Govt planning principal reductions

[djc]

I’m curious to see how much of this homeowner bailout continues after the election. If it does, I’ll be looking to play the system like others. When the rules change to meet the need, you must also change your strategy.

One year ago, if someone suggested that the government would intervene and cut principles to keep people from being foreclosed on, everyone here would have called that person a dreamer. We were counting on the old rules, if they can’t pay, the bank would take it back and sell. In high numbers, this would put downward pressure on prices and there would be less qualified buyers to compete with. That was last year. This year, it is a whole new ballgame.

[donaldduckmoore]

Do you have a link to the source of the information?

[donaldduckmoore]

Do you have a link to the source of the information?

[donaldduckmoore]

Do you have a link to the source of the information?

[donaldduckmoore]

Do you have a link to the source of the information?

[donaldduckmoore]

Do you have a link to the source of the information?

[DaCounselor]

“well my point is why should the idiots who can’t make the payments stay in their home? Can’t the reduced principle be given to a new buyer with better credit instead?”
_______________________________

The philosophy behind keeping people in their homes is driven by the obvious politics involved and also typically makes more financial sense. All things being equal it just makes more sense to keep current occupants in the home, assuming ability to pay based upon the new principal balance.

[DaCounselor]

“well my point is why should the idiots who can’t make the payments stay in their home? Can’t the reduced principle be given to a new buyer with better credit instead?”
_______________________________

The philosophy behind keeping people in their homes is driven by the obvious politics involved and also typically makes more financial sense. All things being equal it just makes more sense to keep current occupants in the home, assuming ability to pay based upon the new principal balance.

[DaCounselor]

“well my point is why should the idiots who can’t make the payments stay in their home? Can’t the reduced principle be given to a new buyer with better credit instead?”
_______________________________

The philosophy behind keeping people in their homes is driven by the obvious politics involved and also typically makes more financial sense. All things being equal it just makes more sense to keep current occupants in the home, assuming ability to pay based upon the new principal balance.

[DaCounselor]

“well my point is why should the idiots who can’t make the payments stay in their home? Can’t the reduced principle be given to a new buyer with better credit instead?”
_______________________________

The philosophy behind keeping people in their homes is driven by the obvious politics involved and also typically makes more financial sense. All things being equal it just makes more sense to keep current occupants in the home, assuming ability to pay based upon the new principal balance.

[DaCounselor]

“well my point is why should the idiots who can’t make the payments stay in their home? Can’t the reduced principle be given to a new buyer with better credit instead?”
_______________________________

The philosophy behind keeping people in their homes is driven by the obvious politics involved and also typically makes more financial sense. All things being equal it just makes more sense to keep current occupants in the home, assuming ability to pay based upon the new principal balance.

[temeculaguy]

READ THE FINE PRINT and consider the timing, anything said 5 days before an election cannot be relied upon.

The fine print that I read was principal reductions for a 5 year period using the fdic model. I’ve looked at that model in depth and it’s no bargain for the FB, certainly not something that you should hurry to jump into you if you are safely renting and it will be paid for out of the 700bln that Paulson has access to.

It’s nothing more than a cloaked interest only loan, it never builds wealth or equity, the reduction is not free, it is a lien on the house, it must be repaid and in 5 years they will lose their house but it spreads it out. Only fully doc’d will qualify and .38 of their income will be used as the payment, it won’t help most Southern Californians. I could bore you with all the details but it is more fun to see everyone go all nutso thinking their diligence will not be rewarded. Just Chill, we will see the proposal in a few days and we can punch holes in it then.

[temeculaguy]

READ THE FINE PRINT and consider the timing, anything said 5 days before an election cannot be relied upon.

The fine print that I read was principal reductions for a 5 year period using the fdic model. I’ve looked at that model in depth and it’s no bargain for the FB, certainly not something that you should hurry to jump into you if you are safely renting and it will be paid for out of the 700bln that Paulson has access to.

It’s nothing more than a cloaked interest only loan, it never builds wealth or equity, the reduction is not free, it is a lien on the house, it must be repaid and in 5 years they will lose their house but it spreads it out. Only fully doc’d will qualify and .38 of their income will be used as the payment, it won’t help most Southern Californians. I could bore you with all the details but it is more fun to see everyone go all nutso thinking their diligence will not be rewarded. Just Chill, we will see the proposal in a few days and we can punch holes in it then.

[temeculaguy]

READ THE FINE PRINT and consider the timing, anything said 5 days before an election cannot be relied upon.

The fine print that I read was principal reductions for a 5 year period using the fdic model. I’ve looked at that model in depth and it’s no bargain for the FB, certainly not something that you should hurry to jump into you if you are safely renting and it will be paid for out of the 700bln that Paulson has access to.

It’s nothing more than a cloaked interest only loan, it never builds wealth or equity, the reduction is not free, it is a lien on the house, it must be repaid and in 5 years they will lose their house but it spreads it out. Only fully doc’d will qualify and .38 of their income will be used as the payment, it won’t help most Southern Californians. I could bore you with all the details but it is more fun to see everyone go all nutso thinking their diligence will not be rewarded. Just Chill, we will see the proposal in a few days and we can punch holes in it then.

[temeculaguy]

READ THE FINE PRINT and consider the timing, anything said 5 days before an election cannot be relied upon.

The fine print that I read was principal reductions for a 5 year period using the fdic model. I’ve looked at that model in depth and it’s no bargain for the FB, certainly not something that you should hurry to jump into you if you are safely renting and it will be paid for out of the 700bln that Paulson has access to.

It’s nothing more than a cloaked interest only loan, it never builds wealth or equity, the reduction is not free, it is a lien on the house, it must be repaid and in 5 years they will lose their house but it spreads it out. Only fully doc’d will qualify and .38 of their income will be used as the payment, it won’t help most Southern Californians. I could bore you with all the details but it is more fun to see everyone go all nutso thinking their diligence will not be rewarded. Just Chill, we will see the proposal in a few days and we can punch holes in it then.

[Author]

Posts