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.
US taxpayers are expected to subsidize the $40bn settlement owed by five leading banks over allegations that they systematically abused borrowers in pursuit of improper home seizures, the Financial Times has learnt.
However, a clause in the provisional agreement – which has not been made public – allows the banks to count future loan modifications made under a 2009 foreclosure-prevention initiative towards their restructuring obligations for the new settlement, according to people familiar with the matter. The existing $30bn initiative, the Home Affordable Modification Programme (Hamp), provides taxpayer funds as an incentive to banks, third party investors and troubled borrowers to arrange loan modifications.
"But in the end the servicers are not really being punished. They’re getting off easy,” Ms Cohen said.
Originally posted by budro
Assuming a very naive position I will suppose the Financial Times are a trusted source of valid information? UK’s finest? Maybe someone will fill me in on the source there. Off to check their source.
Originally posted by usernamehere
How much more has to occur before the streets are retaken and the buildings are burnt to the ground. Come home.
Originally posted by spirit_horse
Oh, this ticks me off so much. Why can't we have a referendum like Iceland has. This doing whatever they want to bailing out banks and leaving citizens homeless is explosive enough for me. But when they put it on taxpayers with no referendum, I just see red. I am so irate right now! :
edit on 17/2/12 by spirit_horse because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Vitchilo
Originally posted by budro
Assuming a very naive position I will suppose the Financial Times are a trusted source of valid information? UK’s finest? Maybe someone will fill me in on the source there. Off to check their source.
Yes. The Financial Times is very credible. It's the ``economic newspaper`` of the elite.
Originally posted by usernamehere
How much more has to occur before the streets are retaken and the buildings are burnt to the ground. Come home.
Probably the end of food stamps/medicare/medicaid/social security...
Why do you think Homeland Security is giving TANKS to small towns?
The government is preparing for war against it's own people.edit on 17-2-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by six67seven
Originally posted by Vitchilo
Originally posted by budro
Assuming a very naive position I will suppose the Financial Times are a trusted source of valid information? UK’s finest? Maybe someone will fill me in on the source there. Off to check their source.
Yes. The Financial Times is very credible. It's the ``economic newspaper`` of the elite.
Originally posted by usernamehere
How much more has to occur before the streets are retaken and the buildings are burnt to the ground. Come home.
Probably the end of food stamps/medicare/medicaid/social security...
Why do you think Homeland Security is giving TANKS to small towns?
The government is preparing for war against it's own people.edit on 17-2-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)
And the people are preparing for war against the government. The question is, Who will have the military on their side?
Originally posted by RealSpoke
Who needs people when you have drones to do the dirty work for you?
Originally posted by CookieMonster09
How are the banks at fault in this instance? Isn't this what borrowers in distress really want? Don't borrowers want a free ride on their mortgage, with lower payments and reduced principal balances owed?
If you loan me $100,000 to buy a house, and I lose my job, and can no longer afford to make my payments, do you have a right to foreclose on the house? Yes or No?
Is the signed mortgage contract a valid legal contract if you signed it? Yes or No?
What if I came to you and said, "I can afford the payments if you would just reduce the principal by $75,000, and I'll make payments on $25,000 moving forward. This is all I can afford." Who gets to eat the $75,000 loss? The lender?
Why would a lender take a $75,000 loss? Aren't lenders in the business of lending money for profit? Since when did banks become non-profit organizations?
The U.S. government is doing what the left-leaning public wants - A free ride on their mortgage.
Let's be real: They are utilizing taxpayer funds to subsidize deadbeat and distressed borrowers.
That's not the bank's fault. It's the fault of the borrowers for gambling and speculating in the real estate market, buying more house than they can afford.
Don't you want a lower payment on your mortgage? Don't you want free housing? A reduced debt balance on your mortgage? Isn't that what all of the left-leaning radicals want?
Well, here it is. Served on a platter for the average Joe to enjoy. It's not a bank bailout --- It's a bailout for deadbeat borrowers.
Let's be honest and at least factual about who is supposed to benefit from this arrangement,
because it certainly isn't the banks.