Menu

Home › Forums › Housing › Reducing Principal

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 46 total)
1 2 3 4
  • Author
    Posts
  • March 4, 2008 at 12:37 PM #11989
    gdcox
    Participant

    Do you object to reducing principal on principle?

    Bernanke wants all lenders to reduce principal to avoid foreclosure. Apart from the fact that servicers can’t legally do that for securitised mortgages, is it acceptable for say a 100% borrower to get his principal cut by $50 K on his larger house and the person who bought at the same time with 20% gets to watch the person with the larger house get the extra free.

    If the mortgage principal reduction puts a black mark on the credit record (somewhere halfway between perfect and default), maybe it would be acceptable(?).

    March 4, 2008 at 2:45 PM #164068
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I have a problem with this idea because it punishes those who didn’t over buy. Interest rate freezes on ARMs is about as far as I think it should go. That should allow people to stay in their homes. I bought my place when prices were on the rise, not at the top, but close enough, but I bought knowing that I could afford it long term. If I knew I could have $100,000 in principal erased, I’d be in a much nicer house.

    March 4, 2008 at 2:45 PM #164400
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I have a problem with this idea because it punishes those who didn’t over buy. Interest rate freezes on ARMs is about as far as I think it should go. That should allow people to stay in their homes. I bought my place when prices were on the rise, not at the top, but close enough, but I bought knowing that I could afford it long term. If I knew I could have $100,000 in principal erased, I’d be in a much nicer house.

    March 4, 2008 at 2:45 PM #164389
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I have a problem with this idea because it punishes those who didn’t over buy. Interest rate freezes on ARMs is about as far as I think it should go. That should allow people to stay in their homes. I bought my place when prices were on the rise, not at the top, but close enough, but I bought knowing that I could afford it long term. If I knew I could have $100,000 in principal erased, I’d be in a much nicer house.

    March 4, 2008 at 2:45 PM #164377
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I have a problem with this idea because it punishes those who didn’t over buy. Interest rate freezes on ARMs is about as far as I think it should go. That should allow people to stay in their homes. I bought my place when prices were on the rise, not at the top, but close enough, but I bought knowing that I could afford it long term. If I knew I could have $100,000 in principal erased, I’d be in a much nicer house.

    March 4, 2008 at 2:45 PM #164481
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I have a problem with this idea because it punishes those who didn’t over buy. Interest rate freezes on ARMs is about as far as I think it should go. That should allow people to stay in their homes. I bought my place when prices were on the rise, not at the top, but close enough, but I bought knowing that I could afford it long term. If I knew I could have $100,000 in principal erased, I’d be in a much nicer house.

    March 4, 2008 at 4:31 PM #164419
    bsrsharma
    Participant

    Principle and moral hazard aside, a lender should do whatever possible to maximize his net receivable on the loan. If the foreclosure route causes greater losses than principal reduction, the lender will be a fool to go that way. Keep in mind that foreclosure of a large fraction of a community is not the same as foreclosure on a few individual homes. If Detroit and its surrounds are replicated on all large cities, this country will resemble Afghanistan pretty quickly. Everybody has an interest in preventing that.

    March 4, 2008 at 4:31 PM #164409
    bsrsharma
    Participant

    Principle and moral hazard aside, a lender should do whatever possible to maximize his net receivable on the loan. If the foreclosure route causes greater losses than principal reduction, the lender will be a fool to go that way. Keep in mind that foreclosure of a large fraction of a community is not the same as foreclosure on a few individual homes. If Detroit and its surrounds are replicated on all large cities, this country will resemble Afghanistan pretty quickly. Everybody has an interest in preventing that.

    March 4, 2008 at 4:31 PM #164398
    bsrsharma
    Participant

    Principle and moral hazard aside, a lender should do whatever possible to maximize his net receivable on the loan. If the foreclosure route causes greater losses than principal reduction, the lender will be a fool to go that way. Keep in mind that foreclosure of a large fraction of a community is not the same as foreclosure on a few individual homes. If Detroit and its surrounds are replicated on all large cities, this country will resemble Afghanistan pretty quickly. Everybody has an interest in preventing that.

    March 4, 2008 at 4:31 PM #164501
    bsrsharma
    Participant

    Principle and moral hazard aside, a lender should do whatever possible to maximize his net receivable on the loan. If the foreclosure route causes greater losses than principal reduction, the lender will be a fool to go that way. Keep in mind that foreclosure of a large fraction of a community is not the same as foreclosure on a few individual homes. If Detroit and its surrounds are replicated on all large cities, this country will resemble Afghanistan pretty quickly. Everybody has an interest in preventing that.

    March 4, 2008 at 4:31 PM #164089
    bsrsharma
    Participant

    Principle and moral hazard aside, a lender should do whatever possible to maximize his net receivable on the loan. If the foreclosure route causes greater losses than principal reduction, the lender will be a fool to go that way. Keep in mind that foreclosure of a large fraction of a community is not the same as foreclosure on a few individual homes. If Detroit and its surrounds are replicated on all large cities, this country will resemble Afghanistan pretty quickly. Everybody has an interest in preventing that.

    March 4, 2008 at 4:43 PM #164506
    JWM in SD
    Participant

    JWM in SD

    Okay, so do you guys understand the implication of this??????

    Helicopter Ben just told the banks and investors to go F themselves, they are not getting a bailout by the FED.

    No Monetization for you Mr Banker!!!!!

    To all the fools here thinking that the FED was going to bailout the Housing Market and save your HPA…..SUCKERS!!!!!

    March 4, 2008 at 4:43 PM #164093
    JWM in SD
    Participant

    JWM in SD

    Okay, so do you guys understand the implication of this??????

    Helicopter Ben just told the banks and investors to go F themselves, they are not getting a bailout by the FED.

    No Monetization for you Mr Banker!!!!!

    To all the fools here thinking that the FED was going to bailout the Housing Market and save your HPA…..SUCKERS!!!!!

    March 4, 2008 at 4:43 PM #164403
    JWM in SD
    Participant

    JWM in SD

    Okay, so do you guys understand the implication of this??????

    Helicopter Ben just told the banks and investors to go F themselves, they are not getting a bailout by the FED.

    No Monetization for you Mr Banker!!!!!

    To all the fools here thinking that the FED was going to bailout the Housing Market and save your HPA…..SUCKERS!!!!!

    March 4, 2008 at 4:43 PM #164423
    JWM in SD
    Participant

    JWM in SD

    Okay, so do you guys understand the implication of this??????

    Helicopter Ben just told the banks and investors to go F themselves, they are not getting a bailout by the FED.

    No Monetization for you Mr Banker!!!!!

    To all the fools here thinking that the FED was going to bailout the Housing Market and save your HPA…..SUCKERS!!!!!

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 46 total)
1 2 3 4
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.