A good sign about the mortgage settlement

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

this whole deal is BS really. It will create more homeowners that go delinquent on their payments so they can cash in on this bailout. It's sad ..... a person's word/signature means nothing anymore to them. There is no personal responsibility anymore...... the attitude is "it's not my fault".

Note that's true on both sides of the loan. The Wall Streeters and banks who made these loans had no problem blaming it all on the government and taking bailout money. The individual homeowner blaming it on the banks is no different. If buyers had only taken loans they could afford, we wouldnt be in this mess. Similarly, if banks stood behind the loans they wrote (and only issued loans they'd stand behind), we wouldn't be in this mess. The difference here is one actually gets paid for their expertise on mortgages, and deals with thousands of them per year, while the other will go through it a handful of times in their life. But money buys influence, so the side with the money got bailed out years before the side without.

Blues,
Dave

Agreed.... but that is the problem with our model. Most banks do not hold their own paper. Even the big ones don't keep it all. They sell it to Fannie & Freddie who push what they see as acceptable. Do you know that FHA loans are not score driven at all? Insane.... banks obviously put limits on the score but if Fannie/Freddie/govt. had their way it would not take a credit score in to account at all.......

I think you miss his point entirely.

Bankers and other mortgage lenders are (supposed to be) professionals in the financial services industry and capable of looking after their own interests. The average homebuyer is not a financial services professional and is likely to believe what the (supposedly) professionals tell them they can afford.

Fortunately I bought my homes at a time when mortgage lenders were, on the whole, honest.

I do not think I do miss his point. It has nothing to do with the loan officer, whom the public deals with, being "honest". The loan officer offers products that the banks or lending institutions tell them they can. I will grant you that there were some exotic products out there and some LO's that put people in those products and shouldn't have. At the same time if a loan officer tells me that my rate is going to be 1.25% for the first month and then it could adjust with the market at any time along with the fact that I am only paying the interest because houses always appreciate..... right? That is also on the consumer. The loan officer's honesty has nothing to do with the fact that home values were inflated beyond belief. They also do not have nay say over what type of loans the market is offering...... for that you can largely thank Fannie & Freddie... or the good ol' U.S. govt.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

this whole deal is BS really. It will create more homeowners that go delinquent on their payments so they can cash in on this bailout. It's sad ..... a person's word/signature means nothing anymore to them. There is no personal responsibility anymore...... the attitude is "it's not my fault".

Note that's true on both sides of the loan. The Wall Streeters and banks who made these loans had no problem blaming it all on the government and taking bailout money. The individual homeowner blaming it on the banks is no different. If buyers had only taken loans they could afford, we wouldnt be in this mess. Similarly, if banks stood behind the loans they wrote (and only issued loans they'd stand behind), we wouldn't be in this mess. The difference here is one actually gets paid for their expertise on mortgages, and deals with thousands of them per year, while the other will go through it a handful of times in their life. But money buys influence, so the side with the money got bailed out years before the side without.

Blues,
Dave

Agreed.... but that is the problem with our model. Most banks do not hold their own paper. Even the big ones don't keep it all. They sell it to Fannie & Freddie who push what they see as acceptable. Do you know that FHA loans are not score driven at all? Insane.... banks obviously put limits on the score but if Fannie/Freddie/govt. had their way it would not take a credit score in to account at all.......

I think you miss his point entirely.

Bankers and other mortgage lenders are (supposed to be) professionals in the financial services industry and capable of looking after their own interests. The average homebuyer is not a financial services professional and is likely to believe what the (supposedly) professionals tell them they can afford.

Fortunately I bought my homes at a time when mortgage lenders were, on the whole, honest.

I do not think I do miss his point. It has nothing to do with the loan officer, whom the public deals with, being "honest". The loan officer offers products that the banks or lending institutions tell them they can. I will grant you that there were some exotic products out there and some LO's that put people in those products and shouldn't have. At the same time if a loan officer tells me that my rate is going to be 1.25% for the first month and then it could adjust with the market at any time along with the fact that I am only paying the interest because houses always appreciate..... right? That is also on the consumer. The loan officer's honesty has nothing to do with the fact that home values were inflated beyond belief. They also do not have nay say over what type of loans the market is offering...... for that you can largely thank Fannie & Freddie... or the good ol' U.S. govt.

Fact is, lay people are going to believe their bankers about financial matters just like they believe their physicians about medical matters and their lawyers about legal matters.

A lot of people with minimal or no financial acumen were led down the primrose path by financial services professionals who engaged in unethical behavior in order to enrich themselves, all the way up the line to Wall Street and the ratings agencies.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

this whole deal is BS really. It will create more homeowners that go delinquent on their payments so they can cash in on this bailout. It's sad ..... a person's word/signature means nothing anymore to them. There is no personal responsibility anymore...... the attitude is "it's not my fault".

Note that's true on both sides of the loan. The Wall Streeters and banks who made these loans had no problem blaming it all on the government and taking bailout money. The individual homeowner blaming it on the banks is no different. If buyers had only taken loans they could afford, we wouldnt be in this mess. Similarly, if banks stood behind the loans they wrote (and only issued loans they'd stand behind), we wouldn't be in this mess. The difference here is one actually gets paid for their expertise on mortgages, and deals with thousands of them per year, while the other will go through it a handful of times in their life. But money buys influence, so the side with the money got bailed out years before the side without.

Blues,
Dave

Agreed.... but that is the problem with our model. Most banks do not hold their own paper. Even the big ones don't keep it all. They sell it to Fannie & Freddie who push what they see as acceptable. Do you know that FHA loans are not score driven at all? Insane.... banks obviously put limits on the score but if Fannie/Freddie/govt. had their way it would not take a credit score in to account at all.......

I think you miss his point entirely.

Bankers and other mortgage lenders are (supposed to be) professionals in the financial services industry and capable of looking after their own interests. The average homebuyer is not a financial services professional and is likely to believe what the (supposedly) professionals tell them they can afford.

Fortunately I bought my homes at a time when mortgage lenders were, on the whole, honest.

I do not think I do miss his point. It has nothing to do with the loan officer, whom the public deals with, being "honest". The loan officer offers products that the banks or lending institutions tell them they can. I will grant you that there were some exotic products out there and some LO's that put people in those products and shouldn't have. At the same time if a loan officer tells me that my rate is going to be 1.25% for the first month and then it could adjust with the market at any time along with the fact that I am only paying the interest because houses always appreciate..... right? That is also on the consumer. The loan officer's honesty has nothing to do with the fact that home values were inflated beyond belief. They also do not have nay say over what type of loans the market is offering...... for that you can largely thank Fannie & Freddie... or the good ol' U.S. govt.

Fact is, lay people are going to believe their bankers about financial matters just like they believe their physicians about medical matters and their lawyers about legal matters.

A lot of people with minimal or no financial acumen were led down the primrose path by financial services professionals who engaged in unethical behavior in order to enrich themselves, all the way up the line to Wall Street and the ratings agencies.

No one
Not even in the media have said anything about backers doing what you post here

But the excuse because of ignorance coming from you well.....

ahh, never mind

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

this whole deal is BS really. It will create more homeowners that go delinquent on their payments so they can cash in on this bailout. It's sad ..... a person's word/signature means nothing anymore to them. There is no personal responsibility anymore...... the attitude is "it's not my fault".

Note that's true on both sides of the loan. The Wall Streeters and banks who made these loans had no problem blaming it all on the government and taking bailout money. The individual homeowner blaming it on the banks is no different. If buyers had only taken loans they could afford, we wouldnt be in this mess. Similarly, if banks stood behind the loans they wrote (and only issued loans they'd stand behind), we wouldn't be in this mess. The difference here is one actually gets paid for their expertise on mortgages, and deals with thousands of them per year, while the other will go through it a handful of times in their life. But money buys influence, so the side with the money got bailed out years before the side without.

Blues,
Dave

Agreed.... but that is the problem with our model. Most banks do not hold their own paper. Even the big ones don't keep it all. They sell it to Fannie & Freddie who push what they see as acceptable. Do you know that FHA loans are not score driven at all? Insane.... banks obviously put limits on the score but if Fannie/Freddie/govt. had their way it would not take a credit score in to account at all.......

I think you miss his point entirely.

Bankers and other mortgage lenders are (supposed to be) professionals in the financial services industry and capable of looking after their own interests. The average homebuyer is not a financial services professional and is likely to believe what the (supposedly) professionals tell them they can afford.

Fortunately I bought my homes at a time when mortgage lenders were, on the whole, honest.

I do not think I do miss his point. It has nothing to do with the loan officer, whom the public deals with, being "honest". The loan officer offers products that the banks or lending institutions tell them they can. I will grant you that there were some exotic products out there and some LO's that put people in those products and shouldn't have. At the same time if a loan officer tells me that my rate is going to be 1.25% for the first month and then it could adjust with the market at any time along with the fact that I am only paying the interest because houses always appreciate..... right? That is also on the consumer. The loan officer's honesty has nothing to do with the fact that home values were inflated beyond belief. They also do not have nay say over what type of loans the market is offering...... for that you can largely thank Fannie & Freddie... or the good ol' U.S. govt.

Fact is, lay people are going to believe their bankers about financial matters just like they believe their physicians about medical matters and their lawyers about legal matters.

A lot of people with minimal or no financial acumen were led down the primrose path by financial services professionals who engaged in unethical behavior in order to enrich themselves, all the way up the line to Wall Street and the ratings agencies.

I would not say "a lot". I think the majority just made bad choices. I do not think the majority of LO's were bad or unethical but hey, that's my opinion and you have yours. Neither of which will ever be proven by fact. That does not stop people from blaming though which brings me back to my original point... no accountability!

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

this whole deal is BS really. It will create more homeowners that go delinquent on their payments so they can cash in on this bailout. It's sad ..... a person's word/signature means nothing anymore to them. There is no personal responsibility anymore...... the attitude is "it's not my fault".

Note that's true on both sides of the loan. The Wall Streeters and banks who made these loans had no problem blaming it all on the government and taking bailout money. The individual homeowner blaming it on the banks is no different. If buyers had only taken loans they could afford, we wouldnt be in this mess. Similarly, if banks stood behind the loans they wrote (and only issued loans they'd stand behind), we wouldn't be in this mess. The difference here is one actually gets paid for their expertise on mortgages, and deals with thousands of them per year, while the other will go through it a handful of times in their life. But money buys influence, so the side with the money got bailed out years before the side without.

Blues,
Dave

Agreed.... but that is the problem with our model. Most banks do not hold their own paper. Even the big ones don't keep it all. They sell it to Fannie & Freddie who push what they see as acceptable. Do you know that FHA loans are not score driven at all? Insane.... banks obviously put limits on the score but if Fannie/Freddie/govt. had their way it would not take a credit score in to account at all.......

I think you miss his point entirely.

Bankers and other mortgage lenders are (supposed to be) professionals in the financial services industry and capable of looking after their own interests. The average homebuyer is not a financial services professional and is likely to believe what the (supposedly) professionals tell them they can afford.

Fortunately I bought my homes at a time when mortgage lenders were, on the whole, honest.

I do not think I do miss his point. It has nothing to do with the loan officer, whom the public deals with, being "honest". The loan officer offers products that the banks or lending institutions tell them they can. I will grant you that there were some exotic products out there and some LO's that put people in those products and shouldn't have. At the same time if a loan officer tells me that my rate is going to be 1.25% for the first month and then it could adjust with the market at any time along with the fact that I am only paying the interest because houses always appreciate..... right? That is also on the consumer. The loan officer's honesty has nothing to do with the fact that home values were inflated beyond belief. They also do not have nay say over what type of loans the market is offering...... for that you can largely thank Fannie & Freddie... or the good ol' U.S. govt.

Fact is, lay people are going to believe their bankers about financial matters just like they believe their physicians about medical matters and their lawyers about legal matters.

A lot of people with minimal or no financial acumen were led down the primrose path by financial services professionals who engaged in unethical behavior in order to enrich themselves, all the way up the line to Wall Street and the ratings agencies.

I would not say "a lot". I think the majority just made bad choices. I do not think the majority of LO's were bad or unethical but hey, that's my opinion and you have yours. Neither of which will ever be proven by fact. That does not stop people from blaming though which brings me back to my original point... no accountability!

Well, there is some accountability when the unethical behavior reaches the level of criminal behavior.

But there is nothing equivalent in the financial services industry to the way the medical and legal professions enforce their codes of ethics. A physician can lose a license to practice for unethical conduct even if it does not reach the level of criminal.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

this whole deal is BS really. It will create more homeowners that go delinquent on their payments so they can cash in on this bailout. It's sad ..... a person's word/signature means nothing anymore to them. There is no personal responsibility anymore...... the attitude is "it's not my fault".

Note that's true on both sides of the loan. The Wall Streeters and banks who made these loans had no problem blaming it all on the government and taking bailout money. The individual homeowner blaming it on the banks is no different. If buyers had only taken loans they could afford, we wouldnt be in this mess. Similarly, if banks stood behind the loans they wrote (and only issued loans they'd stand behind), we wouldn't be in this mess. The difference here is one actually gets paid for their expertise on mortgages, and deals with thousands of them per year, while the other will go through it a handful of times in their life. But money buys influence, so the side with the money got bailed out years before the side without.

Blues,
Dave

Agreed.... but that is the problem with our model. Most banks do not hold their own paper. Even the big ones don't keep it all. They sell it to Fannie & Freddie who push what they see as acceptable. Do you know that FHA loans are not score driven at all? Insane.... banks obviously put limits on the score but if Fannie/Freddie/govt. had their way it would not take a credit score in to account at all.......

I think you miss his point entirely.

Bankers and other mortgage lenders are (supposed to be) professionals in the financial services industry and capable of looking after their own interests. The average homebuyer is not a financial services professional and is likely to believe what the (supposedly) professionals tell them they can afford.

Fortunately I bought my homes at a time when mortgage lenders were, on the whole, honest.

I do not think I do miss his point. It has nothing to do with the loan officer, whom the public deals with, being "honest". The loan officer offers products that the banks or lending institutions tell them they can. I will grant you that there were some exotic products out there and some LO's that put people in those products and shouldn't have. At the same time if a loan officer tells me that my rate is going to be 1.25% for the first month and then it could adjust with the market at any time along with the fact that I am only paying the interest because houses always appreciate..... right? That is also on the consumer. The loan officer's honesty has nothing to do with the fact that home values were inflated beyond belief. They also do not have nay say over what type of loans the market is offering...... for that you can largely thank Fannie & Freddie... or the good ol' U.S. govt.

Fact is, lay people are going to believe their bankers about financial matters just like they believe their physicians about medical matters and their lawyers about legal matters.

A lot of people with minimal or no financial acumen were led down the primrose path by financial services professionals who engaged in unethical behavior in order to enrich themselves, all the way up the line to Wall Street and the ratings agencies.

No one
Not even in the media have said anything about backers doing what you post here

But the excuse because of ignorance coming from you well.....

ahh, never mind

Go back to sleep.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[shah269 0]

A few years back two groups of people made huge mistakes.
The banks and those who trusted bankers to know better, ignorance is no excuse though taking advantage of peoples ignorance is a sin.

Things went south and they went south FAST!

The federal government stepped in, saved one group of folks and told the other "don't worry we will deal with you later when things get better."

The banks were saved via a blank check from the federal reserve which was backed up the the tax paying citizens of this nation. And we can thank the crown king of the far right Mr. Jesus H Bush for this action (good luck blaming bleeding heart liberals on this one).

Thus the dynamic changed. Banks realized that they were too big to fail and that the middle class homeowner, who backed the blank check they were given so they wouldn't go under.....well they weren't saved they were just given an promissory note that their plight would be discussed later.

And so we now have an empowered group of folks who know full well that they can do what ever they want when ever they want.

Don't believe me? I have some good friends who are in the banking industry and when ever i bring up the housing bubble the #1 answer I get it....."Ah let those suckers go pound salt, who did Uncle Sam save? Us not those suckers!"

Now I'm not a rocket scientists though my business card says I am, but last I checked for the majority of history banks existed because of peoples money. There was this meeting of minds where by both sides agreed to take care of each other. There was an understanding.

The JHB came in, and "liberated" the banks of their part of the agreement.

Its kind of like this, you have a little bully picking on all the little kids and the kids fight back. So the principal steps in, pulls both the bully and the kids into his office. Instead of disciplining them both he hands the bully the title of hall monitory. And tells the kids they can do nothing about it......but that they should respect their new hall monitor and never question his actions.

And that's where we are. We are now living in a world of empowered bullies who are for a lack of a better word...unaccountable for much of their actions. And before any conservative big business type stands up and pounds their chest in defense of the big banks....if you pay taxes and I'm sure you do since you are online about to respond to this post......

That was your tax money. Did you have a say where it was going to go? Do you want some accountability? I know I do, but what do I know? According to the big banks, I'm just another sucker paying my 30% taxes so as to rebuild the system for the next major infusion of federal dollars to save the banks again.

Or you can be a patriot. Walk past the large banks, take your money and do the right thing. Place it in a nice locally owned locally managed credit union.

You'll never win this one with a vote, or screaming till you spew blood or a personal attack on me.......the only way you will win this war my fellow Americans is to take action. And that action is to go local, invest local, and help local. And show these big banks that we are a great nation and a great nation is built on great people not on big banks.

And if you really want to scare them? And I mean really scare them...
Use cash when making every day purchases. And get rid of all but one of your credit cards.

Don't fall into their trap of "credit score". Be a patriot win back your freedom.

Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

[nanook 1]

Quote

Don't believe me? I have some good friends who are in the banking industry and when ever i bring up the housing bubble the #1 answer I get it....."Ah let those suckers go pound salt, who did Uncle Sam save? Us not those suckers!"

Bail out Wall Street and put rules in place to prevent them from going crazy with the money, it would only cost 700B$+. Or Bail out all the bad loans in CDO's CMO's, Deriviatives, CDS's in the amount of tens of trillions, and everyone including the homeowners with their bad mortgages get a free lunch.

But. . .It's all a red herring, this "bank gets a bailout. . .where's mine?"
The fear here was not people losing their houses/assets/jobs, it was a much grander threat: credit stoppage. Economic fluidity(possibly). Commercial paper was already at a halt. It's either everyone gets the shaft, or those who bought into suspicious non-30 year fixed products. In the end, those that shouldn't have a home ended up in not having it after all. Problem fixed. . .with the toxic assets ruining it for everyone else. The homeowners, bond makers, investment houses, some banks, policy, rating agencies, SEC, FED, ect. are all equally responsible for this mess.

This is what happens when people mistake "equal opportunity" with "equal outcome". Not everyone is "entitled" to a home.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

This is what happens when people mistake "equal opportunity" with "equal outcome". Not everyone is "entitled" to a home.

Nor are bankers "entitled" to taxpayer money to pay their bonuses when they make bad decisions that cripple the entire economy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,119]

>A few years back two groups of people made huge mistakes.
>The banks and those who trusted bankers to know better, ignorance is no excuse
>though taking advantage of peoples ignorance is a sin.

The two groups of people who made huge mistakes were:

1) the bankers who trusted their customers to not make stupid decisions and
2) the people who trusted their banks to keep them from making stupid decisions.

If people had made better decisions the housing crash would not have happened. People like you made bad decisions; that resulted in a housing crash. The only 'regulatory' way out of that is, in the future, to bar such people from getting loans.

Is that really the outcome you want?

>Or you can be a patriot. Walk past the large banks, take your money and do the right
>thing. Place it in a nice locally owned locally managed credit union.

You can. And 8 times out of 10 they will sell the loan to a big bank and pocket the difference.

>Use cash when making every day purchases. And get rid of all but one of your credit
>cards.

How many people have more than one credit card? It would be interesting to see the stats on that.

[shah269 0]

Quote

Quote

This is what happens when people mistake "equal opportunity" with "equal outcome". Not everyone is "entitled" to a home.

Nor are bankers "entitled" to taxpayer money to pay their bonuses when they make bad decisions that cripple the entire economy.

And here is what the response back from the big business lovers or bankers is going to read......"SUCK MY BALLS!"

Sorry buddy, Jesus H Bush had a chance to save two groups of folks. The middle class or his high contribution friends. I'll give you a hint who he helped out. If your tax rate is above 25% it wasn't you.

If you ever get a chance read how TARP was written, no new rules nor regulations were put in place....well any rules or regs that could be enforced. In fact as it stood it was simply a blank check thus why those well to do CEO's and those bankers who found "innovative" ways to take a dollar or ten out of your pocket and place it in theirs were also not punished and their contracts were safe and secure....unlike your home, your 401k or your future.

But that's ok, I'm fighting back and in encourage every patriotic American to do the same. Visit your local credit union. Enroll, and enroll others. I've been with mine for 10 years and ever since TARP I have spoken to a dozen folks and they also have joined. And I hope each and every one of those folks speaks to another dozen folks and enrolled them into our credit union.

We may not find justice and equality with our vote, nor with our protests nor our outrage. We will however find justice with our actions. Take all of your money out of the big bank and place it with your local credit union. This also includes your debts as well! And not only will you be fighting the good fight you will also be saving yourself good money.

BoA (those scum sucking fucks) wanted to charge me 3.5% interest no my car loan...my credit union....1.9%.

Every 1$ you transfer out of a big bank and place into a credit union takes 10$ our of a big banks bottom line. Let's see if we can cripple these losers and one day we the tax paying, freedom loving people of this great nation can look at our banker friends when they say "OMG, I can't believe how bad things have gotten can you believe this!" and we will proudly say "Suck MY FUCKING BALLS!"

Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

>A few years back two groups of people made huge mistakes.
>The banks and those who trusted bankers to know better, ignorance is no excuse
>though taking advantage of peoples ignorance is a sin.

The two groups of people who made huge mistakes were:

1) the bankers who trusted their customers to not make stupid decisions and
2) the people who trusted their banks to keep them from making stupid decisions.

If people had made better decisions the housing crash would not have happened. People like you made bad decisions; that resulted in a housing crash. The only 'regulatory' way out of that is, in the future, to bar such people from getting loans.

Is that really the outcome you want?

>Or you can be a patriot. Walk past the large banks, take your money and do the right
>thing. Place it in a nice locally owned locally managed credit union.

You can. And 8 times out of 10 they will sell the loan to a big bank and pocket the difference.

>Use cash when making every day purchases. And get rid of all but one of your credit
>cards.

How many people have more than one credit card? It would be interesting to see the stats on that.

Not exactly an answer to your question, but according to creditcards.com:

Average number of credit cards held by cardholders: 3.5, as of yearend 2008 (Source: "The Survey of Consumer Payment Choice," Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, January 2010)

Approximately 51 percent of the U.S. population has at least two credit cards. (Source: Experian national score index study, February 2007)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DougH 270]

Quote

BoA (those scum sucking fucks) wanted to charge me 3.5% interest no my car loan...my credit union....1.9%.

3.5% is a respectable interest rate for a car loan.

With all of your ranting and raving about the banks and bankers it is really a shame that any of them will extend you credit at all.

I don't know where you got this sense of entitlement that the banks should bow down and suck you off you because you approached them for something that you needed, credit!

Credit unions are great. Credit unions have to make sound business decisions not unlike the banks that you MNF on a daily basis. If they make piss poor lending they fold up just like a bank. Their purpose is to remain solvent for their members.

If a credit union held the first mortgage on your condo they also would be refusing to write down the loan the current FMV. They wouldn't have refinanced you either on an underwater property.

You would be on here bitching about how screwed up credit unions are, and how they were crooks, and this and that.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

If people had made better decisions the housing crash would not have happened. People like you made bad decisions; that resulted in a housing crash. The only 'regulatory' way out of that is, in the future, to bar such people from getting loans.

(((let me get this straight - first pass a law that forces the banks to give loans to 'such people'. then the solution to the problem that caused, is to now pass a law to bar 'such people' from getting loans - the liberal mind is an amazingly nuanced thing - truly dizzying)))


how about the government stays out of it? They don't subsidize the individuals - they don't subsidize the banks -

they just let people and organizations enter contractual agreements and restrict the level of government involvement with just ensuring that each parties lives up to their deals - the self interest of each group is sufficient to ensure that the right level of risk/reward is achieved


I don't think taxpayer money should go to the banks, the bank execs, nor to people like Shah either

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 23]

I don't think taxpayer money should go to the banks, the bank execs, nor to people like Shah either

[normiss 897]

I went with a small institution for my mortgage with that effort in mind. No BoA for me!

Before I made my first payment, the note had changed hands four times. I spent an entire day on the phone chasing down the new holder. Wells Fargo.

Oh well.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

>A few years back two groups of people made huge mistakes.
>The banks and those who trusted bankers to know better, ignorance is no excuse
>though taking advantage of peoples ignorance is a sin.

The two groups of people who made huge mistakes were:

1) the bankers who trusted their customers to not make stupid decisions and

Nope.

The banks are not on the hook for most of those loans since they were insured by government sponsored enterprises, sold to the same entities, or sold to private investors.

The bankers did exceptionally well with the piles of money from loan origination and servicing fees that would have been much smaller with customers acting in their own best interests.

While ethically wrong that's not a huge mistake.

The Aaa bond ratings and GSE mortgage purchases were big mistakes or malfeasance.

Quote

If people had made better decisions the housing crash would not have happened. People like you made bad decisions; that resulted in a housing crash. The only 'regulatory' way out of that is, in the future, to bar such people from getting loans.

The GSEs could also refuse to buy or insure loans totaling more than 3X area median income with the increased costs of credit to buy homes that will become unaffordable, illiquid, and likely to default when interest rates revert to historic norms keeping prices more affordable.

They could also exclude loans resulting in total housing costs 20% higher than renting an equivalent property.

Quote

Is that really the outcome you want?

Sure.

[nanook 1]

Quote

Quote

This is what happens when people mistake "equal opportunity" with "equal outcome". Not everyone is "entitled" to a home.

Nor are bankers "entitled" to taxpayer money to pay their bonuses when they make bad decisions that cripple the entire economy.

Agreed. No they weren't entitled at all.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[nanook 1]

Quote

If you ever get a chance read how TARP was written, no new rules nor regulations were put in place....well any rules or regs that could be enforced.

If you ever get a chance to read what TARP was for, you would realize that it wasn't to bail out your "buddies". Practically all those investment houses don't exist any more. Lehman and and Bear/Stearns went bankrupt. All others but GS was swallowed up by banks, dissected and dissolved, their bond desks don't exist anymore.

The threat was credit protectionism, with without would have froze the economy. Commercial paper was already not allowed to roll over. Think of it like this. The credit market is one of those things most people aren't aware of or pay attention to till there's a backup. It's what makes money move. Major companies can't make payroll or do regular operations without it. Your Direct Deposit requires credit to exist for it to work, for instance. TARP was to prevent the credit freeze. Of course to prevent the freeze, the banks needed assistance. Calling it "buddyism" and "bailing out friends" is a shallow look at what really was a big threat. You should be mad that they were able to be in position to create this mess in the first place.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[shah269 0]

Two more folks to walk away from their banks yesterday.
Chase you lost one.
WF you lost another.

Yeah fighting the good fight. And they said they were going to talk to their friends at work! Loved the idea that they could move their car loans over to a credit union save money on the interest as well as on their GAP insurance! That's what friends do, save each other money!

Can't win this one with my vote...TARP proved that.
Can't win this via due diligence ....proved that one with the bank calling me up asking me if I wanted to refinance my mortgage with their help. After they charged me $2k...no joke $2k in fees to assume the loan from my X wife!
Can't win this via just being pissed off.

But we the taxpaying citizens of this country can win by taking our money out of the system we were forced to save with TARP and which quickly turned around and told us to go pound salt when we asked...."Wait we just saved your asses, we are making less money every day and you get to collect your bonus? And you get to keep your jobs? And you get to keep your retirement packages? And you get to keep your home?"

I have a dream, it's a little dream but it's a good one. Where high paying TMT's and banking CEO jobs are outsourced to nice places like China and India where the CEO and the TMT are paid 1/10th of what they are paid here in the US and actually get their job based on performance not who they know.

And when said CEO's and TMT's come to the common man and speak of their conundrum the common man responds with "Go pound sand, if you had half a brain you would have instituted a viable and functional SOP and safeguards to prevent such mistakes from happening. But your greed got the better of you and now we the consumer did what any good consumer should do. We voted with our money and took it all over to our local credit union."


I am a tax paying law abiding patriot. And I bank with a tax paying law abiding institution. My credit union.

Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

[billvon 3,119]

>let me get this straight - first pass a law that forces the banks to give loans to 'such
>people'. then the solution to the problem that caused, is to now pass a law to bar 'such
>people' from getting loans - the liberal mind is an amazingly nuanced thing - truly
>dizzying

?? Not suggesting that. That would be stupid.

>how about the government stays out of it? They don't subsidize the individuals -
>they don't subsidize the banks -

Well, but then Shah would not have been able to get his loan in the first place. And he'd be hating them all the more.

[shah269 0]

Quote

Shah would not have been able to get his loan in the first place

How so?
When me and the X wife went looking for a home we had $40k in cash.

We needed $60k to get into a $300k home.
So we went in for the 80/20.

But the bank saw our 800 credit score and sold the two loans off to different banks to offset those who had piss poor credit scores.

The $40k we had...the X took...and I'm never going to see it again so....it is what it is.

But yeah it would have been super if i didn't have a condo now and just paid rent.

Any how friends just texted me, they both saved $900 in gap insurance for their cars and are not telling their friends!

Hey it's not much but it's one step in the right direction in the war.

Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

[normiss 897]

Wait!

He'll piss and moan about another angle.
Yet still feel deserving of a "gimme" for no valid reason.


*ETA: Like I said.....(i should refresh prior to replying!)