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?
No they are not asking for a free ride on their mortgage. Many mortgage-holders would like nothing more than to be able to pay their bills, but
that's only possible for those with an income. The mortgage-holders did not anticipate the economic collapse any more than the banks who were
handing out mortgages.
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?
hold the mortgage note, yes. However most banks do not hold the mortgage note and have no claim to mortgage payments. This is because
it's illegal for banks to simultaneously collect mortgage payments and make bets against people being able to pay that exact same mortgage (aka
Is the signed mortgage contract a valid legal contract if you signed it? Yes or No?
Yes, and it is an invalid contract once the bank illegally transfers it to someone else, which is pretty much standard practice because this how how
they are able to sell derivatives on that contract.
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?
Yes because that's the risk you take, as a lender, when you make bad loans and then actively bet against people being able to pay those loans in
order to make much larger profits than what the actual loan is worth. All the mortgage payments illegally
collected are just free money.
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
In case you haven't noticed, the banks have been quite profitable, and for the above-listed reasons, they are completely comfortable with taking a
so-called "loss," which is often converted into a short sale, wherein the bank gets to repeat the entire process, courtesy of the tax payers'
The U.S. government is doing what the left-leaning public wants - A free ride on their mortgage.
I think there are plenty of threads on ATS that demonstrate clearly that the U.S. government is doing what the banks and corporations want it to do,
not what any public, left or right, wants it to do.
Let's be real: They are utilizing taxpayer funds to subsidize deadbeat and distressed borrowers.
which includes banks and corporations, not just individuals...
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.
I agree that borrowers are responsible, but that does not mean banks are absolved of their part in the deal. It takes two to tango. The banks signed
the paperwork just like everyone else.
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?
Those are loaded questions, so I'm sure we can find some right-leaning people who would like those things too...
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
I agree, except banks also borrow from one another, so it's not as cut-and-dry as this statement makes it seem.
Let's be honest and at least factual about who is supposed to benefit from this arrangement,
Ok sounds good.
because it certainly isn't the banks.
Maybe the banks are not benefiting, but the CEOs of banks are certainly benefiting from those bonuses...
Good conversation. Here are some links to substantiate what I have talked about:
(pay attention to the part about securitization)