NACA – suggesting lowering rates

[bsrsharma]

Actually, if the government pays 50% or less of the original value of mortgages, it may not be a big loss eventually, if you compute the systemic costs of alternative scenarios. It may become like Chrysler bailout, only much larger in size. They should reprice the asset to pre-bubble days (1999/2000) and pay about 80% of that.

[CA renter]

I hate to see fools being rewarded for their ignorance, but the only “loan modification” I support is either fixing the interest rate for the entire term of the fully-amortizing loan OR writing-down the principal amount. Thing is, the write-downs NEED to be used as comps for future purchases, as the new principal amount would be the correct market price.

Lenders should be able to choose between principal write-downs or foreclosures. Also, the FBs should have an unsecured loan for the amount that’s written-down, and the lender should be entitled to any amount received up to the original loan amount in any future sale to satisfy this loan. The lenders should not be able to carry these new unsecured loans as assets — they should be kept off their balance sheets since nobody knows when or if they will ever be repaid.

[CA renter]

I hate to see fools being rewarded for their ignorance, but the only “loan modification” I support is either fixing the interest rate for the entire term of the fully-amortizing loan OR writing-down the principal amount. Thing is, the write-downs NEED to be used as comps for future purchases, as the new principal amount would be the correct market price.

Lenders should be able to choose between principal write-downs or foreclosures. Also, the FBs should have an unsecured loan for the amount that’s written-down, and the lender should be entitled to any amount received up to the original loan amount in any future sale to satisfy this loan. The lenders should not be able to carry these new unsecured loans as assets — they should be kept off their balance sheets since nobody knows when or if they will ever be repaid.

[CA renter]

I hate to see fools being rewarded for their ignorance, but the only “loan modification” I support is either fixing the interest rate for the entire term of the fully-amortizing loan OR writing-down the principal amount. Thing is, the write-downs NEED to be used as comps for future purchases, as the new principal amount would be the correct market price.

Lenders should be able to choose between principal write-downs or foreclosures. Also, the FBs should have an unsecured loan for the amount that’s written-down, and the lender should be entitled to any amount received up to the original loan amount in any future sale to satisfy this loan. The lenders should not be able to carry these new unsecured loans as assets — they should be kept off their balance sheets since nobody knows when or if they will ever be repaid.

[CA renter]

I hate to see fools being rewarded for their ignorance, but the only “loan modification” I support is either fixing the interest rate for the entire term of the fully-amortizing loan OR writing-down the principal amount. Thing is, the write-downs NEED to be used as comps for future purchases, as the new principal amount would be the correct market price.

Lenders should be able to choose between principal write-downs or foreclosures. Also, the FBs should have an unsecured loan for the amount that’s written-down, and the lender should be entitled to any amount received up to the original loan amount in any future sale to satisfy this loan. The lenders should not be able to carry these new unsecured loans as assets — they should be kept off their balance sheets since nobody knows when or if they will ever be repaid.

[CA renter]

I hate to see fools being rewarded for their ignorance, but the only “loan modification” I support is either fixing the interest rate for the entire term of the fully-amortizing loan OR writing-down the principal amount. Thing is, the write-downs NEED to be used as comps for future purchases, as the new principal amount would be the correct market price.

Lenders should be able to choose between principal write-downs or foreclosures. Also, the FBs should have an unsecured loan for the amount that’s written-down, and the lender should be entitled to any amount received up to the original loan amount in any future sale to satisfy this loan. The lenders should not be able to carry these new unsecured loans as assets — they should be kept off their balance sheets since nobody knows when or if they will ever be repaid.

[patientlywaiting]

No matter what the work-outs are, they are not dreamed-up to help the homeowners. They are to help the banks by slowing down/preventing the tides of foreclosure that may collapse our financial system.

The FBs who hang on to their house because of hope, or pride, or stupidity will work a long time to pay off their debts.

The academics talk about moral hazard, but government actions add moral hazard to the whole mix.

*
Here’s a New Yorker article.
The argument against home ownership
What was a savings plan is now pushing some into indentured servitude

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23439843/
“the downside has become clear: as many as fifteen million homeowners now owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth. Homeownership isn’t building wealth for these people; it’s locking them into indentured servitude.”

*
By end of the next year it’ll be 24 million homeowners upside down. That’s a HUGE number.

[patientlywaiting]

No matter what the work-outs are, they are not dreamed-up to help the homeowners. They are to help the banks by slowing down/preventing the tides of foreclosure that may collapse our financial system.

The FBs who hang on to their house because of hope, or pride, or stupidity will work a long time to pay off their debts.

The academics talk about moral hazard, but government actions add moral hazard to the whole mix.

*
Here’s a New Yorker article.
The argument against home ownership
What was a savings plan is now pushing some into indentured servitude

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23439843/
“the downside has become clear: as many as fifteen million homeowners now owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth. Homeownership isn’t building wealth for these people; it’s locking them into indentured servitude.”

*
By end of the next year it’ll be 24 million homeowners upside down. That’s a HUGE number.

[patientlywaiting]

No matter what the work-outs are, they are not dreamed-up to help the homeowners. They are to help the banks by slowing down/preventing the tides of foreclosure that may collapse our financial system.

The FBs who hang on to their house because of hope, or pride, or stupidity will work a long time to pay off their debts.

The academics talk about moral hazard, but government actions add moral hazard to the whole mix.

*
Here’s a New Yorker article.
The argument against home ownership
What was a savings plan is now pushing some into indentured servitude

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23439843/
“the downside has become clear: as many as fifteen million homeowners now owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth. Homeownership isn’t building wealth for these people; it’s locking them into indentured servitude.”

*
By end of the next year it’ll be 24 million homeowners upside down. That’s a HUGE number.

[patientlywaiting]

No matter what the work-outs are, they are not dreamed-up to help the homeowners. They are to help the banks by slowing down/preventing the tides of foreclosure that may collapse our financial system.

The FBs who hang on to their house because of hope, or pride, or stupidity will work a long time to pay off their debts.

The academics talk about moral hazard, but government actions add moral hazard to the whole mix.

*
Here’s a New Yorker article.
The argument against home ownership
What was a savings plan is now pushing some into indentured servitude

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23439843/
“the downside has become clear: as many as fifteen million homeowners now owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth. Homeownership isn’t building wealth for these people; it’s locking them into indentured servitude.”

*
By end of the next year it’ll be 24 million homeowners upside down. That’s a HUGE number.

[patientlywaiting]

No matter what the work-outs are, they are not dreamed-up to help the homeowners. They are to help the banks by slowing down/preventing the tides of foreclosure that may collapse our financial system.

The FBs who hang on to their house because of hope, or pride, or stupidity will work a long time to pay off their debts.

The academics talk about moral hazard, but government actions add moral hazard to the whole mix.

*
Here’s a New Yorker article.
The argument against home ownership
What was a savings plan is now pushing some into indentured servitude

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23439843/
“the downside has become clear: as many as fifteen million homeowners now owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth. Homeownership isn’t building wealth for these people; it’s locking them into indentured servitude.”

*
By end of the next year it’ll be 24 million homeowners upside down. That’s a HUGE number.

[jpinpb]

I am so against any assistance. Did we help anyone who was upside-down during that ’90’s r.e. fiasco? How about the ’80’s w/balloon payments. Why now? B/c of magnitude and quantity. Not right to punish all the taxpayers and burden us w/the stupidity of others. Every time I think about it, it infuriates me.

[jpinpb]

I am so against any assistance. Did we help anyone who was upside-down during that ’90’s r.e. fiasco? How about the ’80’s w/balloon payments. Why now? B/c of magnitude and quantity. Not right to punish all the taxpayers and burden us w/the stupidity of others. Every time I think about it, it infuriates me.

[jpinpb]

I am so against any assistance. Did we help anyone who was upside-down during that ’90’s r.e. fiasco? How about the ’80’s w/balloon payments. Why now? B/c of magnitude and quantity. Not right to punish all the taxpayers and burden us w/the stupidity of others. Every time I think about it, it infuriates me.

[jpinpb]

I am so against any assistance. Did we help anyone who was upside-down during that ’90’s r.e. fiasco? How about the ’80’s w/balloon payments. Why now? B/c of magnitude and quantity. Not right to punish all the taxpayers and burden us w/the stupidity of others. Every time I think about it, it infuriates me.

[Author]

Posts