dmarc117 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 so let me get this straight......... these sob mortgage brokers made a sh1tload of money getting people into this mess and now they get to make a ton of money getting these people out of it too!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I don't think Obama's plan involved mortgage brokers making a ton of money creating this mess. I don't agree with a lot of what's being done either, but at this point there isn't much to do but see where these choices will take us. We'll know in a few years if these were good or bad choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I can't refinance out of my house because it is worth less than I owe yet taxed at $54,000.00 more than I owe. Now, because I can't refinance out of my current loan, I am paying $450.00 more a month for the house that my bank told me I had positive equity in a year and a half ago when they practically begged me to do a home equity loan. Unfortunately, I am not behind on the payments so nobody has been able to help me to this point but I don't know how much longer we will be able to $hit the extra $450.00 a month we never had before. I don't know exactly how we've done it the last three months to be honest. Crazy thing was in the summer of 2006 I was offered $10,000.00 more than I owed for the house. After moving from Air Force base to Air Force base at least every three years from the second I was born until I got out of the Navy at the age of 22, I bought the house planning on dying in it. $10,000.00 in my pocket didn't seem like such a great deal. Apparently that was the biggest mistake I ever made. I'll know sooner than a few years if these were good or bad choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 It could ultimately cost taxpayers as much as $275 billion — $75 billion in direct spending to keep people in their homes and the rest in additional financial backing for the government-controlled mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But analysts and administration officials alike cautioned that it would not come close to halting the tidal wave of foreclosures. Nor would it provide much help to millions of homeowners who are “under water,” or holding mortgages that are bigger that the market value of their houses. The plan has three components. The first would help homeowners who are still current on their payments, but who are paying high interest rates and cannot refinance because they do not have enough equity in their homes, a problem afflicting growing numbers of people as housing values tumble. The plan will take effect March 4, when the administration publishes detailed rules explaining it. Should be interesting. Feels so bad being a deadbeat beacuse my house is worth so little now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 A little more from the story from the NY Times- The plan has three components. The first would help homeowners who are still current on their payments, but who are paying high interest rates and cannot refinance because they do not have enough equity in their homes, a problem afflicting growing numbers of people as housing values tumble. A second component would assist about four million people who are at risk of losing their homes. It would provide incentives to lenders who alter the terms of loans to make them affordable for the troubled borrowers. A third component would try to increase the credit available for mortgages in general by giving $200 billion of additional financial backing to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Beyond luring lenders with government money, the plan also calls on Congress to give bankruptcy judges the power to change the terms of mortgages and reduce the monthly payments. The banking industry has vehemently fought that proposal for more than a year, saying it would make investors unwilling to finance future mortgage lending. But Democrats in Congress strongly support the idea and banking executives are putting up less resistance than before. Republican lawmakers reacted cautiously to Mr. Obama’s plan. Representative John Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, called it “an important step,” but raised questions. “Does your plan compensate banks for the bad mortgages they should never have made in the first place?” Mr. Boehner asked. “Will individuals who misrepresented their income or assets on their original mortgage application be eligible to get taxpayer-funded assistance?” Mr. Obama’s announcement came a day after he signed his $787 billion economic stimulus package, and administration officials said that the initiatives would work in tandem to stabilize the economy. The plan will take effect March 4, when the administration publishes detailed rules explaining it. Except for the provision that empowers bankruptcy judges, almost all the other elements can be enacted by Mr. Obama without further action by Congress. To help the estimated four million homeowners in danger of foreclosure, Mr. Obama will create a $75 billion program to subsidize loan modifications that would reduce a family’s monthly payment to as little as 31 percent of its gross monthly income. As envisioned, a mortgage lender would have to first make enough concessions to reduce a borrower’s payments to 38 percent of monthly income. To encourage lenders, the government would offer incentives, like a $1,000 upfront payment for every loan modified and more payments if the borrower stays current. If the lender gets the monthly payments down to 38 percent of the borrower’s monthly income, the government would then match, dollar for dollar, additional reductions to bring the payment as low as 31 percent of monthly income. The changes could be accomplished in several ways, from stretching out the repayment period of a loan to reducing the interest rate or reducing the outstanding principal. But analysts noted that lenders, or the mortgage-servicing companies that administered the loan, would still have the last word on whether to make concessions. If a lender decides that the cost of the concessions is higher than the cost of foreclosing, even with the government subsidies, then a borrower would probably still lose the property. A potentially big limitation on the rescue portion of Mr. Obama’s plan involves second mortgages. To avoid the need for a down payment, or to minimize the down payment, millions of people bought homes with piggy-back mortgages that went alongside the primary mortgages. Administration officials said on Wednesday that their plan to help homeowners facing foreclosure did not deal with second mortgages. Because those second mortgages were often made by a different lender than the first mortgages, that could greatly complicate negotiations over a loan modification. To help homeowners who can still keep up with their payments, but who may resent the idea of rescuing others, Mr. Obama’s plan would make it easier to refinance at today’s very low interest rates. The plan would apply to people with fairly traditional loans that are owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — about 30 million homeowners. The new loans would not be subsidized, but borrowers would not need to have a 20 percent equity stake in the house. Normally, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac require that such borrowers pay private mortgage insurance, which can add hundreds of dollars to a monthly payment. Administration officials estimated that this portion of the plan could help 4 million to 5 million borrowers. The big limitation of the refinancing portion of the plan is that it would not help most borrowers who are current, but under water. It would only be available for mortgages that are not more than 5 percent above the current market value of the house. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com, estimated that the plan would help less than a million of the 14 million homeowners who are under water. A third, more vague component of the plan is aimed at propping up the mortgage market as a whole by having Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac step up their purchases of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. Sheryl Gay Stolberg reported from Mesa, Ariz., and Edmund L. Andrews from Washington. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Should be interesting. Feels so bad being a deadbeat beacuse my house is worth so little now. No offense meant to you, but I just don't see how any of these circumstances should become my problem. In the end you made the choices. Nobody ever claimed that any asset's worth was guaranteed, and from what you are describing it seems like you put yourself in debt up to your eyeballs. When I have purchased real estate I stayed well under what the bank said I could afford. I paid down my mortgage as quickly as I could instead of listening to all of the fools that talked about "leveraging my asset". It's not worth putting my home at risk to "leverage it". [snark]Actually, I guess I am wrong, because if I had put myself in debt up to my eyeballs and couldn't afford my house then someone would give me free money and help me refinance at a lower value and interest rate.[/snark] The whole "Gee, I guess I am a deadbeat because the value of my house changed" argument does not wash. It is the responsibility of a person taking on a debt to make sure that they can afford to pay that debt. If that means doing something "smaller" in order to make certain they can afford it long term, then that's what a person taking on a debt needs to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I can't refinance out of my house because it is worth less than I owe yet taxed at $54,000.00 more than I owe. Now, because I can't refinance out of my current loan, I am paying $450.00 more a month for the house that my bank told me I had positive equity in a year and a half ago when they practically begged me to do a home equity loan. Unfortunately, I am not behind on the payments so nobody has been able to help me to this point but I don't know how much longer we will be able to $hit the extra $450.00 a month we never had before. I don't know exactly how we've done it the last three months to be honest. Crazy thing was in the summer of 2006 I was offered $10,000.00 more than I owed for the house. After moving from Air Force base to Air Force base at least every three years from the second I was born until I got out of the Navy at the age of 22, I bought the house planning on dying in it. $10,000.00 in my pocket didn't seem like such a great deal. Apparently that was the biggest mistake I ever made. I'll know sooner than a few years if these were good or bad choices. Club, I don't understand. You bought the house based on what you thought you could make on payments. That included taxes and insurance. If the value of the house changes, so what? You're still making payments based on what you thought you could pay, not the value of the asset. Nothing has actually changed. Now if you had bought the house specifically with the idea of refinincing after a couple of years (e.g. your original mortgage was an ARM set to readjust soon, you took a second trust that is a home equity loan based on the value of the house, etc.) then that could be putting you in a bind because of upcoming changes. I don't want to dump on you because you're a nice guy, but why exactly should the gov't and by extesion myself, bail you out of this mess? Much like CN, when we bought our house we didn't buy at the max we could afford just in case something happened. Well, something bad DID happen, I lost my job back in mid October. So far we've been able to make the payments just on my wife's salary and we will be ok going forward. But we were careful not to put ourselves in a position to fail should our situation change. I just don't see why I should pay for your miscalculation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 When I have purchased real estate I stayed well under what the bank said I could afford. I paid down my mortgage as quickly as I could instead of listening to all of the fools that talked about "leveraging my asset". It's not worth putting my home at risk to "leverage it". +1 to all of that except for one oddity. When I bought my home just over 10 years ago, it was roughly $11k less than what I was approved for, IIRC. And yet I could certainly have afforded more than that approval limit, which was considerably less than three times my salary. Damn glad I was conservative about it. I guess 10 years ago standards were a crapload higher than they are now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 The changes could be accomplished in several ways, from stretching out the repayment period of a loan to reducing the interest rate or reducing the outstanding principal. so if the market does come back, these people that have had their principals reduced get to keep the profits if they sell?!?!?!? my tax money goes into their pockets?!?!?!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 so if the market does come back, these people that have had their principals reduced get to keep the profits if they sell?!?!?!? my tax money goes into their pockets?!?!?!?! and to think we laughed when those Obama voters said during the campaign that when he gets elected they won't have to worry about making their house payment anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 after trillions of dollars spent , i have yet to see one single plan that will benefit me . I'm current on my mortgage payments and that is my pitfall. Had I been an irresponsible homeowner , then the government would bail me out. More tax dollars of mine to help out others Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 and in related news; ACORN demands an end to residents’ evictions nice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 these sob mortgage brokers made a sh1tload of money getting people into this mess and now they get to make a ton of money getting these people out of it too!!!!!!!!! I doubt it very much. I would be shocked to learn that the average mortgage broker would be able to apply for a loan under this program, and still earn their customary 1-2 point fee. I am guessing it will be handled much like any other government-assisted loan (SBA, for example). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I have to agree with Nick and Cid. With very few exceptions we the tax payer are having to pay for other peoples mistakes, when we did every thing right. Frankly, I'm getting sick of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Club, I don't understand. You bought the house based on what you thought you could make on payments. That included taxes and insurance. If the value of the house changes, so what? You're still making payments based on what you thought you could pay, not the value of the asset. Nothing has actually changed. Now if you had bought the house specifically with the idea of refinincing after a couple of years (e.g. your original mortgage was an ARM set to readjust soon, you took a second trust that is a home equity loan based on the value of the house, etc.) then that could be putting you in a bind because of upcoming changes. I don't want to dump on you because you're a nice guy, but why exactly should the gov't and by extesion myself, bail you out of this mess? Much like CN, when we bought our house we didn't buy at the max we could afford just in case something happened. Well, something bad DID happen, I lost my job back in mid October. So far we've been able to make the payments just on my wife's salary and we will be ok going forward. But we were careful not to put ourselves in a position to fail should our situation change. I just don't see why I should pay for your miscalculation. +1. We put enough down up front so that the payments would be low enough that my wife's salary could pay the note if something would happen to my income. Our payments are less than 15% of our monthly income. I can't see how anyone with any sense would sign up for a payment that is 30% of their income. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I guess I'm not selfish enough to simply judge how beneficial or necessary the stimulus package was by how it benefits me. And a lot you guys playing chicken little over the cost of this bill come off a little hypocritical since you didn't say one peep about the Iraqi welfare program the last 6 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I guess I'm not selfish enough to simply judge how beneficial or necessary the stimulus package was by how it benefits me. And a lot you guys playing chicken little over the cost of this bill come off a little hypocritical since you didn't say one peep about the Iraqi welfare program the last 6 years. The intelligence we had at the time said we needed to go into Iraq, as did Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, and most prominent Dems that saw the intelligence reports. Once we were there we were there. I guess it goes back to responsibility, and we feel it is our responsibility to see it through. On the other hand we don't feel responsible to pay for the poor choices here made by individuals. In addition the what we are now already on the line for, there has been talk of a second stimulus package this summer, because they already know this one probably isn't going to work. So that is just that much more debt we are laden with. Iraq and your constant reference to it is a red herring in this argument. Do you support this bs on it's own, without comparing it to anything else? The answer of most of us who will be paying for it is no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 and to think we laughed when those Obama voters said during the campaign that when he gets elected they won't have to worry about making their house payment anymore. No kidding, but this is what you get when you have the few supporting the many, which is what this nation is coming to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I can't refinance out of my house because it is worth less than I owe yet taxed at $54,000.00 more than I owe. Could you go to your County and petition them to bring your property taxes in line with your home's value? My neighbor just took our County to court over exaclty that same issue. He won an adjustment, but he also paid approximately the same amount in court fees, etc. that he got back in the adjustment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Club, I don't understand. You bought the house based on what you thought you could make on payments. That included taxes and insurance. If the value of the house changes, so what? You're still making payments based on what you thought you could pay, not the value of the asset. Nothing has actually changed. Now if you had bought the house specifically with the idea of refinincing after a couple of years (e.g. your original mortgage was an ARM set to readjust soon, you took a second trust that is a home equity loan based on the value of the house, etc.) then that could be putting you in a bind because of upcoming changes. I don't want to dump on you because you're a nice guy, but why exactly should the gov't and by extesion myself, bail you out of this mess? Much like CN, when we bought our house we didn't buy at the max we could afford just in case something happened. Well, something bad DID happen, I lost my job back in mid October. So far we've been able to make the payments just on my wife's salary and we will be ok going forward. But we were careful not to put ourselves in a position to fail should our situation change. I just don't see why I should pay for your miscalculation. I didn't buy the max I could afford, which is why I am able to scrape together the extra $450.00 a month. I put $20,000.00 down. I didn't take the home equity loan. Until December I paid $955.00 a month. I now pay $1,581.00 a month because the ARM kicked in. My credit is fine. It's simple and I don't blame the banks. Given property values in my area right now, the house is no longer worth what I owe so it doesn't make much sense to me why anyone would refinance. The problem is that because I cannot refinance, I am now one of those people who has a monthly payment they cannot afford becuase the descretionary money we once had is now going to my lender. My monthly payment wasnn't a problem until the ARM kicked in. I'm not sure where you are confused. perch is always confused. My house payment has gone from just over 20% of my monthly take home to over 40% because of property values. I'm not asking for any help but I'm a bad transmission away from losing the house because the gap I did leave is now eaten up by the adjusted monthly payment. I no longer have any wiggle room. That's my problem except for the fact that these greedy loan companies loaned a bunch of folks in my area money they couldn't afford to which is why my house's value is down. It makes no sense to pay even the $165,000.00 for my house when there are 5-6 foreclosed houses I walk by on the way to my daughter's school. That's no my fault, either and BTW, my mortgage company is getting a massive bailout. So we lose the house and move on, fine. I'll get my $20,000.00 back in copper pipe before we leave. Nobody on my end is losing any sleep over this but hardly seems fair that my mortgage company is getting help but I'm a POS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirehairman Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 A third component would try to increase the credit available for mortgages in general by giving $200 billion of additional financial backing to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. There is nothing wrong with available credit. My wife and I are exploring the possibility of building a new home. We got preapproved for a construction loan last week, and the lender approved us for over 5 times our annual income. They're f'ing crazy if they think we can really afford that. I'll do the same thing I did when we bought our current home and finance less than 1/2 of what the so called experts say I can afford. I guess I'm secretly looking forward to the anal raping the responsible home owners are about to receive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 (edited) the lender approved us for over 5 times our annual income. Good to see they are still doing that. :oldrolleyes: When I built in 2006 with my 802 FICO score and 20% down, the lender basically said "whatever you want". I came from the school of 2.5 times your salary, but could've put a few extra (needless) wings on each side. I guess I could've gotten some bailout money if I did buld the mansion....although I would never take a handout even if I were living in a ditch. That's the point you don't hear often nowadays. People used to be too proud to accept help like this. No longer. If anything happens today, they are screaming for the Federal Government to come help them at the drop of a hat. That's why taxes need to go waaaaay up now. How else do you pay for the help you damn near expect nowadays? Edited February 19, 2009 by TimC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 = I'm not sure where you are confused. perch is always confused. Club, while I often disagree with you, I do like you. What is confusing is why we should be on the hook for you making a bad decision. ARM's are bad decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 (edited) I didn't buy the max I could afford, which is why I am able to scrape together the extra $450.00 a month. I put $20,000.00 down. I didn't take the home equity loan. Until December I paid $955.00 a month. I now pay $1,581.00 a month because the ARM kicked in. My credit is fine. It's simple and I don't blame the banks. Given property values in my area right now, the house is no longer worth what I owe so it doesn't make much sense to me why anyone would refinance. The problem is that because I cannot refinance, I am now one of those people who has a monthly payment they cannot afford becuase the descretionary money we once had is now going to my lender. My monthly payment wasnn't a problem until the ARM kicked in. I'm not sure where you are confused. perch is always confused. My house payment has gone from just over 20% of my monthly take home to over 40% because of property values. I'm not asking for any help but I'm a bad transmission away from losing the house because the gap I did leave is now eaten up by the adjusted monthly payment. I no longer have any wiggle room. That's my problem except for the fact that these greedy loan companies loaned a bunch of folks in my area money they couldn't afford to which is why my house's value is down. It makes no sense to pay even the $165,000.00 for my house when there are 5-6 foreclosed houses I walk by on the way to my daughter's school. That's no my fault, either and BTW, my mortgage company is getting a massive bailout. So we lose the house and move on, fine. I'll get my $20,000.00 back in copper pipe before we leave. Nobody on my end is losing any sleep over this but hardly seems fair that my mortgage company is getting help but I'm a POS. No, my confusion came from the fact that I didn't know that your mortgage payment had adjusted because of the ARM. I assume that by the time you tried to refinance you had already been bitten by the downturn in housing prices. That well and truly does suck. Unfortunately, that is also the gamble you take with ARMs. It's pretty much the same gamble you take at the craps table. You lay money out on the table hoping that the roll of the dice allows you to recoup the cash outlay before the dice come up craps. It seems like you gambled and lost. Oh and believe me, I don't think you mortgage company should be getting any money either. I don't really care that most economists think that the bailout is a good thing. All we're doing is propping up a failed system. If the business model is such that it can't survive a downturn in teh housing market, then it is not a model that we should be supporting. It should be allowed to fail and a comppany with a model that was more robust be allowed to move into the vacated space or one with a new model designed to overcome these types of deficiencies in the old model be allowed to do the same. Everytime the gov't steps in to fix these types of issues, they only prolong the inevitable. Chrysler is an excellent example. If the gov't hadn't bailed them out in the 70's a new car company or the existing ones would have filled the void. Instead, here they are 30 years later asking for another handout. More cash seems to just equal business as usual to these companies. Edited February 19, 2009 by Kid Cid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.