FDIC Loan Modification Program *Screw the borrower*

[HLS]

and protect the investor..

For all the talk of “saving homeowners”…..

Here is the link to 19 pages of blah blah blah that basically says the FDIC EXPECTS 6,400,000
(6.4 Million) mortgage loan defaults by end of 2010.
and if it’s cheaper to foreclose then go ahead and foreclose, otherwise KEEP THE BORROWER SCREWED IN THE PROPERTY…..

Saving homeowners and preventing foreclosures seem to be 2 totally different concepts.

QUOTE:
“Modification must always result in a positive outcome for the investor, i.e., the cost of the
modification must be less than the estimated cost of foreclosure”

http://www.fdic.gov/consumers/loans/loanmod/FDICLoanMod.pdf

ONLY HELP HOMEOWNERS IF IS IS CHEAPER THAN FORECLOSING…. If it costs more to modify then forget it..
They REALLY care about helping those homeowners ~!!~

Am I reading this wrong ??

[kewp]

This is the right thing to do.

People shouldn’t have bought more house than they could afford.

Screw the speculators.

[kewp]

This is the right thing to do.

People shouldn’t have bought more house than they could afford.

Screw the speculators.

[kewp]

This is the right thing to do.

People shouldn’t have bought more house than they could afford.

Screw the speculators.

[kewp]

This is the right thing to do.

People shouldn’t have bought more house than they could afford.

Screw the speculators.

[kewp]

This is the right thing to do.

People shouldn’t have bought more house than they could afford.

Screw the speculators.

[CA renter]

HLS,

No, you are right. However, it is the right thing to do by the investors.

The investors will be losing enough. There is no reason to increase their losses by trying to save some idiot who overpaid for a house.

If modifying a loan results in a greater loss to the investors than a foreclosure, why in the world should they not foreclose?

It was never about “keeping people in their homes.” It was always about saving the banking system.

Just think about it…there were far more people who were “worthy” of a bail-out during the pre-bubble days. You know, the family that bought a house well within their level of affordability, but then mom or dad got cancer, and lost a job. THAT is someone I’d much rather save than the idiot FBs who never intended to pay back their loans unless the housing market paid it for them, via appreciation.

A non-recourse loan/foreclosure is a GIFT to these borrowers, as they really could have the lenders chase them for life, or until bankruptcy. They got to live in a house for free, in many cases, and then walk away after stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from the lender/bank. Why should we feel sorry for them?

[CA renter]

HLS,

No, you are right. However, it is the right thing to do by the investors.

The investors will be losing enough. There is no reason to increase their losses by trying to save some idiot who overpaid for a house.

If modifying a loan results in a greater loss to the investors than a foreclosure, why in the world should they not foreclose?

It was never about “keeping people in their homes.” It was always about saving the banking system.

Just think about it…there were far more people who were “worthy” of a bail-out during the pre-bubble days. You know, the family that bought a house well within their level of affordability, but then mom or dad got cancer, and lost a job. THAT is someone I’d much rather save than the idiot FBs who never intended to pay back their loans unless the housing market paid it for them, via appreciation.

A non-recourse loan/foreclosure is a GIFT to these borrowers, as they really could have the lenders chase them for life, or until bankruptcy. They got to live in a house for free, in many cases, and then walk away after stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from the lender/bank. Why should we feel sorry for them?

[CA renter]

HLS,

No, you are right. However, it is the right thing to do by the investors.

The investors will be losing enough. There is no reason to increase their losses by trying to save some idiot who overpaid for a house.

If modifying a loan results in a greater loss to the investors than a foreclosure, why in the world should they not foreclose?

It was never about “keeping people in their homes.” It was always about saving the banking system.

Just think about it…there were far more people who were “worthy” of a bail-out during the pre-bubble days. You know, the family that bought a house well within their level of affordability, but then mom or dad got cancer, and lost a job. THAT is someone I’d much rather save than the idiot FBs who never intended to pay back their loans unless the housing market paid it for them, via appreciation.

A non-recourse loan/foreclosure is a GIFT to these borrowers, as they really could have the lenders chase them for life, or until bankruptcy. They got to live in a house for free, in many cases, and then walk away after stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from the lender/bank. Why should we feel sorry for them?

[CA renter]

HLS,

No, you are right. However, it is the right thing to do by the investors.

The investors will be losing enough. There is no reason to increase their losses by trying to save some idiot who overpaid for a house.

If modifying a loan results in a greater loss to the investors than a foreclosure, why in the world should they not foreclose?

It was never about “keeping people in their homes.” It was always about saving the banking system.

Just think about it…there were far more people who were “worthy” of a bail-out during the pre-bubble days. You know, the family that bought a house well within their level of affordability, but then mom or dad got cancer, and lost a job. THAT is someone I’d much rather save than the idiot FBs who never intended to pay back their loans unless the housing market paid it for them, via appreciation.

A non-recourse loan/foreclosure is a GIFT to these borrowers, as they really could have the lenders chase them for life, or until bankruptcy. They got to live in a house for free, in many cases, and then walk away after stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from the lender/bank. Why should we feel sorry for them?

[CA renter]

HLS,

No, you are right. However, it is the right thing to do by the investors.

The investors will be losing enough. There is no reason to increase their losses by trying to save some idiot who overpaid for a house.

If modifying a loan results in a greater loss to the investors than a foreclosure, why in the world should they not foreclose?

It was never about “keeping people in their homes.” It was always about saving the banking system.

Just think about it…there were far more people who were “worthy” of a bail-out during the pre-bubble days. You know, the family that bought a house well within their level of affordability, but then mom or dad got cancer, and lost a job. THAT is someone I’d much rather save than the idiot FBs who never intended to pay back their loans unless the housing market paid it for them, via appreciation.

A non-recourse loan/foreclosure is a GIFT to these borrowers, as they really could have the lenders chase them for life, or until bankruptcy. They got to live in a house for free, in many cases, and then walk away after stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from the lender/bank. Why should we feel sorry for them?

[HLS]

But I heard them say,

They wanted to help homeowners..

I know I did, I know I did….

[HLS]

But I heard them say,

They wanted to help homeowners..

I know I did, I know I did….

[HLS]

But I heard them say,

They wanted to help homeowners..

I know I did, I know I did….

[HLS]

But I heard them say,

They wanted to help homeowners..

I know I did, I know I did….

[Author]

Posts