 |
bostonbubble.com Boston Bubble - Boston Real Estate Analysis
|
SPONSORED LINKS
Advertise on Boston Bubble
Buyer brokers and motivated
sellers, reach potential buyers.
www.bostonbubble.com
YOUR AD HERE
|
|
DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this website and in the
associated forums comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, expressed
or implied. You assume all risk for your own use of the information
provided as the accuracy of the information is in no way guaranteed.
As always, cross check information that you would deem useful against
multiple, reliable, independent resources. The opinions expressed
belong to the individual authors and not necessarily to other parties.
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
admin Site Admin
Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 1826 Location: Greater Boston
|
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:03 pm GMT Post subject: Bank of America still pitching risky mortgages |
|
|
The other day, I received the letter below in the mail from Bank of America. It is an advertisement for refinancing into a new mortgage. They list multiple refinancing options with each option being a progressively worse idea. The first fixed rate option seems fine on the surface, it's the rest of the options that are very bad ideas, especially now. At first glance, I thought that the letter was primarily promoting an interest-only option as that option is given prominent attention (though that prominence is kind of a warning).
- admin
 |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
john p
Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 1820
|
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:18 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
Go to today's Wall Street Journal and read on page A4, "Bank Launches Big Plan to Cut Mortgage Debt"
from that article:
Quote: | Last fall, Bank of America slashed more than $200,000 in principal on an option-ARM that Precy Padua used in 2007 to buy a nearly $1 million four-bedroom home in Fairfield, Calif. That modification which stemmed from a 2008 multi-state, Countrywide settlement, lowered her principal balance to $635,000 and provided a 5.5% fixed rate over 40 years.
Ms. Padua said she had stopped making her payments in late 2008, even though the loan wasn't set to adjust to higher payments for years, because the home's value had fallen around half of the $850,000 she owed. |
This makes me sick. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
admin Site Admin
Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 1826 Location: Greater Boston
|
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:25 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
john p wrote: |
Quote: |
Ms. Padua said she had stopped making her payments in late 2008, even though the loan wasn't set to adjust to higher payments for years, because the home's value had fallen around half of the $850,000 she owed. |
This makes me sick. |
I hear you. At least it's not taxpayers cleaning up her mess, in this case (not in an immediately obvious way, anyway).
- admin |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
john p
Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 1820
|
Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:58 am GMT Post subject: |
|
|
Who do you think ate the $200k that was written off?
What is interesting about this whole loan modification thing is that this lady just refuses to pay, her adjustable never even reset higher so there was no hardship. It was a total self created hardship and it wasn't like she aligned her means with a modest goal, she wanted a Million dollar home. Now parts of California, Florida, Arizona, Nevada have had property values cut in HALF. I don't know how she was allowed to get this, and I don't understand how this loan remodification policy is fair because I couldn't get refinancing in Massachusetts due to Loan to Value even though a house 400 square feet smaller houses three houses down the street on a not as nice lot sold for $7,000 less than what I needed my house to appraise at. No deal for me even though the bubble had a direct impact on me, but the guy who bought 15 years ago could refinance as well as this lady in California.
This ability to refinance for those who bought before the bubble has a direct impact on first time homebuyers and I don't think they get this point. The point is that if people can refinance they might not be that motivated seller. The government is not letting the natural course of events happen and this correction will make things more affordable. I think it is good that they are trying to land this plane safely, but the medicine isn't going to the right people and the banks are taking advantage.
The real insult was that this lady most likely wouldn't have had to pay the bank fees that the banks wanted to impose on me. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kaidran
Joined: 17 Mar 2010 Posts: 289
|
Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 12:26 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
I guess they ran the numbers as figured they could get more out of forgiving part of the loans on deadbeats than letting the market drop to a better price.
The one thing I am certain of is that they put a lot of math into working through the angles until they came to this decision. I guess it just indicates how low they are afraid the market could drop. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
admin Site Admin
Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 1826 Location: Greater Boston
|
Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 12:30 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
john p wrote: | Who do you think ate the $200k that was written off? |
My guess would be either Bank of America or whomever they sold the resulting CDOs to. I thought that Bank of America had paid back its bailout money (though I could be wrong), so the bailout money shouldn't be directly funding this lady's irresponsibility. Of course, if the CDOs were purchased by municipalities (like Springfield did), then those taxpayers would indeed suffer. Also, there is the indirect subsidy given to BoA by virtue of its being "too big to fail," so in that sense this lady's actions do hurt everybody a little. On the surface, though, it would appear that BoA is bearing the brunt of it.
- admin |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
GD Guest
|
Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 2:25 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
Uncle Sam knows exactly what he's doing. The govt wants to prop up property prices for the short term benefit of cronies with strong lobbyists at the expense of taxpayers.
And people wonder why I'm bitter - My apartment had bad mold problems (landlord came and bleached some out, but had to knock down one wall and completely rebuild it because the mold was so bad). We choose to stay in a smaller, older space while saving up for our expensive metrowest house. Paid 28% in taxes last year, and are seeing it frittered away to help those who chose to lead an unaffordable and nicer lifestyle than us. I want to deduct my rent too, why can't I? "Renters don't pay property tax" - nonsense. Most landlords will have included the property tax when deciding on rent price.
I'm going to pick my next investments based on what the majority or elite does. Then maybe Uncle Sam won't let me fail too. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
admin Site Admin
Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 1826 Location: Greater Boston
|
Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 2:58 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
GD wrote: | I want to deduct my rent too, why can't I? |
Actually, you can, on your Massachusetts taxes anyway (MA Form 1, Line 14). You're right that the federal deductions discriminate against renters, though.
GD wrote: |
I'm going to pick my next investments based on what the majority or elite does. Then maybe Uncle Sam won't let me fail too. |
Would that have helped in this case? My impression is that the bailouts have hardly been uniform or consistent. Hypothetically speaking, if you could invest like the elites, you would still run the (substantial) risk that only the elites get bailed out.
- admin |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
GD Guest
|
Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 3:14 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
$3K tax deduction in MA, state income tax only.
Versus the likely $15K interest deduction + property tax deduction when we eventually buy.
I absolutely think the way to do things is to go with the flow now. The govt won't let things go too bad if it hurts the majority (with voting power to vote them out). |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
admin Site Admin
Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 1826 Location: Greater Boston
|
Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 3:35 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
GD wrote: |
I absolutely think the way to do things is to go with the flow now. The govt won't let things go too bad if it hurts the majority (with voting power to vote them out). |
That assumes that the government actually has the power to make things better. Why are there ever stock market crashes or recessions if they are in full control?
- admin |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Forum posts are owned by the original posters.
Forum boards are Copyright 2005 - present, bostonbubble.com.
Privacy policy in effect.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|