Banks Not Letting Owners of Foreclosed Homes Walk Away [View article]
To summarize the tone of this posting: "Ha ha! Stupid borrower! Take that!"
Borrowers already have established mechanisms for being...unwise...in their borrowing: They lose the house, the wreck their credit, etc. Even today, in the midst of the fipocalypse, this seems fair.
The banks also have established mechanisms for their unwise lending: they have to take the house back and deal with it.
Now the banks are crying "Not it!" on their end of the deal, and /again/ leaving borrowers with the decrepit remains of the housing bubble that the banks created.
I feel the worst for responsible borrowers living next door to the shambles that the banks should have cleaned up. Instead of a few houses, whole neighborhoods are now losing even more value.
Joe Nocera on the July 28 Come-to-Geithner meeting for the top 25 mortgage servicers: To understand why modifications are so slow, realize that servicers were built just to collect checks, not to do complex one-on-one fixes - and worse, they actually have little incentive to fix mortgages. [View news story]
On Jul 11 01:36 PM Poor Texan wrote: > Rather than just modify certain mortgages, why not modify all.
This has been proposed by a handful of rational-thinking pundits, and it's actually not that bad of an idea -- and mathematically it's MUCH less expensive for the taxpayer than bailing out all the leverage products the banks and insurers have screwed around with.
> everyone who has or had a mortgage was the victim > of a crime.
A bit exaggerated, but not horribly off base. The crime was mostly one of negligence, but at its heart it's scarcely different from any other financial fraud.
Joe Nocera on the July 28 Come-to-Geithner meeting for the top 25 mortgage servicers: To understand why modifications are so slow, realize that servicers were built just to collect checks, not to do complex one-on-one fixes - and worse, they actually have little incentive to fix mortgages. [View news story]
My old history teacher always said, "They never make a law until somebody screws up."
Guess what, someone screwed up. Big. Really big.
So, before too long you can bet there will be some new laws.
But what happens immediately after the screw-up is a kind of nebulous period where we still don't have the laws that we wish we'd had all along, but something must be done to keep things from getting worse.
Before there were anti-trust laws, the government leaned on monopolies.
Before there were malpractice laws, the government leaned on doctors and lawyers.
Now, before there are "don't be a destructive evil bank/broker/rater" laws, the government must lean on banks/brokers/raters to keep things from getting worse.
On Jul 11 01:34 PM Neil459 wrote:
> I am sorry, but it does. Its the one thing that separates us from Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba, and all the other countries where powerful politician's can just do what they want. In this instance you think it makes sense and it may. However, once crossed the abuses will be far larger than any benefit now.
Joe Nocera on the July 28 Come-to-Geithner meeting for the top 25 mortgage servicers: To understand why modifications are so slow, realize that servicers were built just to collect checks, not to do complex one-on-one fixes - and worse, they actually have little incentive to fix mortgages. [View news story]
Why do ignorant people support the collapse of the economy? The collapse of the economy is one major reason why we are about to be just another two-bit tin-horn third world country.
Do the math kids, something needs to be done. Most of the defaulters aren't in a position to do anything, so unfortunately it false to the other side of the equation.
Please try to think, at least some of the time. The letter of the law doesn't always actually do anything useful.
When's the recovery? Never. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich predicts not a V, not a U, but an X. The economy can't get back on track because the track we were on for years - flat or declining median wages, mounting consumer debt, and widening insecurity - can't be sustained. "The X marks a brand new track - a new economy. What will it look like? Nobody knows." [View news story]
There will only be a "new economy" if policy makers have the balls to make real fundamental changes in the financial industry.
A little behind schedule, banks are apparently ready to begin signing contracts that would allow modification of second mortgages and other home-equity debt. This in the wake of a frustrated Treasury pressing companies to step up modifications. [View news story]
I disagree. The problem has already been passed.
Some of the least productive members of society (brokers, etc) already took their cut, or are still taking it.
The ones who actually make meaningful contributions to society (teachers, police, engineers, etc) are now paying the insanely-leveraged price of the swindling.
On Jul 10 02:11 PM nova wrote:
> There are too many idiot thinking that a government has answers to > all problems. > > Our populous is on drugs being unable to function by itself. Americans > became too addicted to a government for survival. Unfortunately, > Americans learned nothing from either Soviet Union or Communist China. > > > Debt modification is nothing else as passing a problem from least > productive elements of a society to most productive ones. It is like > poisoning a good well with clear water with toxic water from a bad > well.
Evan Newmark at Mean Streetwonders: How long before we have retail brokers recommending balanced portfolios of subprime CDOs, front-loaded mutual funds, and state IOUs? [View news story]
Sorry, forgot the rest:
"And when the investment goes sour, you pay us again to get rid of it, plus you have pay off the insurance policy we took out on it.
Then you keep paying us to keep your state economy from collapsing.
A little behind schedule, banks are apparently ready to begin signing contracts that would allow modification of second mortgages and other home-equity debt. This in the wake of a frustrated Treasury pressing companies to step up modifications. [View news story]
Loan modification doesn't work.
Doing more of something that doesn't work, still isn't going to work.
Evan Newmark at Mean Streetwonders: How long before we have retail brokers recommending balanced portfolios of subprime CDOs, front-loaded mutual funds, and state IOUs? [View news story]
Satire aside, the point is valid.
Wall Street is once again telling investors: "OK, here's how it works. You pay us to let you spend your money to buy crappy investments. Got it? Good."
Krugman continues to push for a second Obama stimulus: "What Mr. Obama needs to do is level with the American people. He needs to admit that he may not have done enough on the first try." [View news story]
Not always true. Ever heard of defense contracts? That's government spending that directly leads to contractor hiring.
On Jul 10 01:33 PM Windsun33 wrote:
> Government spending does not create jobs, it only moves them around > from the private to the public sector.
This isn't the businesses' fault. Clearly people just need to take more individual responsibility for their own tax evasion and expect companies to always take care of them.
[That was sarcasm, for you dense folks out there.]
Unbelievably, the No-Doc Loans Movement Gains Steam [View article]
> The rationale offered for no-doc loans is that people who make > money from investments or who are able to shelter their income > from taxes need these loans.
So...before, we misused these loans to let poor people buy houses.
Now they want to misuse them to help rich people and tax evaders?
Subprime: What Happens to an Externality Ignored? [View article]
But didn't the industry lobby HEAVILY for that decreased regulation? And didn't a lot of people love it at the time?
Sounds to me like elected officials were listening to their constituencies.
On Jul 10 06:56 AM prairiedog555 wrote:
> I was in the sub prime business for years. It WAS a good thing. > It allowed someone with bad credit (for whatever reason) to own a > home with a substantial down payment and high interest rate. > The standard sales line (which was true) was that to get an FHA loan > the borrower must for 24 months have no late charges, and then refi > to conventional rates. > It worked for years, until Barney Frank failed to regulate industry. > I remember my underwriters complaining of the ever decreasing standards > (100% no doc loans) these were unheard of. > Don't blame the industry, that is like telling kids not to eat candy. > It was because of loose regs and cheap abundant money. > Barney, Dodd AIG are to blame.
On Jul 09 03:26 PM Whippet wrote: > Finance is a choice, and the investor's consent is required.
No, it's no different.
You choose to see medical advice/treatment, or not. But you'd better if you expect to stay healthy. Or do you prescribe your own medicine and perform your own surgery?
You choose to have legal representation, or not. But you'd better if you expect to win the case. Or do you write your own wills, etc, and argue your own cases?
You choose to take the elevator, or not. But you'd better if you ever expect to get your couch up to your 15th floor apartment. Or do you build your own elevators?
You choose to invest, or not. But you'd better if you ever expect to retire, or put your kids through college, etc. Or do you run your own 401Ks and mutual funds?
These things are all fundamental parts of our society, and we've created professions that most people /have/ to rely on in order to effectively function.
In all subjects except finance, people to provide poor service to their clients are at minimum banned from the profession, and oftentimes fined or jailed.
We criminalize recklessness in medicine. We criminalize recklessness in law. We criminalize recklessness in engineering.
The reason for all of the above is that people who practice those professions must be trustworthy and competent, otherwise people's lives will be severely impacted.
Why shouldn't we criminalize recklessness in finance? Is not the same criteria true?
Banks Not Letting Owners of Foreclosed Homes Walk Away [View article]
Borrowers already have established mechanisms for being...unwise...in their borrowing: They lose the house, the wreck their credit, etc. Even today, in the midst of the fipocalypse, this seems fair.
The banks also have established mechanisms for their unwise lending: they have to take the house back and deal with it.
Now the banks are crying "Not it!" on their end of the deal, and /again/ leaving borrowers with the decrepit remains of the housing bubble that the banks created.
I feel the worst for responsible borrowers living next door to the shambles that the banks should have cleaned up. Instead of a few houses, whole neighborhoods are now losing even more value.
Nice job, banksters. Keep up the lousy work...
Joe Nocera on the July 28 Come-to-Geithner meeting for the top 25 mortgage servicers: To understand why modifications are so slow, realize that servicers were built just to collect checks, not to do complex one-on-one fixes - and worse, they actually have little incentive to fix mortgages. [View news story]
> Rather than just modify certain mortgages, why not modify all.
This has been proposed by a handful of rational-thinking pundits, and it's actually not that bad of an idea -- and mathematically it's MUCH less expensive for the taxpayer than bailing out all the leverage products the banks and insurers have screwed around with.
> everyone who has or had a mortgage was the victim
> of a crime.
A bit exaggerated, but not horribly off base. The crime was mostly one of negligence, but at its heart it's scarcely different from any other financial fraud.
Joe Nocera on the July 28 Come-to-Geithner meeting for the top 25 mortgage servicers: To understand why modifications are so slow, realize that servicers were built just to collect checks, not to do complex one-on-one fixes - and worse, they actually have little incentive to fix mortgages. [View news story]
Guess what, someone screwed up. Big. Really big.
So, before too long you can bet there will be some new laws.
But what happens immediately after the screw-up is a kind of nebulous period where we still don't have the laws that we wish we'd had all along, but something must be done to keep things from getting worse.
Before there were anti-trust laws, the government leaned on monopolies.
Before there were malpractice laws, the government leaned on doctors and lawyers.
Now, before there are "don't be a destructive evil bank/broker/rater" laws, the government must lean on banks/brokers/raters to keep things from getting worse.
On Jul 11 01:34 PM Neil459 wrote:
> I am sorry, but it does. Its the one thing that separates us from Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba, and all the other countries where powerful politician's can just do what they want. In this instance you think it makes sense and it may. However, once crossed the abuses will be far larger than any benefit now.
Joe Nocera on the July 28 Come-to-Geithner meeting for the top 25 mortgage servicers: To understand why modifications are so slow, realize that servicers were built just to collect checks, not to do complex one-on-one fixes - and worse, they actually have little incentive to fix mortgages. [View news story]
Do the math kids, something needs to be done. Most of the defaulters aren't in a position to do anything, so unfortunately it false to the other side of the equation.
Please try to think, at least some of the time. The letter of the law doesn't always actually do anything useful.
When's the recovery? Never. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich predicts not a V, not a U, but an X. The economy can't get back on track because the track we were on for years - flat or declining median wages, mounting consumer debt, and widening insecurity - can't be sustained. "The X marks a brand new track - a new economy. What will it look like? Nobody knows." [View news story]
A little behind schedule, banks are apparently ready to begin signing contracts that would allow modification of second mortgages and other home-equity debt. This in the wake of a frustrated Treasury pressing companies to step up modifications. [View news story]
Some of the least productive members of society (brokers, etc) already took their cut, or are still taking it.
The ones who actually make meaningful contributions to society (teachers, police, engineers, etc) are now paying the insanely-leveraged price of the swindling.
On Jul 10 02:11 PM nova wrote:
> There are too many idiot thinking that a government has answers to
> all problems.
>
> Our populous is on drugs being unable to function by itself. Americans
> became too addicted to a government for survival. Unfortunately,
> Americans learned nothing from either Soviet Union or Communist China.
>
>
> Debt modification is nothing else as passing a problem from least
> productive elements of a society to most productive ones. It is like
> poisoning a good well with clear water with toxic water from a bad
> well.
Evan Newmark at Mean Street wonders: How long before we have retail brokers recommending balanced portfolios of subprime CDOs, front-loaded mutual funds, and state IOUs? [View news story]
"And when the investment goes sour, you pay us again to get rid of it, plus you have pay off the insurance policy we took out on it.
Then you keep paying us to keep your state economy from collapsing.
Capiche?"
A little behind schedule, banks are apparently ready to begin signing contracts that would allow modification of second mortgages and other home-equity debt. This in the wake of a frustrated Treasury pressing companies to step up modifications. [View news story]
Doing more of something that doesn't work, still isn't going to work.
Evan Newmark at Mean Street wonders: How long before we have retail brokers recommending balanced portfolios of subprime CDOs, front-loaded mutual funds, and state IOUs? [View news story]
Wall Street is once again telling investors: "OK, here's how it works. You pay us to let you spend your money to buy crappy investments. Got it? Good."
Krugman continues to push for a second Obama stimulus: "What Mr. Obama needs to do is level with the American people. He needs to admit that he may not have done enough on the first try." [View news story]
On Jul 10 01:33 PM Windsun33 wrote:
> Government spending does not create jobs, it only moves them around
> from the private to the public sector.
Personal vs. corporate income taxes: Guess who's off the chart. [View news story]
[That was sarcasm, for you dense folks out there.]
Unbelievably, the No-Doc Loans Movement Gains Steam [View article]
> money from investments or who are able to shelter their income
> from taxes need these loans.
So...before, we misused these loans to let poor people buy houses.
Now they want to misuse them to help rich people and tax evaders?
How is this an improvement?
Subprime: What Happens to an Externality Ignored? [View article]
Sounds to me like elected officials were listening to their constituencies.
On Jul 10 06:56 AM prairiedog555 wrote:
> I was in the sub prime business for years. It WAS a good thing.
> It allowed someone with bad credit (for whatever reason) to own a
> home with a substantial down payment and high interest rate.
> The standard sales line (which was true) was that to get an FHA loan
> the borrower must for 24 months have no late charges, and then refi
> to conventional rates.
> It worked for years, until Barney Frank failed to regulate industry.
> I remember my underwriters complaining of the ever decreasing standards
> (100% no doc loans) these were unheard of.
> Don't blame the industry, that is like telling kids not to eat candy.
> It was because of loose regs and cheap abundant money.
> Barney, Dodd AIG are to blame.
Bankslaughter [View article]
> Finance is a choice, and the investor's consent is required.
No, it's no different.
You choose to see medical advice/treatment, or not. But you'd better if you expect to stay healthy. Or do you prescribe your own medicine and perform your own surgery?
You choose to have legal representation, or not. But you'd better if you expect to win the case. Or do you write your own wills, etc, and argue your own cases?
You choose to take the elevator, or not. But you'd better if you ever expect to get your couch up to your 15th floor apartment. Or do you build your own elevators?
You choose to invest, or not. But you'd better if you ever expect to retire, or put your kids through college, etc. Or do you run your own 401Ks and mutual funds?
These things are all fundamental parts of our society, and we've created professions that most people /have/ to rely on in order to effectively function.
In all subjects except finance, people to provide poor service to their clients are at minimum banned from the profession, and oftentimes fined or jailed.
What makes financial professionals any different?
Bankslaughter [View article]
We criminalize recklessness in law.
We criminalize recklessness in engineering.
The reason for all of the above is that people who practice those professions must be trustworthy and competent, otherwise people's lives will be severely impacted.
Why shouldn't we criminalize recklessness in finance? Is not the same criteria true?