- This topic has 35 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 7 months ago by
robyns_song.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 10, 2007 at 10:30 AM #11157December 10, 2007 at 11:05 AM #113030
4plexowner
Participantperhaps another way to look at your question is, “what does a mortgage servicer accomplish today by serving an NOD or going through with a foreclosure?”
forcing the FB out of the house results in the mortgage servicer having to realize a loss – as long as the FB remains in the house, even if they AREN’T making their payments, the servicer can pretend that the mortgage is still an asset
houses aren’t selling in today’s market (“done like dinner” is my favorite recent description of the local market) so why would a mortgage servicer want to take possession of any more houses than they absolutely had to?
better to wait and see what the numerous bailouts might bring before hurrying to foreclose on a bunch of FBs
December 10, 2007 at 11:05 AM #1132284plexowner
Participantperhaps another way to look at your question is, “what does a mortgage servicer accomplish today by serving an NOD or going through with a foreclosure?”
forcing the FB out of the house results in the mortgage servicer having to realize a loss – as long as the FB remains in the house, even if they AREN’T making their payments, the servicer can pretend that the mortgage is still an asset
houses aren’t selling in today’s market (“done like dinner” is my favorite recent description of the local market) so why would a mortgage servicer want to take possession of any more houses than they absolutely had to?
better to wait and see what the numerous bailouts might bring before hurrying to foreclose on a bunch of FBs
December 10, 2007 at 11:05 AM #1131944plexowner
Participantperhaps another way to look at your question is, “what does a mortgage servicer accomplish today by serving an NOD or going through with a foreclosure?”
forcing the FB out of the house results in the mortgage servicer having to realize a loss – as long as the FB remains in the house, even if they AREN’T making their payments, the servicer can pretend that the mortgage is still an asset
houses aren’t selling in today’s market (“done like dinner” is my favorite recent description of the local market) so why would a mortgage servicer want to take possession of any more houses than they absolutely had to?
better to wait and see what the numerous bailouts might bring before hurrying to foreclose on a bunch of FBs
December 10, 2007 at 11:05 AM #1131874plexowner
Participantperhaps another way to look at your question is, “what does a mortgage servicer accomplish today by serving an NOD or going through with a foreclosure?”
forcing the FB out of the house results in the mortgage servicer having to realize a loss – as long as the FB remains in the house, even if they AREN’T making their payments, the servicer can pretend that the mortgage is still an asset
houses aren’t selling in today’s market (“done like dinner” is my favorite recent description of the local market) so why would a mortgage servicer want to take possession of any more houses than they absolutely had to?
better to wait and see what the numerous bailouts might bring before hurrying to foreclose on a bunch of FBs
December 10, 2007 at 11:05 AM #1131464plexowner
Participantperhaps another way to look at your question is, “what does a mortgage servicer accomplish today by serving an NOD or going through with a foreclosure?”
forcing the FB out of the house results in the mortgage servicer having to realize a loss – as long as the FB remains in the house, even if they AREN’T making their payments, the servicer can pretend that the mortgage is still an asset
houses aren’t selling in today’s market (“done like dinner” is my favorite recent description of the local market) so why would a mortgage servicer want to take possession of any more houses than they absolutely had to?
better to wait and see what the numerous bailouts might bring before hurrying to foreclose on a bunch of FBs
December 10, 2007 at 2:48 PM #113245davelj
ParticipantWhile I don’t disagree with your conclusion (which is, essentially, “b” from my original post) I don’t think your thought process is correct. The servicer and the ultimate “owner” of the mortgage are rarely the same entity. The only thing the servicer is really trying to accomplish is the most cost effective manner of protecting the value of the underlying mortgage for its ultimate owner, whether that’s a bank, thrift or mortgage-backed security holder. In other words, the servicer has no economic incentive to “pretend that the mortgage is still an asset” (as you put it). I think the only thing servicers are concerned with these days is doing whatever they have to do – whether it’s foreclosing or modifying the loan – to avoid getting sued by the true note holders. Any other thoughts?
December 10, 2007 at 2:48 PM #113361davelj
ParticipantWhile I don’t disagree with your conclusion (which is, essentially, “b” from my original post) I don’t think your thought process is correct. The servicer and the ultimate “owner” of the mortgage are rarely the same entity. The only thing the servicer is really trying to accomplish is the most cost effective manner of protecting the value of the underlying mortgage for its ultimate owner, whether that’s a bank, thrift or mortgage-backed security holder. In other words, the servicer has no economic incentive to “pretend that the mortgage is still an asset” (as you put it). I think the only thing servicers are concerned with these days is doing whatever they have to do – whether it’s foreclosing or modifying the loan – to avoid getting sued by the true note holders. Any other thoughts?
December 10, 2007 at 2:48 PM #113445davelj
ParticipantWhile I don’t disagree with your conclusion (which is, essentially, “b” from my original post) I don’t think your thought process is correct. The servicer and the ultimate “owner” of the mortgage are rarely the same entity. The only thing the servicer is really trying to accomplish is the most cost effective manner of protecting the value of the underlying mortgage for its ultimate owner, whether that’s a bank, thrift or mortgage-backed security holder. In other words, the servicer has no economic incentive to “pretend that the mortgage is still an asset” (as you put it). I think the only thing servicers are concerned with these days is doing whatever they have to do – whether it’s foreclosing or modifying the loan – to avoid getting sued by the true note holders. Any other thoughts?
December 10, 2007 at 2:48 PM #113403davelj
ParticipantWhile I don’t disagree with your conclusion (which is, essentially, “b” from my original post) I don’t think your thought process is correct. The servicer and the ultimate “owner” of the mortgage are rarely the same entity. The only thing the servicer is really trying to accomplish is the most cost effective manner of protecting the value of the underlying mortgage for its ultimate owner, whether that’s a bank, thrift or mortgage-backed security holder. In other words, the servicer has no economic incentive to “pretend that the mortgage is still an asset” (as you put it). I think the only thing servicers are concerned with these days is doing whatever they have to do – whether it’s foreclosing or modifying the loan – to avoid getting sued by the true note holders. Any other thoughts?
December 10, 2007 at 2:48 PM #113409davelj
ParticipantWhile I don’t disagree with your conclusion (which is, essentially, “b” from my original post) I don’t think your thought process is correct. The servicer and the ultimate “owner” of the mortgage are rarely the same entity. The only thing the servicer is really trying to accomplish is the most cost effective manner of protecting the value of the underlying mortgage for its ultimate owner, whether that’s a bank, thrift or mortgage-backed security holder. In other words, the servicer has no economic incentive to “pretend that the mortgage is still an asset” (as you put it). I think the only thing servicers are concerned with these days is doing whatever they have to do – whether it’s foreclosing or modifying the loan – to avoid getting sued by the true note holders. Any other thoughts?
December 10, 2007 at 3:04 PM #113250golfproz
ParticipantIt’s possible that all the bail out talk gave people a spark of hope. This may have enticed them to make a payment in the hopes that the bail out would save them. I’ve also read it’s not good fromn a PR standpoint to kick people out of their homes over the holidays.
December 10, 2007 at 3:04 PM #113450golfproz
ParticipantIt’s possible that all the bail out talk gave people a spark of hope. This may have enticed them to make a payment in the hopes that the bail out would save them. I’ve also read it’s not good fromn a PR standpoint to kick people out of their homes over the holidays.
December 10, 2007 at 3:04 PM #113366golfproz
ParticipantIt’s possible that all the bail out talk gave people a spark of hope. This may have enticed them to make a payment in the hopes that the bail out would save them. I’ve also read it’s not good fromn a PR standpoint to kick people out of their homes over the holidays.
December 10, 2007 at 3:04 PM #113407golfproz
ParticipantIt’s possible that all the bail out talk gave people a spark of hope. This may have enticed them to make a payment in the hopes that the bail out would save them. I’ve also read it’s not good fromn a PR standpoint to kick people out of their homes over the holidays.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.