If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   46% of homeowners who were bailed out by Federal loan modification programs are still defaulting on their homes   (money.cnn.com) divider line 99
    More: Sad, mortgage modifications, HAMP, TARP, mortgages  
•       •       •

1417 clicks; posted to Business » on 24 Jul 2013 at 11:45 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



99 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
P0e
2013-07-24 11:49:28 AM
And 54% aren't anymore.  You can't measure projects as whether they have a 100% success rate or not.  Nothing anyone does, ever, will have a 100% success rate over time.
 
2013-07-24 11:49:54 AM
So 54% of those who would have lost their homes are keeping them? Sounds like a success to me.
 
2013-07-24 11:50:23 AM
And boa still won't refinance my condo. Maybe I should stop paying like everyone else
 
2013-07-24 11:50:53 AM

P0e: And 54% aren't anymore.  You can't measure projects as whether they have a 100% success rate or not.  Nothing anyone does, ever, will have a 100% success rate over time.


Where were you when I needed to explain bad grades to my parents when I was in school?
 
2013-07-24 11:52:02 AM
46% is less than 100% by a fairly healthy margin.  I'll accept that.
 
2013-07-24 11:54:01 AM

P0e: And 54% aren't anymore.  You can't measure projects as whether they have a 100% success rate or not.  Nothing anyone does, ever, will have a 100% success rate over time.


ohknaks: So 54% of those who would have lost their homes are keeping them? Sounds like a success to me.


These.

I'm calling this a success.
 
2013-07-24 11:58:40 AM
It's like complaining that medicare patients have a high mortality rate compared to private insurance patients. Of course they do, they are forced to take the highest risk cases while the private sector gets to take all the low risk profits
 
2013-07-24 12:02:51 PM
Serves them right for buying things they couldn't afford; too bad the rest of us still have to pay for it.
 
2013-07-24 12:04:48 PM

buckets_of_fun: P0e: And 54% aren't anymore.  You can't measure projects as whether they have a 100% success rate or not.  Nothing anyone does, ever, will have a 100% success rate over time.

Where were you when I needed to explain bad grades to my parents when I was in school?


Haven't you heard?  54% of the time, it works everytime!
 
2013-07-24 12:16:32 PM
And how many of those buying new home and that $8,000 buyer bonus?

I bought a home within my budget (but less than I would have liked), paid on time, and never had an issue.
Where is my bonus? Where is my "bail out".

Maybe the US can get to a point where we reward people who all "do the right thing" instead of all the people who live on the edge and require gov. intervention.

Let's go on a huge tangent and stop coastal flood insurance by GOV.
Want to live in a known flood plain with your million $$ home, pay your own damned insurance (in full)
 
2013-07-24 12:23:08 PM
FTFA:
The inspector general said it found some "clear patterns" in its own research. Homeowners who were most likely to re-default were the ones who received the smallest reduction in their loan payments or overall debt, were still underwater on their mortgage or had subprime credit scores and high overall debt at the time the modification took place.


/Duh
 
2013-07-24 12:23:13 PM

Lost Thought 00: It's like complaining that medicare patients have a high mortality rate compared to private insurance patients. Of course they do, they are forced to take the highest risk cases while the private sector gets to take all the low risk profits


Heart surgeons have a significantly higher patient mortality rate than pediatricians, so why do they make, on average, three times more!?!?!?!
 
2013-07-24 12:23:45 PM
Maybe people should not spend more than they can afford.
 
2013-07-24 12:31:54 PM

BHShaman: Maybe the US can get to a point where we reward people who all "do the right thing" instead of all the people who live on the edge and require gov. intervention.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-24 12:32:40 PM

sandi_fish: Maybe people should not spend more than they can afford.


This.  However, they were in many cases oversold on purpose  by mortgage brokers, plenty of blame to go around.  If I have a mortgage payment I can't afford, chances are no modification is going to change that, it's only going to prolong the money wasted trying to save a lost cause.

/own my own home, no bank does.
 
2013-07-24 12:35:05 PM

BHShaman: I bought a home within my budget (but less than I would have liked), paid on time, and never had an issue.
Where is my bonus? Where is my "bail out".


A n-bomb will brag about some shiat a normal man just does. A n-bomb  will say some shiat like, "I take care of my kids." You're supposed to, you dumb motherfarker! What kind of ignorant shiat is that? "I ain't never been to jail!" What do you want, a cookie?! You're not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having motherfarker!"

-- Chris Rock
 
2013-07-24 12:35:47 PM

BHShaman: And how many of those buying new home and that $8,000 buyer bonus?

I bought a home within my budget (but less than I would have liked), paid on time, and never had an issue.
Where is my bonus? Where is my "bail out".

Maybe the US can get to a point where we reward people who all "do the right thing" instead of all the people who live on the edge and require gov. intervention.

Let's go on a huge tangent and stop coastal flood insurance by GOV.
Want to live in a known flood plain with your million $$ home, pay your own damned insurance (in full)


I have an idea, quit using my infrastructure and communications system. Don't consume anything you didn't grow or pump yourself and stay as far away from buildings, cars, weather reports, and pretty much everything in a modern society if you want to biatch about people getting more than their fair share, because you owe the government tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars on things you directly use.
 
2013-07-24 12:36:19 PM

sandi_fish: Maybe people should not spend more than they can afford.


It's not like there was a financial crisis built upon mortgages packaged with a fraudulent rating and a resulting economic downturn that eliminated millions of jobs.
 
2013-07-24 12:39:51 PM

BHShaman: I bought a home within my budget (but less than I would have liked), paid on time, and never had an issue.
Where is my bonus? Where is my "bail out".

Maybe the US can get to a point where we reward people who all "do the right thing" instead of all the people who live on the edge and require gov. intervention.


Home equity & mortgage tax break plus a life well-lived.

Maybe the answer is to stop 'rewarding' anyone at all.
Banks are continuing to make bad loans, because they know nothing will be done to penalize them. Everything will be done to save them. This is just a program for the plebeians to hold everything together until the next bubble 'saves the economy'.

The next crash will be epic. Stay/get out of debt. Get ready to pick up the pieces. Fortunes were made in the 1930's by a few.
 
2013-07-24 12:39:53 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: sandi_fish: Maybe people should not spend more than they can afford.

It's not like there was a financial crisis built upon mortgages packaged with a fraudulent rating and a resulting economic downturn that eliminated millions of jobs.


It's not like people didn't give false figures when asked about their income and resources to pay off said mortgages.  Obviously the ones handing them the pens could've done more questioning, but we're not exactly talking about innocent people.
 
2013-07-24 12:43:08 PM

nekom: sandi_fish: Maybe people should not spend more than they can afford.

This.  However, they were in many cases oversold on purpose  by mortgage brokers, plenty of blame to go around.  If I have a mortgage payment I can't afford, chances are no modification is going to change that, it's only going to prolong the money wasted trying to save a lost cause.

/own my own home, no bank does.


And let's not forget that many of those people COULD afford their homes when they bought them. The housing market crash meant that millions were stuck with ARMs they couldn't refi because they owed more than the house was worth (despite experts telling them the housing market always appreciates), or they lost jobs during the economic crash. We've downgraded our housing twice in the last 3 years because our incomes are so unstable nowadays (and we got stuck buying our own health insurance for a year, to the tune of $740-$1200/month, because COBRA is farking expensive). Things are now looking up for us, but it took every ounce of creative energy and a fair bit of luck to keep us afloat. The car wreck I got in last year that was not my fault totaled my car and paid us enough that we were able to pay off not just that car but our other one as well. Of course, now we only have one car...
 
2013-07-24 12:45:21 PM

divx88: Sergeant Grumbles: sandi_fish: Maybe people should not spend more than they can afford.

It's not like there was a financial crisis built upon mortgages packaged with a fraudulent rating and a resulting economic downturn that eliminated millions of jobs.

It's not like people didn't give false figures when asked about their income and resources to pay off said mortgages.  Obviously the ones handing them the pens could've done more questioning, but we're not exactly talking about innocent people.


The banks didn't want to do "more questioning" because they specifically wanted to hand out sub-prime mortgages because there was more money in it.  They knew full well they were handing out loans to people who couldn't make payments, but they said They said "Fark it, we'll charge them a higher APR, and if they can't make payments we'll just reposses the house and sell it again at profit because home prices ALWAYS go up, right?"     A lot of people who qualified for traditional mortgages were put into prime-risk mortgages, some even without their knowledge unknowing, because the sales reps got higher commissions from the lenders for selling prime-risk deals.
 
2013-07-24 12:51:19 PM

InmanRoshi: divx88: Sergeant Grumbles: sandi_fish: Maybe people should not spend more than they can afford.

It's not like there was a financial crisis built upon mortgages packaged with a fraudulent rating and a resulting economic downturn that eliminated millions of jobs.

It's not like people didn't give false figures when asked about their income and resources to pay off said mortgages.  Obviously the ones handing them the pens could've done more questioning, but we're not exactly talking about innocent people.

The banks didn't want to do "more questioning" because they specifically wanted to hand out sub-prime mortgages because there was more money in it.  They knew full well they were handing out loans to people who couldn't make payments, but they said They said "Fark it, we'll charge them a higher APR, and if they can't make payments we'll just reposses the house and sell it again at profit because home prices ALWAYS go up, right?"     A lot of people who qualified for traditional mortgages were put into prime-risk mortgages, some even without their knowledge unknowing, because the sales reps got higher commissions from the lenders for selling prime-risk deals.


well actually it's because they were selling mortgage backed securities (and making billions) while simultaneously betting against those same securities (eventually making billions when the whole thing went kaplooey). It was in their own best interests to fund bad loans because they were set to make money off their default. It's akin to Walmart not providing sick time or health insurance but buying life insurance so they'd get paid out when their employees died.
 
2013-07-24 01:12:08 PM

BHShaman: I bought a home within my budget (but less than I would have liked), paid on time, and never had an issue.
Where is my bonus? Where is my "bail out".


Your bonus that you are one of the luckier members of society who manage to amass some level, however small, of wealth and live with a dramatically improved quality of life.

One of the costs to this, is that any successful society will result in some amount of resource distribution away from people like you and to the people who are less intelligent, capable, or have endured harder circumstances in life than you have.  If it helps you sleep at night, these are the people doing all the dirty disgusting jobs you never have see, let alone do.

But you already knew all that, and just wanted to be a selfish whiny biatch, right?
 
2013-07-24 01:17:49 PM
You know why?  I'll tell you why.  Because the programs they put in place bailed out the speculators, flippers, deadbeats, and of course the bankers.  Regular working Joes who were never late on a house payment and didn't buy into the bubble STILL saw their property values nosedive into negative equity and have been unable to refinance or sell as a result.

Who knew that bailing out the irresponsible idiots would lead to more defaults by irresponsible idiots?
 
2013-07-24 01:21:39 PM

ohknaks: So 54% of those who would have lost their homes are keeping them? Sounds like a success to me.


I don't recall any government officials says "As long as at least 50% don't re-default we'll be happy.  After all, it's only a couple billion taxpayer dollars at risk."

Nor do you see these people now talking abut what a success a mere 46% re-default rate is.  Instead, they trying to find out what went wrong.
 
2013-07-24 01:21:41 PM

AngryDragon: You know why?  I'll tell you why.  Because the programs they put in place bailed out the speculators, flippers, deadbeats, and of course the bankers.  Regular working Joes who were never late on a house payment and didn't buy into the bubble STILL saw their property values nosedive into negative equity and have been unable to refinance or sell as a result.

Who knew that bailing out the irresponsible idiots would lead to more defaults by irresponsible idiots?


What they should have done is shore up all the homeowners who were underwater. That would have saved the homeowners and also the banks at the same time. What they did instead is shore up the banks, allowing them to balloon in size from Too Big to Fail to Big Enough To Buy Our Government Outright while letting the little guys lose their homes and livelihoods.
 
2013-07-24 01:28:04 PM

Smackledorfer: will result in some amount of resource distribution away from people like you and to the people who are less intelligent, capable, or have endured harder circumstances in life than you have


I didn't know executives at AIG had it so rough.
 
2013-07-24 01:33:24 PM

Smackledorfer: BHShaman: I bought a home within my budget (but less than I would have liked), paid on time, and never had an issue.
Where is my bonus? Where is my "bail out".

Your bonus that you are one of the luckier members of society who manage to amass some level, however small, of wealth and live with a dramatically improved quality of life.

One of the costs to this, is that any successful society will result in some amount of resource distribution away from people like you and to the people who are less intelligent, capable, or have endured harder circumstances in life than you have.  If it helps you sleep at night, these are the people doing all the dirty disgusting jobs you never have see, let alone do.

But you already knew all that, and just wanted to be a selfish whiny biatch, right?


yes, how dare he be personally responsible and ask that others do the same?

/Damn, you're a 'tard
 
2013-07-24 01:36:42 PM

AngryDragon: You know why?  I'll tell you why.  Because the programs they put in place bailed out the speculators, flippers, deadbeats, and of course the bankers.  Regular working Joes who were never late on a house payment and didn't buy into the bubble STILL saw their property values nosedive into negative equity and have been unable to refinance or sell as a result.

Who knew that bailing out the irresponsible idiots would lead to more defaults by irresponsible idiots?


If we give them so more of our money they'll be responsible this time. Promise.
 
2013-07-24 01:37:54 PM
The NINJA (No Income, No Job or ASSet) loans strike silently.
 
2013-07-24 01:39:03 PM
First sentence in the article: "Nearly 1.2 million mortgage modifications have been completed since the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) was first launched four years ago. Yet more than 306,000 borrowers have re-defaulted on their loans "

46% 26% of homeowners who were bailed out by Federal loan modification programs are still defaulting on their homes

FTFY subby.
 
2013-07-24 01:40:19 PM
The government shouldn't subsidize anyone, individual or corporation or industry.
 
2013-07-24 01:42:37 PM

LargeCanine: The government shouldn't subsidize anyone, individual or corporation or industry.


Impossible. Someone will always get more out their government than someone else.
 
2013-07-24 01:43:13 PM

Carousel Beast: Smackledorfer: BHShaman: I bought a home within my budget (but less than I would have liked), paid on time, and never had an issue.
Where is my bonus? Where is my "bail out".

Your bonus that you are one of the luckier members of society who manage to amass some level, however small, of wealth and live with a dramatically improved quality of life.

One of the costs to this, is that any successful society will result in some amount of resource distribution away from people like you and to the people who are less intelligent, capable, or have endured harder circumstances in life than you have.  If it helps you sleep at night, these are the people doing all the dirty disgusting jobs you never have see, let alone do.

But you already knew all that, and just wanted to be a selfish whiny biatch, right?

yes, how dare he be personally responsible and ask that others do the same?

/Damn, you're a 'tard


What a mature response.
 
2013-07-24 01:48:07 PM
From TFA: In addition, the watchdog found that the longer a homeowner stays in the HAMP modification program, the more likely they are to default. Those who have been in the program since 2009, are re-defaulting at a rate of 46%,

That does not mean "46% of homeowners who were bailed out by Federal loan modification programs are still defaulting on their homes"
That means people that haven't been able to get out of the program in the last 4 years are re-defaulting at that rate.

The actual numbers are 306,000 households re-defaulting out of 865,000 helped (see p. 165 of this link). That's 35%.

Which isn't to say that 35% is good. But if you're going to say something, say it right.
 
2013-07-24 01:51:56 PM
Thankfully, I'm one of the 54%.
We got a second chance after my business went under.

My advice for anyone in the process: (ours took over a year)
Save the house payment you're not making, because the bank won't accept any money unless you can pay in full.(i.e. they want 3-4 months or nothing)
Pay for Lawyer, let someone else do the leg work. (cost $500-1,400)
The mortgage company will want a $$ BANK check when you re-sign the loan (at a moments notice) surprise!! (ours ~$1,900 in less than a weeks notice)
Your first three or four house payments will be higher than the agreed upon amount due to taxes, escrow and/or fees. (ours was + ~$300)
Bottom line you'll need the money.
Once, you get the house back keep your payments up.
Consider what you can cut from budget:  **beer fund should never change

Yes, we have a BAC Mortgage. (still thankful for 2nd chance)
 
2013-07-24 01:55:44 PM

pjbreeze: The NINJA (No Income, No Job or ASSet) loans strike silently.


I don't see what the juggalos have to do with this
 
2013-07-24 02:03:52 PM

InmanRoshi: BHShaman: I bought a home within my budget (but less than I would have liked), paid on time, and never had an issue.
Where is my bonus? Where is my "bail out".

A n-bomb will brag about some shiat a normal man just does. A n-bomb  will say some shiat like, "I take care of my kids." You're supposed to, you dumb motherfarker! What kind of ignorant shiat is that? "I ain't never been to jail!" What do you want, a cookie?! You're not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having motherfarker!"

-- Chris Rock


All well and good, and CR is funny as shiat, but unfortunately that is no longer happening.
People LIVE in welfare because in the cost/benefit analysis of these things, it is  better than min. wage.
Companies don't mine welfare, because they appreciate that the people smart enough to figure out that they should be on welfare instead of working a P/T, rotating non-standard schedule, for min. wage are not applying. The people dumb enough to work in that environment are still willing to work for min. wage.

Corporations continue to screw people over because their punishments are not severe enough. Fraud for 300Billion? Here is a 100mil. fine. Do the math and the company will take that "punishment' every time.

Meanwhile, all the hard working folks who do their shiat like they are supposed to watch the rich get even more rich and the poor continue to leverage benefits. All on the middle class contribution.

Yea... I can take some pride in the fact that I am supporting weight on both end of the barbell, but it does not decrease my burden. I strongly middle class. I have to far to fall to try and take advantage of benefits over min. wage, but no way in hell will I ever get rich enough to  be able to live off capitol gains at 15% taxation instead of my living wage 35% tax rate (rounded).

So "F" everyone who works hard to keep up their end?

Yea. I got my slice of the pie.
 Yea. I am a social capitalist, I understand WHY and SUPPORT my taxes being used for the greater good.

Yea. I am a middle class earner and getting the shaft in modern society.
 
2013-07-24 02:03:53 PM

sandi_fish: Maybe people should not spend more than they can afford.


Most people that were just buying a home to live in could afford their houses when they bought them, but when the melt down happened these people lost their jobs. Those people that could find new jobs mostly found jobs that were paying well below what they were making when they bought their houses. So because of the change in pay even the modification couldn't help them, it just delayed what was going to happen. The problem is the employment situation and reduction in income many American's had to deal with.
 
2013-07-24 02:04:33 PM

P0e: And 54% aren't anymore.  You can't measure projects as whether they have a 100% success rate or not.  Nothing anyone does, ever, will have a 100% success rate over time.


There you go using math instead of derp. Are you a real American?
 
2013-07-24 02:05:21 PM
Sorry about the spelling and grammar.
Multi-tasking and rage typing.
 
2013-07-24 02:07:16 PM

BHShaman: People LIVE in welfare because in the cost/benefit analysis of these things, it is better than min. wage.


The issue isn't that welfare is so great, it's that minimum wage isn't enough to live on.
 
2013-07-24 02:07:44 PM

sandi_fish: Maybe people should not spend more than they can afford.


From a previous thread:

"It's high time the government steps in and prevents poor people from taking out mortgages they can't afford, rolling those mortgages into asset backed securities, repackaging those securities into collatoralized debt obligations, slicing those CDO's into tranches, rating those tranches AAA even though they're filled with toxic assets, selling those tranches to overseas investors and pension funds, taking out credit default swaps on the toxic tranches they just sold to the investors, and then forming new synthetic CDO's from the CDS's they just purchased in the hopes of profiting on both sides of the inevitable collapse. Until the government can get these poor people under control, we're just going to see the same thing over and over again."
 
2013-07-24 02:25:55 PM
Mike Chewbacca:

The issue isn't that welfare is so great, it's that minimum wage isn't enough to live on.

I completely agree.

But, when Business can still have their lobbyist say, "we have no shortage of min. wage workers, so min. wage must be fine." and GOV does not force an increase, who ends up paying? The tax payer. Win-Win for people who understand that Benefits pay more than Min. Wage, and for Corporations who want to continue to pay substandard wages and benefits.Lose-Lose for everyone in the middle.
 
2013-07-24 02:39:24 PM
I still remember the day the bank came to my house and tied me to a chair and duct taped my mouth. It was horrible the way they kept me until  I signed that mortgage. I knew I couldn't afford it. It even said right on the document that the rate would go up in the future. They struck me and beat me until I finally gave in and signed it. Now I have to pay it back. This sux. Damn You Big Banks!
 
2013-07-24 02:57:16 PM

CMYK and PMS: I still remember the day the bank came to my house and tied me to a chair and duct taped my mouth. It was horrible the way they kept me until  I signed that mortgage. I knew I couldn't afford it. It even said right on the document that the rate would go up in the future. They struck me and beat me until I finally gave in and signed it. Now I have to pay it back. This sux. Damn You Big Banks!


I can still remember the day when I lost my job because ratings agencies and banks lied to everyone about the risk inherent to their assets, and bought out credit swaps to make money on the collapse they knew would happen so they could cash out.  When the collapse happened, GDP dropped to the point where unemployment tripled, so people who were honest and responsible about their finances lost their homes.

Most foreclosures weren't from irresponsible buyers who couldn't afford their mortgages (some were, yes).  They were from honest buyers who lost their livelihood when the bubble burst and improperly graded toxic assets were uncovered and killed the market.
 
2013-07-24 03:13:13 PM

CMYK and PMS: I still remember the day the bank came to my house and tied me to a chair and duct taped my mouth. It was horrible the way they kept me until  I signed that mortgage. I knew I couldn't afford it. It even said right on the document that the rate would go up in the future. They struck me and beat me until I finally gave in and signed it. Now I have to pay it back. This sux. Damn You Big Banks!


I'm sure the bank's ability to bundle those loans, slap an "A+" sticker on them, and then sell them for a profit, followed by betting against those same loans being repaid for additional profit, played no role in their deciding to issue those loans.  Clearly the people with no income or justifiable assets stormed the banks and made them give over loans at gunpoint.  It's just a huge coincidence that the banks were raking in more money than God up to the collapse.
 
2013-07-24 03:19:00 PM

BHShaman: Yea... I can take some pride in the fact that I am supporting weight on both end of the barbell, but it does not decrease my burden. I strongly middle class. I have to far to fall to try and take advantage of benefits over min. wage, but no way in hell will I ever get rich enough to  be able to live off capitol gains at 15% taxation instead of my living wage 35% tax rate (rounded).

So "F" everyone who works hard to keep up their end?

Yea. I got my slice of the pie.
 Yea. I am a social capitalist, I understand WHY and SUPPORT my taxes being used for the greater good.

Yea. I am a middle class earner and getting the shaft in modern society.


It's spelled "Yeah." Otherwise, you're saying "Yay!" as in "yea verily did i whine about lucky duckies"
 
2013-07-24 03:34:48 PM

Khellendros: CMYK and PMS: I still remember the day the bank came to my house and tied me to a chair and duct taped my mouth. It was horrible the way they kept me until  I signed that mortgage. I knew I couldn't afford it. It even said right on the document that the rate would go up in the future. They struck me and beat me until I finally gave in and signed it. Now I have to pay it back. This sux. Damn You Big Banks!

I can still remember the day when I lost my job because ratings agencies and banks lied to everyone about the risk inherent to their assets, and bought out credit swaps to make money on the collapse they knew would happen so they could cash out.  When the collapse happened, GDP dropped to the point where unemployment tripled, so people who were honest and responsible about their finances lost their homes.

Most foreclosures weren't from irresponsible buyers who couldn't afford their mortgages (some were, yes).  They were from honest buyers who lost their livelihood when the bubble burst and improperly graded toxic assets were uncovered and killed the market.


I knew it would happen too and protected myself, even through a layoff. You on the other hand bought big screen tvs and new SUVs with the money you got from a HELOC. You didn't have a penny saved and now you want to blame everyone else for your failures. Waa waa waa

Almost 100% of the foreclosures were due to some form of speculation on the part of the buyer. Every. Single. One. Thought they would make a profit. I saw it for what it was and stayed away so I don't have to cry now.
 
Displayed 50 of 99 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report