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.
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Flatfish
No.
Buyer beware.
The dumbing down of society and the want for instant gratification is at blame.
People were presented with a choice.
Either save to buy the house they could afford on a fixed interest rate.
Or buy now at an adjustable ARM after 5 years, in hopes that they could either flip the house and/or borrow against it again.
Looks like they chose wrong.
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
reply to post by Flatfish
so if I stop making payments I can't be kicked out ? I get to stay in my home forever after closing on my no money down mortgage without making one payment ?
I hate to defend the bank, but if they don't get paid, they fail and we have to save up $500,000 in cash to buy a home
I am for regulating the derivatives industry tho, they are the definition of "toxic"
Originally posted by TinkerHaus
While I agree with you in principal, some of the responsibility must be held by those that seek out and sign up for these loans.
If you can't do basic math don't get a credit card, much less a variable rate home loan. Read paperwork thoroughly before signing anything. Don't sign up for "variable rate" anything - it's a trap.
Originally posted by Flatfish
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
reply to post by Flatfish
so if I stop making payments I can't be kicked out ? I get to stay in my home forever after closing on my no money down mortgage without making one payment ?
I hate to defend the bank, but if they don't get paid, they fail and we have to save up $500,000 in cash to buy a home
I am for regulating the derivatives industry tho, they are the definition of "toxic"
When a mechanic fixes someone's car and they're unable to pay, he doesn't get to repossess their car. When a contractor does a re-modeling job on a house and doesn't get paid, he doesn't get to repossess the house. Why should a bank be any different?
Furthermore, I never said you could live there for free, unless it was due to uncontrollable circumstances like those described in the news segment that I mentioned in the OP. If you were employed, I believe that they could attach a designated portion of your wages in lieu of payment. This also creates an incentive for the homeowner to manage the debt or sell the house and repay the bank, but they are not thrown into the streets.
Originally posted by JibbyJedi
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Flatfish
No.
Buyer beware.
The dumbing down of society and the want for instant gratification is at blame.
People were presented with a choice.
Either save to buy the house they could afford on a fixed interest rate.
Or buy now at an adjustable ARM after 5 years, in hopes that they could either flip the house and/or borrow against it again.
Looks like they chose wrong.
That's a blind one sided argument, do you have a mortgage? I "inherited" my parents' house when they died, not my "choice", but I learned real fast how corrupt the banks and the entire system really is.
For one most mortgage companies' service reps are overseas, try talking to someone from India when they can hardly speak English. They never return calls OR follow their own policies and procedures, and they change the rules whenever they want without notice.
Get yourself a mortgage and see how awesome it is to get screwed over.
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Flatfish
No.
Buyer beware.
The dumbing down of society and the want for instant gratification is at blame.
People were presented with a choice.
Either save to buy the house they could afford on a fixed interest rate.
Or buy now at an adjustable ARM after 5 years, in hopes that they could either flip the house and/or borrow against it again.
Looks like they chose wrong.
In September 1991, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a study of Adjustable Rate Mortgages[9] in the United States which found between 20% - 25% of the ARM loans out of the estimated 12 million at the time contained Interest Rate Errors. A former federal mortgage banking auditor estimated these mistakes created at least $10 billion in net overcharges to American homeowners. Such errors occurred when the related mortgage servicer selected the incorrect index date, used an incorrect margin, or ignored interest rate change caps.
In July 1994, Consumer Loan Advocates, a nonprofit mortgage auditing firm announced[10] that as many as 18% of Adjustable Rate Mortgages have errors costing the borrower more than $5,000 in interest overcharges.
In December 1995, a study by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) concluded that 50% - 60% of all Adjustable Rate Mortgages in the United States contain an error regarding the variable interest rate charged to the homeowner.[11] The study estimated the total amount of interest overcharged to borrowers was in excess of $8 billion. Inadequate computer programs, incorrect completion of documents and calculation errors were cited as the major causes of interest rate overcharges. No other government studies have been conducted into ARM interest overcharges. (from wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjustable-rate_mortgage)
Originally posted by Flatfish
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Flatfish
No.
Buyer beware.
The dumbing down of society and the want for instant gratification is at blame.
People were presented with a choice.
Either save to buy the house they could afford on a fixed interest rate.
Or buy now at an adjustable ARM after 5 years, in hopes that they could either flip the house and/or borrow against it again.
Looks like they chose wrong.
The real "instant gratification" is being had by the banks and not by the homeowners. The banks knew this was inevitable, that's why they took out insurance against it. They figured they would end up with both, the insurance payoff, which turned out to be taxpayer bailouts because even the insurer, (AIG) couldn't cover the loses, as well as the repossessed homes, which they could "flip" and do it again.
It's "Predatory Lending," plain and simple and IMO, it should be eliminated. Unless of course, you enjoy picking up the tab for it.
Originally posted by Flatfish
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Flatfish
No.
Buyer beware.
The dumbing down of society and the want for instant gratification is at blame.
People were presented with a choice.
Either save to buy the house they could afford on a fixed interest rate.
Or buy now at an adjustable ARM after 5 years, in hopes that they could either flip the house and/or borrow against it again.
Looks like they chose wrong.
The real "instant gratification" is being had by the banks and not by the homeowners. The banks knew this was inevitable, that's why they took out insurance against it. They figured they would end up with both, the insurance payoff, which turned out to be taxpayer bailouts because even the insurer, (AIG) couldn't cover the loses, as well as the repossessed homes, which they could "flip" and do it again.
It's "Predatory Lending," plain and simple and IMO, it should be eliminated. Unless of course, you enjoy picking up the tab for it.
Originally posted by macman
Yeah yeah, and sure sure.
Free will. You have the freedom to make stupid/dumb choices.
The tax payer should not be left holding the bag. Either way.
The fact that people made poor decisions is that, poor decisions.
The fact that banks push this is a big DUH!! It makes them money, and that is what the bank's primary goal is to do.
The fact that they covered their butt with the insurance is neither here nor there. That is a big DUH as well.
This is akin to liking fire (The Banks) and what it brings, heat, security and abilities. You bring the fire in the house, but fail to learn about it, use it correctly or use it correctly. Then the fire burns your house down.
You scream "Damn that fire!!!"
The Govt should not have bailed any bank out. The banks are not held to deal with the problem, and neither is the consumer.
Originally posted by Flatfish
Originally posted by macman
Originally posted by Flatfish
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Flatfish
No.
Buyer beware.
The dumbing down of society and the want for instant gratification is at blame.
People were presented with a choice.
Either save to buy the house they could afford on a fixed interest rate.
Or buy now at an adjustable ARM after 5 years, in hopes that they could either flip the house and/or borrow against it again.
Looks like they chose wrong.
The real "instant gratification" is being had by the banks and not by the homeowners. The banks knew this was inevitable, that's why they took out insurance against it. They figured they would end up with both, the insurance payoff, which turned out to be taxpayer bailouts because even the insurer, (AIG) couldn't cover the loses, as well as the repossessed homes, which they could "flip" and do it again.
It's "Predatory Lending," plain and simple and IMO, it should be eliminated. Unless of course, you enjoy picking up the tab for it.
Yeah yeah, and sure sure.
Free will. You have the freedom to make stupid/dumb choices.
The tax payer should not be left holding the bag. Either way.
The fact that people made poor decisions is that, poor decisions.
The fact that banks push this is a big DUH!! It makes them money, and that is what the bank's primary goal is to do.
The fact that they covered their butt with the insurance is neither here nor there. That is a big DUH as well.
This is akin to liking fire (The Banks) and what it brings, heat, security and abilities. You bring the fire in the house, but fail to learn about it, use it correctly or use it correctly. Then the fire burns your house down.
You scream "Damn that fire!!!"
The Govt should not have bailed any bank out. The banks are not held to deal with the problem, and neither is the consumer.
My point is that the real "Dumb & Stupid" thing that was done was for us to allow predatory lending to even exist in the first place. I mean who got left holding the bag? It sure as hell wasn't the banks. What we should have done is taken over the banks when we bought and paid for them during the bailout.