- This topic has 40 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 3 months ago by
sdrealtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 8, 2010 at 8:51 AM #18169November 8, 2010 at 9:34 AM #627913
meadandale
ParticipantCasco said his monthly mortgage payments to Washington Mutual Inc. went up to $2,765 when he refinanced his home in 2006 to pay for a new a meat counter at his store in the industrial Los Angeles suburb of South Gate.
Why do these stories always focus on the ‘poor individual’ who used their house as an ATM?
No sympathy…
November 8, 2010 at 9:34 AM #628552meadandale
ParticipantCasco said his monthly mortgage payments to Washington Mutual Inc. went up to $2,765 when he refinanced his home in 2006 to pay for a new a meat counter at his store in the industrial Los Angeles suburb of South Gate.
Why do these stories always focus on the ‘poor individual’ who used their house as an ATM?
No sympathy…
November 8, 2010 at 9:34 AM #628679meadandale
ParticipantCasco said his monthly mortgage payments to Washington Mutual Inc. went up to $2,765 when he refinanced his home in 2006 to pay for a new a meat counter at his store in the industrial Los Angeles suburb of South Gate.
Why do these stories always focus on the ‘poor individual’ who used their house as an ATM?
No sympathy…
November 8, 2010 at 9:34 AM #627988meadandale
ParticipantCasco said his monthly mortgage payments to Washington Mutual Inc. went up to $2,765 when he refinanced his home in 2006 to pay for a new a meat counter at his store in the industrial Los Angeles suburb of South Gate.
Why do these stories always focus on the ‘poor individual’ who used their house as an ATM?
No sympathy…
November 8, 2010 at 9:34 AM #628995meadandale
ParticipantCasco said his monthly mortgage payments to Washington Mutual Inc. went up to $2,765 when he refinanced his home in 2006 to pay for a new a meat counter at his store in the industrial Los Angeles suburb of South Gate.
Why do these stories always focus on the ‘poor individual’ who used their house as an ATM?
No sympathy…
November 8, 2010 at 10:31 AM #628557pencilneck
ParticipantThe twist is that that the mortgage modification offer was just another loan. I never looked into the details of these, so this is new to me.
The Wall Street Journal ran a better article on Saturday:
In a report to Congress on Oct. 26, Mr. Barofsky concluded that some borrowers seeking loan modifications through HAMP might wind up “worse off than before they participated.” Back payments, penalties and late fees triggered when homeowners are rejected for a permanent fix can push some borrowers over the edge, he said.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704805204575594453938527666.html
November 8, 2010 at 10:31 AM #628684pencilneck
ParticipantThe twist is that that the mortgage modification offer was just another loan. I never looked into the details of these, so this is new to me.
The Wall Street Journal ran a better article on Saturday:
In a report to Congress on Oct. 26, Mr. Barofsky concluded that some borrowers seeking loan modifications through HAMP might wind up “worse off than before they participated.” Back payments, penalties and late fees triggered when homeowners are rejected for a permanent fix can push some borrowers over the edge, he said.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704805204575594453938527666.html
November 8, 2010 at 10:31 AM #629000pencilneck
ParticipantThe twist is that that the mortgage modification offer was just another loan. I never looked into the details of these, so this is new to me.
The Wall Street Journal ran a better article on Saturday:
In a report to Congress on Oct. 26, Mr. Barofsky concluded that some borrowers seeking loan modifications through HAMP might wind up “worse off than before they participated.” Back payments, penalties and late fees triggered when homeowners are rejected for a permanent fix can push some borrowers over the edge, he said.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704805204575594453938527666.html
November 8, 2010 at 10:31 AM #627993pencilneck
ParticipantThe twist is that that the mortgage modification offer was just another loan. I never looked into the details of these, so this is new to me.
The Wall Street Journal ran a better article on Saturday:
In a report to Congress on Oct. 26, Mr. Barofsky concluded that some borrowers seeking loan modifications through HAMP might wind up “worse off than before they participated.” Back payments, penalties and late fees triggered when homeowners are rejected for a permanent fix can push some borrowers over the edge, he said.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704805204575594453938527666.html
November 8, 2010 at 10:31 AM #627918pencilneck
ParticipantThe twist is that that the mortgage modification offer was just another loan. I never looked into the details of these, so this is new to me.
The Wall Street Journal ran a better article on Saturday:
In a report to Congress on Oct. 26, Mr. Barofsky concluded that some borrowers seeking loan modifications through HAMP might wind up “worse off than before they participated.” Back payments, penalties and late fees triggered when homeowners are rejected for a permanent fix can push some borrowers over the edge, he said.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704805204575594453938527666.html
November 8, 2010 at 11:00 AM #629035Coronita
ParticipantDid any really think these loan mods wouldn’t have strings attached?
November 8, 2010 at 11:00 AM #628028Coronita
ParticipantDid any really think these loan mods wouldn’t have strings attached?
November 8, 2010 at 11:00 AM #628719Coronita
ParticipantDid any really think these loan mods wouldn’t have strings attached?
November 8, 2010 at 11:00 AM #627950Coronita
ParticipantDid any really think these loan mods wouldn’t have strings attached?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.