"4 weeks and then all hell breaks loose"

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Sure... but I do think NewSkip has a perspective to contribute to this discussion as long as he can keep his i-Testosterone in check.



As much as I respect the data gurus here... having that challenged helps... as long as the challenger keeps on task.



I'm still waiting for that list of 25 available Tustin properties that can be bought for $150k and rented out for $1500.
 
"Do you have anything of value to add to this discussion? Would you care to attempt to answer my question? Or do you still feel the need to prove your internet machismo by insulting others?"



Is this a joke? I'm fairly certain I added more to this thread than anyone. And I did answer your question: DTI is a non-issue under loan mods. That's why they call it "Making Homes Affordable". That is exactly what they are doing.....MAKING homes affordable. Good lord.



Eva, pound sand.
 
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1251936288]"Do you have anything of value to add to this discussion? Would you care to attempt to answer my question? Or do you still feel the need to prove your internet machismo by insulting others?"



Is this a joke? I'm fairly certain I added more to this thread than anyone.

</blockquote>
Maybe it is you who does not understand well.



What I meant is do you have anything more to add other than insulting people.



RIF.

<blockquote>

And I did answer your question: DTI is a non-issue under loan mods. That's why they call it "Making Homes Affordable". That is exactly what they are doing.....MAKING homes affordable. Good lord.

</blockquote>
Cite please... your acornhousing link mentions DTI:

<em>

The lender will have to first reduce payments on mortgages to no greater than 38% Front-End Debt-to-Income (DTI) ratio. Treasury will match further reductions in monthly payments dollar-for-dollar with the lender/investor, down to a 31% Front-End DTI ratio for the borrower.

</em>

My 4 "drama" items speak directly to how such a DTI reduction can happen... and although hyperbolic... there are many cases where a 38 DTI just can't be done.



So do you really believe that a majority of the loan mods do not involve DTI? "Making Homes Affordable" does not equal "Making Income High Enough to Pay the Mortgage".

<blockquote>

Eva, pound sand.</blockquote>
...
 
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1251936288]"Do you have anything of value to add to this discussion? Would you care to attempt to answer my question? Or do you still feel the need to prove your internet machismo by insulting others?"



Is this a joke? I'm fairly certain I added more to this thread than anyone. And I did answer your question: DTI is a non-issue under loan mods. That's why they call it "Making Homes Affordable". That is exactly what they are doing.....MAKING homes affordable. Good lord.



Eva, pound sand.</blockquote>


So let me get this straight: You can randomly come on the scene and defend your irascibility because you are defending RobLar(TM) and Geo, but when someone comes to the defense of someone you disagree with (and who has been quite civil), they are told to "pound sand." How does that not fit within the definition of troll, above?



{BTW, the "Quote" button is very useful to allow others to know who you are referencing.}
 
I see, (IHO) you really don't understand. I'm sorry, I thought you were just being stubborn.



"The lender will have to first reduce payments on mortgages to no greater than 38% Front-End Debt-to-Income (DTI) ratio. Treasury will match further reductions in monthly payments dollar-for-dollar with the lender/investor, down to a 31% Front-End DTI ratio for the borrower.



My 4 ?drama? items speak directly to how such a DTI reduction can happen? and although hyperbolic? there are many cases where a 38 DTI just can?t be done.



So do you really believe that a majority of the loan mods do not involve DTI? ?Making Homes Affordable? does not equal ?Making Income High Enough to Pay the Mortgage?. "



"there are many cases where a 38 DTI just can?t be done"



Let me fix this for you: there are no cases where a 38 DTI can?t be done.



?Making Homes Affordable? does not equal ?Making Income High Enough to Pay the Mortgage?.



Let me fix this one for you too: ?Making Homes Affordable? equals ?Making the mortgage payment low enough to match income."



Yes, really. I swear.
 
"You can randomly come on the scene and defend your irascibility because you are defending RobLar(TM) and Geo, but when someone comes to the defense of someone you disagree with (and who has been quite civil), they are told to ?pound sand.?



Most of what you call my irascibility was in defense of myself, against rude comments such as being called a troll. How extremely arrogant of you.



I will experiment with the quote thing, sorry I'm not up to speed in your world.
 
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1251937708]Most of what you call my irascibility was in defense of myself, against rude comments such as being called a troll. How extremely arrogant of you.</blockquote>


Sentence no. 1 may mean I have poor reading comprehension and/or retention skills. I don't understand how sentence no. 1 leads to the conclusion of sentence no. 2.



<blockquote>I will experiment with the quote thing, sorry I'm not up to speed in your world.</blockquote>


:zip:
 
I guess being called a one-armed monkey, and troll and being told to kick rocks on the freeway are considered polite.
 
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1251937557]I see, (IHO) you really don't understand. I'm sorry, I thought you were just being stubborn.



"The lender will have to first reduce payments on mortgages to no greater than 38% Front-End Debt-to-Income (DTI) ratio. Treasury will match further reductions in monthly payments dollar-for-dollar with the lender/investor, down to a 31% Front-End DTI ratio for the borrower.



My 4 ?drama? items speak directly to how such a DTI reduction can happen? and although hyperbolic? there are many cases where a 38 DTI just can?t be done.



So do you really believe that a majority of the loan mods do not involve DTI? ?Making Homes Affordable? does not equal ?Making Income High Enough to Pay the Mortgage?. "



"there are many cases where a 38 DTI just can?t be done"



Let me fix this for you: there are no cases where a 38 DTI can?t be done.



?Making Homes Affordable? does not equal ?Making Income High Enough to Pay the Mortgage?.



Let me fix this one for you too: ?Making Homes Affordable? equals ?Making the mortgage payment low enough to match income."



Yes, really. I swear.</blockquote>


Skip's right about the details of the loan mods.



However we are all ignoring one of the key considerations in this whole equation, the servicers are the ones who receive the benefits of the loans mods, however they owe a fiduciary duty to the holders of the MBS to maximize the value of the loans within the pools. Setting up payments directly to servicers creates a very clear conflict of interest between the servicer and the mortgage holder/investor. The purpose of the NPV test is supposed to demonstrate whether the modified loan is actually a better long term investment than foreclosure, however as with any projection the numbers are speculative and subject to wide error.
 
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1251937557]

"there are many cases where a 38 DTI just can?t be done"



Let me fix this for you: there are no cases where a 38 DTI can?t be done.

</blockquote>
I can name one:



The homeowner lost their job and has no income.

<blockquote>

?Making Homes Affordable? does not equal ?Making Income High Enough to Pay the Mortgage?.



Let me fix this one for you too: ?Making Homes Affordable? equals ?Making the mortgage payment low enough to match income."



Yes, really. I swear.</blockquote>
Gah... this is akin to "I know you are but what am I?".



Do you really think lenders will take those kind of losses. In this very thread, there was an article where BofA said they couldn't do the loan mods due to problems like I outlined.



And you know of such lenders who will do so? The same lenders who take forever on short sales where they lose only 10% on the transaction?



Can you please cite me multiple cases where a lender has reduced a payments on homes that have had loan balances that are 200% over what the value of the house is. Or where someone's stated income was incorrect and a lender was able to reduce the payment to meet their actual income.



This is what I am saying when you talk in absolutes. But realistically... how many of these loan mods will happen when it's more cost efficient for the bank to foreclose?



BTW: You questioned my confidence in fellow IHB posters and IrvineRenter was the one who I read about shadow inventory from in the first place. It seems like you respect him so maybe you should read today's blog post:



<a href="http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/blog/comments/arden-northwood-irvine/">http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/blog/comments/arden-northwood-irvine/</a>



(geo and RobLar should tune in too)
 
[quote author="CapitalismWorks" date=1251938518]

Skip's right about the details of the loan mods.



However we are all ignoring one of the key considerations in this whole equation, the servicers are the ones who receive the benefits of the loans mods, however they owe a fiduciary duty to the holders of the MBS to maximize the value of the loans within the pools. Setting up payments directly to servicers creates a very clear conflict of interest between the servicer and the mortgage holder/investor. The purpose of the NPV test is supposed to demonstrate whether the modified loan is actually a better long term investment than foreclosure, however as with any projection the numbers are speculative and subject to wide error.</blockquote>
But that's what I've been trying to get at. Although technically he's right... it's not going to pass the NPV test as outlined in the document he posted. Theoretically, I can reduce someone's payment on a $500k loan to $1000 per month... but it would probably be easier to sell that house for $450k.



I guess I need to use "smarter" language because NewSkip doesn't understand me very well.
 
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1251938199]I guess being called a one-armed monkey, and troll and being told to kick rocks on the freeway are considered polite.</blockquote>


Now it appears that you may have poor reading comprehension or retention skills, or you are choosing to misrepresent so that you can claim victim status. No one told you to go kick rocks on the 5. <a href="http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/forums/viewthread/5788/P250/#125548">Here is the original post</a> where Dry Heat invited you, if you were correct, to tell <em>him</em> to go kick rocks on the 5.



You still haven't answered my question, but I am somewhat impressed with your argument jujitsu.
 
[quote author="graphrix" date=1251797685][quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1251794584]Graphrix, I don't want to call you lazy, that would not be cool. However, your list is a joke. The property at 4 Berkshire closed escrow last year, on 11/10/2008. </blockquote>


Doesn't show up in county records as closed. Still REO.



<blockquote>The property at 52 Las Flores closed escrow on 8/29/2009. </blockquote>


Try reading first, then learn how to count. I listed more than 15 properties. And... if you look carefully it says SOLD in capital letters by 52 Las Flores.



<blockquote>The property at 131 Sandpiper was listed last year as an REO.</blockquote>


Doesn't show up in county records as closed. Still REO.



<blockquote>Your list has Dogwood in both Aliso Viejo and Laguna Hills. What Robert put up was twice the effort and three times the value of what you added.</blockquote>


Long before Aliso existed the zip code was part of Laguna Hills. Much like many houses in Ladera still show Mission Viejo as the city in the zip code of 92694. So WTF is your point? That you didn't know that? That you can't see that the zip code is clear as f'ing day as 92656?



Thanks for not providing anything useful, again you add zero, nada, nothing but hot air. Now go kick rocks on the 5 freeway by yourself.</blockquote>




I guess your reading comprehension really does leave a lot to be desired. Did I do the quote thing right?
 
"How does that not fit within the definition of troll, above?"



Is this the question you want answered? The definition fits just about everyone here, including the both us us.
 
[quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1251939060][quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1251937557]

"there are many cases where a 38 DTI just can?t be done"



Let me fix this for you: there are no cases where a 38 DTI can?t be done.

</blockquote>
I can name one:



The homeowner lost their job and has no income.

<blockquote>

?Making Homes Affordable? does not equal ?Making Income High Enough to Pay the Mortgage?.



Let me fix this one for you too: ?Making Homes Affordable? equals ?Making the mortgage payment low enough to match income."



Yes, really. I swear.</blockquote>
Gah... this is akin to "I know you are but what am I?".



Do you really think lenders will take those kind of losses. In this very thread, there was an article where BofA said they couldn't do the loan mods due to problems like I outlined.



And you know of such lenders who will do so? The same lenders who take forever on short sales where they lose only 10% on the transaction?



Can you please cite me multiple cases where a lender has reduced a payments on homes that have had loan balances that are 200% over what the value of the house is. Or where someone's stated income was incorrect and a lender was able to reduce the payment to meet their actual income.



This is what I am saying when you talk in absolutes. But realistically... how many of these loan mods will happen when it's more cost efficient for the bank to foreclose?



BTW: You questioned my confidence in fellow IHB posters and IrvineRenter was the one who I read about shadow inventory from in the first place. It seems like you respect him so maybe you should read today's blog post:



<a href="http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/blog/comments/arden-northwood-irvine/">http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/blog/comments/arden-northwood-irvine/</a>



(geo and RobLar should tune in too)</blockquote>


Yes, unemployment is an example where there is nothing that can be done. You are missing the point about how this is all done. The more underwater the borrower, the greater the loan mod can be, not the other way around. You pretty much have this whole thing backwards.
 
[quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1251939231][quote author="CapitalismWorks" date=1251938518]

Skip's right about the details of the loan mods.



However we are all ignoring one of the key considerations in this whole equation, the servicers are the ones who receive the benefits of the loans mods, however they owe a fiduciary duty to the holders of the MBS to maximize the value of the loans within the pools. Setting up payments directly to servicers creates a very clear conflict of interest between the servicer and the mortgage holder/investor. The purpose of the NPV test is supposed to demonstrate whether the modified loan is actually a better long term investment than foreclosure, however as with any projection the numbers are speculative and subject to wide error.</blockquote>
But that's what I've been trying to get at. Although technically he's right... it's not going to pass the NPV test as outlined in the document he posted. Theoretically, I can reduce someone's payment on a $500k loan to $1000 per month... but it would probably be easier to sell that house for $450k.



I guess I need to use "smarter" language because NewSkip doesn't understand me very well.</blockquote>


And that is the key, not the smarter languaage part, but the part about the effectiveness of ANY loan modification program regardless of how sweet the terms. If individuals can't, or don't want to service the debt mods ain't going to work. So far mods have done very little other that give the foreclosure pipeline constipation.
 
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1251940063][quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1251939060][quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1251937557]

"there are many cases where a 38 DTI just can?t be done"



Let me fix this for you: there are no cases where a 38 DTI can?t be done.

</blockquote>
I can name one:



The homeowner lost their job and has no income.

<blockquote>

?Making Homes Affordable? does not equal ?Making Income High Enough to Pay the Mortgage?.



Let me fix this one for you too: ?Making Homes Affordable? equals ?Making the mortgage payment low enough to match income."



Yes, really. I swear.</blockquote>
Gah... this is akin to "I know you are but what am I?".



Do you really think lenders will take those kind of losses. In this very thread, there was an article where BofA said they couldn't do the loan mods due to problems like I outlined.



And you know of such lenders who will do so? The same lenders who take forever on short sales where they lose only 10% on the transaction?



Can you please cite me multiple cases where a lender has reduced a payments on homes that have had loan balances that are 200% over what the value of the house is. Or where someone's stated income was incorrect and a lender was able to reduce the payment to meet their actual income.



This is what I am saying when you talk in absolutes. But realistically... how many of these loan mods will happen when it's more cost efficient for the bank to foreclose?



BTW: You questioned my confidence in fellow IHB posters and IrvineRenter was the one who I read about shadow inventory from in the first place. It seems like you respect him so maybe you should read today's blog post:



<a href="http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/blog/comments/arden-northwood-irvine/">http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/blog/comments/arden-northwood-irvine/</a>



(geo and RobLar should tune in too)</blockquote>


Yes, unemployment is an example where there is nothing that can be done. You are missing the point about how this is all done. The more underwater the borrower, the greater the loan mod can be, not the other way around. You pretty much have this whole thing backwards.</blockquote>


The more pain the banks have to take on the mods, the less likely it is that the mod will be offered.
 
<blockquote>"there are many cases where a 38 DTI just can?t be done"



Let me fix this for you: there are no cases where a 38 DTI can?t be done.</blockquote>


How can a 38% Back end DTI always be done? Is the "home debter allowed to default on all of their other loans.... This is clearly stated on Page 4 under Back end DTI I wish I could cut and paste but it is a PDF. If someone did an 80/20 finance the 20% still exists and counts toward the 38% back end and so do all of their other credit payments or installment debts, like car payments.



Bringing the Front End to 31% does not and cannot guarantee that the back end will be 38%.



Are you implying that if before my mortgage the rest of my installment debts are 32% of my income then they will reduce my mortgage payment to 6% of my income.



Then there is that pesky recession we are going through. We have massive unemployment, under employment and people that have taken reductions in salary.



That may hurt as well.
 
"I can reduce someone?s payment on a $500k loan to $1000 per month? but it would probably be easier to sell that house for $450k."



That one is not very far underwater, this is more likely:



(Loosely)



Original value = $600,000 (100% financing)



Home value @ $400,000 - 30%(ish) foreclosure expense = $280,000 proceeds and $320,000 loss.



Normal payment of $4,000 x 60 months = $240,000



New payment of $1,000 x 60 months = $60,000



Loss of interest ($180,000) versus loss on foreclosure ($320,000) equals "pass".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top