Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bubba99
ParticipantClearly this buyer took a gamble and lost. He should have know better. But some of the story does hit home. The part about having to send in the same paperwork 5 times to an unresponsive bank.
I think all the media attention to “loan modifications” is giving the gamblers a false hope. The banks are not modifying squat, and it is time that someone report honestly that you can forget any real help on mortgages. Take your losses and move on.
ParticipantClearly this buyer took a gamble and lost. He should have know better. But some of the story does hit home. The part about having to send in the same paperwork 5 times to an unresponsive bank.
I think all the media attention to “loan modifications” is giving the gamblers a false hope. The banks are not modifying squat, and it is time that someone report honestly that you can forget any real help on mortgages. Take your losses and move on.
ParticipantIt pains me when people try to make a moral issue of mortgage payments. It is not. It is a contract, and foreclosure is a remedy in the contract to either party. The banks use it to relieve themselves of bad property investments (Morgan Stanley in SF), why should individuals be held to a higher ethical standard.
Plus part of the bank bailout consisted of a program to “modify” mortgages. The banks took the money, but have consistently failed to modify a significant number of mortgages.
The only moral issue is to ones family, to make the best financial decission for them, not just the bank.
ParticipantIt pains me when people try to make a moral issue of mortgage payments. It is not. It is a contract, and foreclosure is a remedy in the contract to either party. The banks use it to relieve themselves of bad property investments (Morgan Stanley in SF), why should individuals be held to a higher ethical standard.
Plus part of the bank bailout consisted of a program to “modify” mortgages. The banks took the money, but have consistently failed to modify a significant number of mortgages.
The only moral issue is to ones family, to make the best financial decission for them, not just the bank.
ParticipantIt pains me when people try to make a moral issue of mortgage payments. It is not. It is a contract, and foreclosure is a remedy in the contract to either party. The banks use it to relieve themselves of bad property investments (Morgan Stanley in SF), why should individuals be held to a higher ethical standard.
Plus part of the bank bailout consisted of a program to “modify” mortgages. The banks took the money, but have consistently failed to modify a significant number of mortgages.
The only moral issue is to ones family, to make the best financial decission for them, not just the bank.
ParticipantIt pains me when people try to make a moral issue of mortgage payments. It is not. It is a contract, and foreclosure is a remedy in the contract to either party. The banks use it to relieve themselves of bad property investments (Morgan Stanley in SF), why should individuals be held to a higher ethical standard.
Plus part of the bank bailout consisted of a program to “modify” mortgages. The banks took the money, but have consistently failed to modify a significant number of mortgages.
The only moral issue is to ones family, to make the best financial decission for them, not just the bank.
ParticipantIt pains me when people try to make a moral issue of mortgage payments. It is not. It is a contract, and foreclosure is a remedy in the contract to either party. The banks use it to relieve themselves of bad property investments (Morgan Stanley in SF), why should individuals be held to a higher ethical standard.
Plus part of the bank bailout consisted of a program to “modify” mortgages. The banks took the money, but have consistently failed to modify a significant number of mortgages.
The only moral issue is to ones family, to make the best financial decission for them, not just the bank.
ParticipantThe banks are still writing off bad loans where they must. GAAP has abandoned reason by abandoning mark to market accting, but the banks must still take principal losses on disposed of (reposessed) assets. Check current write offs and reserves for future write offs and you can see where the “profitbility” is going. Without the cheap money, the banks would still be insolvent.
If Mark to market accting was still required (or the off balance sheet vehicles) were required to be included, most banks would be in receivership
ParticipantThe banks are still writing off bad loans where they must. GAAP has abandoned reason by abandoning mark to market accting, but the banks must still take principal losses on disposed of (reposessed) assets. Check current write offs and reserves for future write offs and you can see where the “profitbility” is going. Without the cheap money, the banks would still be insolvent.
If Mark to market accting was still required (or the off balance sheet vehicles) were required to be included, most banks would be in receivership
ParticipantThe banks are still writing off bad loans where they must. GAAP has abandoned reason by abandoning mark to market accting, but the banks must still take principal losses on disposed of (reposessed) assets. Check current write offs and reserves for future write offs and you can see where the “profitbility” is going. Without the cheap money, the banks would still be insolvent.
If Mark to market accting was still required (or the off balance sheet vehicles) were required to be included, most banks would be in receivership
ParticipantThe banks are still writing off bad loans where they must. GAAP has abandoned reason by abandoning mark to market accting, but the banks must still take principal losses on disposed of (reposessed) assets. Check current write offs and reserves for future write offs and you can see where the “profitbility” is going. Without the cheap money, the banks would still be insolvent.
If Mark to market accting was still required (or the off balance sheet vehicles) were required to be included, most banks would be in receivership
ParticipantThe banks are still writing off bad loans where they must. GAAP has abandoned reason by abandoning mark to market accting, but the banks must still take principal losses on disposed of (reposessed) assets. Check current write offs and reserves for future write offs and you can see where the “profitbility” is going. Without the cheap money, the banks would still be insolvent.
If Mark to market accting was still required (or the off balance sheet vehicles) were required to be included, most banks would be in receivership
ParticipantBut because banks can get .5% money, the return on my CD’s has gone from 5% to 1%. Even their “other” money is cheap now because of the fed actions.
Plus the average yield on assets is down because of write downs for reserves for losses on “bad loans”.
Cheap money, plus bad loan management equals “any idiot can make money under these conditions”
ParticipantBut because banks can get .5% money, the return on my CD’s has gone from 5% to 1%. Even their “other” money is cheap now because of the fed actions.
Plus the average yield on assets is down because of write downs for reserves for losses on “bad loans”.
Cheap money, plus bad loan management equals “any idiot can make money under these conditions”
-
AuthorPosts
