[TheBreeze]

If this bill passes, it will introduce a tremendous incentive for those who are current on their payments to ether stop paying or fall behind. Why keep paying on a mortgage when you can stop paying and possibly get the bank to reduce your principal by at least 10%? And, if the appraisals are honest, then there is a potential that your principal amount could get reduced by up to 50% or more.

No way I would keep current on an underwater mortgage if this bill were to pass.

[TheBreeze]

If this bill passes, it will introduce a tremendous incentive for those who are current on their payments to ether stop paying or fall behind. Why keep paying on a mortgage when you can stop paying and possibly get the bank to reduce your principal by at least 10%? And, if the appraisals are honest, then there is a potential that your principal amount could get reduced by up to 50% or more.

No way I would keep current on an underwater mortgage if this bill were to pass.

[TheBreeze]

If this bill passes, it will introduce a tremendous incentive for those who are current on their payments to ether stop paying or fall behind. Why keep paying on a mortgage when you can stop paying and possibly get the bank to reduce your principal by at least 10%? And, if the appraisals are honest, then there is a potential that your principal amount could get reduced by up to 50% or more.

No way I would keep current on an underwater mortgage if this bill were to pass.

[TheBreeze]

If this bill passes, it will introduce a tremendous incentive for those who are current on their payments to ether stop paying or fall behind. Why keep paying on a mortgage when you can stop paying and possibly get the bank to reduce your principal by at least 10%? And, if the appraisals are honest, then there is a potential that your principal amount could get reduced by up to 50% or more.

No way I would keep current on an underwater mortgage if this bill were to pass.

[TheBreeze]

If this bill passes, it will introduce a tremendous incentive for those who are current on their payments to ether stop paying or fall behind. Why keep paying on a mortgage when you can stop paying and possibly get the bank to reduce your principal by at least 10%? And, if the appraisals are honest, then there is a potential that your principal amount could get reduced by up to 50% or more.

No way I would keep current on an underwater mortgage if this bill were to pass.

[TheBreeze]

One other thing: This bill is representative of why I like divided government. If this bill had been put forth when the Republicans were in charge of Congress, I bet Bush would have let it sail right on through. However, since the Democrats are in charge of Congress, Bush has political motivation to veto this bill. I doubt whether Bush has any understanding of the relative merits or demerits of this bill, but the political incentive alone is enough for him to threaten a veto.

God bless divided government.

[TheBreeze]

One other thing: This bill is representative of why I like divided government. If this bill had been put forth when the Republicans were in charge of Congress, I bet Bush would have let it sail right on through. However, since the Democrats are in charge of Congress, Bush has political motivation to veto this bill. I doubt whether Bush has any understanding of the relative merits or demerits of this bill, but the political incentive alone is enough for him to threaten a veto.

God bless divided government.

[TheBreeze]

One other thing: This bill is representative of why I like divided government. If this bill had been put forth when the Republicans were in charge of Congress, I bet Bush would have let it sail right on through. However, since the Democrats are in charge of Congress, Bush has political motivation to veto this bill. I doubt whether Bush has any understanding of the relative merits or demerits of this bill, but the political incentive alone is enough for him to threaten a veto.

God bless divided government.

[TheBreeze]

One other thing: This bill is representative of why I like divided government. If this bill had been put forth when the Republicans were in charge of Congress, I bet Bush would have let it sail right on through. However, since the Democrats are in charge of Congress, Bush has political motivation to veto this bill. I doubt whether Bush has any understanding of the relative merits or demerits of this bill, but the political incentive alone is enough for him to threaten a veto.

God bless divided government.

[TheBreeze]

One other thing: This bill is representative of why I like divided government. If this bill had been put forth when the Republicans were in charge of Congress, I bet Bush would have let it sail right on through. However, since the Democrats are in charge of Congress, Bush has political motivation to veto this bill. I doubt whether Bush has any understanding of the relative merits or demerits of this bill, but the political incentive alone is enough for him to threaten a veto.

God bless divided government.

[TheBreeze]

This is the first time I hear that the bill offers any kind of bailout to the banks. We’re talking about the bill where banks must voluntarily accept the payoff of up to 85% of market value of the house so that FB’s could refinance their loans with FHA, right?

Same bill. Here’s a link to the actual language of the bill:

http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/LanguageAYO08700_xml.pdf

Search for ‘300,000,000,000’ to see the language regarding the total amount of mortgages that can be insured under this bill.

I couldn’t find any language about the 85% of market value, but there is some language about insuring up to 90% of the appraised value on page 378.

This bill makes absolutely no sense. Why would a bank sell a mortgage for 85% of the appraised value of the asociated property when, if the appraisal is accurate, the bank could just foreclose and sell the property for 100% of the appraised value? The only reason I can see to do this is if the appraisal is wildly overvalued.

I’m sure what will happen is that appraisers will just value the property at whatever the value of the original mortgage was and the banks will only have to take a 15% loss as opposed to a 30%, 50%, 60%, or however big the real loss is. That’s why this bill is a crock.

The taxpayers won’t be out $300 billion with this bill, but we’ll be out some significant percentage of that amount — probably around $150 billion to $200 billion or so as the banks will just dump their worst mortgages to the taxpayer.

[TheBreeze]

This is the first time I hear that the bill offers any kind of bailout to the banks. We’re talking about the bill where banks must voluntarily accept the payoff of up to 85% of market value of the house so that FB’s could refinance their loans with FHA, right?

Same bill. Here’s a link to the actual language of the bill:

http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/LanguageAYO08700_xml.pdf

Search for ‘300,000,000,000’ to see the language regarding the total amount of mortgages that can be insured under this bill.

I couldn’t find any language about the 85% of market value, but there is some language about insuring up to 90% of the appraised value on page 378.

This bill makes absolutely no sense. Why would a bank sell a mortgage for 85% of the appraised value of the asociated property when, if the appraisal is accurate, the bank could just foreclose and sell the property for 100% of the appraised value? The only reason I can see to do this is if the appraisal is wildly overvalued.

I’m sure what will happen is that appraisers will just value the property at whatever the value of the original mortgage was and the banks will only have to take a 15% loss as opposed to a 30%, 50%, 60%, or however big the real loss is. That’s why this bill is a crock.

The taxpayers won’t be out $300 billion with this bill, but we’ll be out some significant percentage of that amount — probably around $150 billion to $200 billion or so as the banks will just dump their worst mortgages to the taxpayer.

[TheBreeze]

This is the first time I hear that the bill offers any kind of bailout to the banks. We’re talking about the bill where banks must voluntarily accept the payoff of up to 85% of market value of the house so that FB’s could refinance their loans with FHA, right?

Same bill. Here’s a link to the actual language of the bill:

http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/LanguageAYO08700_xml.pdf

Search for ‘300,000,000,000’ to see the language regarding the total amount of mortgages that can be insured under this bill.

I couldn’t find any language about the 85% of market value, but there is some language about insuring up to 90% of the appraised value on page 378.

This bill makes absolutely no sense. Why would a bank sell a mortgage for 85% of the appraised value of the asociated property when, if the appraisal is accurate, the bank could just foreclose and sell the property for 100% of the appraised value? The only reason I can see to do this is if the appraisal is wildly overvalued.

I’m sure what will happen is that appraisers will just value the property at whatever the value of the original mortgage was and the banks will only have to take a 15% loss as opposed to a 30%, 50%, 60%, or however big the real loss is. That’s why this bill is a crock.

The taxpayers won’t be out $300 billion with this bill, but we’ll be out some significant percentage of that amount — probably around $150 billion to $200 billion or so as the banks will just dump their worst mortgages to the taxpayer.

[TheBreeze]

This is the first time I hear that the bill offers any kind of bailout to the banks. We’re talking about the bill where banks must voluntarily accept the payoff of up to 85% of market value of the house so that FB’s could refinance their loans with FHA, right?

Same bill. Here’s a link to the actual language of the bill:

http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/LanguageAYO08700_xml.pdf

Search for ‘300,000,000,000’ to see the language regarding the total amount of mortgages that can be insured under this bill.

I couldn’t find any language about the 85% of market value, but there is some language about insuring up to 90% of the appraised value on page 378.

This bill makes absolutely no sense. Why would a bank sell a mortgage for 85% of the appraised value of the asociated property when, if the appraisal is accurate, the bank could just foreclose and sell the property for 100% of the appraised value? The only reason I can see to do this is if the appraisal is wildly overvalued.

I’m sure what will happen is that appraisers will just value the property at whatever the value of the original mortgage was and the banks will only have to take a 15% loss as opposed to a 30%, 50%, 60%, or however big the real loss is. That’s why this bill is a crock.

The taxpayers won’t be out $300 billion with this bill, but we’ll be out some significant percentage of that amount — probably around $150 billion to $200 billion or so as the banks will just dump their worst mortgages to the taxpayer.

[TheBreeze]

This is the first time I hear that the bill offers any kind of bailout to the banks. We’re talking about the bill where banks must voluntarily accept the payoff of up to 85% of market value of the house so that FB’s could refinance their loans with FHA, right?

Same bill. Here’s a link to the actual language of the bill:

http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/LanguageAYO08700_xml.pdf

Search for ‘300,000,000,000’ to see the language regarding the total amount of mortgages that can be insured under this bill.

I couldn’t find any language about the 85% of market value, but there is some language about insuring up to 90% of the appraised value on page 378.

This bill makes absolutely no sense. Why would a bank sell a mortgage for 85% of the appraised value of the asociated property when, if the appraisal is accurate, the bank could just foreclose and sell the property for 100% of the appraised value? The only reason I can see to do this is if the appraisal is wildly overvalued.

I’m sure what will happen is that appraisers will just value the property at whatever the value of the original mortgage was and the banks will only have to take a 15% loss as opposed to a 30%, 50%, 60%, or however big the real loss is. That’s why this bill is a crock.

The taxpayers won’t be out $300 billion with this bill, but we’ll be out some significant percentage of that amount — probably around $150 billion to $200 billion or so as the banks will just dump their worst mortgages to the taxpayer.

[Author]

Posts