It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Foreclosures are a huge money maker for the banks. With all of the late and junk fees added to a troubled loan, the government foreclosure compensation, and the fact that these mortgage companies are insured against any losses- Foreclosures are, overall, a giant windfall for the banks. Tax write offs too. Also, what people are failing to grasp, is that no money is ever really loaned for a mortgage. It is fiat money, an accounting ledger......the bank doesn't loan it's own money.
That's why they want people's homes. Period.
So when a bank makes out a loan, does it loan against its assets as collateral, or does it simply "create money out of thin air" by giving the Federal Reserve a printing order? I think we can all agree that the Federal Reserve is america's semi-private central bank as they have admitted so themselves.
Why do some banks fail while others get stronger? If money was truely created out of thin air wouldn't all the banks survive just by ordering more money from the federal reserve?
Originally posted by CookieMonster09
Again, banks can't survive by simply borrowing from others --- such as the Federal Reserve system --- to cover their huge losses on these bad loans. In fact, that only perpetuates the problem, and can make things worse. Because now they have bad loans that aren't paying any interest, and they also owe money to the Federal Reserve at interest. It's a double whammy.
Originally posted by lostviking
reply to post by ianmoone1
Banks have PMI to protect them from defaulting borrowers, if people put down less than 20%. Don't people remember why PMI was created? In response to record foreclosures in the late eighties. Banks are protected through PMI, and most banks have additional insurance to cover losses......and not FDIC insurance that protects the consumer.
Originally posted by lostviking
Large banks have policies to protect them from foreclosures. The banking industry's wide risk may lie in large directors' and officers' (D&O) and errors and omissions (E&O) claims on policies. There are insurance policies to cover junior insurance policies. There is so much more to the story than people know. The government stepped in with TARP, knowing that there was a looming disaster. Unfortunately, the 30 billion TARP fund, has only paid out 300 million to date, to help struggling homebuyers.
Originally posted by lostviking
reply to post by Daughter2
Cookie Monster's thinking is so black and white, and so misinformed that he/she can not be objective. Most people who bought homes, did so in good faith. Most people trying to save their homes have done so in good faith. Cookie Monster would have everyone think that most people were greedy, devious thieves that lived beyond their means, lied on their mortgage papers and conspired to cheat the system. I would assume that percentage is less than 1%.
They make money in two basic ways: 1)bank fees 2)interest
I can give an real world example of how banks make big money out of foreclosures.
I agree banks usually lose money in foreclosures but this is why I don't understand why so many aren't doing permanent modifications.
You did a good job Cookie Monster, of avoiding the issue of the problem of banks lying during the modification process.
Banks are protected through PMI, and most banks have additional insurance to cover losses
I don't believe for a minute that foreclosures aren't profitable.
It is not expensive to foreclose in a non-judicial state, and furthermore, foreclosures are only a small reason banks are failing.
Most people who bought homes, did so in good faith.
I wish Cookie Monster would go back to his trashcan....or change his name to Oscar. Cookie Monster appears to be paid to blog on behalf of the banks.
Most of the house-flipping he loves to mention is happening RIGHT NOW, not before the crisis.
I am done posting.
He was advised to stop payment on his home in order to trigger the application for new terms, was given it twice, but conveniently CitiMortgage lost track of his paperwork, TWICE.
CitiFinance owed him over $100 K on contracts he had fulfilled, yet would not pay.
.....trying to stop an imminent foreclosure
".....So, in January 2010, he reorganized his business and then declared personal bankruptcy. Throughout his bankruptcy, John kept in touch with Citi about his mortgage, although he was no longer making payments on it."