NewportSkipper said:"How shall we evaluate the success or failure of the modification program?"
When enough time has passed.
I don't understand the answer to that question at all...
NewportSkipper said:"How shall we evaluate the success or failure of the modification program?"
When enough time has passed.
Geotpf said:Couple things:
1. The banks can do loan mods that don't meet the government's requirements if they feel like it, it's just they don't get the government incentives (cash) if they do.
2. If one is current on your loan, there's a second, related, government program that allows refis up if the balance owed on the first mortgage is less than 125% of the current value of the property.
3. Most importantly, even though "common sense" says few loan mods will succeed-Where are all the REOs? The banks aren't not foreclosing on them for no reason, and once they foreclose, they aren't holding them back en masse. Inventory is still amazingly small.
This is a "time will tell" situation. How this plays out is unknowable. It might end in a flood of foreclosures, or it might not. So far, not is winning.
RobertLarsen said:Oh, so now it's multi-faceted... Before I don't ever recall hearing that...
Here let me recap what started this entire discussion: You said: "1) Banks pay occupants of foreclosed homes to Not Destroy the Home upon exit. If a former homeowner can live rent free for a period of time then why would he trash his home. However, once it becomes apparent that the bank is planning on moving the property the incentives change. Simple enough, yes?"
Common sense tells you that when describing the program, such as Cash for Keys, that you should probably state the primary purpose of the program, which is to get the occupants out. Once again... Cash for KEEEEEYS. How do you expect someone to recognize what you're referring to when you only state a secondary requirement?
no_vaseline said:trrenter said:NewportSkipper said:"To qualify for servicer Pay for Success payments and borrower Pay for Performance Success Payments, the modification must reduce the monthly payment by a minimum of 6 %."
All this says is that the servicer may be eligible for a bonus on loans meeting a 6% or greater reduction in payments. It says nothing about the expected payment adjustments. If people start at 50% debt to income ratio and are taken to 31% (or even 38%), that is a large reduction in payment.
You state that few will qualify, but I could not possibly disagree with you more than I do.
Like I said: there are programs for jumbos too.
So we can agree to disagree. I guess everyone will qualify and the bank will start writing down principle tomorrow. I bet the percentage of loans being modified is sky high right now.
Banks slow to modify mortgages, Treasury reports
In its first report on the Obama administration's efforts to prod lenders to help as many as 4 million homeowners by reducing their mortgage payments, the Treasury Department said just 9% of eligible loans had been changed.
It's worth noting "changed" means "Extend and Pretend". No bank is meaningfully writing down principal. There have been a couple (like, two) examples of principal writedowns I've seen that totaled less than $10K. That's not meaningful when you've got people with massive neg. equity (upside down 50% from the peak).
Geotpf said:Couple things:
1. The banks can do loan mods that don't meet the government's requirements if they feel like it, it's just they don't get the government incentives (cash) if they do.
2. If one is current on your loan, there's a second, related, government program that allows refis up if the balance owed on the first mortgage is less than 125% of the current value of the property.
3. Most importantly, even though "common sense" says few loan mods will succeed-Where are all the REOs? The banks aren't not foreclosing on them for no reason, and once they foreclose, they aren't holding them back en masse. Inventory is still amazingly small.
This is a "time will tell" situation. How this plays out is unknowable. It might end in a flood of foreclosures, or it might not. So far, not is winning.
CapitalismWorks said:RobertLarsen said:Oh, so now it's multi-faceted... Before I don't ever recall hearing that...
Here let me recap what started this entire discussion: You said: "1) Banks pay occupants of foreclosed homes to Not Destroy the Home upon exit. If a former homeowner can live rent free for a period of time then why would he trash his home. However, once it becomes apparent that the bank is planning on moving the property the incentives change. Simple enough, yes?"
Common sense tells you that when describing the program, such as Cash for Keys, that you should probably state the primary purpose of the program, which is to get the occupants out. Once again... Cash for KEEEEEYS. How do you expect someone to recognize what you're referring to when you only state a secondary requirement?
So do you admit that servicers pay former homeowners to leave properties in good condition?
BTW, please try to differentiate your words from mine when modifying quotes. Heaven forbid anyone should be confused.
Seriously... are you even reading this thread? Are you saying that loan mods need not succeed because there aren't any REOs? You can't use your answer to why there aren't any REOs as proof as to why that answer isn't necessarily right.Geotpf said:3. Most importantly, even though "common sense" says few loan mods will succeed-Where are all the REOs?
Didn't we go over this already... THRICE?The banks aren't not foreclosing on them for no reason, and once they foreclose, they aren't holding them back en masse.
What is so amazing about it? You seem to know why it's so small... despite information to the contrary.Inventory is still amazingly small.
Do you really think it "might not"?This is a "time will tell" situation. How this plays out is unknowable. It might end in a flood of foreclosures, or it might not. So far, not is winning.
Really? Did I hurt your feelings? I think I've been more civil to you than you have to me.NewportSkipper said:You are crossing the line into jackal territory.
As far as I know... you haven't stated anything about your qualifications or provided anything to support it. The others, I've read numerous posts and have met in person and actually know about their occupations to give me that opinion."For some reason, they “know” it to be opposite of what others know it to be… others who happened to be more experienced in those particular fields."
I am as qualified to judge as any 10 of you combined.
I mostly base my opinions on what I've read... and so far... you don't seem to provide enough credible evidence to support your opinions. When challenged, you prefer to sidestep or use absolutes which does not invite discussion. In short, you would rather argue to argue than try to have intelligent conversation. But that is perhaps because you feel that we are beneath you...Based upon the loads of misinformation here, I am astonished at your confidence in your peers.
I apologize if I'm too stupid for you to explain things to.Then again, you yourself do not understand things well.
NewportSkipper said:You are crossing the line into jackal territory.
"For some reason, they “know” it to be opposite of what others know it to be… others who happened to be more experienced in those particular fields."
I am as qualified to judge as any 10 of you combined. Based upon the loads of misinformation here, I am astonished at your confidence in your peers. Then again, you yourself do not understand things well.
It’s a dry heat... said:(For some reason, I loved that "kick rocks on the 5" comment.)
NewportSkipper said:"Really? Did I hurt your feelings? I think I’ve been more civil to you than you have to me."
Funny, I think the opposite.
NewportSkipper said:You (Graphrix) have no ability to self-assess. You are a flaming aggressor. Awgee is just passive-aggressive.
Lest you forget: I jumped into the conversation in utter disgust at the taunts you and Awgee were making towards Robert and Geotpf.
irvine_home_owner said:I apologize if I'm too stupid for you to explain things to.
NewportSkipper said:You (Graphrix) have no ability to self-assess. You are a flaming aggressor. Awgee is just passive-aggressive.
Lest you forget: I jumped into the conversation in utter disgust at the taunts you and Awgee were making towards Robert and Geotpf.
SoCal78 said:NewportSkipper said:You (Graphrix) have no ability to self-assess. You are a flaming aggressor. Awgee is just passive-aggressive.
Lest you forget: I jumped into the conversation in utter disgust at the taunts you and Awgee were making towards Robert and Geotpf.
Round and round we go. Where we stop, nobody knows.
You boys knock it off NOW!
Newport Skipper - I completely understand your frustrations (believe me, I do), but I think you have made your point for now. Get back to the topic.