.
Gordon is incensed that a few “analysts,” including myself and Professor Stan Liebowitz of the University of Dallas, have argued that the bursting of the housing bubble has caused the chickens to come home to roost, so to speak, after thirty years of government policy pressuring banks to make tens of billions of dollars in bad loans to people with low (or nonexistent) credit ratings. Neither Liebowitz nor I have argued that every last bad loan out there is a CRA loan, but Gordon implies that we do in a rather feeble attempt to construct a straw-man argument.
Gordon cites Fed bureaucrat Janet Yellen as the source of a “killer statistic” that absolves the government of all guilt: “Independent mortgage companies” which are not covered by the CRA made many more “high-priced loans” to borrowers with bad credit than did CRA-regulated banks, she says. Well, so what? Even if Yellen is correct, that does not mean that CRA-regulated loans have not caused tens of billions of dollars in defaults.
Moreover, Yellen and Gordon don’t seem to understand what an “independent mortgage company” is. Many of these companies are like the one in which my next-door neighbor is employed: they are middlemen who arrange mortgage loans for borrowers — including “subprime” borrowers — with banks, including CRA-regulated banks. Some killer statistic.
By ignoring the role of the Fed in creating the whole housing-market mess, Gordon’s pronouncement that it is entirely a result of “market failure” is laughable on its face. He also flatly denies that CRA lending has had anything to do with why so many uncreditworthy borrowers have defaulted now that the Fed-generated housing bubble has burst. This, too, is an untenable position.
When the CRA was created during the Carter administration, the administration also funded with tax dollars numerous “community groups” that have helped the Fed, the Comptroller of the Currency, and other federal regulatory agencies to enforce the act. Under the CRA, if a bank wants to make virtually any change in its business operations — merging, opening up a new branch, getting into a new line of business — it must first prove to regulators that it has made “enough” loans to the government’s preferred borrowers. The (partially) tax-funded “community groups” like ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) can file petitions with regulators that stop the bank’s activities in their tracks, perhaps defeating them altogether. The banks routinely buy off ACORN and other “community groups” by giving them millions of dollars as well as promising to make even more dubious loans.
In order to try to diversify the risk of these loans, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Company (”Freddie Mac”) pioneered the “securitization” of bundles of these high-risk loans so that they could be sold on secondary markets. Such “securitization” exploded during the 1990s as a result of government regulation. As Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke himself stated in a March 30, 2007 speech entitled “The Community Reinvestment Act: Its Evolution and New Challenges” (published online by the Fed),
Securitization of affordable housing loans expanded, as did the secondary market for these loans, in part reflecting a 1992 law that required the government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to devote a large percentage of their activities to meeting affordable housing goals. (p. 3)
In 1994 the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act loosened up the regulatory barriers to bank mergers. Consequently, said Bernanke, “As public scrutiny of bank merger and acquisition activity escalated, advocacy groups [like ACORN] increasingly used the public comment process to protest bank applications on CRA grounds.” In other words, there was a burst of additional legalized extortion perpetrated by the Fed and its pet “activist organizations” beginning in the mid-1990s. As a result, says Bernanke, “banks began to devote more resources to their CRA programs.” What an understatement.
Also in 1995, the US Treasury Department created the multibillion-dollar “Community Development Financial Institutions” fund to “provide banks with access [i.e., taxpayers' dollars] to new opportunities to finance community economic development” as “encouraged” by the CRA, said the Fed chairman.
The government also “streamlined” the regulatory requirements for CRA loans in 1995, allowing — and indeed pressuring — banks to make such loans without the benefit of many traditional credit-worthiness criteria, such as the size of the mortgage payment relative to income, savings history, and even income verification! Instead, the Fed told banks that participation in a credit-counseling program, many of which are federally funded, could be used as “proof” of a low-income applicant’s ability to make his mortgage payments. In other words, federal bank regulators required banks to make bad loans based on nonexistent credit standards.
In his April 26 New York Post article on the CRA entitled “The Real Scandal,” Professor Liebowitz explains how the government’s Fannie Mae Foundation singled out one bank in particular as the role model for all other banks in America in terms of its commitment to CRA lending: Countrywide, the nation’s largest mortgage lender, had committed to $600 billion in low-income or “subprime” loans as of 2003. Today, Countrywide is essentially bankrupted and has been merged with Bank of America.
The myth that the CRA would not be harmful to bank-industry profits was hidden for years by the Fed-created housing bubble, which allowed for easy refinancing of all the bad debt. “[The] CRA increased lending and homeownership in poor communities without undermining banks’ profitability,” Robert Gordon proudly proclaims. But now that the bubble has burst, all those unqualified borrowers — whom the government calls “subprime,” as though their credit ratings are only a tiny, tiny smidgen below “prime” borrowers with the very best credit ratings — are defaulting on their mortgages in droves.
Bank profitability has been extremely “undermined,” to put it mildly. The bursting of the Fed-generated housing bubble is the reason why the CRA scam was not exposed until now, despite having been in operation for some thirty years.
http://freethemarketman.wordpress.com/2008/04/30/the-cra-scam-and-its-defenders/
Truth is Treason in The Empire of LiesApril 30, 2008
The CRA Scam and its Defenders
By Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Ludwig von Mises Institute
“Liberal” economists are overjoyed by the bursting of the housing bubble, for it provides them with what they believe is another “market failure” story. “Most analysts see the sub-prime crisis as a market failure,” Robert Gordon gleefully declared in the April 7 online edition of The American Prospect magazine, edited by Robert Kuttner.
Gordon does not define what an “analyst” is, and does not cite any survey to support his claim. One suspects that his opinion is based on an informal survey of his like-minded, left-wing friends.
Gordon is a defender of the federal government’s 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) under which the Fed and other financial regulators have pressured/extorted banks into making more loans to less-than-creditworthy borrowers than they would normally be willing to risk. As such, Gordon believes in the following propositions:
runaway greed (”market failure”) on the part of lenders is the cause of the subprime crisis;
these same greedy lenders routinely ignore billions of dollars in potential profits in lower-income communities because of their systemic racism, stupidity, or both — hence the need for the CRA; and
no government agency, especially not the Fed, had anything to do with either the creation or bursting of the housing market bubble and the subprime crisis.
(If you think I’m establishing a straw-man argument, read Gordon’s article for yourself.) http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_crisis
The first two propositions flatly contradict each other, whereas the third is unequivocally false. Fed policy — which is not even mentioned by Gordon in an article that is ostensibly about the cause of the subprime crisis — is the cause of the boom-and-bust cycle that has caused the housing bubble and its bursting. Not “market failure” but Fed policy.
Gordon is incensed that a few “analysts,” including myself and Professor Stan Liebowitz of the University of Dallas, have argued that the bursting of the housing bubble has caused the chickens to come home to roost, so to speak, after thirty years of government policy pressuring banks to make tens of billions of dollars in bad loans to people with low (or nonexistent) credit ratings. Neither Liebowitz nor I have argued that every last bad loan out there is a CRA loan, but Gordon implies that we do in a rather feeble attempt to construct a straw-man argument.
Gordon cites Fed bureaucrat Janet Yellen as the source of a “killer statistic” that absolves the government of all guilt: “Independent mortgage companies” which are not covered by the CRA made many more “high-priced loans” to borrowers with bad credit than did CRA-regulated banks, she says. Well, so what? Even if Yellen is correct, that does not mean that CRA-regulated loans have not caused tens of billions of dollars in defaults.
Moreover, Yellen and Gordon don’t seem to understand what an “independent mortgage company” is. Many of these companies are like the one in which my next-door neighbor is employed: they are middlemen who arrange mortgage loans for borrowers — including “subprime” borrowers — with banks, including CRA-regulated banks. Some killer statistic.
By ignoring the role of the Fed in creating the whole housing-market mess, Gordon’s pronouncement that it is entirely a result of “market failure” is laughable on its face. He also flatly denies that CRA lending has had anything to do with why so many uncreditworthy borrowers have defaulted now that the Fed-generated housing bubble has burst. This, too, is an untenable position.
When the CRA was created during the Carter administration, the administration also funded with tax dollars numerous “community groups” that have helped the Fed, the Comptroller of the Currency, and other federal regulatory agencies to enforce the act. Under the CRA, if a bank wants to make virtually any change in its business operations — merging, opening up a new branch, getting into a new line of business — it must first prove to regulators that it has made “enough” loans to the government’s preferred borrowers. The (partially) tax-funded “community groups” like ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) can file petitions with regulators that stop the bank’s activities in their tracks, perhaps defeating them altogether. The banks routinely buy off ACORN and other “community groups” by giving them millions of dollars as well as promising to make even more dubious loans.
In order to try to diversify the risk of these loans, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Company (”Freddie Mac”) pioneered the “securitization” of bundles of these high-risk loans so that they could be sold on secondary markets. Such “securitization” exploded during the 1990s as a result of government regulation. As Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke himself stated in a March 30, 2007 speech entitled “The Community Reinvestment Act: Its Evolution and New Challenges” (published online by the Fed),
Securitization of affordable housing loans expanded, as did the secondary market for these loans, in part reflecting a 1992 law that required the government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to devote a large percentage of their activities to meeting affordable housing goals. (p. 3)
In 1994 the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act loosened up the regulatory barriers to bank mergers. Consequently, said Bernanke, “As public scrutiny of bank merger and acquisition activity escalated, advocacy groups [like ACORN] increasingly used the public comment process to protest bank applications on CRA grounds.” In other words, there was a burst of additional legalized extortion perpetrated by the Fed and its pet “activist organizations” beginning in the mid-1990s. As a result, says Bernanke, “banks began to devote more resources to their CRA programs.” What an understatement.
Also in 1995, the US Treasury Department created the multibillion-dollar “Community Development Financial Institutions” fund to “provide banks with access [i.e., taxpayers' dollars] to new opportunities to finance community economic development” as “encouraged” by the CRA, said the Fed chairman.
The government also “streamlined” the regulatory requirements for CRA loans in 1995, allowing — and indeed pressuring — banks to make such loans without the benefit of many traditional credit-worthiness criteria, such as the size of the mortgage payment relative to income, savings history, and even income verification! Instead, the Fed told banks that participation in a credit-counseling program, many of which are federally funded, could be used as “proof” of a low-income applicant’s ability to make his mortgage payments. In other words, federal bank regulators required banks to make bad loans based on nonexistent credit standards.
In his April 26 New York Post article on the CRA entitled “The Real Scandal,” Professor Liebowitz explains how the government’s Fannie Mae Foundation singled out one bank in particular as the role model for all other banks in America in terms of its commitment to CRA lending: Countrywide, the nation’s largest mortgage lender, had committed to $600 billion in low-income or “subprime” loans as of 2003. Today, Countrywide is essentially bankrupted and has been merged with Bank of America.
The myth that the CRA would not be harmful to bank-industry profits was hidden for years by the Fed-created housing bubble, which allowed for easy refinancing of all the bad debt. “[The] CRA increased lending and homeownership in poor communities without undermining banks’ profitability,” Robert Gordon proudly proclaims. But now that the bubble has burst, all those unqualified borrowers — whom the government calls “subprime,” as though their credit ratings are only a tiny, tiny smidgen below “prime” borrowers with the very best credit ratings — are defaulting on their mortgages in droves.
Bank profitability has been extremely “undermined,” to put it mildly. The bursting of the Fed-generated housing bubble is the reason why the CRA scam was not exposed until now, despite having been in operation for some thirty years.
Coastal
New member
It's a win win for everyone except the land owner. I would not be too happy to have my property taken over by forced by a bunch of thugs and our gubmint stand by and do nothing.
I'm surprised how quickly some give a "meh" to others property rights.
This is just more of people not being forced to accept responsibility for their situation.
I have always said that the CRA as bad as it is, is not the cause of our failing economy. Nationally, only one out of a thousand homes is in foreclosure and probably most of those the lenders were insured against default. Even our gubmint has not reversed any of the mechanisms that have led to the majority of mortgage defaults. If they were so concerned you would think they might remove the pressures on lenders to make shaky loans rather than increase them.
I'm surprised how quickly some give a "meh" to others property rights.
This is just more of people not being forced to accept responsibility for their situation.
I have always said that the CRA as bad as it is, is not the cause of our failing economy. Nationally, only one out of a thousand homes is in foreclosure and probably most of those the lenders were insured against default. Even our gubmint has not reversed any of the mechanisms that have led to the majority of mortgage defaults. If they were so concerned you would think they might remove the pressures on lenders to make shaky loans rather than increase them.
Shadow
New member
I agree with most of what your saying, esoecially the last part:thumbsup::thumbsup:
But the "owner" (ie: builder, former owner, et al) has already been paid. It happened when the mortgage was signed and the checks handed over.
It's the bank or finance company whose sucking hind teet on this package.
But as I mentioned before, I don't think this is going to happen on tenant evictions. It seems relative only to foreclosures for now.
And some people, as previously stated, are in financial binds not of thier own design:nonod:
The financing institutions, even though they were forced into this mess in some cases, need to startt figuring out how to help rather than just demanding and foreclosing.
JMHO
But the "owner" (ie: builder, former owner, et al) has already been paid. It happened when the mortgage was signed and the checks handed over.
It's the bank or finance company whose sucking hind teet on this package.
But as I mentioned before, I don't think this is going to happen on tenant evictions. It seems relative only to foreclosures for now.
And some people, as previously stated, are in financial binds not of thier own design:nonod:
The financing institutions, even though they were forced into this mess in some cases, need to startt figuring out how to help rather than just demanding and foreclosing.
JMHO
THOR
New member
The financing institutions, even though they were forced into this mess in some cases, need to startt figuring out how to help rather than just demanding and foreclosing.
JMHO[/QUOTE]
Right on Gordon. I couldn't agree more. If Banks took a more proactive friendly approach to help folks keep their homes, then the forclosure rate would plummet and the sharks out there won't be picking up these forclosures for pennies on the dollar. There was a forclosed home that listed for 249,000 in Pinellas Park area that went on the auction block and sold for under 50,000!! Not right in my opinion.
JMHO[/QUOTE]
Right on Gordon. I couldn't agree more. If Banks took a more proactive friendly approach to help folks keep their homes, then the forclosure rate would plummet and the sharks out there won't be picking up these forclosures for pennies on the dollar. There was a forclosed home that listed for 249,000 in Pinellas Park area that went on the auction block and sold for under 50,000!! Not right in my opinion.
Coastal
New member
What's not right is that everyone starts to value comparable properties based on the distressed ones, everyone does it, buyers, realtors, appraisers, lenders. When I go to Lowe's and see a damaged refrigerator priced at 25% off, I don't now assume all comparables should be similarly marked down. Yet we do this with real estate, one house is “damaged merchandise” so now everyone expects all the homes in that neighborhood be similarly devalued.
The banks did not know how to handle the sudden rise in foreclosures. Standard operating procedures of threats of and eventually foreclosure that always worked well in the past really backfired on them. Now the borrower is threatening the lender with the foreclosure. Then banks were not equipped to work fast on accepting short sale offers so properties that could have avoided foreclosure didn’t. The end result, banks ended up with far more out of pocket than they would have been had they acted faster in the beginning.
If you think it is bad now, wait until word gets out that homes are now mortgage *free*. That is going to be the way that a lot of people take this. And trust me, this WILL percolate down into rental properties as well. Why wouldn't it? Yeah, it's one thing when people are just in a bad way, but like welfare, this will be abused beyond belief.
People got loans they didn't deserve because they didn't have the financial backing to be realistically able to afford it. And now they expect to be bailed out of thier poor choices as well as the banks being pretty much forced to take those loans regardless of common sense. So when push comes to shove, MY taxes will go up in order to foot the bill, or else the value of MY savings will go down when the money supply is inflated, forcing ME to help pay for this crap.
EVERYONE knew the housing market bubble was going to bust, but how many of them prepared for it by making sound decisions in the face of that probability?
Quite frankly, what this all boils down to is that people need to have the authority to make their own choices, and along with that the responsibility that goes along with this to either reap the rewards of prudent choices, or suffer the consequences of those decisions that were not quite so prudent.
THAT was what made America great in the past. But the current nanny state of government controls will be making the United States of America pretty shortly into a has-been country with a failed economy.
People got loans they didn't deserve because they didn't have the financial backing to be realistically able to afford it. And now they expect to be bailed out of thier poor choices as well as the banks being pretty much forced to take those loans regardless of common sense. So when push comes to shove, MY taxes will go up in order to foot the bill, or else the value of MY savings will go down when the money supply is inflated, forcing ME to help pay for this crap.
EVERYONE knew the housing market bubble was going to bust, but how many of them prepared for it by making sound decisions in the face of that probability?
Quite frankly, what this all boils down to is that people need to have the authority to make their own choices, and along with that the responsibility that goes along with this to either reap the rewards of prudent choices, or suffer the consequences of those decisions that were not quite so prudent.
THAT was what made America great in the past. But the current nanny state of government controls will be making the United States of America pretty shortly into a has-been country with a failed economy.
Coastal
New member
It's the lenders that are the property owners and they are being kept from that property by thugs as our gubmint stands by and watches.
So after they were forced into lending the money they are now being forced to legally take possession of it.
What country is this again?
Bradzvette
PW Pimp, keeper O' 'da thread
I just don't have the heart to put a 78 year old woman out into the street.
:thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown:
:thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown:
Coastal
New member
Shadow
New member
While it's true that the some lenders were forced into making subprime loans, as we're seeing now, many lenders and mortgage brokers actually committed fraud when dealing with the banks and such.
I agree that the banks/mortgage companies that were forced into subprimes should have access to thier property; however, it's getting harder and harder to separate the wheat from the chaf out here:nonod:
Then again, as I mentioned in my earlier post, if an otherwise upstanding citizen should suddenly and without cause or effort of thier own, fall upon financially hard times, should the banks and lending institutions at least try to work with them?
It's like the credit card companies...we want, we want, we want....but you only have so much blood.
A little negotiation would or could have prevented a huge part of this financial mes we're in....among other things....
Coastal
New member
It is true, some mortgage brokers (not lenders) did break the law but those were isolated cases and there were/are laws that they were prosecuted under. Who else should pay for their crime, the honest ones or the tax payers? And in most cases the extent that they broke the law was by request of the borrower. But that in no way was contributing the our current situation in any significant way.
Should lenders try to work with the borrowers? ABSOFREAKINLOUTLY! Lenders never worked like that before. Don’t pay, get out. But now because of the number of defaults they are working a little harder to try other options. It’s better for everyone if something can be worked out, or at least tried to. They are only now figuring that out, too late for some and too late for us who were sitting on the sideline watching this collapse around us. But as you have seen, even changing the terms of those loans didn’t help as most of those still ended up in default.
Now, our wonderful gubmint is trying to crap up the works even more with the “cram down mortgage” bill being discussed. You loan $200,000 secured by real estate, the borrower doesn’t pay. You ask the judge to allow you to foreclose and take back the property. The judge decided that not only is he not going to grant you that foreclosure but he thinks that the mortgage principle should only be $100,000 because that’s all the borrower can afford. Sucks to be you and you then get out of the very risky mortgage business. That’s going to go a long way to help us who play by the rules.
I think a lot of people are expecting a collapse of the banking system in general. The banks are being buffeted on all sides. Loans going into default, government regulations hamstringing everything they do, and now customers who aren't putting their money in the banks, and even drawing out some to cram under a mattress instead.
Speaking of which, someone told me the other day on the phone that the entire country of Iceland has gone bankrupt. Anyone heard anything about this? Kind of scary when you think of it, if it's true. How long has the USA been operating in the red? Think of all those checks our government sends out that could suddenly just STOP. Not to mention that cash money is really only a promissory note that the GOVERNMENT will make good on the value of those dollar bills. They really are not backed by anything of tangible value that they can be redeemed for from the government.
Speaking of which, someone told me the other day on the phone that the entire country of Iceland has gone bankrupt. Anyone heard anything about this? Kind of scary when you think of it, if it's true. How long has the USA been operating in the red? Think of all those checks our government sends out that could suddenly just STOP. Not to mention that cash money is really only a promissory note that the GOVERNMENT will make good on the value of those dollar bills. They really are not backed by anything of tangible value that they can be redeemed for from the government.