Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Fannie, Freddie, and Banks...oh my!Follow

#27 Mar 19 2009 at 4:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:
When you fall behind or are having problems paying, the last place to go is the business which owns your loan.
God your banks suck, because that's the first thing you should do up here as they're the ones most likely to work with you because they don't want you to default on it, so they'd rather work around it any way possible.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#28 Mar 19 2009 at 4:46 PM Rating: Good
No one is as stupid as to buy a house they can't meet the mortgage payment on if gas prices double.

Hahaha.
#29 Mar 19 2009 at 4:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uglysasquatch, ****** Superhero wrote:
gbaji wrote:
When you fall behind or are having problems paying, the last place to go is the business which owns your loan.
God your banks suck, because that's the first thing you should do up here as they're the ones most likely to work with you because they don't want you to default on it, so they'd rather work around it any way possible.


You're correct. They don't want you to default. But they do want to get as much cash out of you as possible. So. Let's say that ARM is about to adjust, or that balloon payment is about to come due. Do you think they're going to make sure to get that refinance in before that date? Or do you think they'll magically delay things as long as possible?

We're also dealing with business inertia here. The normal rule for a lender is that if they can foreclose, it's a good thing. They get the full value of the property *and* they get to keep all the cash you've been paying them. That's doubleplus good for them. While the business reality has changed, such that it's now far far more valuable for them to keep you paying on the 400k mortgage you have, then foreclose and end up with a 300k property that'll sit on the market for 6 months, most of the people working the desks at these lenders have worked their entire careers during a time when the opposite was true. Old habits die hard. They're still doing things to confound and delay attempts to refinance even when it's massively in the best interests of their company to do the exact opposite.


The average person working in a bank or lenders office doesn't have a clue how the market actually works. They have rules they were taught, and formulas (usually charts cause math is hard) that they apply based on numbers in a file. They don't know what they mean. They just follow them. And if they were trained to always delay and prevent people from refinancing as long as possible, they'll continue to do that purely because they didn't know why that was a good thing to do 10 years ago when they were hired, and have no clue why it's a bad thing to do now.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#30 Mar 19 2009 at 5:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Hey, defend what you want. Your banking systems FUBARed, not mine.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#31 Mar 19 2009 at 5:23 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uglysasquatch, ****** Superhero wrote:
Hey, defend what you want. Your banking systems FUBARed, not mine.



Lots of people here think that the first place to go is to their current lender for refinances and whatnot as well. Hence, the story in the OP. They're wrong, and I suspect you are wrong as well, but just don't realize it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#32 Mar 19 2009 at 5:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:
I suspect you are wrong as well
Of course you do because I disagree with you, but you know nothing about Canadian banking, do you?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#33 Mar 19 2009 at 5:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uglysasquatch, ****** Superhero wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I suspect you are wrong as well
Of course you do because I disagree with you, but you know nothing about Canadian banking, do you?


I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Canadian banks operate by generating profits on the loans they give out? You know. Like all banks in the world do.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#34 Mar 19 2009 at 5:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch, ****** Superhero wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I suspect you are wrong as well
Of course you do because I disagree with you, but you know nothing about Canadian banking, do you?


I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Canadian banks operate by generating profits on the loans they give out? You know. Like all banks in the world do.
Yes they do, but they also tend to be less of a risk taker and are concerned about recovering their money. If they need to renegotiate your 25 year amortization that's been paid on for 2 years and is at 23 years back to 25 to lower your payment, but still earn the interest off of you, they will. Can you see how this still works for them?



That last line was a little Smashcending wasn't it? Sorry.


Edited, Mar 19th 2009 10:46pm by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#35 Mar 19 2009 at 7:42 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
I'm also glad I'm in canada. My bank loan person spent a lot of time with me planning and figuring out if I could afford a loan. They offer payment holidays if I need them, and actually care about keeping me as a customer rather then exploiting me in the short term. That's just stupid. I'm glad my bank isn't run by idiots the way yours seem to be. Oh my banker also has real training and actually understands what he's doing.

I'm actually with a credit union not a bank at all, so I'm technically a shareholder. yay me.

Edited, Mar 19th 2009 10:43pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#36 Mar 20 2009 at 3:24 AM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Actually, I think Smash may have a point here (gasp!). There are relief programs designed to help out people with their home loans, but most of them only kick in if the person has been delinquent a specific amount of time, or even gone into foreclosure. Couldn't say I know the details, but I seem to recall hearing proposals about such things.

I think it's kinda stupid, but if you actually specifically asked your bank to help you qualify for such a program, then yeah, their actions make perfect sense.


The specifics of the modification was not a foreclosure program primarily because what's available now didn't exist at the time. It was a rewrite of the loan terms with the current (at the time I think 5.5% or so) interest rate and the rewrite was suppose to cover the deliquent period in effect similar to a deferment of payments. Although you (and Smash) are right, as mid-December of '08 the foreclosure "programs" starting rolling out. My bank just apparently didn't get the memo. Smiley: lol

gbaji wrote:
Um... You still should have just gone to a third party and gotten a solid refinance instead. Right now, there is a booming industry surrounding this very thing. Lots of people got themselves into crappy ARMs with balloon payments and other silly things, which can be fixed up pretty easily by someone with the right skills and contacts.


Right now, yes. At the time refinancing would have not worked. The mortgage value vs. assessed value would have resulted in us actually borrowing "more" to handle closing costs and lawyer fees, against a house with technically no equity. We really wouldn't have won on that one. Once the rates started really dropping out of the 6% range, we would have tried, but the delinquent mortgage was working against us. We fell into a pathetic gray area between the time where the current programs were not there yet, and we already made the mistake of listening to the bank. Shit happens.
#37 Mar 21 2009 at 4:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Not only is that wrong, it's entirely impossible when they have A) Copies of my tax returns B) Copies of my pay stubs C) Copies of current utility bills D) Financial outline of all Debt-to-Income for the household. And I'm well aware of the concept of the banks ability to do modifications requiring a certain "delinquency". My complaint was that after jumping through all the hoops, they tossed it into foreclosure.


It may or may not be wrong. What absolutely isn't wrong is that you're presenting a ludicrous conceptual argument that your bank, rather than attempt to make money by keeping you in your loan, instead decided to intentionally lose a large amount of money by foreclosing on your home in a market where it's literally impossible they could ever recoup the capital outlay they made for your loan.

Now one of two things is occurring here:

You're lying and omitting key parts of the story because you're a worthless lazy assho[/i][/i]le, but pathetic enough to seek sympathy here because suckers in your life frequently offer this.

Or:

Actually, no there isn't another option.


____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#38 Mar 23 2009 at 7:41 AM Rating: Good
***
1,625 posts
I am so glad I married my wife who got me all straight with credit cards and made me sell my rental properties on the upside of the real estate market.

If I had not met her I would most likely be in the same bucket as Ryneguy. It does suck for him but...

1st rule of financial advice 101 - have six months of available cash assets in a liquid account that you can siphon out if needed for emergencies. This one is be far the most painful of responsibilities because it takes a ton of time to save up that cash and not blow it on stuff.

I know, I know - hindsight is 20/20 but 97% of people living in the US don't have next months (or 6 months worth of) mortgage payment sitting in a money market account.

#39 Mar 23 2009 at 11:49 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Does anyone else snicker every time a reporter says the phrase "bad assets?"
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 326 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (326)