OT: I made bad choices, everyone pitty me.

[SD Realtor]

I would strongly agree with CAR. Not only could the reduction be under the recent comps, to me it is a material fact. Frankly if I were buying a home I would like to know if there were alot of loan mods or reductions in that area. It is also valuable for people who are perhaps trying to petition property tax reductions and cannot find many comps.

I cannot think of any good reasons why the information should be concealed. On the flip side, knowledge of that information would seemingly help not only future homeowners and appraisers, but could be argued that for people buying, if other lenders knew of that information that would be helpful as well. Maybe not helpful to the buyer because the lenders may treat that in a negative manner but still, getting the information out will be good.

To me loan mods and other reductions are this grey cloud we all hear of and have stories about, but don’t really know much about. At the very least reductions should be recorded.

I understand where you are coming from Russ and there is a privacy issue…makes sense…I fall on the other side of it though.

[NotCranky]

Just some thoughts:
I think there as been some discussion here as to the fact that recording “puts the world on notice” but is not mandatory for many items.There may be reasons the lender doesn’t want to record the loan mod and I imagine non-disclosure agreements are part of the deal. It does seem strange that none of us is somehow privy to what exactly is going on with loan mods by address, if for no other reason, because we are used to being able to find out almost anything else.Not that we would snoop anyone out. A few people have bragged about their loan mods but it stands to reason that most people are going to be somewhat modest about it.

Honestly, I don’t see why we the public or any individual should be “owed” this information as many seem to think.I don’t believe a loan mod constitutes a material fact for appraisal,I don’t see how it improves or devalues a specific house beyond anything the market does. I don’t think tax assessor would use it for valuations on behalf of a reduction petitioner, even if the information were available. Same is true on both items for the Heloc’s and cash out refi’s CARenter refers to.Of course the lender will record on those items but it is for protection. I would think someone might record a loan mod for the same reason though.Also, in the case of forgiven or bought off seconds it seems we should see deeds of reconveyance.

I too could wish that the stuff was recorded or otherwise highly visible, but I don’t think it is going to change market dynamics with regards to active listings/current sales or the buyer experience. If anything it would indicate reduced stress/distress the same as if someone gave a bunch of people 100k, or some sum, to pay down mortgages.

On the other hand,I am stating to think I don’t want to know anymore. It is/has been depressing to think about the system working on what I see as so much corruption, moral hazard.

[NotCranky]

Just some thoughts:
I think there as been some discussion here as to the fact that recording “puts the world on notice” but is not mandatory for many items.There may be reasons the lender doesn’t want to record the loan mod and I imagine non-disclosure agreements are part of the deal. It does seem strange that none of us is somehow privy to what exactly is going on with loan mods by address, if for no other reason, because we are used to being able to find out almost anything else.Not that we would snoop anyone out. A few people have bragged about their loan mods but it stands to reason that most people are going to be somewhat modest about it.

Honestly, I don’t see why we the public or any individual should be “owed” this information as many seem to think.I don’t believe a loan mod constitutes a material fact for appraisal,I don’t see how it improves or devalues a specific house beyond anything the market does. I don’t think tax assessor would use it for valuations on behalf of a reduction petitioner, even if the information were available. Same is true on both items for the Heloc’s and cash out refi’s CARenter refers to.Of course the lender will record on those items but it is for protection. I would think someone might record a loan mod for the same reason though.Also, in the case of forgiven or bought off seconds it seems we should see deeds of reconveyance.

I too could wish that the stuff was recorded or otherwise highly visible, but I don’t think it is going to change market dynamics with regards to active listings/current sales or the buyer experience. If anything it would indicate reduced stress/distress the same as if someone gave a bunch of people 100k, or some sum, to pay down mortgages.

On the other hand,I am stating to think I don’t want to know anymore. It is/has been depressing to think about the system working on what I see as so much corruption, moral hazard.

[NotCranky]

Just some thoughts:
I think there as been some discussion here as to the fact that recording “puts the world on notice” but is not mandatory for many items.There may be reasons the lender doesn’t want to record the loan mod and I imagine non-disclosure agreements are part of the deal. It does seem strange that none of us is somehow privy to what exactly is going on with loan mods by address, if for no other reason, because we are used to being able to find out almost anything else.Not that we would snoop anyone out. A few people have bragged about their loan mods but it stands to reason that most people are going to be somewhat modest about it.

Honestly, I don’t see why we the public or any individual should be “owed” this information as many seem to think.I don’t believe a loan mod constitutes a material fact for appraisal,I don’t see how it improves or devalues a specific house beyond anything the market does. I don’t think tax assessor would use it for valuations on behalf of a reduction petitioner, even if the information were available. Same is true on both items for the Heloc’s and cash out refi’s CARenter refers to.Of course the lender will record on those items but it is for protection. I would think someone might record a loan mod for the same reason though.Also, in the case of forgiven or bought off seconds it seems we should see deeds of reconveyance.

I too could wish that the stuff was recorded or otherwise highly visible, but I don’t think it is going to change market dynamics with regards to active listings/current sales or the buyer experience. If anything it would indicate reduced stress/distress the same as if someone gave a bunch of people 100k, or some sum, to pay down mortgages.

On the other hand,I am stating to think I don’t want to know anymore. It is/has been depressing to think about the system working on what I see as so much corruption, moral hazard.

[NotCranky]

Just some thoughts:
I think there as been some discussion here as to the fact that recording “puts the world on notice” but is not mandatory for many items.There may be reasons the lender doesn’t want to record the loan mod and I imagine non-disclosure agreements are part of the deal. It does seem strange that none of us is somehow privy to what exactly is going on with loan mods by address, if for no other reason, because we are used to being able to find out almost anything else.Not that we would snoop anyone out. A few people have bragged about their loan mods but it stands to reason that most people are going to be somewhat modest about it.

Honestly, I don’t see why we the public or any individual should be “owed” this information as many seem to think.I don’t believe a loan mod constitutes a material fact for appraisal,I don’t see how it improves or devalues a specific house beyond anything the market does. I don’t think tax assessor would use it for valuations on behalf of a reduction petitioner, even if the information were available. Same is true on both items for the Heloc’s and cash out refi’s CARenter refers to.Of course the lender will record on those items but it is for protection. I would think someone might record a loan mod for the same reason though.Also, in the case of forgiven or bought off seconds it seems we should see deeds of reconveyance.

I too could wish that the stuff was recorded or otherwise highly visible, but I don’t think it is going to change market dynamics with regards to active listings/current sales or the buyer experience. If anything it would indicate reduced stress/distress the same as if someone gave a bunch of people 100k, or some sum, to pay down mortgages.

On the other hand,I am stating to think I don’t want to know anymore. It is/has been depressing to think about the system working on what I see as so much corruption, moral hazard.

[NotCranky]

Just some thoughts:
I think there as been some discussion here as to the fact that recording “puts the world on notice” but is not mandatory for many items.There may be reasons the lender doesn’t want to record the loan mod and I imagine non-disclosure agreements are part of the deal. It does seem strange that none of us is somehow privy to what exactly is going on with loan mods by address, if for no other reason, because we are used to being able to find out almost anything else.Not that we would snoop anyone out. A few people have bragged about their loan mods but it stands to reason that most people are going to be somewhat modest about it.

Honestly, I don’t see why we the public or any individual should be “owed” this information as many seem to think.I don’t believe a loan mod constitutes a material fact for appraisal,I don’t see how it improves or devalues a specific house beyond anything the market does. I don’t think tax assessor would use it for valuations on behalf of a reduction petitioner, even if the information were available. Same is true on both items for the Heloc’s and cash out refi’s CARenter refers to.Of course the lender will record on those items but it is for protection. I would think someone might record a loan mod for the same reason though.Also, in the case of forgiven or bought off seconds it seems we should see deeds of reconveyance.

I too could wish that the stuff was recorded or otherwise highly visible, but I don’t think it is going to change market dynamics with regards to active listings/current sales or the buyer experience. If anything it would indicate reduced stress/distress the same as if someone gave a bunch of people 100k, or some sum, to pay down mortgages.

On the other hand,I am stating to think I don’t want to know anymore. It is/has been depressing to think about the system working on what I see as so much corruption, moral hazard.

[briansd1]

I don’t see why people are calling for regulations.

The government does not need to regulate more. The government needs to stop bailing stupid business decisions and bad business models.

[briansd1]

I don’t see why people are calling for regulations.

The government does not need to regulate more. The government needs to stop bailing stupid business decisions and bad business models.

[briansd1]

I don’t see why people are calling for regulations.

The government does not need to regulate more. The government needs to stop bailing stupid business decisions and bad business models.

[briansd1]

I don’t see why people are calling for regulations.

The government does not need to regulate more. The government needs to stop bailing stupid business decisions and bad business models.

[briansd1]

I don’t see why people are calling for regulations.

The government does not need to regulate more. The government needs to stop bailing stupid business decisions and bad business models.

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1]I don’t see why people are calling for regulations.

The government does not need to regulate more. The government needs to stop bailing stupid business decisions and bad business models.[/quote]

I think you need to watch this documentary.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/etc/synopsis.html

We didn’t truly know the dangers of the market, because it was a dark market,” says Brooksley Born, the head of an obscure federal regulatory agency — the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] — who not only warned of the potential for economic meltdown in the late 1990s, but also tried to convince the country’s key economic powerbrokers to take actions that could have helped avert the crisis. “They were totally opposed to it,” Born says. “That puzzled me. What was it that was in this market that had to be hidden?”

In The Warning, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk unearths the hidden history of the nation’s worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. At the center of it all he finds Brooksley Born, who speaks for the first time on television about her failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008.

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1]I don’t see why people are calling for regulations.

The government does not need to regulate more. The government needs to stop bailing stupid business decisions and bad business models.[/quote]

I think you need to watch this documentary.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/etc/synopsis.html

We didn’t truly know the dangers of the market, because it was a dark market,” says Brooksley Born, the head of an obscure federal regulatory agency — the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] — who not only warned of the potential for economic meltdown in the late 1990s, but also tried to convince the country’s key economic powerbrokers to take actions that could have helped avert the crisis. “They were totally opposed to it,” Born says. “That puzzled me. What was it that was in this market that had to be hidden?”

In The Warning, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk unearths the hidden history of the nation’s worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. At the center of it all he finds Brooksley Born, who speaks for the first time on television about her failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008.

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1]I don’t see why people are calling for regulations.

The government does not need to regulate more. The government needs to stop bailing stupid business decisions and bad business models.[/quote]

I think you need to watch this documentary.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/etc/synopsis.html

We didn’t truly know the dangers of the market, because it was a dark market,” says Brooksley Born, the head of an obscure federal regulatory agency — the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] — who not only warned of the potential for economic meltdown in the late 1990s, but also tried to convince the country’s key economic powerbrokers to take actions that could have helped avert the crisis. “They were totally opposed to it,” Born says. “That puzzled me. What was it that was in this market that had to be hidden?”

In The Warning, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk unearths the hidden history of the nation’s worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. At the center of it all he finds Brooksley Born, who speaks for the first time on television about her failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008.

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1]I don’t see why people are calling for regulations.

The government does not need to regulate more. The government needs to stop bailing stupid business decisions and bad business models.[/quote]

I think you need to watch this documentary.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/etc/synopsis.html

We didn’t truly know the dangers of the market, because it was a dark market,” says Brooksley Born, the head of an obscure federal regulatory agency — the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] — who not only warned of the potential for economic meltdown in the late 1990s, but also tried to convince the country’s key economic powerbrokers to take actions that could have helped avert the crisis. “They were totally opposed to it,” Born says. “That puzzled me. What was it that was in this market that had to be hidden?”

In The Warning, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk unearths the hidden history of the nation’s worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. At the center of it all he finds Brooksley Born, who speaks for the first time on television about her failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008.

[Author]

Posts