February 17, 2009
— Dave in Texas Having waited a few comfy days to sign the most important emergency legislation eveh, Obama is now ready to take on the housing crisis.
Well thank goodness.
Though administration officials are tight-lipped about details, one idea that has been floated is for the federal government to reduce monthly mortgage payments by modifying loans.Sheila Bair, the U.S. FDIC chairwoman, has advocated reducing payments to between 31 and 38 percent of a family's gross income.
Funny, I would have advocated that if I had been like, a loan officer or something. For goodness sakes! Don't let your payment exceed 97% of your gross income. Cause, well you know, you can't PAY that.
You know.
These are the details in the spring, that make a young man's fancy lightly turn to thoughts of love.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at
10:16 AM
| Comments (74)
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 17, 2009 10:19 AM (aK1+D)
Where do we line up for that? :-P
Posted by: Curmudgeon at February 17, 2009 10:19 AM (ujg0T)
Posted by: the real joe at February 17, 2009 10:20 AM (2t2zK)
Posted by: FreakyBoy at February 17, 2009 10:20 AM (4s1it)
Posted by: pendejo grande at February 17, 2009 10:21 AM (PXZI9)
I am a damn fool. Why in the hell did I limit myself to a house that I can afford if the Givernment is going to come back and modify the loans of all the irresponsible borrowers?
Now not only do I have to pay my mortgage, but I guess I have to pay for that dude down the street's mortgage. You know the guy. The one that pulled $200k in equity out of his house for a new boat and new Escalade.
Responsibility is for suckers and fools.
Posted by: California Red at February 17, 2009 10:21 AM (7uWb8)
We're definitely in a "market failure" situation in which incentives are perverted and we're all in a game theoretical position where cheating (taking advantage of the perverse incentives) is the only rational play.
Posted by: Nom de Blog at February 17, 2009 10:23 AM (szcvf)
Posted by: al franken at February 17, 2009 10:24 AM (uRfsm)
What? Only assholes who 'bought' a house they couldn't afford in a million years get money from me? Oh, that's fair.
Fucking fuckers.
Posted by: DrewM. at February 17, 2009 10:25 AM (hlYel)
What's it gonna be like to live in a world where there are no negative consequences for stupid behaviors? Is it gonna be really great? Or is it gonna really suck? I can't decide.
But it reminds me of that line from some kid's movie, "In a world where everyone is special, no one is."
Posted by: pendejo grande at February 17, 2009 10:25 AM (PXZI9)
Posted by: Nom de Blog at February 17, 2009 10:26 AM (szcvf)
38%? That's still way too high. You really shouldn't be paying more than 28% of your income on ALL housing costs if you want to be able to save a little and not live paycheck to paycheck. Heating/AC, maintenance, yard work, cable/phone/gas/etc. bills, property taxes, etc. - if you are at 38% just on your mortgage you are still going to struggle.
The Federal Government is going to make to complete mess of housing. There is no way they can estimate where the housing prices are going to settle out naturally - let alone with interference. Cram downs and mortgage modifications are going to be a disaster. How could it possibly be managed properly? No way.
What's worst is that honest, hard-working people who did the right thing and bought within their means are the ones that are going to be punished and given no help, and the idiots who bought houses they KNEW they couldn't afford are going to get our tax dollars to help them out. What bullshit. Makes me sick.
Posted by: markytom at February 17, 2009 10:27 AM (ZG9as)
Posted by: Housing/Mortgage Market at February 17, 2009 10:29 AM (4s1it)
Posted by: Vic at February 17, 2009 10:29 AM (f6os6)
The WSJ had a good article last week about how just allowing bankruptcy judges to alter the terms of auto loans cost all borrowers an average of 2.5 percentage points on their loans.
Posted by: Splunge at February 17, 2009 10:31 AM (WeKQS)
Funny, I would have advocated that if I had been like, a loan officer or something. For goodness sakes! Don't let your payment exceed 97% of your gross income.
What if hypothetically my income is $100,000,000.00 a year? Are you saying I can't live on $250,000.00 a year so I can't have a $99,750,000.00 loan?
You sir, are a filthy liar and it's obvious you have know idea what your talking about and should be ignored.
Posted by: Entropy at February 17, 2009 10:32 AM (m6c4H)
Posted by: Kerry K. Killinger at February 17, 2009 10:32 AM (AHrTm)
Posted by: MikeH at February 17, 2009 10:35 AM (zqzYV)
Say it with me now....PRINCIPAL REDUCTION.
That is the only thing that makes sense to most primary homeowners who are upside down due to no fault of our own. All these other loan mods are BULLSHIT.
Posted by: Hurricane at February 17, 2009 10:36 AM (CjTZ9)
think i'll just cash out what's left of my 401K and buy some guns and ammo.
Posted by: redc1c4 at February 17, 2009 10:36 AM (sT30R)
Say it with me: foreclosure.
That's the solution if people can't afford the things they tried to buy. This beggar-thy-neighbor shit stuff just makes everybody pay for some individual's mistake.
It's tough but it's the only answer that creates the incentive structure going forward.
Posted by: Nom de Blog at February 17, 2009 10:42 AM (szcvf)
But at least the deal doesn't include raising our mortgage payments.
Yet. (Geithner doesn't read this blog, does he?)
Posted by: SlaveDog at February 17, 2009 10:43 AM (H6Jyg)
Posted by: concerned2 at February 17, 2009 10:45 AM (zplc6)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 17, 2009 10:50 AM (Ygf78)
Posted by: 2Nightmares at February 17, 2009 10:52 AM (CZoVx)
In other words, deciding they only have to pay, say, 100,000 on a 400,000 house, or whatever.
They have said they aren't going into "details" about this whole plan. My suspicion about the "details" is that they are going to do just that - pay off half the houses FOR these people.
What do you think?
Posted by: Alana at February 17, 2009 10:55 AM (JE2zV)
Entropy - I know you're being facetious and all, but that's not what your entire loan would be...that would be the total of your mortgage payments for the year. Your total loan would probably be 10x larger.
And do you think you'd be able to score that 97%-income house in a land where property taxes would be less than the other 3%?
Posted by: reason at February 17, 2009 10:59 AM (q/kmn)
Posted by: T-web at February 17, 2009 11:02 AM (2TgS+)
Posted by: polynikes at February 17, 2009 11:02 AM (m2CN7)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 17, 2009 11:03 AM (Ygf78)
Posted by: Houstonian at February 17, 2009 11:03 AM (9ypY/)
Actually, if you can hold off on doing this now; I'd like to make some deals with some people to deliberately buy their property at inflated rates. I bet dad would sell me the family home for a mil.
Once it gets reassessed down to 200K I can have the loan principle cut and we can share the profits. 400K each for no work but printing and signing a few contracts? Better than robbing the bank myself, bank robbers usually only get 30-40K tops.
That was the goal right? Legal, Government sponsored bank robbery. What a great idea, this'll surely benefit the economy and all of mankind.
Posted by: Gekkobear at February 17, 2009 11:10 AM (X0NX1)
Yay! Everyone is on welfare!
And won't it be great when the gubmint moves in that ghetto family--all thirteen of them!--right next door to you! Feel the excitement! Feel the diversity! Feel the knife cutting right through you and yours' throats!
Posted by: jaleach at February 17, 2009 11:13 AM (gHrZU)
"So if they do reduce these loans, what happens 10 years down the road when (hopefully) the housing market has somewhat recovered and beneficiaries of this policy want to sell? Will the people who bought homes they couldn't afford get to benefit even more by selling them at a premium compared to their government-reduced mortgages?"
Hopefully there will be some sort of correction in the markets as well as just "fixing" these overinflated mortgages that reflected amazingly overinflated house values. Wereas, if you cut the principal of the morgage in 1/4, then you also cut the appraised value of the property in 1/4, to keep it all fair and even.
I dunno. It's always amazed me to watch these "house-flipper" programs on HGTV, where you'll have people in the Seattle suburbs buying 1,000 square-foot crackerbox crapholes for $400K, and then slapping down some new tile, replacing the appliances, putting up some paint to mask the rotted-out walls, and then sell the lot for $750K. Maybe it's just because I've only ever known TX property values. That same $400K craphole out here would be lucky to draw $60K. And a $750K house would be a 3,500 square foot complete custom house on a lakefront lot off of Possum Kingdom.
Posted by: reason at February 17, 2009 11:14 AM (q/kmn)
Posted by: SGT Dan at February 17, 2009 11:19 AM (EsBr1)
Posted by: The guy under the bridge at February 17, 2009 11:22 AM (nTM50)
Posted by: Techie at February 17, 2009 11:22 AM (906oR)
As much as it turns my stomach, I'd rather that the government set up some sort of fund where a homeowner can come in and apply for a few months's assistance to either cover what they can't pay each month or help to unload a house they can't afford to pay for. It sets a bad precedent for the government to modify a contract agreed upon by two parties, no matter how stupid the contract.
Mistakes are supposed to hurt, so you learn not to make them anymore.
Posted by: Chip at February 17, 2009 11:23 AM (0eE1e)
Posted by: nickless at February 17, 2009 11:24 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: mjhlaw at February 17, 2009 11:25 AM (0udxW)
You know how we used to brow beat other countries who continually tried to make 2 + 2 = 5 in their economic polices? Good times.
Say it with me now....PRINCIPAL REDUCTION.
That is the only thing that makes sense to most primary homeowners who are upside down due to no fault of our own.
Hurricane...where to start...if you signed up for an interest only loan, it is your fault. If not, I'm unsure how the rest of the polity owe you a break on an investment.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 17, 2009 11:34 AM (B+qrE)
The fact that banks actually granted mortgages which would generate payments in excess of 40% of monthly income bothers me. It would bother the banks too, if they were actually forced to suck on the bad loan.
Posted by: physics geek at February 17, 2009 11:34 AM (MT22W)
Posted by: jimd long at February 17, 2009 11:34 AM (t2Nkd)
The fact that banks actually granted mortgages which would generate payments in excess of 40% of monthly income bothers me.
This is the crux of the matter. Fannie and Freddie piled these things up and the banks tunred them into exotic paper knowing than, in the end, the USG would have to step in if things got too rough. Well, it got too rough and here we are. I'd like to thank Hank Paulson and his fraternity buddies for being either the smartest criminals in history or the worst example of dumbass banking in history.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 17, 2009 11:39 AM (B+qrE)
Say it with me now....PRINCIPAL REDUCTION.
That is the only thing that makes sense to most primary homeowners who are upside down due to no fault of our own. All these other loan mods are BULLSHIT.
Posted by: Hurricane at February 17, 2009 03:36 PM (CjTZ9)Say it with me now...SCREW YOU.
Why exactly do I or anyone else owe you or another in your situation one red fucking cent?
You made your deal, now live with it. I didn't do anything to get you in the mess you and others or in so don't come fucking telling me I need to pay up.
The idea that the government and your fellow citizens have to come to your rescue is BULLSHIT.
Posted by: DrewM. at February 17, 2009 11:45 AM (hlYel)
Why don't they let the banks collect rent while they try to sell these houses to qualified buyers? The new owner could continue to collect rent or kick the fuckers out and live in it.
The banks are going to lose money no matter what gets done. This could reduce their loses. It also gives many responsible buyers the chance to buy a home at decent price instead of the artificially inflated prices that kept many people out of the market for the past 10 years while irresponsible borrowers were driving up the prices.
Posted by: Lemmiwinks at February 17, 2009 11:49 AM (Nwbo8)
Posted by: wooga at February 17, 2009 12:05 PM (2p0e3)
wooga at February 17, 2009 05:05 PM (2p0e3)
The decline you speak of is the markets way of resetting the correct value instead of the inflated values that got us into this mess in the first place. I'd rather not repeat that scenario. We need the correction and its going to hurt. As someone said before, the banks should take the house and the residents can become renters again. Hopefully they learned their lesson.
Posted by: polynikes at February 17, 2009 12:29 PM (m2CN7)
Yeah, too fucking bad they weren't concerned about mortgage details several years ago. Right Barney? Maxine? Dodd?
Assholes.
Posted by: GarandFan at February 17, 2009 12:46 PM (237hA)
A lot of these mortgages were not originally high LTV or high debt to income ratio loans. But when the value of the houses falls by 20-30%, suddenly they are. It isn't any individual homeowner's fault that he bought a house he could afford at the time and then the market tanked and he is now upside down. Most of these houses were bought in the last 5-6 years so there is a lot of mortgage left on them. And if banks have to foreclose on all those houses, the houses will be vacant for a long time and off the local tax rolls, in addition to being targets for theft and general blight. There are "externalities" to allowing massive foreclosures. The lender, the homeowner, and the community are generally better off if the loans can be modified either through principal reduction or stretching out the payments and dropping the monthly payment.
Posted by: rockmom at February 17, 2009 12:53 PM (xOEA9)
Of course then the banks wouldn't be collecting their multiple trillions in interest.
Instead, their just burying us in more debt and throwing money down the tubes to the banks.
Note: I'm not a f-ing economist, so don't get up in my grill about my bullshit take on this. Also, I'm not saying this is what should be done, but as I sit back and watch the injustice of it all it's very tempting to go John Galt and just shut it down.
Posted by: rockhead at February 17, 2009 01:03 PM (DvaIL)
O needs to differentiate between the types of distressed homeowners out there: those that want to keep their house but can't refi due to declining prices and/or those that are facing foreclosure because they can't afford their payment no matter what. Propping up the latter will only delay the inevitable and damage the market even further as it cancels out what makes a real "market" exist b/w buyer and seller. For the former, what they could do is require the banks to assume that the past purchase price was market and then guarantee the difference b/w actual market (real price) and previous purchase price in terms of refinancing the balance.
I'll agree with others here, if O injects the Feds into the residential market too much he'll destroy whatever recovery may have been on the way b/c unless they make the restrictions uber tight, everyone and their brother will try to find a way to qualify for the assistance. I mean, why pay for your own house when the National Bank of O will do it for you?
Posted by: volfan at February 17, 2009 01:25 PM (2V6Ai)
Posted by: bill-tb at February 17, 2009 02:06 PM (7evkT)
"A lot of these mortgages were not originally high LTV or high debt to income ratio loans. But when the value of the houses falls by 20-30%, suddenly they are. It isn't any individual homeowner's fault that he bought a house he could afford at the time and then the market tanked and he is now upside down. Most of these houses were bought in the last 5-6 years so there is a lot of mortgage left on them. And if banks have to foreclose on all those houses, the houses will be vacant for a long time and off the local tax rolls, in addition to being targets for theft and general blight. There are "externalities" to allowing massive foreclosures. The lender, the homeowner, and the community are generally better off if the loans can be modified either through principal reduction or stretching out the payments and dropping the monthly payment."
I fail to see how simply being upside-down on your home somehow causes you imminent financial doom. You're still making the same payments on it (assuming you're in a fixed mortgage), and unless you were looking to only own the house short-term anyway, and you're looking to sell now, you aren't taking any sort of hit on the fact that you're upside-down (not you specifially, just the generic "you" of someone who is upside-down).
People go upside-down on their cars all the time for the first several years of their financing period. And unless you're the kind of idiot that likes to buy a car, and then sell it as soon as the next newer body-style comes out (in which case you should be leasing), then being upside-down for a while doesn't matter, because eventually you'll be right-side-up again, and odds are you're planning on owning the car for longer than it takes to pay it off anyway...
The only thing that being upside-down on your house should prevent you from doing is getting a home-equity loan / line of credit... What am I missing?
Posted by: reason at February 17, 2009 02:15 PM (5npD/)
Highly negative equity also prevents you from moving, since selling requires you to pay off the mortgage with money you don't have. Obviously, a new lender wouldn't be interested in transferring that negative equity to a new house in the form of something obscene like a 125% LTV mortgage. In theory, your current lender wouldn't be any worse off doing something like that, but I don't think an arrangement like that is common.
Posted by: pbrown at February 17, 2009 03:26 PM (rTGYp)
Posted by: pbrown at February 17, 2009 03:33 PM (rTGYp)
Posted by: PJ at February 17, 2009 03:37 PM (fyFnu)
Lurching from one trillion dollar crisis to the next. SO what exactly did the giant porkulus waste of money do again?
It gave Liberal politicians an Earth-shuddering orgasm and a desire for more.
They're whores, ya know.
Posted by: ErikW at February 17, 2009 04:12 PM (hKtiw)
Posted by: remy hair at February 17, 2009 04:34 PM (9Bw41)
He does, but he uses the TurboTax browser. Filters out all the unimportant stuff.
Posted by: jbarntt at February 17, 2009 04:50 PM (qSalV)
Posted by: George Orwell at February 17, 2009 05:02 PM (v6gTb)
Posted by: PJ at February 17, 2009 08:43 PM (fyFnu)
Posted by: remy hair at February 18, 2009 05:02 PM (QOA2y)
Posted by: Anonymous at February 18, 2009 10:42 PM (5jAt6)
Posted by: iolanda at September 30, 2009 01:40 AM (YgE7Y)
Posted by: Ray at October 11, 2009 07:52 PM (gv23i)
Wrought iron is commercially pure iron. In contrast to steel, it has very low carbon content. It is a fibrous material due to the slag inclusions (a normal constituent). This is also what fives it a "grain"resembling wood, which is visible when it is etched or bent to the point of failure. Wrought iron is tough, malleable, ductile and easily welded.
Posted by: Wrought iron gates at November 24, 2009 10:44 PM (+SVR+)
Rigging hardware is a part of the sailboat.We are rigging supplier.If you need rigging hardware,stainless steel rigging, please contact us.
Posted by: rigging hardware at November 24, 2009 10:48 PM (+SVR+)
Posted by: Gilroy at March 04, 2010 09:40 AM (1W5kC)
Posted by: Zeland at March 17, 2010 12:55 PM (S4blP)
Posted by: amery buck at April 15, 2010 04:13 AM (i2nYc)
Personal blog newbie
witul4r's blog
Blogger Indonesia dukung internet aman, sehat & manfaat
Blogger Indonesia dukung internet aman, sehat & manfaat
Posted by: zonda at July 05, 2010 06:54 PM (HXTxl)
Posted by: penchenk at July 20, 2010 11:48 PM (frasF)
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.









