FDIC Loan Modification Program *Screw the borrower*

[HLS]

But I heard them say,

They wanted to help homeowners..

I know I did, I know I did….

[NotCranky]

HLS has a point. They message is deceptive and manipulative.It causes confusion.

However, how many borrowers call the mortgage holder and say…”I am going to lose this house. How can we do this in a way that is best for the investor, the tax payer, the country, etc?” I know there are some, but probably just a few.

[NotCranky]

HLS has a point. They message is deceptive and manipulative.It causes confusion.

However, how many borrowers call the mortgage holder and say…”I am going to lose this house. How can we do this in a way that is best for the investor, the tax payer, the country, etc?” I know there are some, but probably just a few.

[NotCranky]

HLS has a point. They message is deceptive and manipulative.It causes confusion.

However, how many borrowers call the mortgage holder and say…”I am going to lose this house. How can we do this in a way that is best for the investor, the tax payer, the country, etc?” I know there are some, but probably just a few.

[NotCranky]

HLS has a point. They message is deceptive and manipulative.It causes confusion.

However, how many borrowers call the mortgage holder and say…”I am going to lose this house. How can we do this in a way that is best for the investor, the tax payer, the country, etc?” I know there are some, but probably just a few.

[NotCranky]

HLS has a point. They message is deceptive and manipulative.It causes confusion.

However, how many borrowers call the mortgage holder and say…”I am going to lose this house. How can we do this in a way that is best for the investor, the tax payer, the country, etc?” I know there are some, but probably just a few.

[Arraya]

Of course, more BS from the financial industry to fleece the populace. I’m sure, just as buying, these loan modifications are not in the borrowers best interest.

I would like to have seen a similar provision in the bailout. Something to the effect of “Bailout must result in positive outcome for the country” unfortunately we did not and it protected the same people that these loan modifications are.

All hail your banker masters!

[Arraya]

Of course, more BS from the financial industry to fleece the populace. I’m sure, just as buying, these loan modifications are not in the borrowers best interest.

I would like to have seen a similar provision in the bailout. Something to the effect of “Bailout must result in positive outcome for the country” unfortunately we did not and it protected the same people that these loan modifications are.

All hail your banker masters!

[Arraya]

Of course, more BS from the financial industry to fleece the populace. I’m sure, just as buying, these loan modifications are not in the borrowers best interest.

I would like to have seen a similar provision in the bailout. Something to the effect of “Bailout must result in positive outcome for the country” unfortunately we did not and it protected the same people that these loan modifications are.

All hail your banker masters!

[Arraya]

Of course, more BS from the financial industry to fleece the populace. I’m sure, just as buying, these loan modifications are not in the borrowers best interest.

I would like to have seen a similar provision in the bailout. Something to the effect of “Bailout must result in positive outcome for the country” unfortunately we did not and it protected the same people that these loan modifications are.

All hail your banker masters!

[Arraya]

Of course, more BS from the financial industry to fleece the populace. I’m sure, just as buying, these loan modifications are not in the borrowers best interest.

I would like to have seen a similar provision in the bailout. Something to the effect of “Bailout must result in positive outcome for the country” unfortunately we did not and it protected the same people that these loan modifications are.

All hail your banker masters!

[HLS]

BUSH-whack has now added the word “preventable” before foreclosures…

SO, a “preventable foreclosure” is one where the borrower is foolish/cluless enough to accept a modification that is not in their best interest, so they can remain a “homeowner” owing somwhere between 20%-100% more that the house is worth.

In the FDIC thesis, they expect a re-default rate of one third. The net result is that two thirds of the original defaults end up in foreclosure eventually, BUT they “saved” one third through “successful” mods.. Isn’t that special ??

Cannot imagine the actual dollar cost to the taxpayer. Trillion has become a meaningless word.
HLS

[HLS]

BUSH-whack has now added the word “preventable” before foreclosures…

SO, a “preventable foreclosure” is one where the borrower is foolish/cluless enough to accept a modification that is not in their best interest, so they can remain a “homeowner” owing somwhere between 20%-100% more that the house is worth.

In the FDIC thesis, they expect a re-default rate of one third. The net result is that two thirds of the original defaults end up in foreclosure eventually, BUT they “saved” one third through “successful” mods.. Isn’t that special ??

Cannot imagine the actual dollar cost to the taxpayer. Trillion has become a meaningless word.
HLS

[HLS]

BUSH-whack has now added the word “preventable” before foreclosures…

SO, a “preventable foreclosure” is one where the borrower is foolish/cluless enough to accept a modification that is not in their best interest, so they can remain a “homeowner” owing somwhere between 20%-100% more that the house is worth.

In the FDIC thesis, they expect a re-default rate of one third. The net result is that two thirds of the original defaults end up in foreclosure eventually, BUT they “saved” one third through “successful” mods.. Isn’t that special ??

Cannot imagine the actual dollar cost to the taxpayer. Trillion has become a meaningless word.
HLS

[HLS]

BUSH-whack has now added the word “preventable” before foreclosures…

SO, a “preventable foreclosure” is one where the borrower is foolish/cluless enough to accept a modification that is not in their best interest, so they can remain a “homeowner” owing somwhere between 20%-100% more that the house is worth.

In the FDIC thesis, they expect a re-default rate of one third. The net result is that two thirds of the original defaults end up in foreclosure eventually, BUT they “saved” one third through “successful” mods.. Isn’t that special ??

Cannot imagine the actual dollar cost to the taxpayer. Trillion has become a meaningless word.
HLS

[Author]

Posts