"4 weeks and then all hell breaks loose"
- Thread starter Geotpf_IHB
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
RobertLarsen_IHB
New member
[quote author="Geotpf" date=1251863070]Couple things:
1. The banks can do loan mods that don't meet the government's requirements if they feel like it, it's just they don't get the government incentives (cash) if they do.
2. If one is current on your loan, there's a second, related, government program that allows refis up if the balance owed on the first mortgage is less than 125% of the current value of the property.
3. Most importantly, even though "common sense" says few loan mods will succeed-Where are all the REOs? The banks aren't not foreclosing on them for no reason, and once they foreclose, they aren't holding them back en masse. Inventory is still amazingly small.
This is a "time will tell" situation. How this plays out is unknowable. It might end in a flood of foreclosures, or it might not. So far, not is winning.</blockquote>
Well put.
[End Scene, Curtain Closes]
1. The banks can do loan mods that don't meet the government's requirements if they feel like it, it's just they don't get the government incentives (cash) if they do.
2. If one is current on your loan, there's a second, related, government program that allows refis up if the balance owed on the first mortgage is less than 125% of the current value of the property.
3. Most importantly, even though "common sense" says few loan mods will succeed-Where are all the REOs? The banks aren't not foreclosing on them for no reason, and once they foreclose, they aren't holding them back en masse. Inventory is still amazingly small.
This is a "time will tell" situation. How this plays out is unknowable. It might end in a flood of foreclosures, or it might not. So far, not is winning.</blockquote>
Well put.
[End Scene, Curtain Closes]
N
NewportSkipper_IHB
Guest
The programs are too new for reliable data.
Maybe it is me who didn't understand the question. We will judge by the data when the time is right.
Maybe it is me who didn't understand the question. We will judge by the data when the time is right.
CapitalismWorks_IHB
New member
[quote author="RobertLarsen" date=1251862893]Oh, so now it's multi-faceted... Before I don't ever recall hearing that...
Here let me recap what started this entire discussion: You said: "1) Banks pay occupants of foreclosed homes to Not Destroy the Home upon exit. If a former homeowner can live rent free for a period of time then why would he trash his home. However, once it becomes apparent that the bank is planning on moving the property the incentives change. Simple enough, yes?"
Common sense tells you that when describing the program, such as Cash for Keys, that you should probably state the primary purpose of the program, which is to get the occupants out. Once again... Cash for KEEEEEYS. How do you expect someone to recognize what you're referring to when you only state a secondary requirement?</blockquote>
So do you admit that servicers pay former homeowners to leave properties in good condition?
BTW, please try to differentiate your words from mine when modifying quotes. Heaven forbid anyone should be confused.
Here let me recap what started this entire discussion: You said: "1) Banks pay occupants of foreclosed homes to Not Destroy the Home upon exit. If a former homeowner can live rent free for a period of time then why would he trash his home. However, once it becomes apparent that the bank is planning on moving the property the incentives change. Simple enough, yes?"
Common sense tells you that when describing the program, such as Cash for Keys, that you should probably state the primary purpose of the program, which is to get the occupants out. Once again... Cash for KEEEEEYS. How do you expect someone to recognize what you're referring to when you only state a secondary requirement?</blockquote>
So do you admit that servicers pay former homeowners to leave properties in good condition?
BTW, please try to differentiate your words from mine when modifying quotes. Heaven forbid anyone should be confused.
Geotpf_IHB
New member
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1251862311][quote author="trrenter" date=1251861726][quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1251858870]"To qualify for servicer Pay for Success payments and borrower Pay for Performance Success Payments, the modification must reduce the monthly payment by a minimum of 6 %."
All this says is that the servicer may be eligible for a bonus on loans meeting a 6% or greater reduction in payments. It says nothing about the expected payment adjustments. If people start at 50% debt to income ratio and are taken to 31% (or even 38%), that is a large reduction in payment.
You state that few will qualify, but I could not possibly disagree with you more than I do.
Like I said: there are programs for jumbos too.</blockquote>
So we can agree to disagree. I guess everyone will qualify and the bank will start writing down principle tomorrow. I bet the percentage of loans being modified is sky high right now.
<a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-loans5-2009aug05,0,858718.story">Banks slow to modify mortgages, Treasury reports</a>
In its first report on the Obama administration's efforts to prod lenders to help as many as 4 million homeowners by reducing their mortgage payments, the Treasury Department said just 9% of eligible loans had been changed.</blockquote>
It's worth noting "changed" means "Extend and Pretend". No bank is meaningfully writing down principal. There have been a couple (like, two) examples of principal writedowns I've seen that totaled less than $10K. That's not meaningful when you've got people with massive neg. equity (upside down 50% from the peak).</blockquote>
Significant principal reductions are unlikely. Interest rate reductions, term extensions (30 years into 40, etc.), and principal forbearance (taking part of the principal off the loan and turning it into a balloon payment due long in the future, but with no interest charged to it) are much more likely.
All this says is that the servicer may be eligible for a bonus on loans meeting a 6% or greater reduction in payments. It says nothing about the expected payment adjustments. If people start at 50% debt to income ratio and are taken to 31% (or even 38%), that is a large reduction in payment.
You state that few will qualify, but I could not possibly disagree with you more than I do.
Like I said: there are programs for jumbos too.</blockquote>
So we can agree to disagree. I guess everyone will qualify and the bank will start writing down principle tomorrow. I bet the percentage of loans being modified is sky high right now.
<a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-loans5-2009aug05,0,858718.story">Banks slow to modify mortgages, Treasury reports</a>
In its first report on the Obama administration's efforts to prod lenders to help as many as 4 million homeowners by reducing their mortgage payments, the Treasury Department said just 9% of eligible loans had been changed.</blockquote>
It's worth noting "changed" means "Extend and Pretend". No bank is meaningfully writing down principal. There have been a couple (like, two) examples of principal writedowns I've seen that totaled less than $10K. That's not meaningful when you've got people with massive neg. equity (upside down 50% from the peak).</blockquote>
Significant principal reductions are unlikely. Interest rate reductions, term extensions (30 years into 40, etc.), and principal forbearance (taking part of the principal off the loan and turning it into a balloon payment due long in the future, but with no interest charged to it) are much more likely.
[quote author="Geotpf" date=1251863070]Couple things:
1. The banks can do loan mods that don't meet the government's requirements if they feel like it, it's just they don't get the government incentives (cash) if they do.
2. If one is current on your loan, there's a second, related, government program that allows refis up if the balance owed on the first mortgage is less than 125% of the current value of the property.
3. Most importantly, even though "common sense" says few loan mods will succeed-Where are all the REOs? The banks aren't not foreclosing on them for no reason, and once they foreclose, they aren't holding them back en masse. Inventory is still amazingly small.
This is a "time will tell" situation. How this plays out is unknowable. It might end in a flood of foreclosures, or it might not. So far, not is winning.</blockquote>
What I'm hearing is this:
A) Backlog in the system. Whether this is due to ramping up of the manpower necessary to process these delinquent (read: preforeclosure) loans or a strategic act of the banks to delay the hit to the bottom line seems to be the major arguing point here. This defines whether or not there will be the large foreclosure wave.
B) The new point added here (cross-contamination) seems to now be whether these loan-mods will succeed or not, which will also impact the possible size of the wave.
Is this a succinct summary?
Say the loan mods succeed. Are these people locked into their houses for the next millenia because they're tied to the mortgage?
1. The banks can do loan mods that don't meet the government's requirements if they feel like it, it's just they don't get the government incentives (cash) if they do.
2. If one is current on your loan, there's a second, related, government program that allows refis up if the balance owed on the first mortgage is less than 125% of the current value of the property.
3. Most importantly, even though "common sense" says few loan mods will succeed-Where are all the REOs? The banks aren't not foreclosing on them for no reason, and once they foreclose, they aren't holding them back en masse. Inventory is still amazingly small.
This is a "time will tell" situation. How this plays out is unknowable. It might end in a flood of foreclosures, or it might not. So far, not is winning.</blockquote>
What I'm hearing is this:
A) Backlog in the system. Whether this is due to ramping up of the manpower necessary to process these delinquent (read: preforeclosure) loans or a strategic act of the banks to delay the hit to the bottom line seems to be the major arguing point here. This defines whether or not there will be the large foreclosure wave.
B) The new point added here (cross-contamination) seems to now be whether these loan-mods will succeed or not, which will also impact the possible size of the wave.
Is this a succinct summary?
Say the loan mods succeed. Are these people locked into their houses for the next millenia because they're tied to the mortgage?
RobertLarsen_IHB
New member
[quote author="CapitalismWorks" date=1251863352][quote author="RobertLarsen" date=1251862893]Oh, so now it's multi-faceted... Before I don't ever recall hearing that...
Here let me recap what started this entire discussion: You said: "1) Banks pay occupants of foreclosed homes to Not Destroy the Home upon exit. If a former homeowner can live rent free for a period of time then why would he trash his home. However, once it becomes apparent that the bank is planning on moving the property the incentives change. Simple enough, yes?"
Common sense tells you that when describing the program, such as Cash for Keys, that you should probably state the primary purpose of the program, which is to get the occupants out. Once again... Cash for KEEEEEYS. How do you expect someone to recognize what you're referring to when you only state a secondary requirement?</blockquote>
So do you admit that servicers pay former homeowners to leave properties in good condition?
BTW, please try to differentiate your words from mine when modifying quotes. Heaven forbid anyone should be confused.</blockquote>
It's not exactly good condition; it's a term called "broom-swept" house. Once the occupant has left, the bank inspects the property to insure that all personal property is gone and that all fixtures remain, as well as, no serious damage.
Here let me recap what started this entire discussion: You said: "1) Banks pay occupants of foreclosed homes to Not Destroy the Home upon exit. If a former homeowner can live rent free for a period of time then why would he trash his home. However, once it becomes apparent that the bank is planning on moving the property the incentives change. Simple enough, yes?"
Common sense tells you that when describing the program, such as Cash for Keys, that you should probably state the primary purpose of the program, which is to get the occupants out. Once again... Cash for KEEEEEYS. How do you expect someone to recognize what you're referring to when you only state a secondary requirement?</blockquote>
So do you admit that servicers pay former homeowners to leave properties in good condition?
BTW, please try to differentiate your words from mine when modifying quotes. Heaven forbid anyone should be confused.</blockquote>
It's not exactly good condition; it's a term called "broom-swept" house. Once the occupant has left, the bank inspects the property to insure that all personal property is gone and that all fixtures remain, as well as, no serious damage.
irvine_home_owner_IHB
New member
[quote author="Geotpf" date=1251863070]
3. Most importantly, even though "common sense" says few loan mods will succeed-Where are all the REOs?
</blockquote>
Seriously... are you even reading this thread? Are you saying that loan mods need not succeed because there aren't any REOs? You can't use your answer to why there aren't any REOs as proof as to why that answer isn't necessarily right.
us: Lots of shadow REOs somewhere.
geo: Well... let's call them pre-shadow... and they won't turn into REOs because they'll become loan mods.
us: A majority of those "pre-shadow" properties won't qualify for loan mods ("common sense").
geo: Well... even if that's true... there really aren't any REOs anyways.
WHAT?
<blockquote>
The banks aren't not foreclosing on them for no reason, and once they foreclose, they aren't holding them back en masse.
</blockquote>
Didn't we go over this already... THRICE?
<blockquote>
Inventory is still amazingly small.
</blockquote>
What is so amazing about it? You seem to know why it's so small... despite information to the contrary.
<blockquote>
This is a "time will tell" situation. How this plays out is unknowable. It might end in a flood of foreclosures, or it might not. So far, not is winning.</blockquote>
Do you really think it "might not"?
You called bottom in Irvine a few weeks back... I don't agree with you. And I certainly don't agree with you now. How this plays out is not entirely "unknowable"... otherwise NewSkip and RobLar wouldn't be arguing the other side. For some reason, they "know" it to be opposite of what others know it to be... others who happened to be more experienced in those particular fields.
Does your "common sense" really think there isn't more out there than what is available?
3. Most importantly, even though "common sense" says few loan mods will succeed-Where are all the REOs?
</blockquote>
Seriously... are you even reading this thread? Are you saying that loan mods need not succeed because there aren't any REOs? You can't use your answer to why there aren't any REOs as proof as to why that answer isn't necessarily right.
us: Lots of shadow REOs somewhere.
geo: Well... let's call them pre-shadow... and they won't turn into REOs because they'll become loan mods.
us: A majority of those "pre-shadow" properties won't qualify for loan mods ("common sense").
geo: Well... even if that's true... there really aren't any REOs anyways.
WHAT?
<blockquote>
The banks aren't not foreclosing on them for no reason, and once they foreclose, they aren't holding them back en masse.
</blockquote>
Didn't we go over this already... THRICE?
<blockquote>
Inventory is still amazingly small.
</blockquote>
What is so amazing about it? You seem to know why it's so small... despite information to the contrary.
<blockquote>
This is a "time will tell" situation. How this plays out is unknowable. It might end in a flood of foreclosures, or it might not. So far, not is winning.</blockquote>
Do you really think it "might not"?
You called bottom in Irvine a few weeks back... I don't agree with you. And I certainly don't agree with you now. How this plays out is not entirely "unknowable"... otherwise NewSkip and RobLar wouldn't be arguing the other side. For some reason, they "know" it to be opposite of what others know it to be... others who happened to be more experienced in those particular fields.
Does your "common sense" really think there isn't more out there than what is available?
N
NewportSkipper_IHB
Guest
You are crossing the line into jackal territory.
"For some reason, they ?know? it to be opposite of what others know it to be? others who happened to be more experienced in those particular fields."
I am as qualified to judge as any 10 of you combined. Based upon the loads of misinformation here, I am astonished at your confidence in your peers. Then again, you yourself do not understand things well.
"For some reason, they ?know? it to be opposite of what others know it to be? others who happened to be more experienced in those particular fields."
I am as qualified to judge as any 10 of you combined. Based upon the loads of misinformation here, I am astonished at your confidence in your peers. Then again, you yourself do not understand things well.
irvine_home_owner_IHB
New member
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1251867132]You are crossing the line into jackal territory.
</blockquote>
Really? Did I hurt your feelings? I think I've been more civil to you than you have to me.
<blockquote>
"For some reason, they ?know? it to be opposite of what others know it to be? others who happened to be more experienced in those particular fields."
I am as qualified to judge as any 10 of you combined.
</blockquote>
As far as I know... you haven't stated anything about your qualifications or provided anything to support it. The others, I've read numerous posts and have met in person and actually know about their occupations to give me that opinion.
The proof is in the pudding... so until you give me more information, I will maintain my stance. You still haven't answered my questions about how familiar you are with the Tustin $150k properties and how you think condos are little to no maintenance. Just because you say so isn't enough.
<blockquote>
Based upon the loads of misinformation here, I am astonished at your confidence in your peers.
</blockquote>
I mostly base my opinions on what I've read... and so far... you don't seem to provide enough credible evidence to support your opinions. When challenged, you prefer to sidestep or use absolutes which does not invite discussion. In short, you would rather argue to argue than try to have intelligent conversation. But that is perhaps because you feel that we are beneath you...
<blockquote>
Then again, you yourself do not understand things well.</blockquote>
I apologize if I'm too stupid for you to explain things to.
</blockquote>
Really? Did I hurt your feelings? I think I've been more civil to you than you have to me.
<blockquote>
"For some reason, they ?know? it to be opposite of what others know it to be? others who happened to be more experienced in those particular fields."
I am as qualified to judge as any 10 of you combined.
</blockquote>
As far as I know... you haven't stated anything about your qualifications or provided anything to support it. The others, I've read numerous posts and have met in person and actually know about their occupations to give me that opinion.
The proof is in the pudding... so until you give me more information, I will maintain my stance. You still haven't answered my questions about how familiar you are with the Tustin $150k properties and how you think condos are little to no maintenance. Just because you say so isn't enough.
<blockquote>
Based upon the loads of misinformation here, I am astonished at your confidence in your peers.
</blockquote>
I mostly base my opinions on what I've read... and so far... you don't seem to provide enough credible evidence to support your opinions. When challenged, you prefer to sidestep or use absolutes which does not invite discussion. In short, you would rather argue to argue than try to have intelligent conversation. But that is perhaps because you feel that we are beneath you...
<blockquote>
Then again, you yourself do not understand things well.</blockquote>
I apologize if I'm too stupid for you to explain things to.
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1251867132]You are crossing the line into jackal territory.
"For some reason, they ?know? it to be opposite of what others know it to be? others who happened to be more experienced in those particular fields."
I am as qualified to judge as any 10 of you combined. Based upon the loads of misinformation here, I am astonished at your confidence in your peers. Then again, you yourself do not understand things well.</blockquote>
Again, not that I MYSELF have any qualifications, but I have seen the "misinformation" here borne out by current housing trends (this discussion aside). Particularly from the irascible moderators and other bears.
I would have been a hapless knife catcher had it not been for this site. My realtor had been egging me on to buy a house at the peak of the boom, telling me the "truths" that had been espoused in more mainstream media. So, I have to say that just from my water-cooler perspective, these guys are pretty spot-on.
You guys (I say this based on the opposing sides taken in this current thread) on the other hand have not built up as much credibility to those of us who lurk here regularly. Now, don't take this as another attack on your person... I enjoy this debate! Just maybe providing insight as to why your claims are met with such disbelief.
I'm guessing, stick around a couple months, and either they, or you, will have the bragging rights to say "I told you so! Go kick rocks on the 5." Me? Hopefully I'll have a nice house for a decent price knowing full well what may happen to the property value of my purchase.
(For some reason, I loved that "kick rocks on the 5" comment.)
edit: Doh! took too long to post...
"For some reason, they ?know? it to be opposite of what others know it to be? others who happened to be more experienced in those particular fields."
I am as qualified to judge as any 10 of you combined. Based upon the loads of misinformation here, I am astonished at your confidence in your peers. Then again, you yourself do not understand things well.</blockquote>
Again, not that I MYSELF have any qualifications, but I have seen the "misinformation" here borne out by current housing trends (this discussion aside). Particularly from the irascible moderators and other bears.
I would have been a hapless knife catcher had it not been for this site. My realtor had been egging me on to buy a house at the peak of the boom, telling me the "truths" that had been espoused in more mainstream media. So, I have to say that just from my water-cooler perspective, these guys are pretty spot-on.
You guys (I say this based on the opposing sides taken in this current thread) on the other hand have not built up as much credibility to those of us who lurk here regularly. Now, don't take this as another attack on your person... I enjoy this debate! Just maybe providing insight as to why your claims are met with such disbelief.
I'm guessing, stick around a couple months, and either they, or you, will have the bragging rights to say "I told you so! Go kick rocks on the 5." Me? Hopefully I'll have a nice house for a decent price knowing full well what may happen to the property value of my purchase.
(For some reason, I loved that "kick rocks on the 5" comment.)
edit: Doh! took too long to post...
N
NewportSkipper_IHB
Guest
"Really? Did I hurt your feelings? I think I?ve been more civil to you than you have to me."
Funny, I think the opposite.
Funny, I think the opposite.
graphrix_IHB
New member
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1251869789]"Really? Did I hurt your feelings? I think I?ve been more civil to you than you have to me."
Funny, I think the opposite.</blockquote>
You haven't been civil to anyone but IR when he reprimanded you. Typical bull response... I'm the victim here... you mean jerky bastard... you don't know what you are talking about!
<em><a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite">hypocrite</a>:
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings</em>
Funny, I think the opposite.</blockquote>
You haven't been civil to anyone but IR when he reprimanded you. Typical bull response... I'm the victim here... you mean jerky bastard... you don't know what you are talking about!
<em><a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite">hypocrite</a>:
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings</em>
N
NewportSkipper_IHB
Guest
You (Graphrix) have no ability to self-assess. You are a flaming aggressor. Awgee is just passive-aggressive.
Lest you forget: I jumped into the conversation in utter disgust at the taunts you and Awgee were making towards Robert and Geotpf.
Lest you forget: I jumped into the conversation in utter disgust at the taunts you and Awgee were making towards Robert and Geotpf.
graphrix_IHB
New member
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1251872057]You (Graphrix) have no ability to self-assess. You are a flaming aggressor. Awgee is just passive-aggressive.
Lest you forget: I jumped into the conversation in utter disgust at the taunts you and Awgee were making towards Robert and Geotpf.</blockquote>
http://cornerstork.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/crying_baby.jpg
See hypocrite, you just proved with this post even more than before... that is what you are.
Lest you forget: I jumped into the conversation in utter disgust at the taunts you and Awgee were making towards Robert and Geotpf.</blockquote>
http://cornerstork.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/crying_baby.jpg
See hypocrite, you just proved with this post even more than before... that is what you are.
no_vaseline_IHB
New member
[quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1251868014]I apologize if I'm too stupid for you to explain things to.</blockquote>
<img src="http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/celebrity-pictures-hugh-laurie-cure-stupidity.jpg" alt="" />
I never thought I?d say this, but dammit I miss Janet.
<img src="http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/celebrity-pictures-hugh-laurie-cure-stupidity.jpg" alt="" />
I never thought I?d say this, but dammit I miss Janet.
SoCal78_IHB
New member
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1251872057]You (Graphrix) have no ability to self-assess. You are a flaming aggressor. Awgee is just passive-aggressive.
Lest you forget: I jumped into the conversation in utter disgust at the taunts you and Awgee were making towards Robert and Geotpf.</blockquote>
Round and round we go. Where we stop, nobody knows.
You boys knock it off NOW!
Newport Skipper - I completely understand your frustrations (believe me, I do), but I think you have made your point for now. Get back to the topic.
Lest you forget: I jumped into the conversation in utter disgust at the taunts you and Awgee were making towards Robert and Geotpf.</blockquote>
Round and round we go. Where we stop, nobody knows.
You boys knock it off NOW!
Newport Skipper - I completely understand your frustrations (believe me, I do), but I think you have made your point for now. Get back to the topic.
CapitalismWorks_IHB
New member
[quote author="SoCal78" date=1251873306][quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1251872057]You (Graphrix) have no ability to self-assess. You are a flaming aggressor. Awgee is just passive-aggressive.
Lest you forget: I jumped into the conversation in utter disgust at the taunts you and Awgee were making towards Robert and Geotpf.</blockquote>
Round and round we go. Where we stop, nobody knows.
You boys knock it off NOW!
Newport Skipper - I completely understand your frustrations (believe me, I do), but I think you have made your point for now. Get back to the topic.</blockquote>
Way to kill the thread SoCal! Sheesh. This was the best thread in months! Solid info, stats, debate, insults, funny pictures... It had it all!
Lest you forget: I jumped into the conversation in utter disgust at the taunts you and Awgee were making towards Robert and Geotpf.</blockquote>
Round and round we go. Where we stop, nobody knows.
You boys knock it off NOW!
Newport Skipper - I completely understand your frustrations (believe me, I do), but I think you have made your point for now. Get back to the topic.</blockquote>
Way to kill the thread SoCal! Sheesh. This was the best thread in months! Solid info, stats, debate, insults, funny pictures... It had it all!
SoCal78_IHB
New member
Well maybe just for you kids, we can create a thread entitled "Schoolyard Antics" and move it to the Water Cooler section. Then you boys can go slap each other around all you want over there while keeping the conversation on topic here for the adults. Perhaps that would suit everyone well.