Comments on: How Often Do Loan Mods Fail ?

By: Loan Mod Stats Aren’t Looking So Hot | My East Bay Agent

Loan Mod Stats Aren’t Looking So Hot | My East Bay Agent — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 21:38:54 +0000

[...] From: How Often Do Loan Mods Fail ? | The Big Picture. [...]

By: DeDude

DeDude — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:36:53 +0000

The critical issue is how you modify the loans. Because most modifications so far have been done by banks to the advantage of the banks I am not surprised that those will go through cycles of re-modifications. The banks will try to squeeze as much as possible out of the unsophisticated consumer. They do the same thing with credit card defaults. Their programs are not guided by a realistic approach to “saving” the consumer – it is guided by sucking as much out of the borrowers, as a group, as they can. I suggest to all that are under water on a mortgage and getting in trouble, to completely stop paying, fight eviction while you save some up money (no monthly payment), and when you finally get kicked out, pay a 3 month deposit and get into a nice rental. If the banks don’t give a sh*t about you ,why would you give a sh*t about them?

By: Food for Thought: Follow-ups/Reading Link$ | Market Addicts

Food for Thought: Follow-ups/Reading Link$ | Market Addicts — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 13:50:57 +0000

[...] 7. How Often Do Loan Mods Fail ? (look at charts from Barclays Capital) http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2…..mods-fail/ [...]

By: danm

danm — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 13:06:43 +0000

IMO, cramdowns won’t work because there will be so many that we can’t realistically expect them to reflect market values.

By: Bruce in Tn

Bruce in Tn — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:53:56 +0000

danm:

This is the kind of logical thinking that has evaded the new administration. My point above is this is a contract, between two parties, and government intervention into the contract won’t help.

….And people are ACTUALLY WONDERING why new credit seems so hard to originate…why, I just for the life of me can’t see what the problem might be????

By: danm

danm — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:46:53 +0000

When borrowers start walking away in sufficient numbers, the banks will come around to modifying principal instead of these modifications that just make debt slaves of people (or renters with all the responsibilities and liability of ownership).
————–
And then they’ll be stuck modifying the loans of the solvent also.

By: danm

danm — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:40:03 +0000

The moral is that the rube deserves to suffer some loss. He failed to protect himself against an obvious scam, both out of stupidity and out of greed. But the scammer knew what was going on. He consciously cheated the rube out of his money. Why should that result be legally enforceable?

————
I’m conservative. I buy a smaller house than I can afford in a less posh neighborhood where schools are not as good. I still end up paying twice the amount for my house because of the bubble which has propped up all real estate, smaller houses even more percentage wise. I can always make my payments because I was financially responsible.

But thee goes Joe Wannabee who buys bigger than he can afford. Falls behind and gets a cramdown so gets his Mcmansion for cheap while I’m stuck making my full payments in my dinky house. Plus I have to pay for these cramdowns because the “rubes” don’t end up paying for these losses, the averegage citizen does which each bailout.

And this does not create some kind of social upheaval how?

I have a better idea. Why don’t the delinquent in good neighborhoods switch houses with the solvent?

By: Winston Munn

Winston Munn — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:58:10 +0000

Is Tom K the ghost of Reagan past?

By: alfred e

alfred e — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:24:23 +0000

Christopher gets my vote for everything except raise SSI to 70.

Somebody’s got to have some money to spend to fuel our consumer economy.

By: wunsacon

wunsacon — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 03:52:31 +0000

Reading comments in reverse order…. I vote for Christoper @ July 11th, 2009 at 5:11 pm.