OT: Funniest foreclosure story

[jpinpb]

I just got to the part where he indicated he made 26k a month when in reality it was his yearly salary. HELLOOO!! And they arrogantly demand the bank act appropriately and quickly help them do a mod. {shaking my head and sighing}

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl]

…Their home, meanwhile, which was originally valued at $585,000, had depreciated severely in three scant years. It was now essentially worthless at $270,000. . .

A family that only had three days until eviction last July, now has a new, 40 year contract. Although the bank didn’t agree to a principal reduction—very few banks agree to a principal reduction nowadays—they extended the terms of the contract by 15 years and lowered the interest thus making the monthly payments affordable and reasonable. My clients were paying nearly $4,100 a month on a ludicrous 8.095% interest rate. Their current payment is now $2340/month with a 2% interest rate. The interest rate will cap at 4.35% on the 8th year and remain for the remainder of the contract…

(emphasis added)

I am just failing to see how these borrowers have actually been “helped.” Is “HAMP” really the be-all and end-all for borrowers like this (bought with NINA mtgs in 2007)? Sacramento is a fairly cheap county to rent/buy in. Wouldn’t these borrowers have been better off letting their property go back to the 1st TD holder and then either renting it back from them or renting another house?

IMHO, HAMP is a “ripoff” and only benefits the lender(s). Why throw so much taxpayer money at it? Just foreclose and get it over with so all affected persons can start their respective “clocks” ticking sooner.

Piggs, you gotta ask yourself – how are these borrowers “better off” now??[/quote]

BG,

The HAMP program — and all the other programs and bailouts that were purported to “help homeowners” — were designed specifically to help banks from the very beginning. It was ALWAYS about saving the banks, not the numb-skulls who overpaid and over-HELOC’ed during the bubble. The PTB focused on the “helping homeowners” part because that was the only politically viable way to convince taxpayers (at least the less intelligent ones) to fork over trillions of dollars in bailout money and guarantees to the financial industry.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl]

…Their home, meanwhile, which was originally valued at $585,000, had depreciated severely in three scant years. It was now essentially worthless at $270,000. . .

A family that only had three days until eviction last July, now has a new, 40 year contract. Although the bank didn’t agree to a principal reduction—very few banks agree to a principal reduction nowadays—they extended the terms of the contract by 15 years and lowered the interest thus making the monthly payments affordable and reasonable. My clients were paying nearly $4,100 a month on a ludicrous 8.095% interest rate. Their current payment is now $2340/month with a 2% interest rate. The interest rate will cap at 4.35% on the 8th year and remain for the remainder of the contract…

(emphasis added)

I am just failing to see how these borrowers have actually been “helped.” Is “HAMP” really the be-all and end-all for borrowers like this (bought with NINA mtgs in 2007)? Sacramento is a fairly cheap county to rent/buy in. Wouldn’t these borrowers have been better off letting their property go back to the 1st TD holder and then either renting it back from them or renting another house?

IMHO, HAMP is a “ripoff” and only benefits the lender(s). Why throw so much taxpayer money at it? Just foreclose and get it over with so all affected persons can start their respective “clocks” ticking sooner.

Piggs, you gotta ask yourself – how are these borrowers “better off” now??[/quote]

BG,

The HAMP program — and all the other programs and bailouts that were purported to “help homeowners” — were designed specifically to help banks from the very beginning. It was ALWAYS about saving the banks, not the numb-skulls who overpaid and over-HELOC’ed during the bubble. The PTB focused on the “helping homeowners” part because that was the only politically viable way to convince taxpayers (at least the less intelligent ones) to fork over trillions of dollars in bailout money and guarantees to the financial industry.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl]

…Their home, meanwhile, which was originally valued at $585,000, had depreciated severely in three scant years. It was now essentially worthless at $270,000. . .

A family that only had three days until eviction last July, now has a new, 40 year contract. Although the bank didn’t agree to a principal reduction—very few banks agree to a principal reduction nowadays—they extended the terms of the contract by 15 years and lowered the interest thus making the monthly payments affordable and reasonable. My clients were paying nearly $4,100 a month on a ludicrous 8.095% interest rate. Their current payment is now $2340/month with a 2% interest rate. The interest rate will cap at 4.35% on the 8th year and remain for the remainder of the contract…

(emphasis added)

I am just failing to see how these borrowers have actually been “helped.” Is “HAMP” really the be-all and end-all for borrowers like this (bought with NINA mtgs in 2007)? Sacramento is a fairly cheap county to rent/buy in. Wouldn’t these borrowers have been better off letting their property go back to the 1st TD holder and then either renting it back from them or renting another house?

IMHO, HAMP is a “ripoff” and only benefits the lender(s). Why throw so much taxpayer money at it? Just foreclose and get it over with so all affected persons can start their respective “clocks” ticking sooner.

Piggs, you gotta ask yourself – how are these borrowers “better off” now??[/quote]

BG,

The HAMP program — and all the other programs and bailouts that were purported to “help homeowners” — were designed specifically to help banks from the very beginning. It was ALWAYS about saving the banks, not the numb-skulls who overpaid and over-HELOC’ed during the bubble. The PTB focused on the “helping homeowners” part because that was the only politically viable way to convince taxpayers (at least the less intelligent ones) to fork over trillions of dollars in bailout money and guarantees to the financial industry.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl]

…Their home, meanwhile, which was originally valued at $585,000, had depreciated severely in three scant years. It was now essentially worthless at $270,000. . .

A family that only had three days until eviction last July, now has a new, 40 year contract. Although the bank didn’t agree to a principal reduction—very few banks agree to a principal reduction nowadays—they extended the terms of the contract by 15 years and lowered the interest thus making the monthly payments affordable and reasonable. My clients were paying nearly $4,100 a month on a ludicrous 8.095% interest rate. Their current payment is now $2340/month with a 2% interest rate. The interest rate will cap at 4.35% on the 8th year and remain for the remainder of the contract…

(emphasis added)

I am just failing to see how these borrowers have actually been “helped.” Is “HAMP” really the be-all and end-all for borrowers like this (bought with NINA mtgs in 2007)? Sacramento is a fairly cheap county to rent/buy in. Wouldn’t these borrowers have been better off letting their property go back to the 1st TD holder and then either renting it back from them or renting another house?

IMHO, HAMP is a “ripoff” and only benefits the lender(s). Why throw so much taxpayer money at it? Just foreclose and get it over with so all affected persons can start their respective “clocks” ticking sooner.

Piggs, you gotta ask yourself – how are these borrowers “better off” now??[/quote]

BG,

The HAMP program — and all the other programs and bailouts that were purported to “help homeowners” — were designed specifically to help banks from the very beginning. It was ALWAYS about saving the banks, not the numb-skulls who overpaid and over-HELOC’ed during the bubble. The PTB focused on the “helping homeowners” part because that was the only politically viable way to convince taxpayers (at least the less intelligent ones) to fork over trillions of dollars in bailout money and guarantees to the financial industry.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl]

…Their home, meanwhile, which was originally valued at $585,000, had depreciated severely in three scant years. It was now essentially worthless at $270,000. . .

A family that only had three days until eviction last July, now has a new, 40 year contract. Although the bank didn’t agree to a principal reduction—very few banks agree to a principal reduction nowadays—they extended the terms of the contract by 15 years and lowered the interest thus making the monthly payments affordable and reasonable. My clients were paying nearly $4,100 a month on a ludicrous 8.095% interest rate. Their current payment is now $2340/month with a 2% interest rate. The interest rate will cap at 4.35% on the 8th year and remain for the remainder of the contract…

(emphasis added)

I am just failing to see how these borrowers have actually been “helped.” Is “HAMP” really the be-all and end-all for borrowers like this (bought with NINA mtgs in 2007)? Sacramento is a fairly cheap county to rent/buy in. Wouldn’t these borrowers have been better off letting their property go back to the 1st TD holder and then either renting it back from them or renting another house?

IMHO, HAMP is a “ripoff” and only benefits the lender(s). Why throw so much taxpayer money at it? Just foreclose and get it over with so all affected persons can start their respective “clocks” ticking sooner.

Piggs, you gotta ask yourself – how are these borrowers “better off” now??[/quote]

BG,

The HAMP program — and all the other programs and bailouts that were purported to “help homeowners” — were designed specifically to help banks from the very beginning. It was ALWAYS about saving the banks, not the numb-skulls who overpaid and over-HELOC’ed during the bubble. The PTB focused on the “helping homeowners” part because that was the only politically viable way to convince taxpayers (at least the less intelligent ones) to fork over trillions of dollars in bailout money and guarantees to the financial industry.

[jpinpb]

[quote=CA renter]The HAMP program — and all the other programs and bailouts that were purported to “help homeowners” — were designed specifically to help banks from the very beginning. It was ALWAYS about saving the banks, not the numb-skulls who overpaid and over-HELOC’ed during the bubble. The PTB focused on the “helping homeowners” part because that was the only politically viable way to convince taxpayers (at least the less intelligent ones) to fork over trillions of dollars in bailout money and guarantees to the financial industry.[/quote]

Agreed. Very clear that’s their intention. And for anyone paying attention then they said you have to help the banks in order for the banks to help the people. Bunch of BS.

[jpinpb]

[quote=CA renter]The HAMP program — and all the other programs and bailouts that were purported to “help homeowners” — were designed specifically to help banks from the very beginning. It was ALWAYS about saving the banks, not the numb-skulls who overpaid and over-HELOC’ed during the bubble. The PTB focused on the “helping homeowners” part because that was the only politically viable way to convince taxpayers (at least the less intelligent ones) to fork over trillions of dollars in bailout money and guarantees to the financial industry.[/quote]

Agreed. Very clear that’s their intention. And for anyone paying attention then they said you have to help the banks in order for the banks to help the people. Bunch of BS.

[jpinpb]

[quote=CA renter]The HAMP program — and all the other programs and bailouts that were purported to “help homeowners” — were designed specifically to help banks from the very beginning. It was ALWAYS about saving the banks, not the numb-skulls who overpaid and over-HELOC’ed during the bubble. The PTB focused on the “helping homeowners” part because that was the only politically viable way to convince taxpayers (at least the less intelligent ones) to fork over trillions of dollars in bailout money and guarantees to the financial industry.[/quote]

Agreed. Very clear that’s their intention. And for anyone paying attention then they said you have to help the banks in order for the banks to help the people. Bunch of BS.

[jpinpb]

[quote=CA renter]The HAMP program — and all the other programs and bailouts that were purported to “help homeowners” — were designed specifically to help banks from the very beginning. It was ALWAYS about saving the banks, not the numb-skulls who overpaid and over-HELOC’ed during the bubble. The PTB focused on the “helping homeowners” part because that was the only politically viable way to convince taxpayers (at least the less intelligent ones) to fork over trillions of dollars in bailout money and guarantees to the financial industry.[/quote]

Agreed. Very clear that’s their intention. And for anyone paying attention then they said you have to help the banks in order for the banks to help the people. Bunch of BS.

[jpinpb]

[quote=CA renter]The HAMP program — and all the other programs and bailouts that were purported to “help homeowners” — were designed specifically to help banks from the very beginning. It was ALWAYS about saving the banks, not the numb-skulls who overpaid and over-HELOC’ed during the bubble. The PTB focused on the “helping homeowners” part because that was the only politically viable way to convince taxpayers (at least the less intelligent ones) to fork over trillions of dollars in bailout money and guarantees to the financial industry.[/quote]

Agreed. Very clear that’s their intention. And for anyone paying attention then they said you have to help the banks in order for the banks to help the people. Bunch of BS.

[Djshakes]

The story made for interesting reading and a colorful story but I still can’t get over how they were painted as victims by the big bad bank. Granted, a percentage of fault can be blamed on predatory lending but WTH happened to personal responsibility. I have no sympathy for people that can’t do simple math and realize what kind of predicament they are going to be in if the house doesn’t keep escalating with the bubble. I mean, you read what the guy said, “I’ll buy you a Lamborghini….” Doesn’t sound like them most financial savvy person. A lot of these people knew it was probably too good to be true when signing the docs and did it because everyone else was…like they mentioned in the article. Now they cry foul when shite hit the fan. You can’t have your cake and eat it. I’m no fan of banks…however, if you are that stupid to follow the rest off the cliff, I can’t have sympathy.

[Djshakes]

The story made for interesting reading and a colorful story but I still can’t get over how they were painted as victims by the big bad bank. Granted, a percentage of fault can be blamed on predatory lending but WTH happened to personal responsibility. I have no sympathy for people that can’t do simple math and realize what kind of predicament they are going to be in if the house doesn’t keep escalating with the bubble. I mean, you read what the guy said, “I’ll buy you a Lamborghini….” Doesn’t sound like them most financial savvy person. A lot of these people knew it was probably too good to be true when signing the docs and did it because everyone else was…like they mentioned in the article. Now they cry foul when shite hit the fan. You can’t have your cake and eat it. I’m no fan of banks…however, if you are that stupid to follow the rest off the cliff, I can’t have sympathy.

[Djshakes]

The story made for interesting reading and a colorful story but I still can’t get over how they were painted as victims by the big bad bank. Granted, a percentage of fault can be blamed on predatory lending but WTH happened to personal responsibility. I have no sympathy for people that can’t do simple math and realize what kind of predicament they are going to be in if the house doesn’t keep escalating with the bubble. I mean, you read what the guy said, “I’ll buy you a Lamborghini….” Doesn’t sound like them most financial savvy person. A lot of these people knew it was probably too good to be true when signing the docs and did it because everyone else was…like they mentioned in the article. Now they cry foul when shite hit the fan. You can’t have your cake and eat it. I’m no fan of banks…however, if you are that stupid to follow the rest off the cliff, I can’t have sympathy.

[Djshakes]

The story made for interesting reading and a colorful story but I still can’t get over how they were painted as victims by the big bad bank. Granted, a percentage of fault can be blamed on predatory lending but WTH happened to personal responsibility. I have no sympathy for people that can’t do simple math and realize what kind of predicament they are going to be in if the house doesn’t keep escalating with the bubble. I mean, you read what the guy said, “I’ll buy you a Lamborghini….” Doesn’t sound like them most financial savvy person. A lot of these people knew it was probably too good to be true when signing the docs and did it because everyone else was…like they mentioned in the article. Now they cry foul when shite hit the fan. You can’t have your cake and eat it. I’m no fan of banks…however, if you are that stupid to follow the rest off the cliff, I can’t have sympathy.

[Author]

Posts