Bank of America just gave ME attitude!!

Originally posted by JasonT

This time, I'll save money first before buying a home in the future so I can pay for it outright without those vultures at the banks stealing my money through interest and getting lippy with me as if I don't know what I'm on about.

I'm with you....that's exactly what I will do next time. I will never, ever finance a house, or a car, or anything else, ever again.

It used to be, that there was an incentive to working with banks. It used to be a win-win situation. No longer....

I will never, ever, give any bank, one red cent in interest ever again.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by nikiano]

reply to post by nikiano


If more people did that, then banks would return to offering the 'better' deals.

Both parties in the OP are crooks and perfectly exemplify what is wrong in this country and what started this depression, IMO.

On one side we have a shysterous banking system which continued to happily loan more and more money to people unable to ultimately pay it back, which artificially inflated the values of homes well past what they should have been worth. Then, as an added slap in the face, they greedily demanded and readily accepted tax payer dollars (given by the third POS party in the equation, the D.C. political racket) to make sure they didn't lose on their risk.

On the other side, we have someone dumb enough to believe the house they bought was worth the inflated price they took a loan out on AND greedy enough to purchase the already inflated value home with the belief that property values would continue to be driven up. Furthermore, this other party is fully exemplifying the worst trend in America today, and probably the #1 cause of the collapse outside of smarmy politicians by taking an attitude that they are somehow "owed" a get out of jail free card and believing they should be entitled to forgiveness/excuse of a legitimate, legally agreed upon debt.

Did the loan officer have any right to be rude to you? No, he did not. He's a representative of a corporation and as such he should always conduct himself in a professional, non-condescending manner. However, the rest of America has every right to be rude to you over this because you sir are costing us and our future generations trillions of dollars with this kind of selfish, take no responsibillity attitude. Because your house depreciated, you demand debt forgiveness or else you'll walk away and let the rest of the country pay for your greediness? I think it is safe to say that when you purchased the house as an investment, you anticipated it would appreciate in value, correct? Did you also plan on spreading any profits from that hoped appreciation around to the rest of the community and tax payers? No? Then you are a hypocrite! As a side note, I would like to defend my venom against you by pointing out that you, yourself, acknowledged in the OP that this was in no way a situation in which you are no longer ABLE to pay your mortgage... if that was the case, that you had lost a job, suffered a financial setback, or even simply got in over your head, then I'd have some sympathy for you and would agree that there should be mechanisms available to help you, but you simply are saying that you aren't willing to oblige legitimate debts you took on when the percieved benefits to you outweighed the risks. You gambled and you lost the hand, blow your nose, dry your eyes, act like a damn man and get over it.

I think that the postor can (with the right lawyer- I am not him) demand to know what percentage of the bank loan was backed by hard cash and he has to pay that back since it existed before the loan.* The other percent did not exist and was counterfieted IMHO A man/Woman shouldn't be forced to pay back money that never existed.



*Probably by taking the dollar amont of deposits in that branch* vs how much they had lent (average it over a year to get the results otherwise the bank would be stating the same deposites over and over for multiple loans)

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Both parties in the OP are crooks and perfectly exemplify what is wrong in this country and what started this depression, IMO.

On one side we have a shysterous banking system which continued to happily loan more and more money to people unable to ultimately pay it back, which artificially inflated the values of homes well past what they should have been worth. Then, as an added slap in the face, they greedily demanded and readily accepted tax payer dollars (given by the third POS party in the equation, the D.C. political racket) to make sure they didn't lose on their risk.

On the other side, we have someone dumb enough to believe the house they bought was worth the inflated price they took a loan out on AND greedy enough to purchase the already inflated value home with the belief that property values would continue to be driven up. Furthermore, this other party is fully exemplifying the worst trend in America today, and probably the #1 cause of the collapse outside of smarmy politicians by taking an attitude that they are somehow "owed" a get out of jail free card and believing they should be entitled to forgiveness/excuse of a legitimate, legally agreed upon debt.

Did the loan officer have any right to be rude to you? No, he did not. He's a representative of a corporation and as such he should always conduct himself in a professional, non-condescending manner. However, the rest of America has every right to be rude to you over this because you sir are costing us and our future generations trillions of dollars with this kind of selfish, take no responsibillity attitude. Because your house depreciated, you demand debt forgiveness or else you'll walk away and let the rest of the country pay for your greediness? I think it is safe to say that when you purchased the house as an investment, you anticipated it would appreciate in value, correct? Did you also plan on spreading any profits from that hoped appreciation around to the rest of the community and tax payers? No? Then you are a hypocrite! As a side note, I would like to defend my venom against you by pointing out that you, yourself, acknowledged in the OP that this was in no way a situation in which you are no longer ABLE to pay your mortgage... if that was the case, that you had lost a job, suffered a financial setback, or even simply got in over your head, then I'd have some sympathy for you and would agree that there should be mechanisms available to help you, but you simply are saying that you aren't willing to oblige legitimate debts you took on when the percieved benefits to you outweighed the risks. You gambled and you lost the hand, blow your nose, dry your eyes, act like a damn man and get over it.

I did not buy the house out of greed. I bought the house because i was getting priced OUT of a house. Home prices were going up so fast, I thought if I didn't buy soon, I would never be able to buy one ever.

I am probably one of the least greedy people you'll ever meet. I give poor and suffering people money out of my own pocket all the time. I just gave one of my technicians I work with $100 bucks out of my own pocket because he was having trouble buying groceries for his kids.

I am NOT greedy. I just don't want to get stuck with a house worth crap, and end up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest on something worth nothing, through no fault of my own.

And as for acting like a man....I happen to be a woman.

It's funny how you jump to conclusions on everything so quicky....

Not everyone who bought a house from 2004-2008 were "greedy investors". Some of us just happened to buy houses at that time.

P.S. I love that term, "greedy" home buyers. Who do you think started that term? The bankers and the government who offered those loans. I love it....they offer great corrupt loans and securities, but they turn it around on the home buyers and call US greedy.

If that's not the pot calling the kettle black.

The truth is, the government was encouraging these types of lending practices the entire time, then when the bubble deflates, the banks and the government calls the borrowers greedy. Gotta love it. So two-faced.



[edit on 9-9-2009 by nikiano]

[edit on 9-9-2009 by nikiano]

I hate bank of america!

they are the worst bank in all of time. its my bank, but i havent gone to it in about 2 years. i should prob. just close my account but i dont have any money in it anyways so, eh.

local smaller banks are always the best. they tend to not screw you over.

reply to post by nikiano


B.O.A. "became" my bank when all this financial fiasco went down, without! me ever wanting it to be my mortgage holder, I went from Indy Mac, to CountryWide, to now B.O.A. and no one can tell me where my paperwork is! No One! I pay on time, I have good credit. In the end, I see this only as a move to have one bank to answer to, that provides no answers to anyone. I dont see anything good coming from any of this at all. I do get alot of mailer offers which they spend millions on creating and sending out, I dont se much intelligence running this company, I would like to modify my principle as well, but I just dont think it will happen. I'd be anxious to see if anyone has a good BOA story to tell.


Consumption without Contribution

Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter
reply to post by nikiano

 

B.O.A. "became" my bank when all this financial fiasco went down, without! me ever wanting it to be my mortgage holder, I went from Indy Mac, to CountryWide, to now B.O.A.


Consumption without Contribution

Same thing happened to me.....I went from countrywide to B of A. I never chose them as my mortgage lender.

Come to think of it, maybe all of us who got stuck with a different mortgage lender should file a class action suit about getting stuck with a bank we never signed on with. When I took out my mortgage loan, they prevented me from refinancing for 5 years. So, why is it legal for them to sell my loan after only 1 year? THAT should be illegal.

I normally don't believe in law suits, but maybe it would discourage this from happening again.

Hmmm....maybe I'll call a lawyer and start a class action suit against the government for allowing my mortgage to be absorbed by Countrywide in the first place. Countrywide went out of business. My loan should have been DISSOLVED, NOT ABSORBED BY BANK OF AMERICA.

Think of it this way. You owe $50 bucks to a local business on credit. They go out of business. Do you still owe that $50 bucks to the business after they close shop? Nope...they went out of business.

So why do I still have to pay my Coutnrywide Mortgage to Bank of America, after Countrywide went out of business?

There must be some legal prescedence for a law suit such as this....

reply to post by loam

Of course banks seek to guarantee "their own survival and profit before anything else."

I wouldn't put MY MONEY at any bank who didn't... Would you?

Honestly, you need to rethink your perspective, imo.

First the "financial Crisis" was planned and staged. Remember in 1995 WTO was ratified andCorporations started shipping US industry and jobs overseas.

Or when speaking at the UN Business Council in Sept 17 1994

"This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." David Rockefeller

Second the banks "risk" almost NOTHING it is all a paper game. I can not find my reference but the Fed had effectively lowered the "reserve" to 3% instead of the 10% required by law. (Now the reserve can be lowered to zero.) That means that if a $100,000 dollar loan was written the banks lent an actual $3,000 but called it $100,000. This means the bank has recovered its entirereal money outlay in the first five months and the rest is 100% profit for the life of the loan. You have to be a real screw up to fail with that type of business advantage!


(Sec. 705) Amends the Federal Reserve Act to revise the ratio of reserves a depository institution must maintain against its transaction accounts. Permits a zero reserve ratio.

SEC. 128. ACCELERATION OF EFFECTIVE DATE.

Section 203 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 (12 U.S.C. 461 note) is amended by striking ‘‘October 1, 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘October 1, 2008’’.


the previous text
Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 - Section 203.

"Interest on Reserves and Reserve Ratios

"Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to pay banks interest on reserves under Section 201 of the Act. In addition, Section 202 permits the FRB to change the ratio of reserves a bank must maintain relative to its transaction accounts, allowing a zero reserve ratio if appropriate. Due to federal budgetary requirements, Section 203 provides that these legislative changes will not take effect until October 1, 2011."




The purpose of the Fed is to create money, make a profit and concentrate power.

Money is Created by Banks: Evidence Given by Graham Towers to Canadian Parliament: freedomprime.blogspot.com...

Q. But there is no question about it that banks create the medium of exchange?

Mr. Towers: That is right. That is what they are for... That is the Banking business, just in the same way that a steel plant makes steel. The manufacturing process consists of making a pen-and-ink or typewriter entry on a card in a book. That is all. Each and every time a bank makes a loan (or purchases securities), new bank credit is created — new deposits — brand new money. Broadly speaking, all new money comes out of a Bank in the form of loans. As loans are debts, then under the present system all money is debt.

The Federal Reserve is a private corporation and since “the Accord of 1951” it is autonomous.

The [Eisenhower ] administration announced at the outset that it would re1y on monetary policy exclusive1y for its economic regulation and would respect the complete independence of the Federal Reserve to carry out these policies as it saw fit .....

Thirteen years have now passed since the accord and the liberation of the Federal Reserve. What have been the results? The major result is shockingly obvious. Interest rates have climbed steadily, with slight interruptions.. The period has been marked, then, by a continual shift of income to the banks, other major financial institutions, and individuals with significant interest income. The rest of the country provided this incom.... Excerpt from A PRIMER ON MONEY: Committee on Banking and Currency, House of Representatives 1964
famguardian.org...

The US Circuit Court ruled The Federal Reserve Banks are private. Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982).

"Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately-owned and locally controlled corporations." [Lewis vs. U.S., 680 F. 2d 1239, 1241]

The Grace Commission Report:
"With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government."
famguardian.org...

Yes I am crying real crocodile tears for the poor banks, sniff sniff

Originally posted by lernmore

Originally posted by elevatedone
Perhaps I'm biased.

I work in the financial / credit world.

That's it, no more stars for you... ever!

Now if I can just figure out how to take back the other two.

To the OP:

I almost ended up in the same predicament. I was renting a nice house for a decent price that I had remodeled, back in 2005. I had been there 5 years. I really wanted to own the home since I had so much of my own time and money invested into making it a great place to be.

When the owner decided to sell, they gave me the first chance, and offered to take $25,000 off the asking price. Even with the discount, it still came out to almost $500,000.00 and was still well within the average home price for that house in that area.

That's when I decided to do a little more research into the home prices close to me. I think I used zillow.com, and explored my neighborhood. Back then you didn't have to register or anything, just type in an address, not sure about now...haven't looked in 4+ years.

Once you typed in an address, you got a birds-eye view of the houses in the neighborhood and info on when they were last sold, for how much etc. That's when I discovered the "graph of doom".

What it showed was the average price of homes in my area over the last three years, which had a steady incline. Then I clicked on the "ten year" link and almost fell over.
(yes, I almost fell over even though I was sitting down) What previously looked like a ramp now looked like an EKG caught in the middle of a heartbeat. The home prices had gone up in my area 30% in the previous 3 years!

I took a piece of paper, using it as a straight edge on my monitor and came to the conclusion that the home I wanted to purchase shouldn't be worth more than about 360,000.00 should the market correct itself.

I then realized something was seriously wrong. Nobody I knew had their wages increase in such a fashion, and certainly not mine. There was no way that this kind of increase could continue and I wanted to find out why this was happening.

The more I found out, the more that 10 year graph looked like an earthquake than an EKG. Even some of my own friends were in houses they shouldn't have been able to afford. (not saying you fall in this category, just generalizing)

Ever since the Federal Reserve was created back in 1913, time after time after time, bubbles get created and then they burst. As much as I wanted that house, there was no way I was going to be a victim of this one.

As bad as I feel for the OP, the truth is, all the tools were there to easily discover that the home you were buying should in no way be worth what they were asking...period. Anyone who bought a home between 2002 and 2005 probably feels the same way you do, or worse, and the bankers are laughing their asses off because they kept all that money they were supposed to inject back into the economy.

The thought also crossed my mind that I'd eventually be out-priced and never be able to afford the home I wanted, the way prices kept rising, and almost got suckered into it out of fear. Thankfully, in my case, it was just too damn obvious. All you had to do was look.

Hope it works out for ya,

Peace
I also work in the finance word suing banks for mis sold insurance lol.
Can i have some stars please! lol

reply to post by nikiano


"Act like a man" wasn't intended to be a sexist comment. Just wanted to air that right now.

And if you notice, despite you seeming to try and paint me as standing by the banks or the government, I laid blame on their doorsteps as well. It was a three ring circus and, the truth hurts, each party has their own ring. My original points stand.

Originally posted by nikiano

Originally posted by zerbot565
if buying a house that is over priced you can but blame your self.
.

I bought my house at $160,000.

Hardly overpriced for Scottsdale, Arizona.

The two houses for sale on my street are now selling for $80,000 and $90,000. They have been on the market for over 2 months....nobody is buying.

My real estage agent said that the house values in Arizona will be going down again after November, most likely, becasue that is when the 8k incentive for new home buyers ends. She said right now, most houses are going UP a little bit. (My house value continues to fall...go figure. So, in December, my house value will probably plummet.)
[edit on 9-9-2009 by nikiano]

160k for a house is not bad if it contains all the neccesities and has a good yard,

dont know about the value of propetry in AZ but i have a few friends that live near tuscon / benson i could ask for reference ,

i see it this way , thouse houses that are for sale near you are underpriced , and your propery is the one that holds the real value, when someone buys the empty houses theyll want the same value for their house that you had to pay for your house back then.

another thing you could do is get a better rate for your loan at an other bank and pay the boA loan back. and put the loan in to 2 sections , 1 with a fixed rate and one with a moving rate ,


i bougth my house for 30k its valued at around 250k now after 10 years of refurbishing , all i can do is suggest people do the same.

the cheeper you get the property the faster you own it.

Maybe I will stay in my house and start a class action suit against the government for taking my loan from bankrupting countrywide and giving it to bank of america, who is now refusing to modify anyone's loan.

I will start this class action suit on behalf of all Americans who are now getting ripped off by the Bank of America.

The government should not have just given our mortgages to B of A without finding out if B of A would be willing to modify loans. They just said: Here you go! It's yours.

That should be illegal. I did not choose bank of America.....I did not sign on the bottom line with bank of america.

Selling someone's mortgage without getting the mortgage buyer's permission should be illegal. If they had asked me, I would have said NO WAY....I have worked with B of A in the past and found them to be corrupt. Which is why I now bank with another bank.

I think I am going to call a class action lawyer and see if I have a case....sue to nullify my mortgage with B of A on the grounds that it was illegal for the government to give my mortgage that I had with Countrywide to B of A without my permission.

So, now I am stuck with a bank I hate...and I never asked for.

Originally posted by nikiano
Selling someone's mortgage without getting the mortgage buyer's permission should be illegal. If they had asked me, I would have said NO WAY....I have worked with B of A in the past and found them to be corrupt. Which is why I now bank with another bank.

On that, we agree. At the very least, there should be a mechanism in place for you to have voided the loan and walked away without penalty when the loan changed hands if you were unsatisfied with the new holder.

On that, we agree. At the very least, there should be a mechanism in place for you to have voided the loan and walked away without penalty when the loan changed hands if you were unsatisfied with the new holder.

Yes, the more I think about this, I think I might have a case to bring to the Federal Courts on behalf of the American people....I think it might even be as simple as a case of property rights!

I e-mailed a friend of mine who is a lawyer to find out if she thinks I might even have a case.

I told her:

I'm not a lawyer, but I would like to argue before a court that our mortgages with Countrywide should have been dissolved and forgiven when Countrywide went bankrupt. They should not have been awarded to a bigger bank, just to save the investor's hides. The homeowner's interests should have come first.

The investor's took a risk in buying mortgage backed securities....when my bank went bankrupt, they should have lost their investment, and that would have been the end of it. Instead, the U.S. wanted to protect the securities investors...not the homeowners....and they awarded our mortgages to Bank of America.

I would like to find out if that was illegal. If not, I think it should be. The United States Government should not be able to award another bank my mortgage when my bank goes out of business, for the purpose of protecting investors. Maybe it's even a case of property rights?

----

I'll see what she says. I normally do not believe in courts or laws, because I figure, if you lead a moral life, you should never need a lawyer.

But I guess I'm figuring out that lawyers are for people who are getting screwed, too.

Hmmmm....if anyone knows a lawyer who specializes in property rights and is willing to take on a class action suit, will you let me know?

A friend of mine who just purchased a house was due to make his first mortgage payment last month.

The money wasn't taken out of his account.

So he called and was told there was a 75 minute wait. So...he knew something was up. He called the mortgage broker and was like, "Hey whats up?"

The broker explained that the lender went bankrupt, the feds showed up in the morning, left in the afternoon and announced that all accounts are now owned by B of A.

So his payment would eventually come out of the account, but it might be weeks or months.

They just GAVE away his good business to another bank. Amazing.

reply to post by nikiano


Right now the main thing I would look at is whether your actual monthly payment is within your budget. Interest rates have been so low that mortgages are usually cheaper than renting a decent 2 bedroom apartment. Could you find a cheaper place to live and maintain the same conditions you live in now? Probably not.

boa is a horrible bank we changed after we were going overdraft after looking online at there site and on there phone line at our funds on there online banking and phone line told us we had money but after we got our notice of being over draft they told us online and there phone line doesn't say temp charges on your account so we paid there stupid fee and are changing banks boa can rot for all i care

sorry to hear that man but thanks alot of sharing,i guess we should stay out of banks

Originally posted by Bombeni
reply to post by nikiano

 

Right now the main thing I would look at is whether your actual monthly payment is within your budget. Interest rates have been so low that mortgages are usually cheaper than renting a decent 2 bedroom apartment. Could you find a cheaper place to live and maintain the same conditions you live in now? Probably not.

Actually, yes I could. I could rent for half of what I'm paying in mortages. In fact, there are lots of nice places in Phoenix and Scottsdale I could rent for half the amount.