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.

 

Bank of America Getting Into the Landlord Business

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacobe001
reply to post by prisoneronashipoffools
 


No, this is not a good idea at all.
This is all about BOA.
If the people were thrown out on the street, then the house would deteriorate and the banks would loose money.
This also keeps the average price of houses inflated, when the prices should be dropping.
Wages have been stagnating for most American's and in order to keep up with the historic 2 to 3X annual income for a house, prices need to drop.

This is nothing more than serfdom.


So, it's better that the people become homeless, so you and others feel satisfied that the banks are being punished. Oh I see screw, the family about to be foreclosed on, who cares if they end up on the street, so long as the bank gets screwed in the end, right?

Like I said in my first post, what most of you don't realize is the banks aren't the only ones who will suffer if they just keep foreclosing and dumping these houses on the market; every single person who currently owns a home will be affected as well. I am sure most of the posters against it probably don't own a house or if they do they aren't thinking about how falling home prices will effect them. Hopefully if you do own a house none of you have a job transfer or have to move, because in this market and the one that will come if banks keep dumping houses, forget about selling it without taking a bath.

And finally quit comparing this to sharecropping and feudalism that is just ludicrous. The fact is if you have the cash to buy a house tomorrow you can, you can't in feudalism, because only aristocracy can own land, so it's not even remotely the same.

As, far as home prices being inflated, yeah to some degree they are, but if you actually look around at the prices of everything, I would actually say, that one the primary reasons home prices are so high, is because or money is rapidly becoming worthless, and dumping homes on the market and crashing it, really isn't going to fix that problem or really be good for the housing market and people in the long run.

In the end none of it matters anyway, because it's a voluntary program, just like mortgages are actually voluntary contracts, and I am sure the people about to be foreclosed on will actually take the deal to rent, rather then be thrown on the street; so despite what any of us say the program will more then likely go forward.
edit on 24-3-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typos

edit on 24-3-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typo

edit on 24-3-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typo




posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   


Hey Prisoner... the one thing you seem to miss here is, regardless of helping anyone else, this still enables the same 'crooks' to stay in business and find another way to screw people. This btw is the same crap which happened in the Savings and Loans Crisis. All the banks booooed and said, We'd never do that'... and what was it... the S n Ls loaned 125% the current value of a property... gee, does that sound better than the banks loaning 400% the real value. Read my apology above... we should have let them all fail...
reply to post by OldCurmudgeon
 


Well, Old, I agree we shouldn't have bailed them out, but we did. And as far as this plan letting them stay in business I don't care if it does, because over all it has greater benefit to the people, then the alternative. Also, in the end, if you think we won't bail these jokers out again when they ask, you are sorely mistaken.

I say if it helps the people, even if it helps the bankers, so be it. Otherwise we are just cutting off our nose to spite our face, because if it keeps going the way it's going, it will just be more families on the streets and on the government safety net anyway. And if the housing market keeps falling then it will be people who already own homes who are going to lose, and why should we make them suffer for the fault of people who entered into voluntary contracts with the banks that they couldn't afford to pay in the first place.

And really it must be the end of the world I am actually defending the banks for once. lmao
edit on 24-3-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typo



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by prisoneronashipoffools

Originally posted by jacobe001
reply to post by prisoneronashipoffools
 


No, this is not a good idea at all.
This is all about BOA.
If the people were thrown out on the street, then the house would deteriorate and the banks would loose money.
This also keeps the average price of houses inflated, when the prices should be dropping.
Wages have been stagnating for most American's and in order to keep up with the historic 2 to 3X annual income for a house, prices need to drop.

This is nothing more than serfdom.


So, it's better that the people become homeless, so you and others feel satisfied that the banks are being punished. Oh I see screw, the family about to be foreclosed on, who cares if they end up on the street, so long as the bank gets screwed in the end, right?

Like I said in my first post, what most of you don't realize is the banks aren't the only ones who will suffer if they just keep foreclosing and dumping these houses on the market; every single person who currently owns a home will be affected as well. I am sure most of the posters against it probably don't own a house or if they do they aren't thinking about how falling home prices will effect them. Hopefully if you do own a house none of you have a job transfer or have to move, because in this market and the one that will come if banks keep dumping houses, forget about selling it without taking a bath.

And finally quit comparing this to sharecropping and feudalism that is just ludicrous. The fact is if you have the cash to buy a house tomorrow you can, you can't in feudalism, because only aristocracy can own land, so it's not even remotely the same.

As, far as home prices being inflated, yeah to some degree they are, but if you actually look around at the prices of everything, I would actually say, that one the primary reasons home prices are so high, is because or money is rapidly becoming worthless, and dumping homes on the market and crashing it, really isn't going to fix that problem or really be good for the housing market and people in the long run.

In the end none of it matters anyway, because it's a voluntary program, just like mortgages are actually voluntary contracts, and I am sure the people about to be foreclosed on will actually take the deal to rent, rather then be thrown on the street; so despite what any of us say the program will more then likely go forward.
edit on 24-3-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typos

edit on 24-3-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typo

edit on 24-3-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typo


Just for the record; it is not a 'voluntary' program from the standpoint the bank is 'choosing' (cherry picking might be a better word) 1,000 mortgages in three states. An individual cannot 'volunteer' to be in the program.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   


Just for the record; it is not a 'voluntary' program from the standpoint the bank is 'choosing' (cherry picking might be a better word) 1,000 mortgages in three states. An individual cannot 'volunteer' to be in the program.
reply to post by OldCurmudgeon
 


I actually I disagree, it is voluntary, because it's not mandatory, homeowners who are picked can choose not to take the deal, and instead be foreclosed on. Just, like they voluntarily chose to enter into the mortgage contract with the bank in the first place.

edit on 24-3-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typo



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by prisoneronashipoffools


Just for the record; it is not a 'voluntary' program from the standpoint the bank is 'choosing' (cherry picking might be a better word) 1,000 mortgages in three states. An individual cannot 'volunteer' to be in the program.
reply to post by OldCurmudgeon
 


I actually I disagree, it is voluntary, because it's not mandatory, homeowners who are picked can choose not to take the deal, and instead be foreclosed on. Just, like they voluntarily chose to enter into the mortgage contract with the bank in the first place.

edit on 24-3-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typo


No... you're misunderstanding my point... again, "The Bank" is choosing (more correctly 'cherry picking') 'who' it is offered to and according to the article on MSM, the bank is 'only' offering it to 1,000 people in Arizona, Nevada and NY. In reading this the 'only' was emphasized so I'll bet if 500 people turn the offer down, it will not be extended to any others and only 500 will become renters.

Lets wait and see what actually happens as the only guarantee I saw listed was 'the payment' would be less than currently.
Sounds like to me folks who can't pay $1,500 a month and have lost their jobs will likely be able to pay $1,350 a month.

Lets just all watch and see what actually happens.

I'm for the people as most of them were suckered into this by unscroupulous individuals feeding their need for greed.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Considering that there is more of those who used to be in the middle class category who are now poor, I bet this "rent" will help put people back into the three categories.
1. Those who can afford to own.
2. Those who can afford to rent.
3. Those who don't have good enough credit for either.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   


No... you're misunderstanding my point... again, "The Bank" is choosing (more correctly 'cherry picking') 'who' it is offered to and according to the article on MSM, the bank is 'only' offering it to 1,000 people in Arizona, Nevada and NY. In reading this the 'only' was emphasized so I'll bet if 500 people turn the offer down, it will not be extended to any others and only 500 will become renters. Lets wait and see what actually happens as the only guarantee I saw listed was 'the payment' would be less than currently. Sounds like to me folks who can't pay $1,500 a month and have lost their jobs will likely be able to pay $1,350 a month. Lets just all watch and see what actually happens. I'm for the people as most of them were suckered into this by unscroupulous individuals feeding their need for greed.
reply to post by OldCurmudgeon
 


No, I saw your point clearly the first time and again. You simply misunderstand the meaning of the word "Voluntary"; which actually means doing something under your own choice and freewill, without being forced or compelled to do it. The program actually is completely voluntary; because the bank under their own choice and freewill can extend the offer and the people under their own choice and free will can accept it or not. The fact is if the bank were somehow compelled to make the offer to everyone or if the people were forced to accept the offer, then it would be mandatory as opposed to voluntary.

As, far as the price of rent being less then the mortgage, I doubt the banks are going to set the prices higher then the people can afford, otherwise they would be right back to square one, which is the people not being able to pay them anything and having to take the house from them and dumping it on the already gutted housing market, causing more people to lose then just the banks.

Finally, as far as the people being suckered into these mortgages, you and I both know that isn't true. I mean if you make 20 grand a year and think you make enough to live in a 140,000 dollar house, well then those people would be idiots. Now I would agree the banks should not have extended those mortgages to those people and they should have ate the loss instead of being bailed out, but I don't buy that the people who entered willingly into those mortgages are not at fault as well and I would say; they were in no way suckered into it.

In the end the bailout is all water under the bridge and irrelevant to this current plan. This plan is actually good. It allows people who would lose their house and end up homeless to keep a roof over their head a little longer, at least up to three years; and I would say if they can't save up enough to get another place of residence in that time then, that is on them, basically this is a second chance for them. It also allows the banks to hold on to the houses longer, instead of continuing to dump them on the already gutted market, which will only cause the market to further degrade.

In my opinion it's a good plan and I would say really the only reason many are against it is because they just want to irrationally see the banks suffer, even if it means the people being foreclosed on will suffer getting kicked out in the streets and the innocent people who bought homes they could afford get to suffer from the collapsing market.

Just my opinion though.


edit on 24-3-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typos



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by prisoneronashipoffools
 


Hey... 'opinions', if there aren't facts for confirmation are what this is all about prisoner so no sweat.
I most certainly agree with you that there is a responsibility on the part of the home purchaser to be able to understand the purchase and foremost be able to make the payment.
There is also a legal responsibility on the part of the institution and the representative the home purchaser is working with to insure the transaction is financially sound and legal.
However, intentional fraud is the first word which comes to mind when I think of the actions of thousands of these agents legally representing the financial institution they worked for in first, even presenting the mortgage for approval and then when the institution approved the financially unstable and robo-signed mortgages to recognizably ignorant and naive people.
Fact: at the height of the insanity which was the housing market, our daughter who lives in Arizona called and said and I paraphrase, mom, dad, I need your opinion. We just looked at a house we really like and it is far too expensive for us to afford. We both said, OK. Our daughter continued, but the guy was doing everything to get us to buy it and he got us pre-approved thru a local bank for $485k, contingent upon verification of our employment. Now at the time, our daughter made slightly over $48k a year and her husband about $36k. Luckily for us, our daughter knew it was a scam and we told her to report it to the Arizona AG. Guess what the Arizona AG’s office said, again, paraphrasing, ‘we can’t do anything about it, we suggest you call the realty board’.
So it is so easy to see how this whole scam worked out with the greed of the institutions and their representatives, and lets not forget the complicity of the realtors and appraisers in inflating home prices and as I heard personally several times from realtors, and this is a quote, “don’t worry, we have an appraiser we work with and the house will appraise so you can buy it”.
Corruption from the realtors at the onset all the way to the top of the financial industry seems the standard.
The last time I checked to date only about 400 or so 'mortgage executives and representatives have been charged by the FBI as criminals.
Truthfully, I've not seen the FBI charge one person who accepted one of the reckless, robo-signed mortgages, for they broke no law.
Yes, certainly many of these folks need a deal to have a place to live, but you won’t convince me the determining factor for this project was an interest in the poor slob who bought the mortgage.
Did I mention, 1,000 mortgages… a laughable token of an attempt to sway public opinion about the banks. I think it is already being seen for what it is and again, I’ll bet you all 1,000 never get to a signed lease.
Our financial industry has been warned, if anything like this happens again, the voting public will NIX a bailout.
Again, my apology stands to anyone reading this, “IT WAS A MISTAKE TO BAIL THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY OUT OF “THEIR” MESS”.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Homes that aren't lived in degraded rapidly.

Might as well keep it occupied up to the day of sale.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by prisoneronashipoffools


Hey Prisoner... the one thing you seem to miss here is, regardless of helping anyone else, this still enables the same 'crooks' to stay in business and find another way to screw people. This btw is the same crap which happened in the Savings and Loans Crisis. All the banks booooed and said, We'd never do that'... and what was it... the S n Ls loaned 125% the current value of a property... gee, does that sound better than the banks loaning 400% the real value. Read my apology above... we should have let them all fail...
reply to post by OldCurmudgeon
 


Well, Old, I agree we shouldn't have bailed them out, but we did. And as far as this plan letting them stay in business I don't care if it does, because over all it has greater benefit to the people, then the alternative. Also, in the end, if you think we won't bail these jokers out again when they ask, you are sorely mistaken.

I say if it helps the people, even if it helps the bankers, so be it. Otherwise we are just cutting off our nose to spite our face, because if it keeps going the way it's going, it will just be more families on the streets and on the government safety net anyway. And if the housing market keeps falling then it will be people who already own homes who are going to lose, and why should we make them suffer for the fault of people who entered into voluntary contracts with the banks that they couldn't afford to pay in the first place.

And really it must be the end of the world I am actually defending the banks for once. lmao
edit on 24-3-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typo


I understand Prisoner.... honestly, I don't know whether to throw up, cry or both this country is in such a mess. And the worst part, I don't see any facts to lead me to believe it is really improving much. It is a sad, sad time. Best of luck to ya...



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
Considering that there is more of those who used to be in the middle class category who are now poor, I bet this "rent" will help put people back into the three categories.
1. Those who can afford to own.
2. Those who can afford to rent.
3. Those who don't have good enough credit for either.


Number three is spot on Afterthought...

The only salvation, many realty agencies here have now throw 'credit ratings' out the window in lieu of histories...most everyone now recognizes the information furnished by the credit agency is worthless now to anyone.

I have seen enumerable signs popping up all over town similiar to: $1,200 limit, have a job and checking account, NO CREDIT CHECK

And a bank on a reservation has began to advertise on TV... $5,000 unsecured loans.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by OldCurmudgeon
 


It is in a mess, and things like this only delay what HAS to happen. Economic collapse....and yes, I do know what is going to happen when that happens, and I have been preparing for such.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by OldCurmudgeon
 


One thing I don't understand is how the bank is going to be making any profit if they have to maintain these structures for the renters.
Those who have rented before know that the landlord is responsible for fixing everything. So, they're going to pay for these repairs and pay maintenance workers to take care of all of these issues?
I doubt the banks are capable of handling this in a proper manner. I can see it now. You have a leaky roof, so you call the bank. Nobody answers and you have to leave a voice message about the problem. I'm sure someone will get back to you within 36 to 48 hours.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
This is a decent program. Wish I was behind on my mortgage with BOA so i could participate. The situation is that people are underwater on their homes. BOA is offering them a lower payment and also wiping out the debt they owe them. This gives them the flexibility to move forward which is exactly what is needed for these people. It also helps stabalize the housing market.

The only thing I don't know is how it would affect one's credit rating.

I still think the government needs to buy up every mortgage. Turn around and write down as much principal as they can while still getting paid back all the money in 30 years. It is really the only way that we can put this whle housing crisis behind us and even the playing field from the bad behavior of all parties.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 



I still think the government needs to buy up every mortgage.


No. What they need to do and should've done already is restructure all mortgages across the board. Even those who can afford to keep paying on their mortgage are getting ripped off.
My home's value is nowhere near the amount of my mortgage. Is yours?

Edit to Add: There are so many billboards for rent in my area. If I had the money, I'd rent one and print in bold white letters on a black background: Attention Banksters: Restructure all mortgages across the board!
If it were possible, I'd rent a billboard directly across the street from a BOA.
edit on 25-3-2012 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-3-2012 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Some of the comments in this thread are just plain idiotic. This is a great program, and the bank should be commended for piloting a program that keeps families in their homes, while forgiving their mortgage debt at the same time.

All you hear in the media are these darn-blasted Occupy deadbeats complaining about losing their homes to foreclosure. When a bank finally creates a pilot program where people can keep living in their homes for a lower rental payment, you people still continue to complain. What the hey? People should be thankful for the opportunity to keep their homes. Instead, all we hear is gripe, gripe, gripe - must be a conspiracy, and all this other hogwash. Sheesh. Gee, maybe the banks are actually trying to help homeowners stay in their home. What a concept.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
What, should I start bowing before the all mighty banker as my liege lord?

The bankers are the ones who played a massive part in this damn mess. This is only a band-aid approach, and all it does is keeps the homes off the books and keeps the price of homes higher then they should.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Sounds to me like it's an attempt for them to stay in business when the collapse comes. They know that the mortgage market will be wiped out overnight. The people paying a mortgage now will not be able to continue to do so, but they might be able to pay rent

The bank retains the money paid, the property, and the rights to demand any rent it likes in the future.

It's continuation strategy for Bank of America, nothing to do with "helping people". If anyone thinks a bank makes any decisions to help the customer they seriously need medicating!



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   


What, should I start bowing before the all mighty banker as my liege lord?

The borrower is, and always has been, servant to the lender. Only Americans would be so arrogant and conceited to think otherwise. Such is the pervasive "entitlement philosophy" that has so degraded our culture.



If anyone thinks a bank makes any decisions to help the customer they seriously need medicating!

As with any business, a bank must retain clients. Mutual self-interest is what keeps businesses in business. And that includes banks.

For all of the deadbeats that complain about the Big Bad Banks, the Fortune 500 companies beg to differ. In fact, if you look at the mega-banks, they already bank the large majority of the Fortune 500 companies. That's how these big mega-banks stay in business -- Not from the $100 in deposit that you keep in your checking account.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by prisoneronashipoffools
 


I know you mean well but your only thinking in the short term for the homeowners and as an unintentional consequence, the banks as well.

I'm thinking in what is best for the country as whole in the long term.

Due to globalization, wages are going to continue to fall and things are going to also get more expensive.
If housing prices in the long term are not allowed to fall, then those potential new homeowners will be paying interests to the banks for the rest of their life. How do you propose to get housing prices to fall in order to get them to the historic 2x to 3x income if the banks are keeping them inflated?

What should have happened in the beginning anyways, in what is best for the country, is to break up the "Too Big Too Fail" into smaller chunks. Send the CEO's that ran them packing with no bonus or parachutes and allow other CEO's to step up and take over. That is the capitalist way ..... meeting half way at least.

As it is now, the same criminals are still in charge and are partying it up, while the rest of the country suffers.
They were not held accountable for their reckless lending and did not live up to their responsibilities, since they and their banker cronies in the government had the whole thing rigged from the get go.

Meanwhile, those that fell on hard times and lost their jobs or other issues, also have lost their house and have paid the price.

What have the Wall Street Banksters and Government Banksters paid for engineering the biggest crime in this country?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join