FDIC Loan Modification Program *Screw the borrower*

[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

[davelj]

Everyone will win with this and everyone will lose.

The buyers will be stuck with mortgage balances greater than the house is worth (they lose!), but their mortgage will be much lower than it was before (they win!). The investors will take a hit on their loans (they lose!), but they’ll take less of a hit than if the houses were foreclosed on (they win!). The taxpayers will end up funding a big chunk of this (they lose!), but such funding (the “socializing of loss” concept) will help keep us out of a depression (they win!).

Everyone will be unhappy. Yup, sounds like the essence of a perfect compromise to me.

[davelj]

Everyone will win with this and everyone will lose.

The buyers will be stuck with mortgage balances greater than the house is worth (they lose!), but their mortgage will be much lower than it was before (they win!). The investors will take a hit on their loans (they lose!), but they’ll take less of a hit than if the houses were foreclosed on (they win!). The taxpayers will end up funding a big chunk of this (they lose!), but such funding (the “socializing of loss” concept) will help keep us out of a depression (they win!).

Everyone will be unhappy. Yup, sounds like the essence of a perfect compromise to me.

[davelj]

Everyone will win with this and everyone will lose.

The buyers will be stuck with mortgage balances greater than the house is worth (they lose!), but their mortgage will be much lower than it was before (they win!). The investors will take a hit on their loans (they lose!), but they’ll take less of a hit than if the houses were foreclosed on (they win!). The taxpayers will end up funding a big chunk of this (they lose!), but such funding (the “socializing of loss” concept) will help keep us out of a depression (they win!).

Everyone will be unhappy. Yup, sounds like the essence of a perfect compromise to me.

[davelj]

Everyone will win with this and everyone will lose.

The buyers will be stuck with mortgage balances greater than the house is worth (they lose!), but their mortgage will be much lower than it was before (they win!). The investors will take a hit on their loans (they lose!), but they’ll take less of a hit than if the houses were foreclosed on (they win!). The taxpayers will end up funding a big chunk of this (they lose!), but such funding (the “socializing of loss” concept) will help keep us out of a depression (they win!).

Everyone will be unhappy. Yup, sounds like the essence of a perfect compromise to me.

[davelj]

Everyone will win with this and everyone will lose.

The buyers will be stuck with mortgage balances greater than the house is worth (they lose!), but their mortgage will be much lower than it was before (they win!). The investors will take a hit on their loans (they lose!), but they’ll take less of a hit than if the houses were foreclosed on (they win!). The taxpayers will end up funding a big chunk of this (they lose!), but such funding (the “socializing of loss” concept) will help keep us out of a depression (they win!).

Everyone will be unhappy. Yup, sounds like the essence of a perfect compromise to me.

[HLS]

Dave,
I know that you know your stuff..

Do you really believe that we are going to actually avoid a depression ??

It’s just being delayed for those that aren’t ready to attend yet, like a meeting that is running a few minutes late, waiting for more to show up.

I’m thinking that the future comparisons will be to the “Greatest Depression” which will be the one of 2007-2016, not the “Great” 1929-1941.

In your example, only their payment will be lower, not their balance.

…..happily ever after. THE END. HLS

[HLS]

Dave,
I know that you know your stuff..

Do you really believe that we are going to actually avoid a depression ??

It’s just being delayed for those that aren’t ready to attend yet, like a meeting that is running a few minutes late, waiting for more to show up.

I’m thinking that the future comparisons will be to the “Greatest Depression” which will be the one of 2007-2016, not the “Great” 1929-1941.

In your example, only their payment will be lower, not their balance.

…..happily ever after. THE END. HLS

[HLS]

Dave,
I know that you know your stuff..

Do you really believe that we are going to actually avoid a depression ??

It’s just being delayed for those that aren’t ready to attend yet, like a meeting that is running a few minutes late, waiting for more to show up.

I’m thinking that the future comparisons will be to the “Greatest Depression” which will be the one of 2007-2016, not the “Great” 1929-1941.

In your example, only their payment will be lower, not their balance.

…..happily ever after. THE END. HLS

[HLS]

Dave,
I know that you know your stuff..

Do you really believe that we are going to actually avoid a depression ??

It’s just being delayed for those that aren’t ready to attend yet, like a meeting that is running a few minutes late, waiting for more to show up.

I’m thinking that the future comparisons will be to the “Greatest Depression” which will be the one of 2007-2016, not the “Great” 1929-1941.

In your example, only their payment will be lower, not their balance.

…..happily ever after. THE END. HLS

[HLS]

Dave,
I know that you know your stuff..

Do you really believe that we are going to actually avoid a depression ??

It’s just being delayed for those that aren’t ready to attend yet, like a meeting that is running a few minutes late, waiting for more to show up.

I’m thinking that the future comparisons will be to the “Greatest Depression” which will be the one of 2007-2016, not the “Great” 1929-1941.

In your example, only their payment will be lower, not their balance.

…..happily ever after. THE END. HLS

[NotCranky]

[quote=davelj]Everyone will win with this and everyone will lose.

The buyers will be stuck with mortgage balances greater than the house is worth (they lose!), but their mortgage will be much lower than it was before (they win!). The investors will take a hit on their loans (they lose!), but they’ll take less of a hit than if the houses were foreclosed on (they win!). The taxpayers will end up funding a big chunk of this (they lose!), but such funding (the “socializing of loss” concept) will help keep us out of a depression (they win!).

Everyone will be unhappy. Yup, sounds like the essence of a perfect compromise to me.[/quote]

Following this win/lose idea. What would be the win/lose factors specific to loan originators and house sales people?

[NotCranky]

[quote=davelj]Everyone will win with this and everyone will lose.

The buyers will be stuck with mortgage balances greater than the house is worth (they lose!), but their mortgage will be much lower than it was before (they win!). The investors will take a hit on their loans (they lose!), but they’ll take less of a hit than if the houses were foreclosed on (they win!). The taxpayers will end up funding a big chunk of this (they lose!), but such funding (the “socializing of loss” concept) will help keep us out of a depression (they win!).

Everyone will be unhappy. Yup, sounds like the essence of a perfect compromise to me.[/quote]

Following this win/lose idea. What would be the win/lose factors specific to loan originators and house sales people?

[NotCranky]

[quote=davelj]Everyone will win with this and everyone will lose.

The buyers will be stuck with mortgage balances greater than the house is worth (they lose!), but their mortgage will be much lower than it was before (they win!). The investors will take a hit on their loans (they lose!), but they’ll take less of a hit than if the houses were foreclosed on (they win!). The taxpayers will end up funding a big chunk of this (they lose!), but such funding (the “socializing of loss” concept) will help keep us out of a depression (they win!).

Everyone will be unhappy. Yup, sounds like the essence of a perfect compromise to me.[/quote]

Following this win/lose idea. What would be the win/lose factors specific to loan originators and house sales people?

[NotCranky]

[quote=davelj]Everyone will win with this and everyone will lose.

The buyers will be stuck with mortgage balances greater than the house is worth (they lose!), but their mortgage will be much lower than it was before (they win!). The investors will take a hit on their loans (they lose!), but they’ll take less of a hit than if the houses were foreclosed on (they win!). The taxpayers will end up funding a big chunk of this (they lose!), but such funding (the “socializing of loss” concept) will help keep us out of a depression (they win!).

Everyone will be unhappy. Yup, sounds like the essence of a perfect compromise to me.[/quote]

Following this win/lose idea. What would be the win/lose factors specific to loan originators and house sales people?

[Author]

Posts