[SK in CV]

Another way to look at this.

[quote=pri_dk]
There’s another way to look at this:

Assume the homeowner put zero down. (Not uncommon, and explains why they are so underwater.)

The homeowner has a neighbor (in an identical house) that put $100K down when they purchased, so they are at zero equity also.

Ten years from now, RE eventually recovers and the homes appreciate by $50K. Both homeowners sell.

The person who put money down loses 50% of his initial investment — the one who got a principal reduction goes on a $50K spending spree with the “nothing” that they received.[/quote]

No argument, but there still is no immediate give away to the homeowner. He simply reverts to exactly the same place he was when he originally bought the house with no money down. And the lender has less a valuable, but performing loan.

I know many wouldn’t be happy with this kind of false reward to buyers who made bad decisions, but it’s what lenders should have been doing for the last year in cases with qualifieed borrowers, modifying loans to current market value of the collateral, rather than foreclosing and flooding the market with properties, driving values down further.

I know why they don’t do it. But they should.

[SK in CV]

Another way to look at this.

[quote=pri_dk]
There’s another way to look at this:

Assume the homeowner put zero down. (Not uncommon, and explains why they are so underwater.)

The homeowner has a neighbor (in an identical house) that put $100K down when they purchased, so they are at zero equity also.

Ten years from now, RE eventually recovers and the homes appreciate by $50K. Both homeowners sell.

The person who put money down loses 50% of his initial investment — the one who got a principal reduction goes on a $50K spending spree with the “nothing” that they received.[/quote]

No argument, but there still is no immediate give away to the homeowner. He simply reverts to exactly the same place he was when he originally bought the house with no money down. And the lender has less a valuable, but performing loan.

I know many wouldn’t be happy with this kind of false reward to buyers who made bad decisions, but it’s what lenders should have been doing for the last year in cases with qualifieed borrowers, modifying loans to current market value of the collateral, rather than foreclosing and flooding the market with properties, driving values down further.

I know why they don’t do it. But they should.

[SK in CV]

Another way to look at this.

[quote=pri_dk]
There’s another way to look at this:

Assume the homeowner put zero down. (Not uncommon, and explains why they are so underwater.)

The homeowner has a neighbor (in an identical house) that put $100K down when they purchased, so they are at zero equity also.

Ten years from now, RE eventually recovers and the homes appreciate by $50K. Both homeowners sell.

The person who put money down loses 50% of his initial investment — the one who got a principal reduction goes on a $50K spending spree with the “nothing” that they received.[/quote]

No argument, but there still is no immediate give away to the homeowner. He simply reverts to exactly the same place he was when he originally bought the house with no money down. And the lender has less a valuable, but performing loan.

I know many wouldn’t be happy with this kind of false reward to buyers who made bad decisions, but it’s what lenders should have been doing for the last year in cases with qualifieed borrowers, modifying loans to current market value of the collateral, rather than foreclosing and flooding the market with properties, driving values down further.

I know why they don’t do it. But they should.

[SK in CV]

Another way to look at this.

[quote=pri_dk]
There’s another way to look at this:

Assume the homeowner put zero down. (Not uncommon, and explains why they are so underwater.)

The homeowner has a neighbor (in an identical house) that put $100K down when they purchased, so they are at zero equity also.

Ten years from now, RE eventually recovers and the homes appreciate by $50K. Both homeowners sell.

The person who put money down loses 50% of his initial investment — the one who got a principal reduction goes on a $50K spending spree with the “nothing” that they received.[/quote]

No argument, but there still is no immediate give away to the homeowner. He simply reverts to exactly the same place he was when he originally bought the house with no money down. And the lender has less a valuable, but performing loan.

I know many wouldn’t be happy with this kind of false reward to buyers who made bad decisions, but it’s what lenders should have been doing for the last year in cases with qualifieed borrowers, modifying loans to current market value of the collateral, rather than foreclosing and flooding the market with properties, driving values down further.

I know why they don’t do it. But they should.

[SK in CV]

[quote=scaredycat]but how does giving money to underwater homeowners help?[/quote]

You know, i really havent seen any of this. When homes are underwater and lenders make modifications, that isn’t giving money to underwater homeowners, they’re still underwater. And for the most part, the underwater part isn’t the homeowners loss, it’s the lender’s loss. Modifications, and government aid in facilitating those modifications are rarely, if ever, the equivilent of “giving money to underwater homeowners”. It’s either lender’s acknowledging their own losses that already existed, or the government stepping in to help underwater lenders.

Certainly there are lifestyle advantages to homeowners, but that’s significantly different than true economic benefit. If a homeowner is $100,000 underwater and their loan is permanently modified to zero equity, they still got nothing.

Of the recent government programs, there hasn’t been a single one that hasn’t been 100 times more advantageous to lenders than it has been to borrowers.

[SK in CV]

[quote=scaredycat]but how does giving money to underwater homeowners help?[/quote]

You know, i really havent seen any of this. When homes are underwater and lenders make modifications, that isn’t giving money to underwater homeowners, they’re still underwater. And for the most part, the underwater part isn’t the homeowners loss, it’s the lender’s loss. Modifications, and government aid in facilitating those modifications are rarely, if ever, the equivilent of “giving money to underwater homeowners”. It’s either lender’s acknowledging their own losses that already existed, or the government stepping in to help underwater lenders.

Certainly there are lifestyle advantages to homeowners, but that’s significantly different than true economic benefit. If a homeowner is $100,000 underwater and their loan is permanently modified to zero equity, they still got nothing.

Of the recent government programs, there hasn’t been a single one that hasn’t been 100 times more advantageous to lenders than it has been to borrowers.

[SK in CV]

[quote=scaredycat]but how does giving money to underwater homeowners help?[/quote]

You know, i really havent seen any of this. When homes are underwater and lenders make modifications, that isn’t giving money to underwater homeowners, they’re still underwater. And for the most part, the underwater part isn’t the homeowners loss, it’s the lender’s loss. Modifications, and government aid in facilitating those modifications are rarely, if ever, the equivilent of “giving money to underwater homeowners”. It’s either lender’s acknowledging their own losses that already existed, or the government stepping in to help underwater lenders.

Certainly there are lifestyle advantages to homeowners, but that’s significantly different than true economic benefit. If a homeowner is $100,000 underwater and their loan is permanently modified to zero equity, they still got nothing.

Of the recent government programs, there hasn’t been a single one that hasn’t been 100 times more advantageous to lenders than it has been to borrowers.

[SK in CV]

[quote=scaredycat]but how does giving money to underwater homeowners help?[/quote]

You know, i really havent seen any of this. When homes are underwater and lenders make modifications, that isn’t giving money to underwater homeowners, they’re still underwater. And for the most part, the underwater part isn’t the homeowners loss, it’s the lender’s loss. Modifications, and government aid in facilitating those modifications are rarely, if ever, the equivilent of “giving money to underwater homeowners”. It’s either lender’s acknowledging their own losses that already existed, or the government stepping in to help underwater lenders.

Certainly there are lifestyle advantages to homeowners, but that’s significantly different than true economic benefit. If a homeowner is $100,000 underwater and their loan is permanently modified to zero equity, they still got nothing.

Of the recent government programs, there hasn’t been a single one that hasn’t been 100 times more advantageous to lenders than it has been to borrowers.

[SK in CV]

[quote=scaredycat]but how does giving money to underwater homeowners help?[/quote]

You know, i really havent seen any of this. When homes are underwater and lenders make modifications, that isn’t giving money to underwater homeowners, they’re still underwater. And for the most part, the underwater part isn’t the homeowners loss, it’s the lender’s loss. Modifications, and government aid in facilitating those modifications are rarely, if ever, the equivilent of “giving money to underwater homeowners”. It’s either lender’s acknowledging their own losses that already existed, or the government stepping in to help underwater lenders.

Certainly there are lifestyle advantages to homeowners, but that’s significantly different than true economic benefit. If a homeowner is $100,000 underwater and their loan is permanently modified to zero equity, they still got nothing.

Of the recent government programs, there hasn’t been a single one that hasn’t been 100 times more advantageous to lenders than it has been to borrowers.

[SK in CV]

Usually the lender will arrange for the appraisal and charge you for it. Normally, you won’t get to choose. Lenders are not required to cancel PMI until the loan balance falls below 78% of the original purchase price. You can request cancellation when it falls below 80%. (You may still have to pay for an appraisal because lenders are not required to cancel if current value is less than what you paid.)

You can also go the route you’re going, but most lenders, as allowed under federal law, can also require that the loan be at least 2 years old, with a good payment record of no lates in the last year. If your lender has that stipulation, you’re out of luck for the moment.

[SK in CV]

Usually the lender will arrange for the appraisal and charge you for it. Normally, you won’t get to choose. Lenders are not required to cancel PMI until the loan balance falls below 78% of the original purchase price. You can request cancellation when it falls below 80%. (You may still have to pay for an appraisal because lenders are not required to cancel if current value is less than what you paid.)

You can also go the route you’re going, but most lenders, as allowed under federal law, can also require that the loan be at least 2 years old, with a good payment record of no lates in the last year. If your lender has that stipulation, you’re out of luck for the moment.

[SK in CV]

Usually the lender will arrange for the appraisal and charge you for it. Normally, you won’t get to choose. Lenders are not required to cancel PMI until the loan balance falls below 78% of the original purchase price. You can request cancellation when it falls below 80%. (You may still have to pay for an appraisal because lenders are not required to cancel if current value is less than what you paid.)

You can also go the route you’re going, but most lenders, as allowed under federal law, can also require that the loan be at least 2 years old, with a good payment record of no lates in the last year. If your lender has that stipulation, you’re out of luck for the moment.

[SK in CV]

Usually the lender will arrange for the appraisal and charge you for it. Normally, you won’t get to choose. Lenders are not required to cancel PMI until the loan balance falls below 78% of the original purchase price. You can request cancellation when it falls below 80%. (You may still have to pay for an appraisal because lenders are not required to cancel if current value is less than what you paid.)

You can also go the route you’re going, but most lenders, as allowed under federal law, can also require that the loan be at least 2 years old, with a good payment record of no lates in the last year. If your lender has that stipulation, you’re out of luck for the moment.

[SK in CV]

Usually the lender will arrange for the appraisal and charge you for it. Normally, you won’t get to choose. Lenders are not required to cancel PMI until the loan balance falls below 78% of the original purchase price. You can request cancellation when it falls below 80%. (You may still have to pay for an appraisal because lenders are not required to cancel if current value is less than what you paid.)

You can also go the route you’re going, but most lenders, as allowed under federal law, can also require that the loan be at least 2 years old, with a good payment record of no lates in the last year. If your lender has that stipulation, you’re out of luck for the moment.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ariffe22][quote=briansd1][quote=pri_dk]
Is that an attempt at a joke, or are you really that clueless?[/quote]

I’m basing that on my own observations. I’ve been to the PIs and to many Filipino family gatherings as I have Filipino friends.

My relatives and I go to USCD for health care and I can tell you that even the Filipina nurses are fat. And they supposedly have plenty of health care education. Actually, most of the nurses of all races are fat.

When the nurses are obese, and the doctors are out of shape, you know that the health care system is broken. How can those professionals set an example and provide nutritional advice when they can’t even manage their own bodies.

It may sound harsh, but the truth is the truth.[/quote]

you see what you get with Government healthcare?[/quote]

No, I don’t see. What does this have to do with government health care?

[Author]

Posts