Someone put a leash on Aguirre

[Shadowfax]

[quote=temeculaguy]It makes some sense to go after that component or that particular breakdown in the system but you can’t interfere with an existing legal contract between two parties. [/quote]

Courts can re-write contracts but only under very limited circumstances. More likely in this context, judiciaries enact laws that nullify the terms or prohibit performance of certain types of contracts. Also possible is the voluntary amendment of existing contracts. Mortgages are contracts–bank gives X money, X promises to pay. I know there would be huge ramifications but it seems to me that maybe a simple–tho perhaps not economically educated solution–is to have the banks and the buyers rework the terms of the loans? Foreclosure will not compensate the banks in a down market. Why not allow the buyers to renegotiate loans for something they can actually afford plus a little extra (10-20%) to keep the banks from folding and create a little necessary tension for the buyers (who should have known better to begin with). The banks get at least a portion of the loan back and the buyers don’t walk en masse.

The banks will have to declare losses, but soon I think they won’t be able to help it either way (assuming they DO report them).

I am sure there are holes in this approach–an economic ripple effect that I am not seeing. Thoughts?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Aecetia]Here is another suggestion from bubbletracking:

http://bubbletracking.blogspot.com/2008/07/mighty-mike-to-rsf-triumvirates-rescue.html%5B/quote%5D

I clicked thru.
I am not sure its the right link.

Looked like an article on the same stuff and not a new suggestion.

Did I click it wrong or something?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Aecetia]Here is another suggestion from bubbletracking:

http://bubbletracking.blogspot.com/2008/07/mighty-mike-to-rsf-triumvirates-rescue.html%5B/quote%5D

I clicked thru.
I am not sure its the right link.

Looked like an article on the same stuff and not a new suggestion.

Did I click it wrong or something?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Aecetia]Here is another suggestion from bubbletracking:

http://bubbletracking.blogspot.com/2008/07/mighty-mike-to-rsf-triumvirates-rescue.html%5B/quote%5D

I clicked thru.
I am not sure its the right link.

Looked like an article on the same stuff and not a new suggestion.

Did I click it wrong or something?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Aecetia]Here is another suggestion from bubbletracking:

http://bubbletracking.blogspot.com/2008/07/mighty-mike-to-rsf-triumvirates-rescue.html%5B/quote%5D

I clicked thru.
I am not sure its the right link.

Looked like an article on the same stuff and not a new suggestion.

Did I click it wrong or something?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Aecetia]Here is another suggestion from bubbletracking:

http://bubbletracking.blogspot.com/2008/07/mighty-mike-to-rsf-triumvirates-rescue.html%5B/quote%5D

I clicked thru.
I am not sure its the right link.

Looked like an article on the same stuff and not a new suggestion.

Did I click it wrong or something?

[temeculaguy]

The bailout bill already covers this, bank agrees to take 90% of appraised value and borrower refi’s with fha. It’s voluntary and has a few catches. Catch one is any profit when it is sold is split with FHA, they saved you, they want half. The other catch is you pay 1.5% per year in pmi. Third catch is it is voluntary. Bank can look at it as they will lose 10% in the repo process and the escrow/realtor fees. People get to basicly walk away and walk back in without ever moving, resetting to today’s value.

The downside is it is too late for most and the income requirements, documentation and no missed payments will kill anyone in the pipeline already. It may save 10% but that is moving forward, we have a year of repos to chew through. At best it shortens the downturn, bringing to an end in 12 months. Softening the landing will inhibit the next rise, my guess, things will be flat from 2010 on, for a few years.

[temeculaguy]

The bailout bill already covers this, bank agrees to take 90% of appraised value and borrower refi’s with fha. It’s voluntary and has a few catches. Catch one is any profit when it is sold is split with FHA, they saved you, they want half. The other catch is you pay 1.5% per year in pmi. Third catch is it is voluntary. Bank can look at it as they will lose 10% in the repo process and the escrow/realtor fees. People get to basicly walk away and walk back in without ever moving, resetting to today’s value.

The downside is it is too late for most and the income requirements, documentation and no missed payments will kill anyone in the pipeline already. It may save 10% but that is moving forward, we have a year of repos to chew through. At best it shortens the downturn, bringing to an end in 12 months. Softening the landing will inhibit the next rise, my guess, things will be flat from 2010 on, for a few years.

[temeculaguy]

The bailout bill already covers this, bank agrees to take 90% of appraised value and borrower refi’s with fha. It’s voluntary and has a few catches. Catch one is any profit when it is sold is split with FHA, they saved you, they want half. The other catch is you pay 1.5% per year in pmi. Third catch is it is voluntary. Bank can look at it as they will lose 10% in the repo process and the escrow/realtor fees. People get to basicly walk away and walk back in without ever moving, resetting to today’s value.

The downside is it is too late for most and the income requirements, documentation and no missed payments will kill anyone in the pipeline already. It may save 10% but that is moving forward, we have a year of repos to chew through. At best it shortens the downturn, bringing to an end in 12 months. Softening the landing will inhibit the next rise, my guess, things will be flat from 2010 on, for a few years.

[temeculaguy]

The bailout bill already covers this, bank agrees to take 90% of appraised value and borrower refi’s with fha. It’s voluntary and has a few catches. Catch one is any profit when it is sold is split with FHA, they saved you, they want half. The other catch is you pay 1.5% per year in pmi. Third catch is it is voluntary. Bank can look at it as they will lose 10% in the repo process and the escrow/realtor fees. People get to basicly walk away and walk back in without ever moving, resetting to today’s value.

The downside is it is too late for most and the income requirements, documentation and no missed payments will kill anyone in the pipeline already. It may save 10% but that is moving forward, we have a year of repos to chew through. At best it shortens the downturn, bringing to an end in 12 months. Softening the landing will inhibit the next rise, my guess, things will be flat from 2010 on, for a few years.

[temeculaguy]

The bailout bill already covers this, bank agrees to take 90% of appraised value and borrower refi’s with fha. It’s voluntary and has a few catches. Catch one is any profit when it is sold is split with FHA, they saved you, they want half. The other catch is you pay 1.5% per year in pmi. Third catch is it is voluntary. Bank can look at it as they will lose 10% in the repo process and the escrow/realtor fees. People get to basicly walk away and walk back in without ever moving, resetting to today’s value.

The downside is it is too late for most and the income requirements, documentation and no missed payments will kill anyone in the pipeline already. It may save 10% but that is moving forward, we have a year of repos to chew through. At best it shortens the downturn, bringing to an end in 12 months. Softening the landing will inhibit the next rise, my guess, things will be flat from 2010 on, for a few years.

[CricketOnTheHearth]

I just wrote the following to Mike Aguirre on his web-comment page:

Dear Mike Aguirre:

Please do not rescue flippers with this “foreclosure sanctuary” thing. I have been forced to live in miserable substandard rentals for the last 2 years because these *@$^#@ flippers have jacked the price of housing way out of my reach, and rents have also grown while my pay has not. The lovely place I lived in for 7 years now rents for half my take-home pay– unaffordable!

You should 1) only allow 1 house per person/couple to be covered, and 2) Only houses sold for $700,000 or under. That way you are more likely to help regular people who were actually trying to buy a home to live in, and not rotten rat flippers. Thank you.

[CricketOnTheHearth]

I just wrote the following to Mike Aguirre on his web-comment page:

Dear Mike Aguirre:

Please do not rescue flippers with this “foreclosure sanctuary” thing. I have been forced to live in miserable substandard rentals for the last 2 years because these *@$^#@ flippers have jacked the price of housing way out of my reach, and rents have also grown while my pay has not. The lovely place I lived in for 7 years now rents for half my take-home pay– unaffordable!

You should 1) only allow 1 house per person/couple to be covered, and 2) Only houses sold for $700,000 or under. That way you are more likely to help regular people who were actually trying to buy a home to live in, and not rotten rat flippers. Thank you.

[CricketOnTheHearth]

I just wrote the following to Mike Aguirre on his web-comment page:

Dear Mike Aguirre:

Please do not rescue flippers with this “foreclosure sanctuary” thing. I have been forced to live in miserable substandard rentals for the last 2 years because these *@$^#@ flippers have jacked the price of housing way out of my reach, and rents have also grown while my pay has not. The lovely place I lived in for 7 years now rents for half my take-home pay– unaffordable!

You should 1) only allow 1 house per person/couple to be covered, and 2) Only houses sold for $700,000 or under. That way you are more likely to help regular people who were actually trying to buy a home to live in, and not rotten rat flippers. Thank you.

[CricketOnTheHearth]

I just wrote the following to Mike Aguirre on his web-comment page:

Dear Mike Aguirre:

Please do not rescue flippers with this “foreclosure sanctuary” thing. I have been forced to live in miserable substandard rentals for the last 2 years because these *@$^#@ flippers have jacked the price of housing way out of my reach, and rents have also grown while my pay has not. The lovely place I lived in for 7 years now rents for half my take-home pay– unaffordable!

You should 1) only allow 1 house per person/couple to be covered, and 2) Only houses sold for $700,000 or under. That way you are more likely to help regular people who were actually trying to buy a home to live in, and not rotten rat flippers. Thank you.

[Author]

Posts