Are you a victim of the Sub Prime lending fiasco?

by katiekitten 37 Replies latest jw friends

  • sammielee24
    sammielee24

    This is criminal! And some heads need to roll. And I hope they DO ROLL!

    Bailing out the industry is just so typical though. What about the people who lost their homes? And we're not talking about these so-called "investors" who took "risks" to make

    First came DEREGULATION. Most governments will set in place some guidelines/rules about some financial practices that have the ability to affect the majority of people. Why? Because despite the constant verbal diet of 'the free market' ie capitalism rules lunch - it doesn't work. If it did, then no country or people would ever need any government to force people into pay taxes for the roads they use, the schools their kids attend, the firemen and policemen they want to protect them - the list is endless. Once you remove the protective layer it's open season. The only reason to deregulate or remove the rules, is to make more money. A lot of people thought this would be their opportunity to own a home and bought into the idea that their wages would increase to meet the debt and some were totally mislead into believing that they could afford the home they were buying. Some were lied to and some many were manipulated. We can sit and blame the fools who just wanted a piece of the wonderful American dream but it's those honest hardworking but maybe less than knowledgeable people I feel for. They have nobody helping them now.

    I feel absolutely no compassion for anyone who knowingly invested in the market with the intent of flipping their homes, so that they went out and remortgaged their primary residence, bought more real estate and now finds themselves in the position of losing one of them. Those people as investors had more opportunity and more knowledge to even get into the game. I have even far less sympathy for those at the very top who own multiple investments on paper and for whom the guy losing his home is nothing more than a number and doesn't really exist.

    The difference is that the investor at the very top didn't lose his money because the banks that he dealt with on all of his holdings, received billions of dollars in fall out cash in order to make sure those guys didn't hurt too bad. The guy at the bottom end, the honest homeowner who believed he could own a home, will receive nothing but a bankruptcy discharge paper at the end of it all, no place to live, possibly lose his job if he worked in an industry supported by the housing market etc. Funny thing - Bush pretty well stated in one of his beautiful speeches that all those homeowners are idiots - they're uneducated. Well, maybe he was right. Of course, while he was making that speech, he also released 37 billion dollars into the banking system so the market wouldn't collapse - called propping up the guys at the top.

    Oh and for anyone who keeps believing that nobody would lend money to someone who is going to default...educate yourself. Your house is collateral. If I own a house that I bought for 100,000 and a few years later I sell it to you at the inflated market value of say 300,000, I'm 200,000 up. If I personally hold your mortgage - guess what? You are paying me principle and interest monthly and if you default then not only have you lost all the cash you sunk into the house but I get to take the house back. I can then rent it out and I'm still looking good from a financial standpoint. It's not that you believe they will default, but it's knowing full well that if they do, then the house is still yours, you can rent it out or resell it and your losses are nil. It's even sweeter if the house was paid for. sammieswife.

  • wha happened?
    wha happened?

    Banks do not lend their own money. The last thing they want is a short sale or a repo. When they collect a payment, they are collecting a payment for the invester who has purchased the loan. The get paid about 0.250% for each payment collected. So if a house defaults that was worth $300,000.00 encumbered with a $100,000.00 loan, that money is stilled owed to investers. It's not like the bank forcloses and gets into the rental business. At the very least they would short sell the propery and get their investment money bank. And for those who think that short selling this very same property at $200,000.00 would net the bank a nice profit, well this rarely happens. Often the owner will get a second or even a hard money 3rd to save the house. Once the dust has settled there is very little equity left. Especially now with properties upside down in value.

    If a bank has a certain number of loan defaults, the investers can force the bank to buy back all the loans. This happenned to New Century and they are now history.

    I'm not defending the banks because deregulation, as Sammie mentioned, gave everyone the capacity to get greedy.

    I still feel bad for the borrowers who were bait and switched.

  • sammielee24
    sammielee24

    One of the major problems being faced now is that people have seen whats happening and demand answers. One of the answers is to put back in place the regulations around loans - it used to be 20-30% down or 10% for those with excellent credit. There was a percentage of income that one could only max out to for housing. That was abolished. No money down, no housing limits. Now the banks are tightening things up which means that if the person being forclosed on even tries to renegotiate the loan, their income, if they have one, most likely won't fit the guidelines.

    A person whose income qualified to get the loan, may likely find out that when the 30% rule is applied, they no longer make enough money - even though if they are allowed to refinance at the lower rate, they can then afford the new mortgage. I've watched this happen time and again when the crunch comes down like this. If banks were in the business of helping people, then that would be the place to start - they aren't. They are there to make money.

    I was driving through a fairly new huge housing subdivision that had a whole shopping complex beside it. The construction has slowed down and half of the new stores are emply. This wiill impact more than just a few people and I'm not sure what it will do to property taxes. New roads still have to be maintained by someone, even though 1/3 might be gone now. Walmart cancelled plans to build 256 more stores - and when Walmart is hurting, it means that the bottom half is hurting more. Nordstroms and Macy's, Saks - they all still show growth so the housing fatalities don't seem to be hitting hard at the top. sammieswife.

  • bluesapphire
    bluesapphire

    Sammieswife, I agree with just about everything you are saying. The bottom line is that those at the top will suffer the least, if at all. So much for "for the people by the people?"

    I wouldn't necessarily say "Wallmart is hurting". To them hurting means just less profit. I wish my greatest worry was "less profit." I wish all Americans greatest worry was "less profit." Don't you?

    Bush is whack! He doesn't even bother to hide who he's in bed with. What does he care if people lost the only homes they would ever own? Like you said, once it's over, people will be left homeless and with bad credit in a market where loans are unobtainable and housing values are still out of reach.

  • sammielee24
    sammielee24

    Bush and his ilk - going all the way back to Regan - are not for and never have been for the people. They believe in one thing only - corporations/$$$/capitalism. They will do whatever they need to in order to save those at the top and ensure that their lives remain untouched by the seedy side of the poor and middle class.

    After the Great Depression, social programs were put into place in order to save the people. It was only after these programs were initiated, that the USA became a real beacon for others around the world as they saw a free and successful middle class.(and by programs I don't mean only employment insurance or welfare - but the food safety standards, agricultural programs, roads etc) By systematically allowing to/and pushing the demise of all those programs, the poor have become poorer and the middle class has been eroded. They are now effectively the new working poor. Education costs are out of reach for many, healthcare out of reach for most. Pension plans are a figment of the imagination and there is no more ' made in America'. Medicare has been crumbled and as of today 25% of all homeless in the USA are veterans......and do you know what Bush said about all that? He absolutely glowed when he crowed that the USA has returned to the gilded age.

    The gilded age was when the poor farmers slept 12 to a one room house and rode around the country trying to work for $1.25 a day. It was when there was only poor and filthy rich. It was when electricity was only for the wealthy because it was not regulated. Where kids went to school as far as the 8th grade and then had to stop and get a job to put food on the table. It was when kids got rickets from a poor diet and fought head lice with gasoline. That was the gilded age for 99% of all Americans and that was what Bush glowed about - you see - if you are like him and at the very top of the money machine, you don't suffer and you can enjoy all that glitter.

    The problem now becomes the middle class. They are used to having a standard living that they worked hard to achieve and sooner or later they will rise up and attack those at the top in some feeble attempt to take back everything they lost. Who knows if they will ever be successful.

    As Warren Buffet said in his last interview - a man who is worth billions - he said there is something wrong with this country, when I pay only 15% of my wealth in taxes but my secretary, who makes %60,000 a year, pays 35%.

    sammieswife.

  • justhuman
    justhuman

    no not yet

  • 5go
    5go
    If you signed on the dotted line without calculating for yourself if you could actually afford the house, then I don't feel one bit sorry for you when you find yourself living in your car that will also be repossessed as you really couldn't afford that either.

    Please tell me your are an ex witness or in any religion for that matter. Anyway I have no simpathy for you when you get taken advantage of in any endeavor.

  • bluesapphire
    bluesapphire

    Huh?

    Good morning, folks. I don't understand why someone would *gloat* at the misfortune of others. Even if it was their own personal fault, why be happy for their misfortune? I don't get it. Is it jealousy?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit