Bank of America just gave ME attitude!!

reply to post by nikiano


Lets see, you bought a house on speculation, now want the lender to reduce the amount they loaned, because you may actually have to live in in for a decade or more for the house to appreciate in value to the point it is worth what is owed? I wonder if I can take back that plasma screen I bought a couple years ago, because it is now worth half as much as I paid for it...

People should buy houses to live in, not as investments, unless they are prepared to lose money, or hold onto the property for years. Negligence and greed on the part of speculators are why the housing bubble and subsequent economic downturn occurred.

Originally posted by EYEOFEAGLE

How is it the banks fault? Well let me tell you why it is the banks fault.

Imagine you work hard for ten years after you get out of college. Save your money, sacrafice many things to save for that big down payment on that new house in that new neighborhood with the really good school system, cart paths, bike trails and even a big lake right in the middle. Your one of the first ones to buy and get a great lot. Life is good.

Here comes the trash! People buying 600 to 800 k houses with no money down, interest only loans and a new Mercedes C240 sitting in the driveway.
They can't afford the payment on their own so they call in the troops, the mommy, cousins, uncles, aunts. 9 people living in one house.

That sounds more to me like the fault of the "trash," as you put it, than the bank per se. I suppose you could argue that, with the median IQ being 100 and all, the banks, being staffed with all them smart book-learnin' folks, should hold the hands of the less intelligent and guide them into safer, saner paths rather than trying to make a buck off of them. But that wouldn't be the American Way™ as currently construed (hypercapitalism). A few years ago when everyone's property was going up, nobody had a problem with unfettered capitalism. Now that property is going down, people expect somebody to be there to guide the less intelligent and less fortunate so as not to ruin it for everyone else. There are merits and demerits to both ways, but ultimately you can't have it both ways at the same time.

Originally posted by Dbriefed
The bank shouldn't be rude to you. However they probably have a long string of similar requests coming in, some I'm sure from investors who own a number of homes. I don't blame your anger at the bank.

So, if you bailout on the loan you signed for, guess who picks up your tab?

Me.

I'm not going to like you for that.

No, you won't pay anymore. The banks already got their bailout. PLUS, they will get my house when I walk away. Then, they can sell it.

Who suffers in the future? My neighbors.

How do I know? Because I suffered when MY neighbors walked away from their homes in my neighborhood, because that is what brought my house value down.

So, after I leave, MY neighbors will not like me. And they will walk away. And after that, THEIR neighbors will not like them. Then THEY will walk away.

The banks knew this was coming in California and Arizona and Florida.
(Even the guy on the phone tonight said "Yeah, we knew this would happen in those 4 states.") But they're not trying to stop it.


[edit on 8-9-2009 by nikiano]

reply to post by elevatedone


Yup you're biased.

I used to feel guilty, and ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS, and still do pay my obligations, until my main bank turned on me, changed the rules, and b of a made it personal.

I'm actually thinking about walking on the other credit card debt I have...and just settling that as well.

I don't need their credit, and I have NEVER run up any major expenditures on crap....just got caught in the credit crunch.

I could go on and on about how they are not helping those in need...and in my opinion the ones who put LARGE amounts of money down on homes, who cant walk away, have stayed current, want to stay in their house, should be receiving the funds from these banks to buy their loan down, or modify it.

The people who made wise honest decisions should be taken care of, not the speculators and liars.

Originally posted by nikiano
Have you not been following the news these last few years?

But I guess, to be honest, at first, it was the government's fault. They made the banks give out loans to "high risk" borrowers. So, the banks did. Then all those loans defaulted. Then, foreclosures went through the roof. Then, those of us in the 4 worst states lost lots of value in our houses because we had the highest risk states, with the most "high risk" borrowers.

I did not make a poor business decision. I did not buy a house I could not afford. I can afford the payments just fine.

I agree that the Government caused the current situation, but what did you expect was going to happen? Did you honestly think that houses could continue to rise in cost infinitely while the common man was not getting infinite cost of living increases? I knew this was going to break way back before it did, just because it had to. Houses are a commodity, just like any other, and when supply is low they get expensive, when supply is up they lose value. Up until now the cost had been linked to the normal inflationary curve, but then it broke in the late 90’s. Honestly, who were folks expecting to buy these half million dollar 2 bedroom ranches, mom and pop six pack who pull in 60K a year combined?

Let me put it this way. My parents bought a house in the 60’s for 30K, they sold it in the 80’s for 80K. A friend of mine bought a house in 1997 for 80K, and in 2006 he was trying to tell me it was apprised at 250K… WTF! It more then tripled in price in less then half the time it took my parents to double… The house was nowhere as nice, large, or on as much property as the one my parents sold, yet he is telling me it was apprising for a quarter mil? So even my finically ignorant self knew something was wrong already back then. I had no idea what it was or how widespread, but it something was wrong. At that point I decided not to get into a house simply because they had reached a point of being outrageously expensive, and as soon as the baby-boomers started to die off the demand for property would drop along with the values. So the warning signs were there back then if you looked for them.

Either way none of that is the banks fault.

reply to post by stevegmu


You hit the nail on the head exactly. Greed…
All these late night shows on how to get rich quick, all harping on the same thing… Buy property and flip it at more then you bought it for, thereby driving up its price in the interim. Well the last group got stuck with the hot potato, and now they want to someone to rescue them from their bad investment.

Honestly, I have wondered what would happen if all of the US just stopped paying their credit debts. Just outright stopped. We have the power to do that the hard part is organizing everyone to do it. I think it would be a riot watching the banks squirm as a month or two of zero revenue went by. Course then the banks would fail completely and we would be in a total economic meltdown, but from what I can see we are heading there anyway..

reply to post by silent thunder


You can't loan money to people who can't pay it back even if they wanted too. It is the banks fault for making a high risk loan to a high risk customer. There is no argument to it.

If you want to argue, Barney Frank loves it.


Eye of Eagle

Originally posted by stevegmu
reply to post by nikiano

 

Lets see, you bought a house on speculation,

I did NOT buy the house on speculation! I bought the freaking house to live in, and I still live in it! I was not planning on fixing it up and flipping it. THAT is what speculators do....they come in, they buy it, they fix it, they flip it.

We have tons of speculators in Arizona, which is part of the reason why we had SUCH a huge housing bubble compared to other states, because all the Californians came in and bought up cheap property while they could...and meanwhile, people like me (NOT speculators, or investors) got caught in the bubble.

Yes, I expected the value to go up, so when I retired some day, I might have something for my investment all those years. I am not married, I am single, and I don't have a lot of money in my 401k..so I was hoping that this house would be of some value after my mortgage was paid for.

But I did NOT buy the house "on speculation" or as an "investment."

This is MY HOUSE that I LIVE in. I've lived in it since 2005. Get your facts straight, please, before you blast me for something I did not do.l





[edit on 8-9-2009 by nikiano]

Well unlike other people on here I totally agree with you. They should have never bailed the banks out and they should have let them all collapse, but of course that would have been bad for the people too because they would have lost all their savings in the process, and it would probably have left the FDIC in big trouble.

Now it's true that you signed an agreement to buy that house at a certain price but I'm sure that when you made it the bank was very happy as they must have known that you paid top price for it. Now they will not let you renegotiate if you do have the means to pay for it, of course they want to get as much as they can out of you.

I think there must have been some legal means prior to buying your house to ensure yourself in the case its value would go down. But then if you had expected this you probably would not have bought the house anyways. Had you created a corporation owning the house for you, you could have declared bankruptcy with limited personal liability and let your bank deal with your devaluated house by itself. You would have had to spend some money for a good lawyer but at least you would have the satisfaction of not getting f*cked by the bank for a problem that they co-created in the first place.

And about the attitude, I don't think it's specific to BoA. In this country you get a smile before you buy, not after.

If the value of your house is going down, then I would say do the following:
1) Stay and pay it off.
2) Have it appraised and get the county/state to acknowledge that the value is less now, so your TAXES should be less.
3) Insure it for the full value of what the original loan it, that way if Anything happens, the insurance company can pay your house off for you.

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Honestly, I have wondered what would happen if all of the US just stopped paying their credit debts. Just outright stopped. We have the power to do that the hard part is organizing everyone to do it. I think it would be a riot watching the banks squirm as a month or two of zero revenue went by. Course then the banks would fail completely and we would be in a total economic meltdown, but from what I can see we are heading there anyway..

I have a feeling you're right...it's coming.

i think when we finally have a revolution of the people, it will be with the pocketbooks, and not the pitchforks.

I guess this is my form of rebellion....walking away.

reply to post by nikiano


nikiano,

honestly, I do understand your angst. You will do what you feel is right. We all will. You choice is whether you will continue to pay whatever you pay for mortgage or walk away, throwing away everything you have already paid towards the house and pay less for rent. Myself I am a bit angsty that I owe more on my house now than when I bought it (my fault for doing a couple of zero cash refinances, live and learn.. *shrug*).

If you don't mind me asking, and feel free to answer via U2U if you want to answer at all how much did you buy the house for vs. how much you currently owe vs. how much the house is worth? Just curious really.

Businesses are only friendly and accomodating if they anticipate MAKING money from you.

You are asking them to LOSE money. Hence, friendly customer service goes out the door.

reply to post by nikiano


You bought at the top of the housing bobble, and have stated you plan on walking away because the value dropped so much. Seems like speculation to me. If you had planned on living there for years, you would be happy the value has dropped. I have been trying to get the city to devalue my home and extra lot for years, to no success. The last car I bought lost 10% of its value the moment I left the lot. Should I get bailout money to cover the 'loss?'

reply to post by EYEOFEAGLE


Unfortunately, the government forced the banks to makes those loans or face prosecution for refusing to do so. The OP is correct on that point. This happened during the Clinton administration when they started mucking with Carters HUD Housing legislation. It may not have been the only factor in what happened, but it was a big contributor.

Originally posted by EYEOFEAGLE


You can't loan money to people who can't pay it back even if they wanted too. It is the banks fault for making a high risk loan to a high risk customer. There is no argument to it.

If you want to argue, Barney Frank loves it.


Eye of Eagle

In principle I agree with you, but anyone arguing that 3 or 4 years ago would have been called a "commie" or a "filthy hippie" for trying to regulate the banks. God forbid somebody should tell the banks who they can or can't lend to, right? Remember when REGULATION was a dirty word? (and to many it still is). But how would you have stopped the banks from lending to people who shouldn't have taken out a mortgage in the first place without teh dreaded REGULATIONS?

Let's game this out. Suppose it's 2005 or 2007. Somebody in government steps in and says, "wait a minute, things are getting out of control. From now on, we are going to stop all the sketchy loans and demand 20% down for every mortgage plus strong proof of future ability to pay." Suddenly the sales grind to a halt and even the responsible homeowners would have been howling because the sudden lack of demand means the prices of their houses would have gone down. Actually, that would have probably been a good thing because they would have gone down in a slower, statelier manner than the current clusterbomb price drops we are experiencing. But of course, if you made such an argument 3 or 4 years ago people would look at you like you had pin-worms crawling out of your eyeballs.

Originally posted by stevegmu
If you had planned on living there for years, you would be happy the value has dropped. I have been trying to get the city to devalue my home and extra lot for years, to no success.

Hmm.. good point. Lower value means lower taxes. Course the cities don't *want* to lower property values right now since it would cause a severe drop in taxes.

Originally posted by rogerstigers

Originally posted by stevegmu
If you had planned on living there for years, you would be happy the value has dropped. I have been trying to get the city to devalue my home and extra lot for years, to no success.

Hmm.. good point. Lower value means lower taxes. Course the cities don't *want* to lower property values right now since it would cause a severe drop in taxes.

They found a way around that where I live. My area is pretty much insulated from economic downturns, but homes have been selling for less than they were at the height of the bubble, so the city reduced the assessed value of my house. They did increase the value of the lot, however, as well as amount of tax per $100 of perceived value, so my property taxes actually went up.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by EYEOFEAGLE

 

Unfortunately, the government forced the banks to makes those loans or face prosecution for refusing to do so. The OP is correct on that point. This happened during the Clinton administration when they started mucking with Carters HUD Housing legislation. It may not have been the only factor in what happened, but it was a big contributor.

Hmmm...so you are saying the banks were FORCED BY THE GOVERNMENT to make the liar loans? I'm under the impression that they LOVED that crap because they could just "bundle" the toxic loans in the form of "tranches" into complex, high-yielding bonds that could then be sold to investors (mostly overseas but also domestically).

However, you do raise an interesting point...the govt probably does share some of the responsibility due to HUD stuff...I'd like to know how much was bank greed and how much was gov't-mandated. It seems to me that the former motive was much stronger.