Rich – You may want to read this…

[PadreBrian]

If they made it for the last 3 years, 200 bucks a month more for a 30 year fixed is doable.

For the people with option arms who weren’t able to make it to Oct 08, then they have been weeded out. We’ll know by February how many people are converting to the new FHA 30 year fixed loans.

[CDMA ENG]

So,

I have to ask, what is the benefit in this. Even if the current home owners want to stay in the property for the next couple of years at some point aren’t they going to say “why the hell am I paying 400K for this house when its only worth 300K?”. At some point they will walk away anyway?!?

Sounds like good money after bad again to me.

Take Care Piggs…

[CDMA ENG]

So,

I have to ask, what is the benefit in this. Even if the current home owners want to stay in the property for the next couple of years at some point aren’t they going to say “why the hell am I paying 400K for this house when its only worth 300K?”. At some point they will walk away anyway?!?

Sounds like good money after bad again to me.

Take Care Piggs…

[CDMA ENG]

So,

I have to ask, what is the benefit in this. Even if the current home owners want to stay in the property for the next couple of years at some point aren’t they going to say “why the hell am I paying 400K for this house when its only worth 300K?”. At some point they will walk away anyway?!?

Sounds like good money after bad again to me.

Take Care Piggs…

[CDMA ENG]

So,

I have to ask, what is the benefit in this. Even if the current home owners want to stay in the property for the next couple of years at some point aren’t they going to say “why the hell am I paying 400K for this house when its only worth 300K?”. At some point they will walk away anyway?!?

Sounds like good money after bad again to me.

Take Care Piggs…

[CDMA ENG]

So,

I have to ask, what is the benefit in this. Even if the current home owners want to stay in the property for the next couple of years at some point aren’t they going to say “why the hell am I paying 400K for this house when its only worth 300K?”. At some point they will walk away anyway?!?

Sounds like good money after bad again to me.

Take Care Piggs…

[cr]

[quote=CDMA ENG]So,

I have to ask, what is the benefit in this. Even if the current home owners want to stay in the property for the next couple of years at some point aren’t they going to say “why the hell am I paying 400K for this house when its only worth 300K?”. At some point they will walk away anyway?!?

Sounds like good money after bad again to me.

Take Care Piggs…[/quote]

You’re right it is. First the banks have to agree to participate, not just the homeowner (who in all likelihood will be better off walking, particularly in CA).

Then there’s a really Marxist part of the bill where the Government gets a minimum 50% of the equity from your house when you sell:

• < 1 year 100% of equity goes to government/lenders • < 2 years 90% of equity ” ” • < 3 years 80% of equity ” ” • <4 years 70% of equity ” ” • <5 years 60% of equity ” ” • >5 years 50% equity share

So who stands to benefit? The government, after spending OUR money on this, and the lender, who just has to take a hit up front.

This starts to look as much like retribution to the homeowner as it does a bailout.

[cr]

[quote=CDMA ENG]So,

I have to ask, what is the benefit in this. Even if the current home owners want to stay in the property for the next couple of years at some point aren’t they going to say “why the hell am I paying 400K for this house when its only worth 300K?”. At some point they will walk away anyway?!?

Sounds like good money after bad again to me.

Take Care Piggs…[/quote]

You’re right it is. First the banks have to agree to participate, not just the homeowner (who in all likelihood will be better off walking, particularly in CA).

Then there’s a really Marxist part of the bill where the Government gets a minimum 50% of the equity from your house when you sell:

• < 1 year 100% of equity goes to government/lenders • < 2 years 90% of equity ” ” • < 3 years 80% of equity ” ” • <4 years 70% of equity ” ” • <5 years 60% of equity ” ” • >5 years 50% equity share

So who stands to benefit? The government, after spending OUR money on this, and the lender, who just has to take a hit up front.

This starts to look as much like retribution to the homeowner as it does a bailout.

[cr]

[quote=CDMA ENG]So,

I have to ask, what is the benefit in this. Even if the current home owners want to stay in the property for the next couple of years at some point aren’t they going to say “why the hell am I paying 400K for this house when its only worth 300K?”. At some point they will walk away anyway?!?

Sounds like good money after bad again to me.

Take Care Piggs…[/quote]

You’re right it is. First the banks have to agree to participate, not just the homeowner (who in all likelihood will be better off walking, particularly in CA).

Then there’s a really Marxist part of the bill where the Government gets a minimum 50% of the equity from your house when you sell:

• < 1 year 100% of equity goes to government/lenders • < 2 years 90% of equity ” ” • < 3 years 80% of equity ” ” • <4 years 70% of equity ” ” • <5 years 60% of equity ” ” • >5 years 50% equity share

So who stands to benefit? The government, after spending OUR money on this, and the lender, who just has to take a hit up front.

This starts to look as much like retribution to the homeowner as it does a bailout.

[cr]

[quote=CDMA ENG]So,

I have to ask, what is the benefit in this. Even if the current home owners want to stay in the property for the next couple of years at some point aren’t they going to say “why the hell am I paying 400K for this house when its only worth 300K?”. At some point they will walk away anyway?!?

Sounds like good money after bad again to me.

Take Care Piggs…[/quote]

You’re right it is. First the banks have to agree to participate, not just the homeowner (who in all likelihood will be better off walking, particularly in CA).

Then there’s a really Marxist part of the bill where the Government gets a minimum 50% of the equity from your house when you sell:

• < 1 year 100% of equity goes to government/lenders • < 2 years 90% of equity ” ” • < 3 years 80% of equity ” ” • <4 years 70% of equity ” ” • <5 years 60% of equity ” ” • >5 years 50% equity share

So who stands to benefit? The government, after spending OUR money on this, and the lender, who just has to take a hit up front.

This starts to look as much like retribution to the homeowner as it does a bailout.

[cr]

[quote=CDMA ENG]So,

I have to ask, what is the benefit in this. Even if the current home owners want to stay in the property for the next couple of years at some point aren’t they going to say “why the hell am I paying 400K for this house when its only worth 300K?”. At some point they will walk away anyway?!?

Sounds like good money after bad again to me.

Take Care Piggs…[/quote]

You’re right it is. First the banks have to agree to participate, not just the homeowner (who in all likelihood will be better off walking, particularly in CA).

Then there’s a really Marxist part of the bill where the Government gets a minimum 50% of the equity from your house when you sell:

• < 1 year 100% of equity goes to government/lenders • < 2 years 90% of equity ” ” • < 3 years 80% of equity ” ” • <4 years 70% of equity ” ” • <5 years 60% of equity ” ” • >5 years 50% equity share

So who stands to benefit? The government, after spending OUR money on this, and the lender, who just has to take a hit up front.

This starts to look as much like retribution to the homeowner as it does a bailout.

[PadreBrian]

To be fair to the US tax payer, the bail-out was designed to repay the tax payers. If you want a 40% reduction in your loan, spiting the profit when you sell it is only reasonable…they are like a silent partner in this.

[PadreBrian]

To be fair to the US tax payer, the bail-out was designed to repay the tax payers. If you want a 40% reduction in your loan, spiting the profit when you sell it is only reasonable…they are like a silent partner in this.

[PadreBrian]

To be fair to the US tax payer, the bail-out was designed to repay the tax payers. If you want a 40% reduction in your loan, spiting the profit when you sell it is only reasonable…they are like a silent partner in this.

[PadreBrian]

To be fair to the US tax payer, the bail-out was designed to repay the tax payers. If you want a 40% reduction in your loan, spiting the profit when you sell it is only reasonable…they are like a silent partner in this.

[Author]

Posts