Home Foreclosures: Crisis Is Only Getting Deeper, conservatives echo Custer, indians, what indians?
Vid...@tcq.net
Custer, indians, what indians?
apparently any improving numbers in the housing market are simply
because the statistics are being skewed, as all conservative
statistics are.
http://biz.yahoo.com/cnbc/080514/24615625.html
Home Foreclosures: Crisis Is Only Getting Deeper
Wednesday May 14, 12:15 pm ET
It’s another record in the real estate market, and it’s not a good
one. RealtyTrac, the online foreclosure sale site, which has also been
tracking foreclosure activity since the beginning of 2005, reports the
single largest one-month volume of foreclosure activity it’s ever
seen.
ADVERTISEMENT
Again, they’ve only been doing this for three years, but you get the
idea.
Foreclosure activity in April--that’s default notices, auction sale
notices and bank repossessions (so yes there can be more than one hit
on the property, but we look at the total percentage increases)--was
reported on 243,353 properties. That’s a 65% increase from April of
2007.
Alright, so what about all the reports that borrowers are being
helped, and all those programs to find and refi borrowers, and what
about the word from some other sources that foreclosure numbers are
actually dipping?
Well here’s a disconcerting answer: Apparently the system, that is
whatever court or clerk or local bureaucratic office is stuck with
recording all this stuff, is stressed. In Ohio, for example, I’m being
told that it can take two to six months to get your filings in the
system.
"In states like Michigan, we’re hearing from some of the trustees who
actually do the foreclosures that the lenders have asked them to slow
down because they don’t want to process any more into a market that
won’t absorb the properties back through sales," says Rick Sharga of
RealtyTrac.
In Florida, a St. Lucie County court actually added a night shift to
handle the massive backlog of foreclosure filings. The clerk of the
courts was quoted as saying the caseload has become, “just
horrendous.” The court used to handle about forty filings per month.
In January they were tracking 715 foreclosure filings. Some are
reporting lower numbers because the numbers simply can’t get into the
system.
The folks at RealtyTrac, and granted these folks list foreclosed
properties for a fee, say they don’t believe we’ll see the numbers
start to slow until the second quarter of 2009. May and June of this
year, according to banking estimates, are supposed to be the peak of
adjustable rate mortgage resets from subprime loans initiated in 2006.
Lower interest rates on Libor (one of the most common of benchmark
interest rate indexes used to make adjustments to adjustable rate
mortgages) and other indices that correlate to ARM loans could help,
as could continued efforts from FHA and lenders. But the sheer volume,
it appears will remain high for now.
All those foreclosed homes on the market will continue to push
inventories up and push prices down in neighborhoods across the
country.
Questions?| Comments?| Realt...@cnbc.com
Patriot
Now that's common sense!
Buffet...@gmail.com
> Dumb fucking idiots shouldn't have bought a home that they couldn't afford.
>
> Now that's common sense!
Everyone was doing it. The credit crunch and real estate collapse
still
has not hit canada by any measure. . . and the big sub prime lenders
here are the german and swiss banks, lol.
Vid...@tcq.net
> Dumb fucking idiots shouldn't have bought a home that they couldn't afford.
>
> Now that's common sense!
common sense would have been that the banks, that have all of
americas financial information at the click of a mouse, would not have
loaned their stock holders money to people who could obviously not pay
it back. they had the information, even if people lied. so, what they
did was loan out the money, then sell the bonds to unsuspecting
institutions, fraud.
The Trucker
> On May 14, 7:02 pm, "Patriot" <liber...@shithouse.cc> wrote:
>> Dumb fucking idiots shouldn't have bought a home that they couldn't afford.
>>
>> Now that's common sense!
>
> common sense would have been that the banks, that have all of
> americas financial information at the click of a mouse, would not have
> loaned their stock holders money to people who could obviously not pay
> it back.
NO! The people that did these loans would loaned to blow up dolls if they
could have done so. The borrowers were just so much meat for the greed
grinder.
> they had the information, even if people lied. so, what they
> did was loan out the money, then sell the bonds to unsuspecting
> institutions, fraud.
Yes. So it would not have mattered about whether or not they knew the
true financial conditions of the borrowers. This entire mess was created
by the Gingrich Congress during the Republican all out attack
leading up the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton either signed or
the Republicans would STILL BE IN TOTAL CONTROL AND LYING ALL THE WAY TO
THE NEXT WORLD. As it was the Democrats won the White House (and Gore got
screwed out of it) and they evened up the Senate. When the left gets all
over Clinton I get angry as hell. Look at how the current (P)resident
handles adversity.... You like it? You think a Clinton veto of a tax cut
would have helped? Political realities are what they are and Gingrich and
the Republicans were responsible for BOTH the Dot Com bubble and the
Housing Bubble.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
The Trucker
You either bought a house are you were financial road kill. If you tried
to save up money you lost yer ass.
James Dale Guckert
"Patriot" <libe...@shithouse.cc> wrote:
> Dumb fucking idiots shouldn't have bought a home that they couldn't afford.
>
> Now that's common sense!
"Common sense" at the time undermined your premise, "Patriot." Common
sense also said quite loudly at the time that if you take a low-interest
(at the time) loan on a house that EVERYONE is telling you is only going
to become worth more than your purchase price (income!)--and quickly at
that... and EVERYONE is telling you that you can refinance the loan
(reduced liability!) before the reset kicks in so you can continue to
repay the mortgage... and EVERYONE felt safe assuming that the equity in
the home would always exceed the loan itself... then there was not much
reason to believe that you cannot afford a home with a tiny down
payment, no documentation of income, and an adjustable rate. Meanwhile
there was no reason not to take out a low-interest (at the time) HELOC
and use that money to buy BSC shares on margin (more income!).
Meanwhile the lenders KNEW they could then break up the loan into neat
little packages and sell them to other financial institutions who didn't
care about the fundamentals because the financial market was just peachy.
Clusterfuck: The American Way!
--
James Guckert / Rich Gannon / Whore for Bush
darkst...@gmail.com
> Dumb fucking idiots shouldn't have bought a home that they couldn't afford.
>
> Now that's common sense!
OK, welcome to about 30,000,000 homeless in America, then...
Now what?
Mike
Vid...@tcq.net
> In article <03LWj.5665$hv2.4...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
nice overview, and quite correct. the blame the little guy crowd is
either ignorant, or stupid. probably both. the applicants were
encouraged to do what they did, by the mortgage brokers and banks. the
little guys only wanted to own a home. speculators smelled easy money.
The Trucker
That analysis is simply wrong. If you didn't buy a house you were going
to be financial road kill. That explains why a lot of people who really
did not want to own a house bought them. The brokers would have created
these mortgages using blow up dolls if they could have gotten away with
it. The people who really could not really afford to do these deals
but who did want to own a home were just pawns in the greed game.
But ask yourself if those that could not afford it were actually harmed.
They had no money to invest in a down payment and they are not at risk of
losing such. If the bankruptcy laws were as they were before the
Republicans took over the government, and if the IRS could not tax the
imputed income from just walking away from the mortgage then the shysters
would have to EAT the loses and the price of housing would fall to where
working Americans that actually WANT to own a home might well be able to
afford it. I see no upside to "keeping" people in homes that are priced
too high. The bankruptcy laws must be changed.
milt....@gmail.com
> Dumb fucking idiots shouldn't have bought a home that they couldn't afford.
>
> Now that's common sense!
You know how you can tell that someone doesn't have the slightest idea
what's happening in this situation?
They say something as stupid as the above.
This problem doesn't begin and end with the foreclosures.
But here's a question; if someone offers you a home that you can live
in for five years for a payment that is roughly half what you pay in
rent, in a market where home prices are skyrocketing, meaning that you
could probably sell it and take the profit and buy another home, how
many people would say no? If you know you have crappy credit, but
someone tells you you qualify for a nice home in a nice neighborhood,
for a price far less than you're paying for rent, are you gonna say,
"no thanks; I'll stay where I am and rent for a few more years?
IOW, people with shitty credit were being sold homes! What do they
have to lose, really? Their credit? They go back to renting. Big deal.
it's a shame, but that's not the bad part of this.
Meanwhile, while crooks were lying about these people's finances to
get them into these homes, a whole lot of people were making money.
After all, you're suddenly putting a whole bunch of people into homes
who can't afford them... that means what? they have to build more
homes.
The problem isn't the foreclosures. The foreclosures are only the sad
veneer to the deeper problem; the legitimate homeowners who are paying
a $400,000 mortgage on a home that may only be worth $200,000 when
this thing shakes out. Yeah, millions of homeowners are upside down on
their mortgage. Millions of homeowners took out home equity loans on
equity that no longer exists. Banks can't have that much unsecured
credit outstanding, so they have to cover it with cash. That means a
lot less money available for new mortgages. That means those empty
homes can't be sold anytime soon.
Now... you understand supply and demand, right? What happens when
there is a huge glut of houses and a smaller pool of people able to
buy them?
milt....@gmail.com
wrote:
Over here, there was a lot of corruption. There is nothing inherently
wrong with subprime loans, or even interest-only loans. The problem
was, we allowed pretty much anyone to be a broker, and a lot of crooks
took applications from people, faked their qualifications to submit to
the bank, then, after the bank approved the underwriting of the
mortgage and supplied the cash, the broker sold the paper, then
someone else sold the paper, etc.
One of the problems lawyers are having right now is, there is a lot of
obvious fraud out there, but they can't find someone to sue, because
it's almost impossible to figure out who owns what mortgage.
This goes a lot deeper than a bunch of foreclosures. It's a criminal
enterprise gone wild.
milt....@gmail.com
That's exactly it. You have bad credit, you own nothing of value, and
you're $20,000 in debt. Someone tells you you can buy a house with no
money down, for a payment that is roughly half your rent payment...
you see yourself owning something of value, you (mistakenly, it turns
out) believe that you can sell the house after you've paid the
interest only for 5-6 years, and with houses going up in value so
fast, perhaps you can turn a profit and get yourself out of debt. At
the very least, for five years, you have extra money to spend, because
the monthly cost of living in the house is less than rent. What's the
downside, if you already have bad credit and you're in debt?
>
> But ask yourself if those that could not afford it were actually harmed.
> They had no money to invest in a down payment and they are not at risk of
> losing such. If the bankruptcy laws were as they were before the
> Republicans took over the government, and if the IRS could not tax the
> imputed income from just walking away from the mortgage then the shysters
> would have to EAT the loses and the price of housing would fall to where
> working Americans that actually WANT to own a home might well be able to
> afford it. I see no upside to "keeping" people in homes that are priced
> too high. The bankruptcy laws must be changed.
>
One of the solutions to me is to let these people continue making the
"interest only" payment as a sort of "rent-to-own" contract, and then,
when housing values settle, offer them a real mortgage at the current
price and a low interest rate. The banks are going to have to eat the
lost money, anyway, if they foreclose.
Another option would be to offer the houses to speculators and
investors at discount prices, who would then would have to allow the
current residents to stay there at a competitive rent for a period of
time...
The problem is the glut of unsold homes after all of these
foreclosures.
FrediFizzx
news:92ddb59c-bd91-4045...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Nonsense. Whilst there was some fraud involved here and there, it
mostly was a capital market's experiment that failed. There was a lot
of money to be lent and not enough takers so it is just natural to
extend credit to less credit worthy people when that happens. When we
look back at this 5 years from now, it won't look all that bad. Soak it
up and move on. Interest rates remain relatively low for those that ARE
credit worthy. The financial companies were fairly stupid to package
the debt the way they did and are paying for it now via lack of trust
issues between them. The experiment simply didn't work.
Fred
Econotron
> wrote:
>> On May 14, 8:02 pm, "Patriot" <liber...@shithouse.cc> wrote:
>>
>> > Dumb fucking idiots shouldn't have bought a home that they couldn't
>> > afford.
>>
>> > Now that's common sense!
>>
>> Everyone was doing it. The credit crunch and real estate collapse
>> still
>> has not hit canada by any measure. . . and the big sub prime lenders
>> here are the german and swiss banks, lol.
>
> Over here, there was a lot of corruption. There is nothing inherently
> wrong with subprime loans, or even interest-only loans. The problem
> was, we allowed pretty much anyone to be a broker, and a lot of crooks
> took applications from people, faked their qualifications to submit to
> the bank, then, after the bank approved the underwriting of the
> mortgage and supplied the cash, the broker sold the paper, then
> someone else sold the paper, etc.
>
reason for their neglect was securitization, that is, they did not have to
keep those mortgages. There were two major factors that caused the bubble:
mortgage securitization and the Fed's easy money. Of course, the third one
was people's stupidity, but it has always been there.:-)
>
> One of the problems lawyers are having right now is, there is a lot of
> obvious fraud out there, but they can't find someone to sue, because
> it's almost impossible to figure out who owns what mortgage.
>
money.
>
> This goes a lot deeper than a bunch of foreclosures. It's a criminal
> enterprise gone wild.
>
When there is a law that makes bubbles illegal, it will be a criminal
enterprise.
e.
Steve
>On May 14, 8:02 pm, "Patriot" <liber...@shithouse.cc> wrote:
>> Dumb fucking idiots shouldn't have bought a home that they couldn't afford.
>>
>> Now that's common sense!
>
>You know how you can tell that someone doesn't have the slightest idea
>what's happening in this situation?
>
>They say something as stupid as the above.
>
Like the following?
"Yeah. If you bought the stock at $50 a share and it's now worth $25,
the shares have a negative equity of 50%. I mean, DUH!
-- Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cdf601a5bedc09d4?hl=en&
Canyon Note: I mean, DUH!
"Only you could think that writing a check to cover a
reduction in assets doesn't consitute a loss."
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/0b2e8e4604b22581?hl=en&
Canyon Note: Actually, the reduction in assets is the only loss.
"And if I sell stock, my asset level is reduced by the
amount of that stock, EVEN IF the stock I sell is sold
for more than I paid for it."
--Milt Shook.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/0f58111c6acb0ce8?hl=en&
Canyon Note: selling stock for a profit reduces my asset level eh?
"When you're (sic) margin is called, that's a liability, not an asset.
If you have an account with $100,000 in it, and you borrow $10,000 to
buy with, you only have $100,000 in assets; until you pay the loan,
that $10,000 is not an asset; it's a liability. When the margin is
called (for shits and giggles, let's say for the full amount of
$10,000), there is no way to say that you haven't lost $10,000. In
fact, you're actually out $20,000, because you're out the $10,000
for the loan and the $10,000 to call the margin."
-- Milt Shook Apr 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/a39f580c3012e718?hl=en&
Canyon Note: Milt hasn't yet explained how a $10,000 margin call will
result in a $20,000 loss, presumably above and beyond whatever loss
of market value in stock precipitated the margin call....
Actually, a margin call in itself doesn't constitute any loss at all..
it's simply a demand from a lender to increase your collateral.
"And one of the ironies of this entire discussion is that a company
that pays corporate income taxes one year can deduct them as a
business expense the next.
--Milt Shook, who claims to have been a business consultant.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/b0151278e691117b.
milt....@gmail.com
> <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Wow. You're some revisionist.
Banks didn't mind lending the money to people with less than stellar
credit. They were more than willing to take a chance on someone with a
below average credit score on a starter house. That wasn't where the
problem was. The problem was in the instances where people filled out
a mortgage application, and the broker faked the details regarding
income. There are actually cases where the brokers placed a "1" on the
application in front of the applicant's stated monthly income, to get
them approved. You see, banks don't see someone with a below average
credit score but high income as a huge risk. They do see someone with
ANY credit score, signing on to a mortgage where the eventual mortgage
payment, after the interest only period, constitutes 50% of their
income as a risk. But brokers lied to the banks. That is where that
part of the problem came from.
> When we
> look back at this 5 years from now, it won't look all that bad. Soak it
> up and move on. Interest rates remain relatively low for those that ARE
> credit worthy. The financial companies were fairly stupid to package
> the debt the way they did and are paying for it now via lack of trust
> issues between them. The experiment simply didn't work.
>
This isn't a 'soak it up and move on" kind of problem. There are still
tons of these mortgages out there, yet to be foreclosed. Since home
prices were hyperinflated, a whole bunch of people took out home
equity loans on equity that didn't actually exist. And a lot of people
with GOOD CREDIT and plenty of income (you know, GOOD risks) are
paying on $500,000 mortgages on homes that are now worth $400,000 and
still dropping. It also means banks are suddenly left carrying a lot
more unsecured debt than they're supposed to, which means money
available for credit is going to be very tight for a while, at the
same time there is a glut of homes for sale out there.
It wasn't an "experiment." It was government gleefully looking the
other way, while robber barons made the economy look good for a few
years, while actually robbing it blind. Just think; there is a huge
inventory of homes out there that were built just FOR people who are
being foreclosed on, and there is no one to fill those homes. Millions
of homes will sit empty, millions of condo buildings will become
rentals, millions of single family homes will either remain empty or
become rentals, reducing home values even further, and pretty much
everyone who purchased a home in the last 5-10 years will find himself
upside down in their mortgage, and will likely NOT see any sort of
profit from their initial investment.
I know you people WISH this wasn't so bad, but as my grandmother used
to say, you can wish in one hand and shit in the other; they're both
worth basically the same...
This is bad, will get worse, and will probably take a decade or more
to shake out.
FrediFizzx
news:e08eb61b-1518-4a82...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Fortunately, the facts don't support your "doom and gloom" scenario.
;-) About half of US homeowners don't even have a mortgage. The
subprime thing is way overblown. And the market knows that.
Foreclosures went from about 1 percent to 2 percent of total mortgages.
Not really that big of a deal. Home prices are coming down, mortgage
rates have held steady or came down, so it will fix itself in not that
long of time. It was an experiment to try to get more lower-income
people into homes and there was really nothing wrong with that. It
didn't work out. The bubble busted. Move on.
Fred
Steve
Absolutely correct... The foreclosures caused trouble to be sure,
but the homeowners that went down were losers in the first place or
they wouldn't have had to have sub-prime loans..
The Trucker
Glass-Steagall was not a "criminal enterprise", Requiring proper reporting
concerning market activity and positions in commodities is not a "criminal
enterprise". Limiting the amount of any commodity that can be contracted
for in any market where supply is fixed and demand is very inelastic is
not a "criminal activity". And putting people in jail for market
manipulation in such markets is not a "criminal activity".
-DirtBag©
Trouble is...People just don't seem to learn unless it is connected to
pain.
What the heck were people thinking? Some Joe with a $20hr wage buying a
no-money down 80/20 loans with a 2-year bump so he could qualify with a
little "income amt. fudging.. renting a room out BS contracts, etc.
RE "appeasers" er' appraisers, became -Dirty™ little whores.. and why
not.. Mortgage brokers will just call around till they found someone to
do it.. SO they all surrendered to the greed. High rate of return
instruments Greed.. Greed..top to bottom. Wall Street Marketed them for
the fees and investors loved the high
If a loan agent said .. 'will you work with us' translation. "Can we
cook up a fake appraisal and cheat the lender?" And thus make a
commissions and fees. Greed all the way around.. Buyer, Lender, Broker,
Appraiser, Title Company, Loan Servicer, fee's all the way along. and
they all turned their backs to the reality of it. One of mans human
flaws.. Like vanity.. haha They fit hand in hand too..
My opinion. I like the idea of gov loans where the gov gets 1/2 the
homes upside value after the gov gets them into a loan they can afford
and has stiff penalties sewn in. No free rides. Period.
Crap I feel like Bob 'the Boob' Grumbine ranting..
Vid...@tcq.net
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 17:30:01 -0700, BuffettHa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On May 14, 8:02 pm, "Patriot" <liber...@shithouse.cc> wrote:
> >> Dumb fucking idiots shouldn't have bought a home that they couldn't afford.
>
> >> Now that's common sense!
>
> > Everyone was doing it. The credit crunch and real estate collapse
> > still
> > has not hit canada by any measure. . . and the big sub prime lenders
> > here are the german and swiss banks, lol.
>
> You either bought a house are you were financial road kill. If you tried
> to save up money you lost yer ass.
>
that is correct, and the rightards simply blame the victims.
FrediFizzx
news:482CBDE0...@sonic.net...
> Crap I feel like Bob 'the Boob' Grumbine ranting..
LOL. Yeah Dirt, ya need to swing around to a more positive outlook.
It's way more healthy.
Fred
Rich Hutnik
>
> Now that's common sense!
And what kind of genius loans them money?
- Rich
Steve
>On May 14, 9:18 pm, The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 May 2008 17:30:01 -0700, BuffettHa...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On May 14, 8:02 pm, "Patriot" <liber...@shithouse.cc> wrote:
>> >> Dumb fucking idiots shouldn't have bought a home that they couldn't afford.
>>
>> >> Now that's common sense!
>>
>> > Everyone was doing it. The credit crunch and real estate collapse
>> > still
>> > has not hit canada by any measure. . . and the big sub prime lenders
>> > here are the german and swiss banks, lol.
>>
>> You either bought a house are you were financial road kill. If you tried
>> to save up money you lost yer ass.
>>
>
> that is correct, and the rightards simply blame the victims.
They're not victims, they're irresponsible morons....
The Trucker
And the Libertarian-Republicans were pointing their little fingers at
those who did not participate calling such people looooooooosers if they
did not "take advantage of their opportunities".
>>
>> But ask yourself if those that could not afford it were actually harmed.
>> They had no money to invest in a down payment and they are not at risk of
>> losing such. If the bankruptcy laws were as they were before the
>> Republicans took over the government, and if the IRS could not tax the
>> imputed income from just walking away from the mortgage then the shysters
>> would have to EAT the loses and the price of housing would fall to where
>> working Americans that actually WANT to own a home might well be able to
>> afford it. I see no upside to "keeping" people in homes that are priced
>> too high. The bankruptcy laws must be changed.
>>
>
> One of the solutions to me is to let these people continue making the
> "interest only" payment as a sort of "rent-to-own" contract, and then,
> when housing values settle, offer them a real mortgage at the current
> price and a low interest rate. The banks are going to have to eat the
> lost money, anyway, if they foreclose.
But why? If we agree that the people are being maintained "in a manner to
which they are slowly becoming accustomed" for less than they would be
paying for rent then why do you want me or anyone else to "bail them out".
Assuming no credit or financial damage to them they are merely being
"inconvenienced". If the properties are foreclosed then the housing
market can then recover properly and mortgage rates also. YA GOTTA
REMEMBER THAT THERE WAS NO DOWN-PAYMENT and the cost of housing (the rent)
was less than they had been paying to live in less comfortable digs.
> Another option would be to offer the houses to speculators and
> investors at discount prices, who would then would have to allow the
> current residents to stay there at a competitive rent for a period of
> time...
But that is what will happen anyway. Left as it is the financial weenies
are gonna take it in the shorts just like they should. All that is really
necessary is to fix the damage done to the bankruptcy code several
years ago and to bar the IRS from taxing the imputed income from the
bankruptcies. Used to be that a bankruptcy was a new life and you could
only do it every 10 years. The lenders chased the recent bankrupt people
down the street trying to loan them money :)
The evicted people must rent for a while and then they can get a good
enough deal on a home to buy it on an honest mortgage.
> The problem is the glut of unsold homes after all of these
> foreclosures.
Why is that a problem?
James Dale Guckert
The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
'Struth. Eight years ago I bought a small condo that was worth, at the
peak of the market, nearly four times what I paid for it. (No idea what
it's worth now... don't really care. It's my home for the foreseeable
future.) A couple years back I was told I was *crazy* not to (a) get
into one of those neato 'lie-about-income-and-pay-nothing' loans and
move into a bigger place with the Mrs.; *and* (b) take advantage of my
monster equity help finance this move.
I decided that it was prudent to be crazy.
> But ask yourself if those that could not afford it were actually harmed.
Well, dollar-and-cent-wise, maybe not all that much.
The average U.S. credit rating score, though, is going to take a huge
hit once this shakes out, which may have (appropriately enough) an
effect on who can get a loan to buy a home or start a small business.
Dunno if lenders grade on a curve now; but they may have to if they want
to get their capital working again.
The Trucker
> On May 14, 8:02 pm, "Patriot" <liber...@shithouse.cc> wrote:
>> Dumb fucking idiots shouldn't have bought a home that they couldn't afford.
>>
>> Now that's common sense!
Actually, it was very sensible indeed for those who borrowed.
>
> And what kind of genius loans them money?
A very crafty, and very dishonest genius :)
Vid...@tcq.net
many of whom were simply looking for a home, with a payment that
could afford. and were lied to.
The Trucker
They got to live high for a while and it was cheap. It might be possible
to say they were less than honest but I think not. Based on the
information they had they were just going to ride the escalator of the
bubble and find themselves in a much improved situation. Based on
that information they would have been morons to _NOT_ do it.
Sid9
<Vid...@tcq.net> wrote in message
news:c5a93e74-e1bc-4699...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The mortgage originator "fixes" the credit report, closes the loan, grabs
the commission, and the home owner goes under with the bank
Vid...@tcq.net
> <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote in message
but the banks know. otherwise, why have financial ratings? and, the
banks did know. that is why they quickly flipped them.
2Penny
This is a lot of CRAP. Anyone ever heard of an "amortization table"?
They've existed for a LONG, LONG time and you could look up how
large a loan you wanted and the interest rate and the time period
of the loan and you could quickly figure up your monthly payments.
I was looking at homes in California and finding out what I'd have
to pay each month. It was more than what I made. People at the
bank wanted me to sign up for a loan and _I_KNEW_ there was something
wrong and I'm still renting. When housing comes back closer to
what can be justified by an amortization table, I'm in, but not
until then.
As for taxpayer paid for bailouts, why should I be billed for someone
else's intemperance/idiocy. Why can't I be rewarded for my sanity
and self control? Why should I be penalized (by way of the IRS)
for being cautious?
2Penny
Vid...@tcq.net wrote:
> Home Foreclosures: Crisis Is Only Getting Deeper, conservatives echo
> Custer, indians, what indians?
>
> apparently any improving numbers in the housing market are simply
> because the statistics are being skewed, as all conservative
> statistics are.
>
>
> http://biz.yahoo.com/cnbc/080514/24615625.html
>
>
> Home Foreclosures: Crisis Is Only Getting Deeper
> Wednesday May 14, 12:15 pm ET
>
> It’s another record in the real estate market, and it’s not a good
> one. RealtyTrac, the online foreclosure sale site, which has also been
> tracking foreclosure activity since the beginning of 2005, reports the
> single largest one-month volume of foreclosure activity it’s ever
> seen.
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
> Again, they’ve only been doing this for three years, but you get the
> idea.
> Foreclosure activity in April--that’s default notices, auction sale
> notices and bank repossessions (so yes there can be more than one hit
> on the property, but we look at the total percentage increases)--was
> reported on 243,353 properties. That’s a 65% increase from April of
> 2007.
> Alright, so what about all the reports that borrowers are being
> helped, and all those programs to find and refi borrowers, and what
> about the word from some other sources that foreclosure numbers are
> actually dipping?
>
>
> Well here’s a disconcerting answer: Apparently the system, that is
> whatever court or clerk or local bureaucratic office is stuck with
> recording all this stuff, is stressed. In Ohio, for example, I’m being
> told that it can take two to six months to get your filings in the
> system.
> "In states like Michigan, we’re hearing from some of the trustees who
> actually do the foreclosures that the lenders have asked them to slow
> down because they don’t want to process any more into a market that
> won’t absorb the properties back through sales," says Rick Sharga of
> RealtyTrac.
> In Florida, a St. Lucie County court actually added a night shift to
> handle the massive backlog of foreclosure filings. The clerk of the
> courts was quoted as saying the caseload has become, “just
> horrendous.” The court used to handle about forty filings per month.
> In January they were tracking 715 foreclosure filings. Some are
> reporting lower numbers because the numbers simply can’t get into the
> system.
> The folks at RealtyTrac, and granted these folks list foreclosed
> properties for a fee, say they don’t believe we’ll see the numbers
> start to slow until the second quarter of 2009. May and June of this
> year, according to banking estimates, are supposed to be the peak of
> adjustable rate mortgage resets from subprime loans initiated in 2006.
>
>
> Lower interest rates on Libor (one of the most common of benchmark
> interest rate indexes used to make adjustments to adjustable rate
> mortgages) and other indices that correlate to ARM loans could help,
> as could continued efforts from FHA and lenders. But the sheer volume,
> it appears will remain high for now.
> All those foreclosed homes on the market will continue to push
> inventories up and push prices down in neighborhoods across the
> country.
> Questions?| Comments?| Realt...@cnbc.com
Steve
How were they lied to? They knew the price, they knew that the
payments were, they knew that they could get larger. They knew what
their income was... thy weren't lied to...
Steve
How does the mortgage originator go about fixing the credit report?
Michael Ejercito
> This is a lot of CRAP. Anyone ever heard of an "amortization table"?
> They've existed for a LONG, LONG time and you could look up how
> large a loan you wanted and the interest rate and the time period
> of the loan and you could quickly figure up your monthly payments.
> I was looking at homes in California and finding out what I'd have
> to pay each month. It was more than what I made. People at the
> bank wanted me to sign up for a loan and _I_KNEW_ there was something
> wrong and I'm still renting. When housing comes back closer to
> what can be justified by an amortization table, I'm in, but not
> until then.
>
> As for taxpayer paid for bailouts, why should I be billed for someone
> else's intemperance/idiocy. Why can't I be rewarded for my sanity
> and self control? Why should I be penalized (by way of the IRS)
> for being cautious?
>
Not that that is a GOOD reason.
Michael
Vid...@tcq.net
> This is a lot of CRAP. Anyone ever heard of an "amortization table"?
> They've existed for a LONG, LONG time and you could look up how
> large a loan you wanted and the interest rate and the time period
> of the loan and you could quickly figure up your monthly payments.
> I was looking at homes in California and finding out what I'd have
> to pay each month. It was more than what I made. People at the
> bank wanted me to sign up for a loan and _I_KNEW_ there was something
> wrong and I'm still renting. When housing comes back closer to
> what can be justified by an amortization table, I'm in, but not
> until then.
>
> As for taxpayer paid for bailouts, why should I be billed for someone
> else's intemperance/idiocy. Why can't I be rewarded for my sanity
> and self control? Why should I be penalized (by way of the IRS)
> for being cautious?
>
> 2Penny
reliant, rugged individual, born with a silver spoon in their mouths,
pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps with tax payer money
warriors, are hogging at the troughs of your money daily. whilst the
rest of the economy tanks.
a few are getting billions, perhaps a trillion or more. while
millions of real producers and consumers have been eliminated from our
economy. so keep bitching, the rich are happy, the economy is
shrinking.
Vid...@tcq.net
its common knowledge that many home owners were told they could
simply refinance. which was a lie. the mortgages were sliced up, and
sold in bundles. to refinance. means rebundleing the loans. very few
home owners today are have any luck refinancing. they were lied to.
on top of that, there are credible reports of fraud, paperwork was
altered after the
applicant filled it out.
Larry Hewitt
"2Penny" <lw_r...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Ju8Xj.230$Q57...@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> This is a lot of CRAP. Anyone ever heard of an "amortization table"?
> They've existed for a LONG, LONG time and you could look up how
> large a loan you wanted and the interest rate and the time period
> of the loan and you could quickly figure up your monthly payments.
> I was looking at homes in California and finding out what I'd have
> to pay each month. It was more than what I made. People at the
> bank wanted me to sign up for a loan and _I_KNEW_ there was something
> wrong and I'm still renting. When housing comes back closer to
> what can be justified by an amortization table, I'm in, but not
> until then.
>
First, most of the troubled loans were not fixed rte loans, so amortization
taables are worthless. These tables said the purcahser could afford the loan
at the time of the purchase, but things changed,\
Seconf, a lot of lenders were iffy, if not fraudulent in their lending
practices.
For ex., Countrywide, the largest home lender, is being prosecuted for fraud
in their lenfiding and finanacial practices.
Larry
Vid...@tcq.net
> They've existed for a LONG, LONG time and you could look up how
> large a loan you wanted and the interest rate and the time period
> of the loan and you could quickly figure up your monthly payments.
> I was looking at homes in California and finding out what I'd have
> to pay each month. It was more than what I made. People at the
> bank wanted me to sign up for a loan and _I_KNEW_ there was something
> wrong and I'm still renting. When housing comes back closer to
> what can be justified by an amortization table, I'm in, but not
> until then.
>
> As for taxpayer paid for bailouts, why should I be billed for someone
> else's intemperance/idiocy. Why can't I be rewarded for my sanity
> and self control? Why should I be penalized (by way of the IRS)
> for being cautious?
>
> 2Penny
The program, similar to one the Fed has long had for commercial banks,
will continue for at least six months.
It gives investment firms a place to go for overnight loans.
Commercial banks and investment companies now pay 2.25% in interest
for the loans.
Banks, meanwhile, stepped up their borrowing.
Banks averaged $14.4 billion in daily borrowing for the week ending
May 14.
That compared with $11.7 billion for the previous week.
The identities of commercial banks and investment houses are not
released.
From The Associated Press, 5/15/08:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2008-05-15-fed-inves...
Investment firms borrow from Fed at fairly steady pace
WASHINGTON (AP) —
Wall Street investment companies are borrowing from the Federal
Reserve's emergency lending program at a fairly steady pace.
The Federal Reserve said in a report Thursday that those firms
averaged $16.6 billion in daily borrowing over the past week.
That compared with $16.5 billion in the previous week.
_______________________________________________
Yup. And homeowners get shit.
milt....@gmail.com
> <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote in message
One small correction;
They didn't actually fix the credit reports in most cases. The banks
weren't looking at the credit score, so much as they were looking at
income. The brokers were faking the income levels. One broker that is
under investigation right now actually took to taking the application
from the buyers, and placed a "1" in front of the monthly income
figure the applicants provided to the bank before faxing the
application to the bank. The banks apparently weren't checking very
closely, because in one case I saw, a guy who managed a major discount
store was shown to be making $13,000 per month, while his wife, who
was a pharmacist at the same store, "only" made $4,000/month.
milt....@gmail.com
Exactly.
This is the problem with the wingnut mentality. Businesspeople can do
no wrong -- it's always the people who had money waved at them and
took it who are the morons...
Werner
The problem with you is not recognizing both creditors and debtors are
morons. Both had no complaints when conditions when their way. When
the conditions changed both complained.
I think you're from NY. Surely you remember Comptroller McCall who
liked to tell the press how wise he was with NY Retirement System
Investments when the bubble was expanding and the fund was growing.
When the bubble burst he was just as quick to blame Wall Street for
the losses.
FrediFizzx
news:eikq24578e3rod7vr...@4ax.com...
LOL! Surely you don't expect these doom and gloomers to report the
truth or facts? When buying anything, it is ALWAYS "buyer beware" and
anyone that doesn't realize that is an idiot. Thus the blame for these
foreclosures lies entirely with the buyers. Now, the way the financial
companies packaged and sold the subprime mortgages is a separate issue.
Again, the buyers of the CDO's are to blame. They exasperated the issue
because of their greed. The real ultimate victims here are the stock
holders of the financial companies. The buyers of subprime and buyers
of the related CDO's got what they deserved.
Fred
Steve
If it's common knowledge, you should be able to document it...
Steve
Credit reports are not under the control of the mortgage
originators.....
Steve
wrote:
>On May 16, 12:40 pm, milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On May 15, 7:31 pm, Rich Hutnik <richardhut...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 14, 8:02 pm, "Patriot" <liber...@shithouse.cc> wrote:
>>
>> > > Dumb fucking idiots shouldn't have bought a home that they couldn't afford.
>>
>> > > Now that's common sense!
>>
>> > And what kind of genius loans them money?
>>
>> > - Rich
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> This is the problem with the wingnut mentality. Businesspeople can do
>> no wrong -- it's always the people who had money waved at them and
>> took it who are the morons...
>
>
>The problem with you is not recognizing both creditors and debtors are
>morons. Both had no complaints when conditions when their way. When
>the conditions changed both complained.
Hell, I've recognized that fact from the very beginning....
Rich Hutnik
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:31:37 -0700, Rich Hutnik wrote:
> > On May 14, 8:02 pm, "Patriot" <liber...@shithouse.cc> wrote:
> >> Dumb fucking idiots shouldn't have bought a home that they couldn't afford.
>
> >> Now that's common sense!
>
> Actually, it was very sensible indeed for those who borrowed.
>
>
>
> > And what kind of genius loans them money?
>
> A very crafty, and very dishonest genius :)
Let's see how much genius is involved if the lenders have to eat their
losses. Nah, that would be too hard on the gold cufflink crowd, so
the government has to bail them out.
- Rich
Vid...@tcq.net
> If it's common knowledge, you should be able to document it...
its typical when arguing with a right wing crank that they demand
that we always have to back up each and every sentence we make with
bullet proof evidence, yet, the cranks crank on, and never provide one
bit of their own evidence, even as they are being proven wrong.
my question to you is, what proof do you have that there was no fraud
being committed by brokers?
considering the f.b.i. is now involved, and they said firms made
misstatements(a sure sign of fraud)lets see what you got:)
http://www.flippingfrenzy.com/2008/04/16/the-fbis-mortgage-fraud-probe-now-targets-19-firms/
The FBI’s Mortgage Fraud Probe Now Targets 19 Firms
We learned some interesting things today about the FBI’s probe into
real estate and mortgage fraud at some of Wall Street’s top financial
institutions. According to FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III’s
testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, the
Bureau’s investigation of real estate fraud in the mortgage industry
now encompasses 19 companies, up from 17 just one month ago. In
Mueller’s own words:
• “We’ve had a tremendous surge in cases related to the subprime
mortgage debacle. We currently have almost 1,300 cases that have grown
exponentially over the last several years and we expect them to grow
even further.”
• “We have also 19 cases involving institutions themselves where
mortgage fraud may have contributed to misstatements and the like.”.
Mueller, who was testifying on Capital Hill in defense of the FBI’s
budget request for 2009, also said that when the Bureau’s budget
request was originally drafted, the subprime mortgage mess had not yet
“grown to the point where we could see the extent of the surge,” and
that he was not certain at this point when we can expect to see the
extent of the surge.
Additional information, from Reuters:
Bureau officials declined to name any additional companies targeted in
the probe. “We’ve always said it was a fluid number,” FBI spokesman
Stephen Kodak said. “It could change at any time.” He said the bureau
has publicly acknowledged only one company as involved — Doral
Financial Corp (DRL.N: Quote, Profile, Research). A former Doral
treasurer was indicted for investment fraud last month. He denied the
allegations and the company declined to comment.
The largest U.S. mortgage lender, Countrywide (CFC.N: Quote, Profile,
Research), also is under FBI investigation, authorities have said,
although the FBI has declined to comment and Countrywide said it was
unaware of any investigation. When the FBI disclosed its industry
investigation, major investment banks Goldman Sachs (GS.N: Quote,
Profile, Research), Morgan Stanley (MS.N: Quote, Profile, Research)
and Bear Stearns Cos (BSC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) each said the
government had asked them for information, but there was no
confirmation of any FBI role. Beazer Homes (BZH.N: Quote, Profile,
Research) said last year it had received a federal grand jury subpoena
related to its mortgage business.
Michael Ejercito
They should eat their losses.
Michael
2Penny
Mr Hewett -
You've sorta made my point in that if the loan isn't _N_O_R_M_A_L_,
one should be suspicious - _why_isn't_the_loan_normal_?
The amortization table could at least give you an _IDEA_ of what
sort of payment to expect and if not what's not right with
this picture? Why should I be punished? As soon as I'm able
I'm leaving this cesspool unless the IRS determines something is
wrong and won't fine me for being sane.
2penny
Rich Hutnik
I am thinking to pick up the book "Free Lunch" that goes into how much
the well to do live off welfare for the rich. Waiting for one of
these dittoheads to chime here, "But they DESERVE IT!"
- Rich
-DirtBag©
> "-DirtBag©" <"-Dirt\"@sonic.net"> wrote in message
> news:482CBDE0...@sonic.net...
>
>> Crap I feel like Bob 'the Boob' Grumbine ranting..
>
> LOL. Yeah Dirt, ya need to swing around to a more positive outlook.
> It's way more healthy.
>
> Fred
Hey! I attend a Center for Spiritual Living. I think positive and try
to feed my mind healthy thoughts... I -LOL- every morning and buy
'great' stocks..
Sometimes I pay too much though... But thats another issue.. ha-ha
I got all pissy early this week and sold SU and RIO.. Got out with
profit.. SU was over 20%.. BUT I GOT CHASED OUT BY FEAR...Both went up
nicely right after I sold. I keep looking at everyone and think their
looking at the door.. Instead they appear to be looking at my running
shoes... <> as I dart out the door leaving a lot of up-side still on the
table..
I sold off two others to the same result.. Left too early. What about GO
away In MAY? I am about +10%+/- for the year. I really screwed up
selling SU and RIO. Oh well....
I bought SOLF today and am up on it a little. Moon SHOT..for some I got
into orbit thats about all.. Not how I would have liked to start the
position..
-Dirt <--doom and gloomer
FrediFizzx
> FrediFizzx wrote:
>> "-DirtBag©" <"-Dirt\"@sonic.net"> wrote in message
>> news:482CBDE0...@sonic.net...
>>
>>> Crap I feel like Bob 'the Boob' Grumbine ranting..
>>
>> LOL. Yeah Dirt, ya need to swing around to a more positive outlook.
>> It's way more healthy.
>>
>> Fred
>
>
> Hey! I attend a Center for Spiritual Living. I think positive and
> try to feed my mind healthy thoughts... I -LOL- every morning and buy
> 'great' stocks..
Well... never mind then. ;-)
> Sometimes I pay too much though... But thats another issue.. ha-ha
>
> I got all pissy early this week and sold SU and RIO.. Got out with
> profit.. SU was over 20%.. BUT I GOT CHASED OUT BY FEAR...Both went up
> nicely right after I sold. I keep looking at everyone and think their
> looking at the door.. Instead they appear to be looking at my running
> shoes... <> as I dart out the door leaving a lot of up-side still on
> the table..
>
> I sold off two others to the same result.. Left too early. What about
> GO away In MAY? I am about +10%+/- for the year. I really screwed up
> selling SU and RIO. Oh well....
Man, I would be hangin' on to SU and RIO for quite a bit more time.
Heck, I haven't hardly done any buyin' or sellin' since last Oct. (busy
workin' on a project) and our globally diversified portfolio is less
than a couple of percent from its all time high back in Oct. which was
pretty dang high. ;-) This correction got us quite a bit ahead of the
S&P 500 so I'm happy. Last thing I bought was a small boat load of
CGMFX on 12/31. That so far has been a good move and thanks to Don
Tiberone for encoraging me to just go for it. With Heebner at the helm,
I figured it would probably be relatively safe during a continued
downturn. Which it was.
I never go away in May or any other month as long as stock yields are
beating 5 and 10 year treas. yields. Stock yields came down a tiny bit
due to the financials have a bunch of pain but so did Treas. yields.
When stock yields come down and Treas. yields go up, then you got to pay
attention real good. Might be time to go to cash and do some shortin'.
> I bought SOLF today and am up on it a little. Moon SHOT..for some I
> got into orbit thats about all.. Not how I would have liked to start
> the position..
Even with the run up today it still is probably a good longer term play.
> -Dirt <--doom and gloomer
LOL! I think I'm gonna buy some more EPP. It has been lagging this
recent upturn and is due for a breakout. I'd buy some more ILF but it
has been on a terrific run and I would probably spoil it for everyone
else because as soon as I buy more of it, it will top out. ;-)
Fred
Steve
>On May 16, 3:07 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
>
>> If it's common knowledge, you should be able to document it...
>
> its typical when arguing with a right wing crank that they demand
>that we always have to back up each and every sentence we make with
>bullet proof evidence, yet, the cranks crank on, and never provide one
>bit of their own evidence, even as they are being proven wrong.
<chuckle> So the leftist loser tried to dodge the question by
snipping his original claim... the one I asked him to document...
here it is again...
Vid...@tcq.net wrote: its common knowledge that many home owners
were told they could simply refinance. which was a lie. . the
mortgages were sliced up, and sold in bundles. to refinance. means
rebundleing the loans. very few home owners today are have any luck
refinancing. they were lied to. on top of that, there are credible
reports of fraud, paperwork was altered after the applicant filled it
out.
> my question to you is, what proof do you have that there was no fraud
>being committed by brokers?
...and now, the fool dodges again by asking me to prove him wrong,
another tactic of the losers... as if anyone can prove a negative..
<LOL> logically impossible....
BTW, refinancing a home mortgage is a very common occurrence...
people do it every day...
> considering the f.b.i. is now involved, and they said firms made
>misstatements(a sure sign of fraud)lets see what you got:)
So again, where is the documentation for this claim of yours, the one
you say is common knowledge that brokers were telling people they
could simply refinance and that it was a lie... or worse, fraud....