Bush's bailing out of the irresponsible Options

[GOB]

i just think it's funny how 60% of the people whose ass bush saved by doing this are going to be bitching about him tomorrow. oh well!

99% of these subprime mortgages are not the banks pulling new rates out of thin air. when most of these morons bought their homes back in 01-02, banks were giving ridiculous rates because they could; the tech bubble, recession carried over from the clinton administration, and 911 caused the horrible worldwide economic slowdown... banks were offering the ridiculous rates because they could, not to trick people. who knew that that many idiots wouldn't think to refinance before the real check came due? the banks knew exactly what was going on, but the average blob had no idea. teaser? maybe, but it's fucking genius.

and really, this rate freeze did nothing but delay the inevitable atomic blast. everybody will be as dumb as they are now when these rates are unfrozen in 5 years, and all of the debt will probably have been sold to some rich chinese or arabs, so when these assholes in their manhattan penthouses and orange county paradises can't make the REAL payments, they'll be booted out with more force than 10 million illegal immigrants.

[Testm0nkey]

you watch too much jim cramer

[GOB]

you watch too much jim cramer

and you're a bitch!


in 5 years the economy is either going to crap out because of this, or they're just going to change the diaper again so nobody loses their home

[DaveFireDancer19]

impala, its like you're trying to put all the blame on lenders.

ARM mortgages ARE set to an index, lenders cannot just "turn up the dial". ARMs reset according to their terms (sometimes means two years fixed, then a large increase in interest rate or even when the principal has gotten to $X amount from negative amortization from paying so called "minimum payments", then ARM resets). Some Lenders gave ARMs to people who would not qualify for a fixed rate loan and showed the customer a lower payment, and made them think "oh I can afford this" but never explained that it would readjust or that no principal is being paid down thus not building equity thus making it damn near impossible to refi into a fixed rate before the ARM resets.

However, if the customer is stupid enough not to do their homework and realize that teaser rates expire, principal does not reduce with a payment that doesn't even pay interest, and housing prices could decrease (despite the market at the time), then they don't deserve to have a home to begin with...If they would have read the fine print and realized that if their ARM fully adjusted they wouldn't be able to make payments or if they realized that their minimum payment was resulting in negative amortization...then they wouldn't have done it to begin with, hopefully at least....bottom line, the customer is a dumbass for signing something he/she did not FULLY understand

What do you base your information on? Being a home buyer does not make you the end-all be-all for all things mortgage (or credit cards for that matter, remember that thread, you're wrong)

I work in the banking industry (on the other side of the fence at least)...I look at mortgages/loans all the time. Terms are spelled out...very clearly in fact...and then there are all the disclosures the customer gets, Im sure you remember signing all that paper work. ARMs have their own set of disclosures, including one that says "you are applying for (or getting or whatever) an Adjustable Rate Mortgage" then tries to explain what it is...most people, stupidly, just don't read all that paper work, did you?

Bottom line, if the buyer is ignorant enough not to read the fine print (or their mortgage contract where everything is spelled out), then they deserve whatever is coming...Its surprising that you actually admit you weren't able to find your mortgage terms (or whatever you said, something to that effect), when in fact they are very clearly printed. You shouldn't have signed something you didn't understand. Hopefully you're lucky and didn't sign something you won't be able to pay for eventually

Im thankful that lenders who provided no-doc mortgages or 100% financing are getting theirs, but I think the government should back off and let the consumer reap what they sowed (or is it sew?)

If you want to bitch and moan about something, but about the high concentrations of CRE (commercial real estate) loans in our banks portfolios...

(sorry that was a little jumbled, I get annoyed when people think they know what they are talking about simply because they happen to have a mortgage. I probably left some important things out, like stupid people who think no-doc loans are absolutely fabulous because they won't have to supply income information and maybe squeak by with being qualified for a loan by lieing about their income...oh well)

[pebkac]

impala, its like you're trying to put all the blame on lenders.

ARM mortgages ARE set to an index, lenders cannot just "turn up the dial". ARMs reset according to their terms (sometimes means two years fixed, then a large increase in interest rate or even when the principal has gotten to $X amount from negative amortization from paying so called "minimum payments", then ARM resets). Some Lenders gave ARMs to people who would not qualify for a fixed rate loan and showed the customer a lower payment, and made them think "oh I can afford this" but never explained that it would readjust or that no principal is being paid down thus not building equity thus making it damn near impossible to refi into a fixed rate before the ARM resets.

However, if the customer is stupid enough not to do their homework and realize that teaser rates expire, principal does not reduce with a payment that doesn't even pay interest, and housing prices could decrease (despite the market at the time), then they don't deserve to have a home to begin with...If they would have read the fine print and realized that if their ARM fully adjusted they wouldn't be able to make payments or if they realized that their minimum payment was resulting in negative amortization...then they wouldn't have done it to begin with, hopefully at least....bottom line, the customer is a dumbass for signing something he/she did not FULLY understand

What do you base your information on? Being a home buyer does not make you the end-all be-all for all things mortgage (or credit cards for that matter, remember that thread, you're wrong)

I work in the banking industry (on the other side of the fence at least)...I look at mortgages/loans all the time. Terms are spelled out...very clearly in fact...and then there are all the disclosures the customer gets, Im sure you remember signing all that paper work. ARMs have their own set of disclosures, including one that says "you are applying for (or getting or whatever) an Adjustable Rate Mortgage" then tries to explain what it is...most people, stupidly, just don't read all that paper work, did you?

Bottom line, if the buyer is ignorant enough not to read the fine print (or their mortgage contract where everything is spelled out), then they deserve whatever is coming...Its surprising that you actually admit you weren't able to find your mortgage terms (or whatever you said, something to that effect), when in fact they are very clearly printed. You shouldn't have signed something you didn't understand. Hopefully you're lucky and didn't sign something you won't be able to pay for eventually

Im thankful that lenders who provided no-doc mortgages or 100% financing are getting theirs, but I think the government should back off and let the consumer reap what they sowed (or is it sew?)

If you want to bitch and moan about something, but about the high concentrations of CRE (commercial real estate) loans in our banks portfolios...

(sorry that was a little jumbled, I get annoyed when people think they know what they are talking about simply because they happen to have a mortgage. I probably left some important things out, like stupid people who think no-doc loans are absolutely fabulous because they won't have to supply income information and maybe squeak by with being qualified for a loan by lieing about their income...oh well)

What do you get when you give a person who already has poor credit and a low income a loan that will jump to astronomical interest rates? Banks should have known better than to make most of these loans.

[impala454]

Actually, no it wasn't. My first thought was "quick buck" (my dad has been into real estate his whole life). Then we discovered that we could sell the homes at a decent value, add some nice touches, and make a little money. Then we found that there were people who were deserving of the homes and we helped them get the house funded and worked with them on the price so that they could afford it.

My dad and I do this quietly and for a reason. We are not just helping the economy, it's more than that. We're helping people who want to own a home and have a job but can't afford anything super nice or amazing. They want to put their kids in good schools or anything like that, we make sure they get with people to understand the taxes associated with a home and the financial risk.
You said it better than I could. If first time home buyers don't know their means, they don't need to buy a home. They don't have to rely on a lender, that's a straight up lie. If people took the time, researched, talked with a financial advisor, etc. they would be much more aware of what is possible. But that's not how folks operate; Instead they decide they "need" a home and that they can just pop in and get one.

Aww so touching . Sounds just like the kind of thing uppity people with too much money would say. "Yeah well ah we just pulled in a $50,000 profit, but we don't do it for the money we just love helping out the community!"

Oh and now I'm straight up "lying". Well sorry to break it to ya Mr. Real Estate Tycoon, but not everyone is raised with their daddy buying and selling houses all the time. The lenders most definitely do decide for you how much you can afford. They decide because they're the ones that give you the friggin loan.

FireDancer: Yes ARMs are set on an index, an index controlled by the LENDER. And most of them have clauses pretty much saying they can change the terms of the agreement after X amount of time.

For the last effin time, to all of you, I'm not putting the sole blame on the lenders, but they sure as hell deserve a lot of it. They knew damn well what they were getting into. It's like throwing out some steaks to a dog and then getting upset with the dog for eating em. Yes the consumers were irresponsible, but so were the lenders. So what would you guys rather see? Huge amounts of your tax dollars going to subsidize the lenders, or just a freeze on the rates so it doesn't get any worse, and people might actually wise up on this shit for a change.

And to all the "this is gonna put the economy in the crapper" people... how about giving some reasons? If George Bush wiped his ass the wrong way some of yall would say it will up the economy.

[GOB]

uh, when did the lenders get upset? they were the ones who were going to fuck people over and make double the money because they could re-sell these properties.

[DaveFireDancer19]

What do you get when you give a person who already has poor credit and a low income a loan that will jump to astronomical interest rates? Banks should have known better than to make most of these loans.

People should have known better to sign loans like these...they just didnt feel like doing their homework! its not hard....

btw impala if a person cant figure out how much they can afford, they should continue renting or living with their mother....also, how is..say LIBOR controlled by the lender? or WSJ prime? I know what your saying about some bank's having their "own" prime, but those are usually set to something as well and aren't changed on a whim....

[Hartmann]

Aww so touching . Sounds just like the kind of thing uppity people with too much money would say. "Yeah well ah we just pulled in a $50,000 profit, but we don't do it for the money we just love helping out the community!"

Oh and now I'm straight up "lying". Well sorry to break it to ya Mr. Real Estate Tycoon, but not everyone is raised with their daddy buying and selling houses all the time. The lenders most definitely do decide for you how much you can afford. They decide because they're the ones that give you the friggin loan.

Wow, I like how I don't brag about it and try not to even bring it up but all the sudden it's "uppity". Looking at my financial statements I haven't pulled more than $18,000 net profit on any property. And it isn't just about giving people homes, we also make sure they don't get in trouble financially when they get it.

Some lenders have wrongfully given loans to people but you are making broad generalization.

Attack me and attack my dad, that's real mature. I never disagreed with you in saying that lenders are at fault here, they just aren't the entire reason this is happening. Some of these people genuinely can afford the terms, if they work at it. What happens all too often is people see a lower rate and automatically assume that they can spend more.

[impala454]

Haha "attack". The reason I pointed it out was clear. You seemed to think your experience was the norm when it obviously is not. First time home buyers have to buy a house eventually. Sometimes the best way to learn is by doing. It doesn't make it any easier when there are lenders out there handing out loans that are fiscally irresponsible just to reel people in.

Sorry if you took it so personally. I just take a dim view of those who talk about how much they're helping someone out when they're raking in huge profits at the same time. Same goes for anyone that takes tax writeoffs for donations.

[Billy]

I'm actually very surprised Hartmann is disappointed with the plan. It was that cheap and easy access to credit that has allowed the housing market to boom, in turn creating more buyers to sell to.

Well, it turns out these people were fools by being blinded by the belief they could own a real decent home because things didn't turn out the way they had hoped. Well, shame on them, honestly. But what really makes me sick is how ticked you are because the government is bailing them out so assholes like yourself can't take advantage of them by buying up all their homes for dirt cheap, sitting on them until the market settles, and selling them for massive bank just to do it all again in 30 years when people get themselves into the same shit, because they always do this crap. People are idiots, what can I say? But if you're going to take advantage of the masses, don't bitch about it when someone doesn't make it easy for you.

And I agree with Impala: don't for one second believe you are any different than the next greedy fuck who does the same thing you do. You aren't doing business because you care about society. You're in real estate because you want to make money. I won't fault you for wanting to make money, but nigga please.

[Testm0nkey]

theres a big difference between slum lords and people who are refurbishing vacant or stale homes in impoverished areas (not that sugar land technically counts as that)
theres a lack of affordable living (maybe not anymore - shits cheap if you got the money!) and there will always be one. people trying to do something about it do make a quick buck and there are some other negatives to the dealings, but in the end you can technically change a neighborhood into something decent

its better than not doing anything or seeking out real estate investments only when your potential profits are ridiculously high!

[Billy]

There's also a difference between refurbishing a house that no one wants and selling it for a legitimate profit for the work you put into, and hoping people lose their asses so you can buy their desirable house for dirt cheap to flip for a nice profit. (And I say desirable because people who took out these mortgages aren't exactly buying slum houses that need fixing up)

Which, as far as I know, he may only improve slum houses and sell them after fixing them up. But if that's the case, why does he care that the government is helping people not lose their homes? Is he just a schadenfreunde?

[Spectatrix]

The banks were stupid.
The buyers were stupid.
End of story.


As for Bush's plan... could be good, could be bad. I agree with GOB that it's probably just delaying the inevitable.

This post has been edited by Spectatrix: Dec 10 2007, 08:45 AM

[Hartmann]

I'm actually very surprised Hartmann is disappointed with the plan. It was that cheap and easy access to credit that has allowed the housing market to boom, in turn creating more buyers to sell to.

Well, it turns out these people were fools by being blinded by the belief they could own a real decent home because things didn't turn out the way they had hoped. Well, shame on them, honestly. But what really makes me sick is how ticked you are because the government is bailing them out so assholes like yourself can't take advantage of them by buying up all their homes for dirt cheap, sitting on them until the market settles, and selling them for massive bank just to do it all again in 30 years when people get themselves into the same shit, because they always do this crap. People are idiots, what can I say? But if you're going to take advantage of the masses, don't bitch about it when someone doesn't make it easy for you.

And I agree with Impala: don't for one second believe you are any different than the next greedy fuck who does the same thing you do. You aren't doing business because you care about society. You're in real estate because you want to make money. I won't fault you for wanting to make money, but nigga please.

Thank you for completely misunderstanding my reasoning and taking only one point of mine. Yes, it helps people who buy homes if foreclosures occur (even people who aren't in it to make money, including first time homebuyers). Yes I'm upset about it because of this reason but there are others.

I am also mad because I know the impact this will have in 7-10 years. You guys are saying it's the lenders fault, well, by bailing out the homeowners, the government is going to have to give tax breaks to the lenders, effectively bailing them out. Do you think the lenders will learn anything by being bailed out? Hell No. They'll keep giving these loans out (legally and illegally) and we'll have the same problem again somewhere down the road.

The government should go after the lenders, and at the same time give a little help to the buyers (not completely bail them out). I definitely think the buyers need some help, but they do not need their loans frozen so that they can spend their "savings" on something else.

Your first sentence is very true, but the housing boom is on the downward spiral and this will do very little to boost it.

And to clarify Test, we've refurbished a lot of the old Sugar Land homes over by the sugar factory. Those folks are actually sitting on gold mines now since the sugar factory is being turned into lofts and the area will be entirely revitalized. We also have "flipped" houses on the north side near Aldine-Bender and off of Telephone. My dad did a few homes in Pearland before the recent boom there.

And we don't rely on foreclosures to do what we do. For example, the house behind my parent's had a former lawyer turned drug dealer in it. One night he tried to shoot his girlfriend. My dad went over and bought the guy out for something like $45,000, way more than the house was worth since the guy completely trashed it. We fixed the house up and sold it to a woman who was a foster parent. I believe the selling price was around $85,000. With the cleanup my dad had to do and the specialist he had to bring in I don't think he made over $5,000.

And again, this plan is just delaying the inevitable.