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.

(Yahoo)   Applying for a mortgage? Banks may begin asking more personal questions, like, "Do you like your job?" and "At what age did you lose your virginity?"   (homes.yahoo.com) divider line 61
    More: Asinine, Protection Act, jumbo loans, subprime mortgage crisis, mortgages  
•       •       •

2393 clicks; posted to Business » on 21 Nov 2013 at 3:35 PM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-21 02:16:09 PM
What?
 
2013-11-21 02:26:39 PM
It's a trap. If you say you like your job, they'll know you for a lying sack of shiat.
 
2013-11-21 02:29:25 PM
So it's like a TFD queue process now?

/tell them you have a wish list
 
2013-11-21 02:33:54 PM
Yet another 2700 page pile of shiat plopped on the American people in the name of "we'll fix it and take care of you"

What's worse is that the American people want more of the same.
 
2013-11-21 02:41:36 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Yet another 2700 page pile of shiat plopped on the American people in the name of "we'll fix it and take care of you"

What's worse is that the American people want more of the same.


Why do you hate the annotated Bible?
 
2013-11-21 02:51:44 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Yet another 2700 page pile of shiat plopped on the American people in the name of "we'll fix it and take care of you"

What's worse is that the American people want more of the same.


AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM!
 
2013-11-21 02:53:35 PM

thamike: Why do you hate the annotated Bible?


Congress wrote that crap too?

Yeah, ok. I can see that.
 
2013-11-21 02:56:00 PM
In other words, no more no-doc mortgages.
 
2013-11-21 03:11:48 PM
Yes.  15.

Now give me money!
 
2013-11-21 03:22:54 PM
So....anal?

Or like.....double anal?

These distinctions are important.
 
2013-11-21 03:27:40 PM
I read that as "Applying for a Montage"

Which would be a definite yes, especially if it's one of those 'getting in shape' montage.  If I could get into shape using a montage, I'd do it.
 
2013-11-21 03:34:26 PM

I_Am_Weasel: I read that as "Applying for a Montage"

Which would be a definite yes, especially if it's one of those 'getting in shape' montage.  If I could get into shape using a montage, I'd do it.


media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com
 
2013-11-21 03:36:43 PM
At age NOW, while I was farked in the ass by a bank.
 
2013-11-21 03:39:39 PM
Nah, I wouldn't worry about it.  Pretty soon, they'll just scan your Mark of the BeastTM and that will be it...
 
2013-11-21 03:45:36 PM

TheOtherGuy: Nah, I wouldn't worry about it.  Pretty soon, they'll just scan your Mark of the BeastTM and that will be it...


That will be convenient
 
2013-11-21 03:46:22 PM
Twenty six.

And that's how many years I intend to take to pay off this automobile mortgage.
 
2013-11-21 03:53:35 PM
The big change?

It used to be that banks didnt have to prove you could pay for a loan.  If you didn't pay for that loan, then you lost your house and they lost lots of money.

Now they have to.  If it tuns out that you can't pay for it and they didn't prove you could, then you lose your house, they lose lots of money and the government fines them for millions.
 
2013-11-21 03:54:45 PM
I'm sorry, did someone force these people to take loans from these companies at gunpoint? So the company thinks of an idea, and are now punished that people are dumb enough to fall for it? I mean yes it is under-handed, but hey that's Capitalism right? That's the free market, right? Why should they-

"destroying records sought by a federal regulator"

Oh... nevermind then.
 
2013-11-21 03:58:26 PM

Randomly: The big change?

It used to be that banks didnt have to prove you could pay for a loan.  If you didn't pay for that loan, then you lost your house and they lost lots of money.

Now they have to.  If it tuns out that you can't pay for it and they didn't prove you could, then you lose your house, they lose lots of money and the government fines them for millions.


Wait a sec.......

After having taken out a loan, if you cannot pat it back, doesn't the bank take the house? Has the house now become worthless because you defaulted on the loan? Does the bank have no opportunity to resell it an recoup their losses?

Let's be clear. The only money the bank "loses" is the money you were "supposed" to pay back. They certain have the means and opportunity to sell that house to someone who CAN pay for it AND THEY DO.
 
2013-11-21 04:04:53 PM
So the financial colonoscopy isn't enough?
Fark banks.
 
2013-11-21 04:05:51 PM
So after the subprime debacle of the aughts where banks gave loans to pretty much anyone and then very quickly sold the debt before the loans failed  "Lenders are now held accountable for the loans they make and must prove that borrowers who get home financing can actually repay it"and this is somehow a bad thing?
 
2013-11-21 04:09:48 PM

Target Builder: So after the subprime debacle of the aughts where banks gave loans to pretty much anyone and then very quickly sold the debt before the loans failed  "Lenders are now held accountable for the loans they make and must prove that borrowers who get home financing can actually repay it"and this is somehow a bad thing?


You know, it seems to me that the law that SHOULD have been passed would be one that fines institutions that FRAUDULENTLY sell bad loans to other banks.
 
2013-11-21 04:10:53 PM

Strik3r: Randomly: The big change?

It used to be that banks didnt have to prove you could pay for a loan.  If you didn't pay for that loan, then you lost your house and they lost lots of money.

Now they have to.  If it tuns out that you can't pay for it and they didn't prove you could, then you lose your house, they lose lots of money and the government fines them for millions.

Wait a sec.......

After having taken out a loan, if you cannot pat it back, doesn't the bank take the house? Has the house now become worthless because you defaulted on the loan? Does the bank have no opportunity to resell it an recoup their losses?

Let's be clear. The only money the bank "loses" is the money you were "supposed" to pay back. They certain have the means and opportunity to sell that house to someone who CAN pay for it AND THEY DO.


Unless a whole bunch of other losers get forclosed and flood the market forcing the banks to maintain the property in hopes to sell it for something like the difference in the face of the loan.... let alone the costs associated with kicking the loser out and fixing the stuff that they failed to maintain in their bid to keep the house or the damage caused by them when they finally figured out that the house is no longer going to be theirs.... but yes the banks make out without any risk.
 
2013-11-21 04:10:54 PM
Randomly: The big change?

It used to be that banks didnt have to prove you could pay for a loan.  If you didn't pay for that loan, then you lost your house and they lost lots of money.
pension fund left holding the bag after the retail bank sold the debt the day after the mortgage was signed to an investment bank who bundled it in with other mortgages and then paid off a ratings company to give it an AAA rating to encourage pension funds to buy it before the investment bank got saddled with a defaulting mortgage.
 
2013-11-21 04:15:56 PM

Saiga410: Strik3r: Randomly: The big change?

It used to be that banks didnt have to prove you could pay for a loan.  If you didn't pay for that loan, then you lost your house and they lost lots of money.

Now they have to.  If it tuns out that you can't pay for it and they didn't prove you could, then you lose your house, they lose lots of money and the government fines them for millions.

Wait a sec.......

After having taken out a loan, if you cannot pat it back, doesn't the bank take the house? Has the house now become worthless because you defaulted on the loan? Does the bank have no opportunity to resell it an recoup their losses?

Let's be clear. The only money the bank "loses" is the money you were "supposed" to pay back. They certain have the means and opportunity to sell that house to someone who CAN pay for it AND THEY DO.

Unless a whole bunch of other losers get forclosed and flood the market forcing the banks to maintain the property in hopes to sell it for something like the difference in the face of the loan.... let alone the costs associated with kicking the loser out and fixing the stuff that they failed to maintain in their bid to keep the house or the damage caused by them when they finally figured out that the house is no longer going to be theirs.... but yes the banks make out without any risk.


I see......

Those poor banks need to be protected from the mean old volatile market. No reason to give any consideration to the poor sod who was crushed by the very same conditions that handed it back to the bank.
 
2013-11-21 04:17:58 PM

Strik3r: Randomly: The big change?

It used to be that banks didnt have to prove you could pay for a loan.  If you didn't pay for that loan, then you lost your house and they lost lots of money.

Now they have to.  If it tuns out that you can't pay for it and they didn't prove you could, then you lose your house, they lose lots of money and the government fines them for millions.

Wait a sec.......

After having taken out a loan, if you cannot pat it back, doesn't the bank take the house? Has the house now become worthless because you defaulted on the loan? Does the bank have no opportunity to resell it an recoup their losses?

Let's be clear. The only money the bank "loses" is the money you were "supposed" to pay back. They certain have the means and opportunity to sell that house to someone who CAN pay for it AND THEY DO.


the value of the collateral will not equal the amount recouped during a forced sale.  so, until the home owner has paid down a sizeable portion of the principal and built up a healthy equity cushion, the forced sale is going to be a losing proposition... it exists because it's better than nothing.
 
2013-11-21 04:19:39 PM

pute kisses like a man: the value of the collateral will not equal the amount recouped during a forced sale.  so, until the home owner has paid down a sizeable portion of the principal and built up a healthy equity cushion, the forced sale is going to be a losing proposition... it exists because it's better than nothing.


Why is this so? Isn't is because the bank wants it's money FAST?
 
2013-11-21 04:20:41 PM
Lenders are now held accountable for the loans they make and must prove that borrowers who get home financing can actually repay it.

Well, this is clearly a terrible idea!!
 
2013-11-21 04:21:37 PM
Borrowers who need larger mortgages, or jumbo loans, might find getting a loan more difficult, for instance

GOOD!! It SHOULD be hard to borrow $417,000. That should be a challenge.
 
2013-11-21 04:25:25 PM
One of the questions should be:
"You realize that this is a loan and you have to pay it back, right?"
 
2013-11-21 04:28:56 PM

Strik3r: Target Builder: So after the subprime debacle of the aughts where banks gave loans to pretty much anyone and then very quickly sold the debt before the loans failed  "Lenders are now held accountable for the loans they make and must prove that borrowers who get home financing can actually repay it"and this is somehow a bad thing?

You know, it seems to me that the law that SHOULD have been passed would be one that fines institutions that FRAUDULENTLY sell bad loans to other banks.


This law is aimed at preventing banks from selling bad loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The government has made it so they can force the banks to buy back bad loans if the paperwork indicates the bank didn't do its due diligence. The banks asked 'how do we know you won't make us buy back any loans that default?' and "how do we prove we did due diligence?" Both reasonable questions. The government then came up with a list of criteria and evidence that the banks have to produce to show they were acting responsibly in giving you a loan - if they dot all the i's and cross all the t's on the list the government accepts that the loan looked good when it was issued and don't go after the bank.

Strik3r: pute kisses like a man: the value of the collateral will not equal the amount recouped during a forced sale.  so, until the home owner has paid down a sizeable portion of the principal and built up a healthy equity cushion, the forced sale is going to be a losing proposition... it exists because it's better than nothing.

Why is this so? Isn't is because the bank wants it's money FAST?


They want to cut their losses fast. Nobody is making money off the foreclosure.
 
2013-11-21 04:37:57 PM

Strik3r: Saiga410: Strik3r: Randomly: The big change?

It used to be that banks didnt have to prove you could pay for a loan.  If you didn't pay for that loan, then you lost your house and they lost lots of money.

Now they have to.  If it tuns out that you can't pay for it and they didn't prove you could, then you lose your house, they lose lots of money and the government fines them for millions.

Wait a sec.......

After having taken out a loan, if you cannot pat it back, doesn't the bank take the house? Has the house now become worthless because you defaulted on the loan? Does the bank have no opportunity to resell it an recoup their losses?

Let's be clear. The only money the bank "loses" is the money you were "supposed" to pay back. They certain have the means and opportunity to sell that house to someone who CAN pay for it AND THEY DO.

Unless a whole bunch of other losers get forclosed and flood the market forcing the banks to maintain the property in hopes to sell it for something like the difference in the face of the loan.... let alone the costs associated with kicking the loser out and fixing the stuff that they failed to maintain in their bid to keep the house or the damage caused by them when they finally figured out that the house is no longer going to be theirs.... but yes the banks make out without any risk.

I see......

Those poor banks need to be protected from the mean old volatile market. No reason to give any consideration to the poor sod who was crushed by the very same conditions that handed it back to the bank.


Protected?  Heck no.  They should be burned just as badly as the people who borrowed the money.  I just am not in any delusion that banks are without risks.
 
2013-11-21 04:39:05 PM

pute kisses like a man: the value of the collateral will not equal the amount recouped during a forced sale.


It will if you appraise the collateral properly ahead of time, and if the mortgage has a sensible down payment (20-25%).

/but it's too hard to save up 20%. I want those granite countertops now!
 
2013-11-21 04:39:07 PM

Strik3r: pute kisses like a man: the value of the collateral will not equal the amount recouped during a forced sale.  so, until the home owner has paid down a sizeable portion of the principal and built up a healthy equity cushion, the forced sale is going to be a losing proposition... it exists because it's better than nothing.

Why is this so? Isn't is because the bank wants it's money FAST?


Banks don't like owning empty houses.  They are non-earning assets that are subject to vandalism and depreciation, especially when sitting empty.  So it's better for them to see it for $100,000 than to spend months fixing it up and sitting on it hoping to get $200,000.
 
2013-11-21 04:46:01 PM

Ivo Shandor: pute kisses like a man: the value of the collateral will not equal the amount recouped during a forced sale.

It will if you appraise the collateral properly ahead of time, and if the mortgage has a sensible down payment (20-25%).

/but it's too hard to save up 20%. I want those granite countertops now!


Want? You need and deserve those granite countertops now!
 
2013-11-21 05:34:29 PM

rugman11: Strik3r: pute kisses like a man: the value of the collateral will not equal the amount recouped during a forced sale.  so, until the home owner has paid down a sizeable portion of the principal and built up a healthy equity cushion, the forced sale is going to be a losing proposition... it exists because it's better than nothing.

Why is this so? Isn't is because the bank wants it's money FAST?

Banks don't like owning empty houses.  They are non-earning assets that are subject to vandalism and depreciation, especially when sitting empty.  So it's better for them to see it for $100,000 than to spend months fixing it up and sitting on it hoping to get $200,000.


This. Before Bank of America sold off its property preservation division, they were spending about a billion dollars a year trying to upkeep houses. The storms and hurricanes haven't helped, especially in Florida and New Jersey (I left just after Sandy; it was a nightmare trying to deal with all the different counties from Los Angeles).

The banks have no interest in sitting on an empty property, no matter how much they think they could profit off it. They are in a no-win situation. Either the neighborhood is yelling at them for blight, the city is yelling for mold or mosquito-infested pools, the federal gov't has about a thousand regulations for what you are allowed to do to a specific property on a specific loan, no matter how loud anyone yells. . .


/please do not mistake this for sympathy. The banks made their own beds.
 
2013-11-21 05:36:53 PM
There goes most mortgages for the self employed. Damn.
 
2013-11-21 05:54:55 PM

RobertBruce: There goes most mortgages for the self employed. Damn.


You might not be that far off, sadly. My friend graduated as a periodontal surgeon in May, and was about to start working with his father (a 20+ year established practice). My friend's father died suddenly, and while having to deal with that, and deal with becoming the head of the company, he also had to deal with a mortgage broker backing out as well due to 'uncertainty.'
 
2013-11-21 06:00:04 PM

Peki: Before Bank of America sold off its property preservation division, they were spending about a billion dollars a year trying to upkeep houses.


So find a better way to do it. Offer to let someone live rent-free in one house in exchange for him/her acting as a caretaker for it and 9 others in the area. In the current economy I don't think they would have a hard time finding applicants. The properties would be maintained, more people would have a place to live, and the banks would eventually be able to sell the houses at market value instead of fire-sale prices.
 
2013-11-21 06:37:40 PM

Ivo Shandor: Peki: Before Bank of America sold off its property preservation division, they were spending about a billion dollars a year trying to upkeep houses.

So find a better way to do it. Offer to let someone live rent-free in one house in exchange for him/her acting as a caretaker for it and 9 others in the area. In the current economy I don't think they would have a hard time finding applicants. The properties would be maintained, more people would have a place to live, and the banks would eventually be able to sell the houses at market value instead of fire-sale prices.


That's a money problem. When the federal gov't is the one paying for the upkeep, you don't get to decide how it gets spent.

/I had the same idea, lots of banks have had the same idea, they can't get funding for it
 
2013-11-21 07:21:49 PM
I call BS to this article.  Sure the law now requires stricter requirements to show the ability to repay but you can't get this information by asking personal questions to which the answers are totally unverifiable.  They are just goign to be looking more closely at your income, resources, work history, credit history etc...
 
2013-11-21 07:22:49 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: One of the questions should be:
"You realize that this is a loan and you have to pay it back, right?"


I remember attending a mandatory freshman "orientation" session in college for students who took out loans - the orientation could be summed up with exactly that sentence.  They also covered two important additional points: "Listen, we're serious about this," and "Just in case you were thinking about it, no, you can't just declare bankruptcy."  Then I had to sign a document saying I had attended the session.  When I applied to graduate, there was an additional "exit interview" about loan repayment that covered the same information.
 
2013-11-21 08:02:41 PM
Seize the money.
 
2013-11-21 08:04:47 PM

runwiz: I call BS to this article.  Sure the law now requires stricter requirements to show the ability to repay but you can't get this information by asking personal questions to which the answers are totally unverifiable.  They are just goign to be looking more closely at your income, resources, work history, credit history etc...



This. Thankfully, in about two years, I can tell the bank to take a flying fark in a rolling doughnut, as I will have closed out my mortgage.
 
2013-11-21 08:23:41 PM

rumpelstiltskin: It's a trap. If you say you like your job, they'll know you for a lying sack of shiat.


It's a Catch 22!

Still relevant.  Much unlike my undergrad.
 
2013-11-21 08:34:37 PM
I still remember one question on the screening app for Kinkos when I was 16.

"True or false: it's not what you know, it's who you know."

I didn't get the job.

/didn't know anyone
 
2013-11-21 09:56:20 PM

Gig103: RobertBruce: There goes most mortgages for the self employed. Damn.

You might not be that far off, sadly. My friend graduated as a periodontal surgeon in May, and was about to start working with his father (a 20+ year established practice). My friend's father died suddenly, and while having to deal with that, and deal with becoming the head of the company, he also had to deal with a mortgage broker backing out as well due to 'uncertainty.'


The guy who owned and ran the place he was planning to work died. That sounds pretty uncertain to me. His dad might have been established for 20+ years, but he wasn't.
 
2013-11-22 12:12:25 AM

Randomly: The big change?

It used to be that banks didnt have to prove you could pay for a loan.  If you didn't pay for that loan, then you lost your house and they lost lots of money.

Now they have to.  If it tuns out that you can't pay for it and they didn't prove you could, then you lose your house, they lose lots of money and the government fines them for millions.


The banks doesn't lose a dime.  Whoever bought the mortgage paper loses.

What has changed is that the securities for mortgages that were supposed to be good as gold and safe and T-bills now have to have underlying mortgages that will be paid by the borrowers, as opposed to teh good old days when the various entities and ratings agencies made routine lies about the safety of "no doc" mortgages.
 
2013-11-22 12:17:47 AM

sendtodave: I still remember one question on the screening app for Kinkos when I was 16.

"True or false: it's not what you know, it's who you know."

I didn't get the job.

/didn't know anyone


What did you answer and why was that on the application in the first place?
 
2013-11-22 01:37:26 AM
That's how they do pants!
 
Displayed 50 of 61 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