How does that work? Can you get a mortgage with someone? This would benefit both my mom and my family financially.Can my mom and I get a mortgage together for house with MIL suite?
Yes, we do allot of mortgages like this, if you have a good credit and a good income for last 2 years. Good Luck!Can my mom and I get a mortgage together for house with MIL suite?
Sure you can. As long as one of you or the two of you together have enough income to meet the mortgage.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Can anyone refer a reliable person for mortgage loan modification?
Too many sources claiming to know how, but many turn out to be scammers. I need one who is reliable and actually know how to help process loan modification . Scammers, please stay out!Can anyone refer a reliable person for mortgage loan modification?
you can do loan modification yourself.............contact your mortgage lender........he guide you..!
i know one mortgage lender where you can try http://www.iloanshop.com/loan_modificati鈥?/a> here.
Good Luck.......!Can anyone refer a reliable person for mortgage loan modification?
I have been in the stop foreclosure and debt management industries for many years. You do not need to pay someone to do a loan modification, especially now when the lenders are motivated to stop losses from foreclosure. If you have absolutely no idea what you are doing, find a self help program to give you basic guidance. Programs like this are available for under $100. If you get a good stop foreclosure system it will also provide you with assistance in the rare case that you can't do a loan modification.
However, in today's real estate climate, with 9,000 foreclosure filings per day, and everyone from Obama down talking about helping the poor homeowner your chances for success are very good.
The main thing the lender is going to look for is ';Can you make the payments on the new mortgage?'; So, your immediate job is to get your expenses down as much as possible so your income to debt ratio will support the new payment.
If your income to debt ratio needs work see what you can do to lower insurance payments, non essentials like eating out, school lunches, cable TV, negotiate with your credit card companies to settle their debt. If they can't collect from you they will turn it over eventually for literally pennies on the dollar so be nice but hold tough and get your balance/payments reduced.
When you talk to the lender, if you are behind in your payments, be sure that you speak with someone in Loss Mitigation not Collections. Again, if in foreclosure, don't waste a minutes time talking to the lender's foreclosure attorney, deal directly with Loss Mitigation.
A lot of new companies have appeared on the scene charging huge prices for loan modification. Keep your money and put it toward any arrearages or costs that the lender may require you pay to complete the loan modification. You CAN do it!
WAIT !! Why go through a modification company at all - why not just ask your lender for the exact procedures and what they look for. I did loan mods for a bank many years ago and then moved to the mortgage business, which is where most of these mod companies are getting their employees from. They charge big bucks for not much.
If you want good solid advice on going it alone, I will gladly help for a very modest fee for advice - $400. That's what I got paid when doing them for the bank many years ago. There is never any guarantee of success, with anyone, so you would just be paying me for my limited expertise. Doing mods and mortgages for over 15 years
Send to e-mail address at jerry_wimble@yahoo.com.
Do it yourself. TALK to your lender, to many people at your lender.
You don't need some one to do this, and they don't have any more leverage than you do, and many are scammers.
Where are you located? I am also a Realtor.
you can do loan modification yourself.............contact your mortgage lender........he guide you..!
i know one mortgage lender where you can try http://www.iloanshop.com/loan_modificati鈥?/a> here.
Good Luck.......!Can anyone refer a reliable person for mortgage loan modification?
I have been in the stop foreclosure and debt management industries for many years. You do not need to pay someone to do a loan modification, especially now when the lenders are motivated to stop losses from foreclosure. If you have absolutely no idea what you are doing, find a self help program to give you basic guidance. Programs like this are available for under $100. If you get a good stop foreclosure system it will also provide you with assistance in the rare case that you can't do a loan modification.
However, in today's real estate climate, with 9,000 foreclosure filings per day, and everyone from Obama down talking about helping the poor homeowner your chances for success are very good.
The main thing the lender is going to look for is ';Can you make the payments on the new mortgage?'; So, your immediate job is to get your expenses down as much as possible so your income to debt ratio will support the new payment.
If your income to debt ratio needs work see what you can do to lower insurance payments, non essentials like eating out, school lunches, cable TV, negotiate with your credit card companies to settle their debt. If they can't collect from you they will turn it over eventually for literally pennies on the dollar so be nice but hold tough and get your balance/payments reduced.
When you talk to the lender, if you are behind in your payments, be sure that you speak with someone in Loss Mitigation not Collections. Again, if in foreclosure, don't waste a minutes time talking to the lender's foreclosure attorney, deal directly with Loss Mitigation.
A lot of new companies have appeared on the scene charging huge prices for loan modification. Keep your money and put it toward any arrearages or costs that the lender may require you pay to complete the loan modification. You CAN do it!
WAIT !! Why go through a modification company at all - why not just ask your lender for the exact procedures and what they look for. I did loan mods for a bank many years ago and then moved to the mortgage business, which is where most of these mod companies are getting their employees from. They charge big bucks for not much.
If you want good solid advice on going it alone, I will gladly help for a very modest fee for advice - $400. That's what I got paid when doing them for the bank many years ago. There is never any guarantee of success, with anyone, so you would just be paying me for my limited expertise. Doing mods and mortgages for over 15 years
Send to e-mail address at jerry_wimble@yahoo.com.
Do it yourself. TALK to your lender, to many people at your lender.
You don't need some one to do this, and they don't have any more leverage than you do, and many are scammers.
Where are you located? I am also a Realtor.
What is the best way to clean up your credit report. I have a mortgage, my car is almost paid for, ...?
one credit card, a student loan, and a dew minor debts. I am divorced, and my crdit took a major hit. What is the highest score you can receive?What is the best way to clean up your credit report. I have a mortgage, my car is almost paid for, ...?
You have some awful answers here.
Credit scores are based on the following factors only;
1. Payment history 35%
2. Time in bureau 15%
3. Types of credit 10%
4. New credit 10%
5. Debt to credit ratio 30%
Since you have a mortgage a credit card and a car loan now as long as you pay everything on time every month your score should be fine.
FICO scores run from 300 to 850 anything that calculates to below 300 defaults to a 0.
To have the very best score and profile people need 3 credit card accounts (revolving) with balances below 30% of their limits and 2 cars, boats, homes, computers, furniture or personal accounts (installment) all with good long payment history's.What is the best way to clean up your credit report. I have a mortgage, my car is almost paid for, ...?
Do you have one question or many?
Secret to a great credit rating: Borrow only when you MUST and pay it all ON TIME. Don't apply for credit all the time, just use what you have and keep the balances low.
just a divorce by itself shouldn't affect your credit - there must have been other factors
I'm not sure what the highest credit score is, but I saw a tv program on this, and one of the ways to improve your credit score is to have utilities in your name and always try to pay on time.
You have some awful answers here.
Credit scores are based on the following factors only;
1. Payment history 35%
2. Time in bureau 15%
3. Types of credit 10%
4. New credit 10%
5. Debt to credit ratio 30%
Since you have a mortgage a credit card and a car loan now as long as you pay everything on time every month your score should be fine.
FICO scores run from 300 to 850 anything that calculates to below 300 defaults to a 0.
To have the very best score and profile people need 3 credit card accounts (revolving) with balances below 30% of their limits and 2 cars, boats, homes, computers, furniture or personal accounts (installment) all with good long payment history's.What is the best way to clean up your credit report. I have a mortgage, my car is almost paid for, ...?
Do you have one question or many?
Secret to a great credit rating: Borrow only when you MUST and pay it all ON TIME. Don't apply for credit all the time, just use what you have and keep the balances low.
just a divorce by itself shouldn't affect your credit - there must have been other factors
I'm not sure what the highest credit score is, but I saw a tv program on this, and one of the ways to improve your credit score is to have utilities in your name and always try to pay on time.
Who is to blame for the current mortgage crisis in the United States?
Do you blame the banking industry, Alan Greenspan, home buyers, real estate speculators, etc.? I'm very curious what your opinion is. Thank you.Who is to blame for the current mortgage crisis in the United States?
Who do YOU blame for the DotCom Bubble in the stock market? Who do YOU blame for the wild ';Ostrich Market'; a few years ago when they were microchipping eggs for thousands of dollars? Who do YOU blame for the Great Turnip prices thousands of years ago?
Thruout history you can find examples of ';herd mentality' causeing a mania over something and the ONLY thing different is that this time the product was real estate.
Instead of assigning blame; which gets you nothing other then wasted time; how about doing something productive and trying to identify WHY these things happen and how this WILL affect you in the future.
Regardless of WHO you blame for the current market; the cold harrd truth is that EVEN if you KNEW EXACTLY what was going to happen and WHEN it was going to happen, you could NOT prevent people from doing stupid things. If you were President Bush and tried to control the morgage market ; you would have been seen as ';socialist';, ';the rich protecting their turf on not letting the small investor participate in the greatest real estate market we have ever seen';, ';this is a free country so why is Big Brother preventing me from making money in real estate?';.
The realtors were ONLY doing their job of helping people buy what they say they want to buy and getting paid for it. Lenders were ONLY doing their jobs and SELLING a product.
The real blame is the people who gambled on a high risk loan with terms they SAY they didn't understand but the truth is that they KNEW they could not afford the loan but wanted it as an'; investment';.Who is to blame for the current mortgage crisis in the United States?
The blame is to be shared.
The buyers for not reading what they were signing and making sure that they understood what their responsibilities were. Or for failing to hire an attorney to represent them if they didn't understand what they were signing.
The predatory lenders for loaning money to people who clearly could not afford what they were buying. And for using contracts there were so incomprehensible that many attorneys can't figure out what the actual terms are.
The attorneys who wrote those contracts.
The Realtors who pushed unsuitable properties on unqualified buyers and pushed them to predatory lenders and brokers in exchange for kickbacks or other consideration.
The mortgage banking industry for failing to regulate their own.
Congress for failing to pass laws to protect borrowers from the worst abuses.
The right wing mindset that it's ';Every man for himself, we don't need no government intervention.';
The banking industry.
Since the Fed kept the rate so low for so long, home sales were beginning to slow. The banks began offering mortgages to people who would not normally qualify with their credit rating. To protect themselves, banks sold variable rate mortgages to those who maybe didn't understand how the whole thing worked. Sure, there's the ';buyer beware'; thing, but by and large, his was a way for banks to get more money.
It is easy to attach blame. All participants are to blame to some extent. some lenders went overboard in extending credit to sub prime clients. but other lenders were more prudent. Some home buyers went overboard in financing homes that they could not afford, simply because they thought they could sell the house for more when that ARM interest increased. But not all home buyers bought unaffordable homes. Many are still paying the mortgages that are within their ability to pay. Some speculators went overboard in buying up homes to flip, then suddenly found that prices sagged. The least to blame is the FED or the government, in my opinion.
Banking Industry
The MortageLenders
Govt.
since they can hide data %26amp; free loans to customers who cant pay loans back.
%26amp; those Home Buyers who LIE to get loans if any.
Who do YOU blame for the DotCom Bubble in the stock market? Who do YOU blame for the wild ';Ostrich Market'; a few years ago when they were microchipping eggs for thousands of dollars? Who do YOU blame for the Great Turnip prices thousands of years ago?
Thruout history you can find examples of ';herd mentality' causeing a mania over something and the ONLY thing different is that this time the product was real estate.
Instead of assigning blame; which gets you nothing other then wasted time; how about doing something productive and trying to identify WHY these things happen and how this WILL affect you in the future.
Regardless of WHO you blame for the current market; the cold harrd truth is that EVEN if you KNEW EXACTLY what was going to happen and WHEN it was going to happen, you could NOT prevent people from doing stupid things. If you were President Bush and tried to control the morgage market ; you would have been seen as ';socialist';, ';the rich protecting their turf on not letting the small investor participate in the greatest real estate market we have ever seen';, ';this is a free country so why is Big Brother preventing me from making money in real estate?';.
The realtors were ONLY doing their job of helping people buy what they say they want to buy and getting paid for it. Lenders were ONLY doing their jobs and SELLING a product.
The real blame is the people who gambled on a high risk loan with terms they SAY they didn't understand but the truth is that they KNEW they could not afford the loan but wanted it as an'; investment';.Who is to blame for the current mortgage crisis in the United States?
The blame is to be shared.
The buyers for not reading what they were signing and making sure that they understood what their responsibilities were. Or for failing to hire an attorney to represent them if they didn't understand what they were signing.
The predatory lenders for loaning money to people who clearly could not afford what they were buying. And for using contracts there were so incomprehensible that many attorneys can't figure out what the actual terms are.
The attorneys who wrote those contracts.
The Realtors who pushed unsuitable properties on unqualified buyers and pushed them to predatory lenders and brokers in exchange for kickbacks or other consideration.
The mortgage banking industry for failing to regulate their own.
Congress for failing to pass laws to protect borrowers from the worst abuses.
The right wing mindset that it's ';Every man for himself, we don't need no government intervention.';
The banking industry.
Since the Fed kept the rate so low for so long, home sales were beginning to slow. The banks began offering mortgages to people who would not normally qualify with their credit rating. To protect themselves, banks sold variable rate mortgages to those who maybe didn't understand how the whole thing worked. Sure, there's the ';buyer beware'; thing, but by and large, his was a way for banks to get more money.
It is easy to attach blame. All participants are to blame to some extent. some lenders went overboard in extending credit to sub prime clients. but other lenders were more prudent. Some home buyers went overboard in financing homes that they could not afford, simply because they thought they could sell the house for more when that ARM interest increased. But not all home buyers bought unaffordable homes. Many are still paying the mortgages that are within their ability to pay. Some speculators went overboard in buying up homes to flip, then suddenly found that prices sagged. The least to blame is the FED or the government, in my opinion.
Banking Industry
The MortageLenders
Govt.
since they can hide data %26amp; free loans to customers who cant pay loans back.
%26amp; those Home Buyers who LIE to get loans if any.
Am I supposed to sort out the mortgage first then start looking for the property or the other way around?
I'm looking for a mortgage (UK). I don't know if I should first sort out the mortgage or should I firstly find the property?Am I supposed to sort out the mortgage first then start looking for the property or the other way around?
Not sure about it in the UK but I got preapproved 1st and worked some numbers to know what I would be comfortable paying for a house in the US inclusive of taxes and insurance. What you can get approved for is often MORE than you want/need to spend to be comfortable (in Texas anyway) After that I began to look in thta price range. In my opinion, it saved me alot of time looking at things that would not fit my budget.Am I supposed to sort out the mortgage first then start looking for the property or the other way around?
Go to a lender to see what you are qualified for, then look for a property.
First you get preapproved which is fast and easy then search for housescosmetics wrinkles
Not sure about it in the UK but I got preapproved 1st and worked some numbers to know what I would be comfortable paying for a house in the US inclusive of taxes and insurance. What you can get approved for is often MORE than you want/need to spend to be comfortable (in Texas anyway) After that I began to look in thta price range. In my opinion, it saved me alot of time looking at things that would not fit my budget.Am I supposed to sort out the mortgage first then start looking for the property or the other way around?
Go to a lender to see what you are qualified for, then look for a property.
First you get preapproved which is fast and easy then search for houses
What annual income should I put in mortgage application if mine varies?
Im an electrical union worker. Im working full time with my company for 7 years however just last year was very slow so I was included in employee cut back but hired me back after 3 months when projects were back again.
after several months, I wanted to apply for mortgage, what do I write in my annual income since last year was different because I was laid off for 3 months?What annual income should I put in mortgage application if mine varies?
Take a 3 year average of what you put down on your taxes, that is how the bank will verify it anyway!What annual income should I put in mortgage application if mine varies?
Take the average for past 2 years.
I would put down the average you made during the last couple of years.
use a 5 year average
Best Anwser- Chosen by Voters
You need to call Frank IMMEDIATELY at 661-635-4900 or 919-802-3119 or 866-728-8587. He can get you financed with his network of over 400 lenders (up to 100%) even with bad credit. He has helped me with 4 properties and it has saved me thousands per month. He also helped me with foreclosures and made me a ton of money. He is an expert in this area.
http://www.realestatefundingnetwork.com
I read the other answers.
Has no one ever seen an Electrical Union Worker before? The multiple W2's? The gaps?
You have an hourly wage protected by the Union for you. Take your hourly wage, multiply it by 40 hours, then multiply that by 52 weeks, then divide that number by 12. You need a Letter of Explanation for the gap of no work (signed by you). You may need a Verification of Employment from the Union and/or your current employer.
About overtime...
Just email me!
take the seven years and average out the yearly income minus 20% overall that would be close to the number you need for your own good
after several months, I wanted to apply for mortgage, what do I write in my annual income since last year was different because I was laid off for 3 months?What annual income should I put in mortgage application if mine varies?
Take a 3 year average of what you put down on your taxes, that is how the bank will verify it anyway!What annual income should I put in mortgage application if mine varies?
Take the average for past 2 years.
I would put down the average you made during the last couple of years.
use a 5 year average
Best Anwser- Chosen by Voters
You need to call Frank IMMEDIATELY at 661-635-4900 or 919-802-3119 or 866-728-8587. He can get you financed with his network of over 400 lenders (up to 100%) even with bad credit. He has helped me with 4 properties and it has saved me thousands per month. He also helped me with foreclosures and made me a ton of money. He is an expert in this area.
http://www.realestatefundingnetwork.com
I read the other answers.
Has no one ever seen an Electrical Union Worker before? The multiple W2's? The gaps?
You have an hourly wage protected by the Union for you. Take your hourly wage, multiply it by 40 hours, then multiply that by 52 weeks, then divide that number by 12. You need a Letter of Explanation for the gap of no work (signed by you). You may need a Verification of Employment from the Union and/or your current employer.
About overtime...
Just email me!
take the seven years and average out the yearly income minus 20% overall that would be close to the number you need for your own good
Do mortgage companies ever write loans for more than the appraisal?
If so, what are the circumstances that this occurs in? If not, what is the usual reasoning?
Thanks!Do mortgage companies ever write loans for more than the appraisal?
No. There was a time where this could happen, but no more.Do mortgage companies ever write loans for more than the appraisal?
Possible but very very unusual. You have a better chance of getting an invitation to the Pope's wedding.
Well I am sure it happens but 999 times out of 1,000 it will not. If you are friends with bank president it could happen.
Thanks!Do mortgage companies ever write loans for more than the appraisal?
No. There was a time where this could happen, but no more.Do mortgage companies ever write loans for more than the appraisal?
Possible but very very unusual. You have a better chance of getting an invitation to the Pope's wedding.
Well I am sure it happens but 999 times out of 1,000 it will not. If you are friends with bank president it could happen.
How would I go about transferring a mortgage from my ex-boyfriend's name into my name?
We bought a condo together last year. I have been putting money in for the mortgage, but now that we broke up, I would like to take over the mortgage and condo with help of my mom. Is this possible??How would I go about transferring a mortgage from my ex-boyfriend's name into my name?
First question: Is the deed in both names? If so, you will need him to be willing to sell you his interest in the property before you go another step.
Assuming you can get a clear title to the deed, contact the lender and see if they are willing to do a partial release of his interest in favor of a deed in your name; a title company can do it all in one step for you.
If not, see if they will re-fi in your name only.
If not, get a new mortgage and pay the old one off; getting the deed from the x when that happens.
BE CAREFUL; the x has a 1/2 interest, and paying it off or refiing it without addressing that can cause lots of issuesHow would I go about transferring a mortgage from my ex-boyfriend's name into my name?
Erin
the above answer is good . u need to get financing available for u only, so u can buy the condo. u can not get him off the mortgage any other way . u have to buy him out with New money.
don't put ur mom on the mortgage unless u want a repeat of the above problems.
if he does not want to get off , you must due a forced sale. get an attorney.
First question: Is the deed in both names? If so, you will need him to be willing to sell you his interest in the property before you go another step.
Assuming you can get a clear title to the deed, contact the lender and see if they are willing to do a partial release of his interest in favor of a deed in your name; a title company can do it all in one step for you.
If not, see if they will re-fi in your name only.
If not, get a new mortgage and pay the old one off; getting the deed from the x when that happens.
BE CAREFUL; the x has a 1/2 interest, and paying it off or refiing it without addressing that can cause lots of issuesHow would I go about transferring a mortgage from my ex-boyfriend's name into my name?
Erin
the above answer is good . u need to get financing available for u only, so u can buy the condo. u can not get him off the mortgage any other way . u have to buy him out with New money.
don't put ur mom on the mortgage unless u want a repeat of the above problems.
if he does not want to get off , you must due a forced sale. get an attorney.
How Do I Go About Getting A Mortgage UK?
I'm 20 years old, currently renting and have just started working full time as a care assistant. How do i go about getting a mortgage? I have a poor credit rating.
If i brought a house worth æ‹¢100,000 with a deposit of æ‹¢10,000 how much roughly would i have to pay a month.
I appreciate your answers.
10 points goes to the most helpful one
ThanksHow Do I Go About Getting A Mortgage UK?
After roughly twelve months in your current employment try the high street banks and building societies about arranging a mortgage.
With Twelve months employment history and æ‹¢10,000 deposit you probably wont have any trouble getting someone to lend you money.
Monthly payments can vary very much from æ‹¢500-æ‹¢750 a month depending on what type of mortgage you have.
Seek professional advice.
If i brought a house worth æ‹¢100,000 with a deposit of æ‹¢10,000 how much roughly would i have to pay a month.
I appreciate your answers.
10 points goes to the most helpful one
ThanksHow Do I Go About Getting A Mortgage UK?
After roughly twelve months in your current employment try the high street banks and building societies about arranging a mortgage.
With Twelve months employment history and æ‹¢10,000 deposit you probably wont have any trouble getting someone to lend you money.
Monthly payments can vary very much from æ‹¢500-æ‹¢750 a month depending on what type of mortgage you have.
Seek professional advice.
Channel 4 news, 7pm, Mon. evening. Woman with 75 mortgages @ Bradford& Bingly.?
Please tell me how it was possible for 1 woman to have 75 buy - to - let mortgages all at once with Bradford and Bingly. Channel 4 news, 7pm, Mon. evening. Woman with 75 mortgages @ Bradford%26amp; Bingly.?
Irresponsible bankers and irresponsible home ';owner';.
Channel 4 news, 7pm, Mon. evening. Woman with 75 mortgages @ Bradford%26amp; Bingly.?
By renting 'em out.
Irresponsible bankers and irresponsible home ';owner';.
Channel 4 news, 7pm, Mon. evening. Woman with 75 mortgages @ Bradford%26amp; Bingly.?
By renting 'em out.
Are mortgage prepayment penalties illegal in Arizona?
I'm planning on getting a rate adjustment for my home loan, on the form it states that there is a 1 year prepayment penalty of 3%. I remember my original loan officer saying that prepayment penalties are illegal in Arizona but the customer service rep for my mortgage company says the company is not in Arizona so the penalty still applies. I think that is wrong and I'm hoping the verify that.Are mortgage prepayment penalties illegal in Arizona?
Mortgage prepayment penalties in Arizona are quite legal, as long as you were made aware of such penalty when you signed the mortgage documents. To avoid any such penalty, simply wait until your one year time limit has expired.Are mortgage prepayment penalties illegal in Arizona?
If you are past the one year mark, will this even apply? I think if the contract is written that way, and you haven't reached the year mark, then you might have to pay it. If you are close on the one year mark (say this is month 10 of 12) ask your bank if you can postpone the adjustment until after month 12 and avoid the penalty.
Try calling the division of banks in Arizona (state government office) and ask them about the banking rules. They can give you a more definitive answer.cosmetics wrinkles
Mortgage prepayment penalties in Arizona are quite legal, as long as you were made aware of such penalty when you signed the mortgage documents. To avoid any such penalty, simply wait until your one year time limit has expired.Are mortgage prepayment penalties illegal in Arizona?
If you are past the one year mark, will this even apply? I think if the contract is written that way, and you haven't reached the year mark, then you might have to pay it. If you are close on the one year mark (say this is month 10 of 12) ask your bank if you can postpone the adjustment until after month 12 and avoid the penalty.
Try calling the division of banks in Arizona (state government office) and ask them about the banking rules. They can give you a more definitive answer.
How to change from a 30 yr mortgage to 15 year?
I bought a house a year ago and am in a 30-year mortgage. I was just looking at a 30 vs 15 year calculation and the 15 year mortgage is only about $100 more a month.
Can this be right? The loan is for about $63k.
Can I change from a 30 year mortgage to a 15 year one? If so, what all do I have to do??How to change from a 30 yr mortgage to 15 year?
You have two choices. You can refinance to get a 15 year mortgage or you can just pay extra on your principle so that you pay it off in 15 years.How to change from a 30 yr mortgage to 15 year?
I was in the same situation with you few years back, I think there is a technique to quickly do this easily, I came across an article last year
You don't have to physically change it from 30 years to 15 years, you can actually use the paid-for portion of your house to pay off the unpaid-for portion of your house.
I believe the more you pay the less the year to pay off your mortgage
You can get more info at
http://mymegaportal.com/howto/payoffyour鈥?/a>
Yes, it can be right. For that amount of principal the difference is not great.
The fastest and easiest way to change is to simply make extra principal payments every month to your lender. Leave your current mortgage alone--don't refinance. Refinancing is expensive and the banks love it. One thing that is required of you is to have the discipline to make those extra payments rather than decide to buy a new car or take a foreign vacation or etc.
One upside of this plan is that should some money problem arise in the future you have the flexibility of going back to your original monthly payment and conserve your cash by not making extra payments.
One thing you should check in your current mortgage is a prepayment penalty. Most mortgages have a penalty clause but they either disappear after a few years or place a cap on how much extra money you can repay in a year. You want to avoid penalties--it is like throwing money away.
I paid off my 30 year mortgage in about 18 years by using my yearly profit sharing check to pay down the mortgage. In other words rather than small extra monthly payments I made one large extra payment per year--it worked for me! Good luck!!!
The loan amount isn't that large, so yes, it is possible. You just have to go to a mortgage lender (bank or other company) and refinance your existing 30yr mtg. This just means, you will pay off your old mortgage with the new one. Just be careful... you just took out the 30yr mtg a year ago. Did you pay any fees? Points, closing costs, etc? You will have to pay these again. Sometimes it pays to wait a while. A good rule of thumb.... if the rate is 2% lower than your exisiting rate, it may be a good idea. If not stay put.... you can always put the $100 extra towards principal each month. Just by making one full mortgage payment extra per year and putting it towards principal, can knock years off your mortgage.
Actually you could pay it off faster if you left it like it is. Don't go with a 15 year mortgage. Make extra monthly payments and make sure and ask that it goes straight to the principal.
Every loan has a worksheet called an amortization sheet. On that it shows every payment you make and what goes to interest and what goes to principal. If you can afford a higher payment take that money and start paying it on principal.
You can use the link to the calculator to figure out how much this will help you to get out of paying interest...
Hmm... that doesn't sound right.
$63000 15yr amort at today's rate of 6.0% P%26amp;I = $539.60.
$63000 30yr amort at today's rate of 6.375% P%26amp;I = $398.93
$141 difference.
I'd love to sell you a refi, but if you already have a good rate on your 30yr fixed (7.0% or less) I'd say just send in the extra $141 instructing the lender to take that $ off your principal.
Best of luck!
You'll have to refinance to a 15 year loan. Or simply make monthly payments like you are paying the 15 year loan. If you can add that $100 more per month, your 30 year will be paid sooner than 30 years. Make sure you don't have a pre payment penalty first, though.
that doesnt seem right the mortgage i got for a 15 yr is 1,940 a month if it was 30 yr it would of been 876.21 a month its like a 1,000 dollar difference something is wrong check it out again and this house is 2,000 sq ft in a good area here in michigan
Just send in the extra $100 a month with a note '; pay toward principle '; and watch the mortgage melt away.
just send in an extra check every month for the extra $100 and in the memo mark it PRINCIPAL ONLY and you will pay out in 15
Pay it like a 15 year mortgage.
It will then be paid off in 15 years.
Can this be right? The loan is for about $63k.
Can I change from a 30 year mortgage to a 15 year one? If so, what all do I have to do??How to change from a 30 yr mortgage to 15 year?
You have two choices. You can refinance to get a 15 year mortgage or you can just pay extra on your principle so that you pay it off in 15 years.How to change from a 30 yr mortgage to 15 year?
I was in the same situation with you few years back, I think there is a technique to quickly do this easily, I came across an article last year
You don't have to physically change it from 30 years to 15 years, you can actually use the paid-for portion of your house to pay off the unpaid-for portion of your house.
I believe the more you pay the less the year to pay off your mortgage
You can get more info at
http://mymegaportal.com/howto/payoffyour鈥?/a>
Yes, it can be right. For that amount of principal the difference is not great.
The fastest and easiest way to change is to simply make extra principal payments every month to your lender. Leave your current mortgage alone--don't refinance. Refinancing is expensive and the banks love it. One thing that is required of you is to have the discipline to make those extra payments rather than decide to buy a new car or take a foreign vacation or etc.
One upside of this plan is that should some money problem arise in the future you have the flexibility of going back to your original monthly payment and conserve your cash by not making extra payments.
One thing you should check in your current mortgage is a prepayment penalty. Most mortgages have a penalty clause but they either disappear after a few years or place a cap on how much extra money you can repay in a year. You want to avoid penalties--it is like throwing money away.
I paid off my 30 year mortgage in about 18 years by using my yearly profit sharing check to pay down the mortgage. In other words rather than small extra monthly payments I made one large extra payment per year--it worked for me! Good luck!!!
The loan amount isn't that large, so yes, it is possible. You just have to go to a mortgage lender (bank or other company) and refinance your existing 30yr mtg. This just means, you will pay off your old mortgage with the new one. Just be careful... you just took out the 30yr mtg a year ago. Did you pay any fees? Points, closing costs, etc? You will have to pay these again. Sometimes it pays to wait a while. A good rule of thumb.... if the rate is 2% lower than your exisiting rate, it may be a good idea. If not stay put.... you can always put the $100 extra towards principal each month. Just by making one full mortgage payment extra per year and putting it towards principal, can knock years off your mortgage.
Actually you could pay it off faster if you left it like it is. Don't go with a 15 year mortgage. Make extra monthly payments and make sure and ask that it goes straight to the principal.
Every loan has a worksheet called an amortization sheet. On that it shows every payment you make and what goes to interest and what goes to principal. If you can afford a higher payment take that money and start paying it on principal.
You can use the link to the calculator to figure out how much this will help you to get out of paying interest...
Hmm... that doesn't sound right.
$63000 15yr amort at today's rate of 6.0% P%26amp;I = $539.60.
$63000 30yr amort at today's rate of 6.375% P%26amp;I = $398.93
$141 difference.
I'd love to sell you a refi, but if you already have a good rate on your 30yr fixed (7.0% or less) I'd say just send in the extra $141 instructing the lender to take that $ off your principal.
Best of luck!
You'll have to refinance to a 15 year loan. Or simply make monthly payments like you are paying the 15 year loan. If you can add that $100 more per month, your 30 year will be paid sooner than 30 years. Make sure you don't have a pre payment penalty first, though.
that doesnt seem right the mortgage i got for a 15 yr is 1,940 a month if it was 30 yr it would of been 876.21 a month its like a 1,000 dollar difference something is wrong check it out again and this house is 2,000 sq ft in a good area here in michigan
Just send in the extra $100 a month with a note '; pay toward principle '; and watch the mortgage melt away.
just send in an extra check every month for the extra $100 and in the memo mark it PRINCIPAL ONLY and you will pay out in 15
Pay it like a 15 year mortgage.
It will then be paid off in 15 years.
Should I take out a home-equity line of credit to pay down my mortgage to eliminate PMI?
My husband and I are currently paying PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance) on our mortgage. (We have no second mortgages.) I know we need twenty percent equity in order to eliminate PMI, but I don't think we're quite there. Is taking out a home-equity line of credit to pay down the mortage a good idea? I know that we'd then have two loans to pay, but the PMI would be eliminate and all of our payments (minus the interest) would be going toward the loan rather that insurance. Is it possible to get a home-equity line of credit for 6%?Should I take out a home-equity line of credit to pay down my mortgage to eliminate PMI?
To eliminate PMI you have to get an appraisal done to verify the your equity. An equity line of credit is a variable rate based on prime rate. I believe it is around 7-8% right now. I personally feel PMI is ok becuse HELOC's are adjustable and you would end up paying more interest over time than insurance in most cases. You should contact your bank to see how and when eliminate you can stop paying this insurance (sometimes you cannot eliminate PMI for at least two years). If you calculate your interest payments on the HELOC to be less than PMI and you can pay the balance off quicker than having the insurance for two years then it's a winner.Should I take out a home-equity line of credit to pay down my mortgage to eliminate PMI?
i don't thing this is a good idea to take home equity line in order to pay your first mortgage. you will end up with higher payment- interest rates on equity lines are more then 8.25%- maybe you can get lover rate for a couple of months and in order for you to pay principal on this loan , you need to pay more, then your monthly payment ( it's working like credit card- min. payment cover only the interest) why don't you call any appraisal and ask about value check on your house? i agree with the answers before me to rather pay ore towards your principal on your mortgage.
Home Equity Lines Of Credit are usually adjustable rate loans based upon the prime interest rate witch today is at 8.25%. That is a base rate and may be higher for individual borrowers dependent upon their combined loan to value and credit scores.
Your PMI will be automatically waived after 2 years as long as your payments have been on time and the market in your area is stable.
You can analyze the viability of a line of credit option by computing your proposed line of credit payment compared to the PMI payment.
If you'd like you can call me toll free at 800-971-4638 ext. 223 and I'll help you get enough information together to make a good decision.
No charge, no commitment, just glad to to help
You should just pay extra to the principal on your first mortgage. There is no need to take out another loan and I don't understand why you would. Just write your mortgage payment for more than you have to pay and make sure they know it is to go toward the principal on your loan.
Remember that PMI is based on 20% equity. So if your home has appreciated in value since you've bought it, you might have the 20%. Talk to the bank and see. We did and had PMI eliminated!
Otherwise (to answer your question) the sooner you can eliminate PMI, the better. Sell blood if you have to (okay, that might be a bit much)
Rather than take out a second mortgage why don't you just pay the additional money toward the principal every month. That way you are paying down the principal, saving yourself from paying the additional interest and increasing your equity. Talk to your bank and see how far you need to go to get to the 80%. Also, don't just assume once you get to the 80% that the bank will automatically knock off the PMI - you need to tell them in writing.
To eliminate PMI you have to get an appraisal done to verify the your equity. An equity line of credit is a variable rate based on prime rate. I believe it is around 7-8% right now. I personally feel PMI is ok becuse HELOC's are adjustable and you would end up paying more interest over time than insurance in most cases. You should contact your bank to see how and when eliminate you can stop paying this insurance (sometimes you cannot eliminate PMI for at least two years). If you calculate your interest payments on the HELOC to be less than PMI and you can pay the balance off quicker than having the insurance for two years then it's a winner.Should I take out a home-equity line of credit to pay down my mortgage to eliminate PMI?
i don't thing this is a good idea to take home equity line in order to pay your first mortgage. you will end up with higher payment- interest rates on equity lines are more then 8.25%- maybe you can get lover rate for a couple of months and in order for you to pay principal on this loan , you need to pay more, then your monthly payment ( it's working like credit card- min. payment cover only the interest) why don't you call any appraisal and ask about value check on your house? i agree with the answers before me to rather pay ore towards your principal on your mortgage.
Home Equity Lines Of Credit are usually adjustable rate loans based upon the prime interest rate witch today is at 8.25%. That is a base rate and may be higher for individual borrowers dependent upon their combined loan to value and credit scores.
Your PMI will be automatically waived after 2 years as long as your payments have been on time and the market in your area is stable.
You can analyze the viability of a line of credit option by computing your proposed line of credit payment compared to the PMI payment.
If you'd like you can call me toll free at 800-971-4638 ext. 223 and I'll help you get enough information together to make a good decision.
No charge, no commitment, just glad to to help
You should just pay extra to the principal on your first mortgage. There is no need to take out another loan and I don't understand why you would. Just write your mortgage payment for more than you have to pay and make sure they know it is to go toward the principal on your loan.
Remember that PMI is based on 20% equity. So if your home has appreciated in value since you've bought it, you might have the 20%. Talk to the bank and see. We did and had PMI eliminated!
Otherwise (to answer your question) the sooner you can eliminate PMI, the better. Sell blood if you have to (okay, that might be a bit much)
Rather than take out a second mortgage why don't you just pay the additional money toward the principal every month. That way you are paying down the principal, saving yourself from paying the additional interest and increasing your equity. Talk to your bank and see how far you need to go to get to the 80%. Also, don't just assume once you get to the 80% that the bank will automatically knock off the PMI - you need to tell them in writing.
I have two loans that comprise one mortgage. Is it possible to refinance only one?
The first loan is a decent interest rate, but the second is high. Can I refinance just the one to get a lower rate?I have two loans that comprise one mortgage. Is it possible to refinance only one?
Yes you can refi it, technically.
Banks have really cut back on their willingness to lend though and second position liens are getting squeezed out.
Give it a try.
I have two loans that comprise one mortgage. Is it possible to refinance only one?
you can try but any second deed of trust will be a higher rate as their position is at a greater risk
I am a mortgage banker in TN %26amp; KY
Yes. I did it.
Yes you can refi it, technically.
Banks have really cut back on their willingness to lend though and second position liens are getting squeezed out.
Give it a try.
I have two loans that comprise one mortgage. Is it possible to refinance only one?
you can try but any second deed of trust will be a higher rate as their position is at a greater risk
I am a mortgage banker in TN %26amp; KY
Yes. I did it.
When can a person qualify for a mortgage after they've had a bankruptcy discharge and a foreclosure?
We are currently renting our home and hope to buy it in about 2 years. The owner is aware of our plans and has been very nice in working with us. Bankruptcy was just discharged and the foreclosure has just passed the ';court date'; stage, wheras the court allowed the lender to take the property.When can a person qualify for a mortgage after they've had a bankruptcy discharge and a foreclosure?
Federal law prohibits anyone who has filed bankruptcy from buying a home for 2 years. Your bankruptcy attorney told you this...they HAVE to. After the 2 years you have to qualify for a mortgage like everyone else.When can a person qualify for a mortgage after they've had a bankruptcy discharge and a foreclosure?
some lender will let you buy now but at a high rate
Some lenders will consider you if you've started to re-establish credit after 12 months following the foreclosure and bankruptcy are legally finalized and recorded. However the rates will always be incredibly high at this point. The rates will start to become more reasonable after about 36 months after they are recorded.
Filing bankruptcy and purchasing a home today are not mutually exclusive events. Both traditional and online lenders offer a good interest rate and payments that you can easily pay. If you have filed Chapter 11 or Chapter 7 bankruptcy and are not sure whether you can get a home loan, talk to a lender immediately who deals exclusively in offering mortgages after bankruptcy. Interest rates today are at the lowest than they have been in decades.
May be I Can Help You:
Just try:
http://www.proloanz.com/
http://www.apply4less.com/mortgage.htm
http://www.mortgagerefinancingatlowrate.com/
http://www.topamericanmortgage.com/
They can give you the best MORTGAGE HELP
Federal law prohibits anyone who has filed bankruptcy from buying a home for 2 years. Your bankruptcy attorney told you this...they HAVE to. After the 2 years you have to qualify for a mortgage like everyone else.When can a person qualify for a mortgage after they've had a bankruptcy discharge and a foreclosure?
some lender will let you buy now but at a high rate
Some lenders will consider you if you've started to re-establish credit after 12 months following the foreclosure and bankruptcy are legally finalized and recorded. However the rates will always be incredibly high at this point. The rates will start to become more reasonable after about 36 months after they are recorded.
Filing bankruptcy and purchasing a home today are not mutually exclusive events. Both traditional and online lenders offer a good interest rate and payments that you can easily pay. If you have filed Chapter 11 or Chapter 7 bankruptcy and are not sure whether you can get a home loan, talk to a lender immediately who deals exclusively in offering mortgages after bankruptcy. Interest rates today are at the lowest than they have been in decades.
May be I Can Help You:
Just try:
http://www.proloanz.com/
http://www.apply4less.com/mortgage.htm
http://www.mortgagerefinancingatlowrate.com/
http://www.topamericanmortgage.com/
They can give you the best MORTGAGE HELP
Are mortgage prepayment penalties illegal in Arizona?
I'm planning on getting a rate adjustment for my home loan, on the form it states that there is a 1 year prepayment penalty of 3%. I remember my original loan officer saying that prepayment penalties are illegal in Arizona but the customer service rep for my mortgage company says the company is not in Arizona so the penalty still applies. I think that is wrong and I'm hoping the verify that.Are mortgage prepayment penalties illegal in Arizona?
Mortgage prepayment penalties in Arizona are quite legal, as long as you were made aware of such penalty when you signed the mortgage documents. To avoid any such penalty, simply wait until your one year time limit has expired.Are mortgage prepayment penalties illegal in Arizona?
If you are past the one year mark, will this even apply? I think if the contract is written that way, and you haven't reached the year mark, then you might have to pay it. If you are close on the one year mark (say this is month 10 of 12) ask your bank if you can postpone the adjustment until after month 12 and avoid the penalty.
Try calling the division of banks in Arizona (state government office) and ask them about the banking rules. They can give you a more definitive answer.
Mortgage prepayment penalties in Arizona are quite legal, as long as you were made aware of such penalty when you signed the mortgage documents. To avoid any such penalty, simply wait until your one year time limit has expired.Are mortgage prepayment penalties illegal in Arizona?
If you are past the one year mark, will this even apply? I think if the contract is written that way, and you haven't reached the year mark, then you might have to pay it. If you are close on the one year mark (say this is month 10 of 12) ask your bank if you can postpone the adjustment until after month 12 and avoid the penalty.
Try calling the division of banks in Arizona (state government office) and ask them about the banking rules. They can give you a more definitive answer.
What should be done if I have about $300k in student loans and a mortgage for $190k that is now worth 140k?
The house has lost value and I will have to move in the next two years.What should be done if I have about $300k in student loans and a mortgage for $190k that is now worth 140k?
The housing market WILL recover, at least partially in the next 2 years. Live off $60,000 and use the other $40,000 to pay down the student loans. If your income goes to $400,000 in 4 years, you should be debt free, INCLUDING a home within 5 years. After that, saving for retirement should be EASY. Just don't increase your lifestyle as fast as your income increases.What should be done if I have about $300k in student loans and a mortgage for $190k that is now worth 140k?
Who knows what will happen in the next two years....you might recoup some of that 50k while paying the mortgage at the same time. NOTHING can be done about the student loans. Those will haunt you until they are FULLY paid off.
You're only providing half of the picture. What is your income, expected income and assets?cosmetics maybelline express
The housing market WILL recover, at least partially in the next 2 years. Live off $60,000 and use the other $40,000 to pay down the student loans. If your income goes to $400,000 in 4 years, you should be debt free, INCLUDING a home within 5 years. After that, saving for retirement should be EASY. Just don't increase your lifestyle as fast as your income increases.What should be done if I have about $300k in student loans and a mortgage for $190k that is now worth 140k?
Who knows what will happen in the next two years....you might recoup some of that 50k while paying the mortgage at the same time. NOTHING can be done about the student loans. Those will haunt you until they are FULLY paid off.
You're only providing half of the picture. What is your income, expected income and assets?
Where is the congressional investigation into the mortgage crisis as to why Fannie and Freddie went under?
With a democrat controlled congress will we ever learn just who was responsible for their collapse, I'm sure if it was Bush or some other republican they would be issuing subpoenas demanding answers to fix blame.Where is the congressional investigation into the mortgage crisis as to why Fannie and Freddie went under?
It follows just like when Pelosi said they should impeach Bush, she backed off when she realized how many Democrats would fall with him because they too were for the invasion in Iraq...you have to ask yourself, ';Why do the Democrats insist on having the Republicans in on this bailout deal when the Democrats have the majority and they can pass anything they want?';, its simple, they don't want to take the fall for a crap deal alone. I think we need an independent investigation to find out which politicians had a hand in this collapse and they burn whoever did...I never could understand how a politician can come in to office broke and leave millionaires...someone made money off of this entire mess and we need to know who whether they're Democrat or Republican and you can bet it went on with both sides.Where is the congressional investigation into the mortgage crisis as to why Fannie and Freddie went under?
You answered your own question! It was Clinton in 1999 that de-regulated the banks, insurance companies etc to free more money to lend to sub-prime borrowers. I am sure he meant it for the good of all, but by allowing people with bad credit, no income, no down payment to buy- he basically set us up for this fall. I have worked in the mortgage business since 1986. My company refused to do these loans- because we knew it was the wrong thing to do. When a person would call us for this type of loan and we turned them down, they thought we were discriminating! Obama is second only to Chris Dodd for taking campaign contributions from Fannie/Freddie- why would the Democrats even consider investigating- they already know who caused this problem.
Dodd and Frank would end up investigating themselves and revealing Obama's connection to the fraud through ACORN, Freddie and Fannie, and that would just be inconsistent with the grand plan to market Obama into the White House.
Update: Dodd and Frank said later today that they would hold hearings on this so that steps could be taken to ensure it does not happen again. These hearings should make for some very interesting theatre. I wonder how someone holds hearings into their own malfeasance.
Look to Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, and Obama's chief housing adviser Franklin Rain,
Java: Franks and Dodd investigateing this is like Osama Bin Laden investigateing 9/11!!
Fraud is investigated by the FBI, they started it last week. Fannie, Freddie, Lehman and AIG.
Sorry, this is a Clinton deal, there will be no investigation.
We don't actually have a ';democrat controlled congress';. There are not enough Democrats to pull anything off w/o that famous ';reaching across the aisle'; thingie.
But we don't actually require an investigation to learn what happened. Just watch what's been going past you. That's all you need to do.
FM and FM worked just fine for a very long time as government agencies. Then they were ';privatized'; under the Newt Gingrich Assault on America years. It was thought that private corporations could do a better job than the Federal government in running these organizations. And Gingrich had a genuine Republican-controlled Congress to work with. Easy peasey!
More recently, Senator Phil Gramm was instrumental in inserting into a defense bill language that removed the controls on mortgages, which effectively took the brakes off the greed of the private FM and FM executives. They were no longer required to determine whether a borrower could afford a mortgage or not. Not the slightest scrap of common sense was left as mortages were granted to people who were not even asked if they had any visible means of support!
That's what all those ads for cheap mortages with unreal payment plans are about. It was enormously profitable to make these bad loans and then sell them to another finance organization and pocket the profits.
What happens when there is no oversight? Runaway abuses, that's what.
Now the government controls FM and FM again. It's too late to mop up the spilled milk. The damages must be paid....by US! The best we can hope for now is to put regulations back in place to govern how home mortgages are granted to borrowers. Borrowers must prove they can afford a mortgage, have a down payment and have steady employment....you know, just like in the Good Old Days! ;-)
And McCain is the Champion of Deregulation. Does that give you a hint?
PS: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is infamous for saying ';impeachment is off the table'; as very nearly her very first words after taking that office!
Actually, both sides are pretty responsible here.
Most know about how Obama got donations from the companies, amounting to $126,195.
What most don't know is that McCain also got donations, but his came from the CEOs and other officers of these companies; and he received $195,135--nearly $65,000 more than Obama did.
Yet Obama did take money, so he's not blameless.
What it appears to be is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were attempting to play both sides, and were quite successful at it.
It also appears they sided more with McCain. He got more money, and he also received it in such a way that he would not go down with the ship if this were caught.
You see, they have records showing that they donated to Obama, so if they were caught they would go down, but those records would take Obama down with them.
But if you didn't recognize the names of the people donating to McCain, you'd never know it was the CEOs of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae doing the donating. If they were caught, there was a good chance that McCain would not be and would still come out pretty clean-LOOKING in this (not clean, but looks clean). And he did get significantly more money than both Obama and Dodd.
Everyone is dirty in this, but McCain appears to be moreso.
Add-on:
You guys don't have to like the truth, it doesn't care if you don't like it. It won't change.
McCain got donations as well, and $65,000 more than Obama did.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac sided with McCain, but decided to donate to Obama to hedge their bets in case he won. It's that simple, everyone is to blame.
It follows just like when Pelosi said they should impeach Bush, she backed off when she realized how many Democrats would fall with him because they too were for the invasion in Iraq...you have to ask yourself, ';Why do the Democrats insist on having the Republicans in on this bailout deal when the Democrats have the majority and they can pass anything they want?';, its simple, they don't want to take the fall for a crap deal alone. I think we need an independent investigation to find out which politicians had a hand in this collapse and they burn whoever did...I never could understand how a politician can come in to office broke and leave millionaires...someone made money off of this entire mess and we need to know who whether they're Democrat or Republican and you can bet it went on with both sides.Where is the congressional investigation into the mortgage crisis as to why Fannie and Freddie went under?
You answered your own question! It was Clinton in 1999 that de-regulated the banks, insurance companies etc to free more money to lend to sub-prime borrowers. I am sure he meant it for the good of all, but by allowing people with bad credit, no income, no down payment to buy- he basically set us up for this fall. I have worked in the mortgage business since 1986. My company refused to do these loans- because we knew it was the wrong thing to do. When a person would call us for this type of loan and we turned them down, they thought we were discriminating! Obama is second only to Chris Dodd for taking campaign contributions from Fannie/Freddie- why would the Democrats even consider investigating- they already know who caused this problem.
Dodd and Frank would end up investigating themselves and revealing Obama's connection to the fraud through ACORN, Freddie and Fannie, and that would just be inconsistent with the grand plan to market Obama into the White House.
Update: Dodd and Frank said later today that they would hold hearings on this so that steps could be taken to ensure it does not happen again. These hearings should make for some very interesting theatre. I wonder how someone holds hearings into their own malfeasance.
Look to Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, and Obama's chief housing adviser Franklin Rain,
Java: Franks and Dodd investigateing this is like Osama Bin Laden investigateing 9/11!!
Fraud is investigated by the FBI, they started it last week. Fannie, Freddie, Lehman and AIG.
Sorry, this is a Clinton deal, there will be no investigation.
We don't actually have a ';democrat controlled congress';. There are not enough Democrats to pull anything off w/o that famous ';reaching across the aisle'; thingie.
But we don't actually require an investigation to learn what happened. Just watch what's been going past you. That's all you need to do.
FM and FM worked just fine for a very long time as government agencies. Then they were ';privatized'; under the Newt Gingrich Assault on America years. It was thought that private corporations could do a better job than the Federal government in running these organizations. And Gingrich had a genuine Republican-controlled Congress to work with. Easy peasey!
More recently, Senator Phil Gramm was instrumental in inserting into a defense bill language that removed the controls on mortgages, which effectively took the brakes off the greed of the private FM and FM executives. They were no longer required to determine whether a borrower could afford a mortgage or not. Not the slightest scrap of common sense was left as mortages were granted to people who were not even asked if they had any visible means of support!
That's what all those ads for cheap mortages with unreal payment plans are about. It was enormously profitable to make these bad loans and then sell them to another finance organization and pocket the profits.
What happens when there is no oversight? Runaway abuses, that's what.
Now the government controls FM and FM again. It's too late to mop up the spilled milk. The damages must be paid....by US! The best we can hope for now is to put regulations back in place to govern how home mortgages are granted to borrowers. Borrowers must prove they can afford a mortgage, have a down payment and have steady employment....you know, just like in the Good Old Days! ;-)
And McCain is the Champion of Deregulation. Does that give you a hint?
PS: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is infamous for saying ';impeachment is off the table'; as very nearly her very first words after taking that office!
Actually, both sides are pretty responsible here.
Most know about how Obama got donations from the companies, amounting to $126,195.
What most don't know is that McCain also got donations, but his came from the CEOs and other officers of these companies; and he received $195,135--nearly $65,000 more than Obama did.
Yet Obama did take money, so he's not blameless.
What it appears to be is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were attempting to play both sides, and were quite successful at it.
It also appears they sided more with McCain. He got more money, and he also received it in such a way that he would not go down with the ship if this were caught.
You see, they have records showing that they donated to Obama, so if they were caught they would go down, but those records would take Obama down with them.
But if you didn't recognize the names of the people donating to McCain, you'd never know it was the CEOs of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae doing the donating. If they were caught, there was a good chance that McCain would not be and would still come out pretty clean-LOOKING in this (not clean, but looks clean). And he did get significantly more money than both Obama and Dodd.
Everyone is dirty in this, but McCain appears to be moreso.
Add-on:
You guys don't have to like the truth, it doesn't care if you don't like it. It won't change.
McCain got donations as well, and $65,000 more than Obama did.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac sided with McCain, but decided to donate to Obama to hedge their bets in case he won. It's that simple, everyone is to blame.
What in the indicator to watch (10 yr Bond?) for lowering or rise in mortgage interest rates, and why?
I have always used the treasury as the indicator of rates rising or falling. Now, it is down to 4.027, and rates are higher that when at 4.2. Is it inflation as well, or are the lenders tightening their belts and watching the market?What in the indicator to watch (10 yr Bond?) for lowering or rise in mortgage interest rates, and why?
You need to look at the mortgage backed securities. The 10-year bond usually mirrors the mortgage backs, but sometimes there's slippage.
You need to look at the mortgage backed securities. The 10-year bond usually mirrors the mortgage backs, but sometimes there's slippage.
Where can I take an good online Mortgage Loan Processor course?
My dad is a Loan Officer and I want to process his loans. I have researched courses online that range from $90-$400. I don't care the cost I just want a good course that will be worth it. Any suggestions?Where can I take an good online Mortgage Loan Processor course?
ask him what classes he feels you need.
is he a mortgage broker too or just a LO?
ask him if he has access to NON-institutional $
what is sometimes called hard money.
[no 1003/, no fico, no front fees of any kind, very low ltv,
high points, etc. I have lots of customers for those loans!]Where can I take an good online Mortgage Loan Processor course?
Hello my dear do not full prey to those hoodlums at they that call them self money lender they are all scam all they want is your money and you well not hear from them again they have done it to me twice before I met Mr. Brown Wilson the most interesting part of it is that my loan was transfer to me within 74hours so I well advice you to contact Mr. Brown if you are interested in getting loan and you are sure you can pay him back on time you can contact him via email brownwilsonloan4@live.com
They offer all kind of categories of loan they
Short term loan (5_10years)
Long term loan (20_40)
Media term loan(10_20)
They offer loan like
Home loan!!!!!!!!!!!
Business loan!!!!!!!!
Debt loan !!!!!!!!
Student loan!!!!!!!!
Business start up loan
Business loan
Company loan%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt; etc
When it comes to financial crisis and loan then brown Wilson loan financial is the place to go please just tell him I Mrs. jenny Wilson direct you Good Luck%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;
go to BMO.com, or if you preffer more face to face, talk to a bmo mortgage broker...im in canada, i dont know if you have any bank of montreal's there...but thats where i went and theyre very informative.
ask him what classes he feels you need.
is he a mortgage broker too or just a LO?
ask him if he has access to NON-institutional $
what is sometimes called hard money.
[no 1003/, no fico, no front fees of any kind, very low ltv,
high points, etc. I have lots of customers for those loans!]Where can I take an good online Mortgage Loan Processor course?
Hello my dear do not full prey to those hoodlums at they that call them self money lender they are all scam all they want is your money and you well not hear from them again they have done it to me twice before I met Mr. Brown Wilson the most interesting part of it is that my loan was transfer to me within 74hours so I well advice you to contact Mr. Brown if you are interested in getting loan and you are sure you can pay him back on time you can contact him via email brownwilsonloan4@live.com
They offer all kind of categories of loan they
Short term loan (5_10years)
Long term loan (20_40)
Media term loan(10_20)
They offer loan like
Home loan!!!!!!!!!!!
Business loan!!!!!!!!
Debt loan !!!!!!!!
Student loan!!!!!!!!
Business start up loan
Business loan
Company loan%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt; etc
When it comes to financial crisis and loan then brown Wilson loan financial is the place to go please just tell him I Mrs. jenny Wilson direct you Good Luck%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;
go to BMO.com, or if you preffer more face to face, talk to a bmo mortgage broker...im in canada, i dont know if you have any bank of montreal's there...but thats where i went and theyre very informative.
Who is really to blame about the mortgage mess?
I never hear anyone blame the realtor for showing buyers homes they know they can't afford. So many times i hear that it is the mortgage banker fault (which some of it is) but never on anyone else.Who is really to blame about the mortgage mess?
Those who study mortgage trends have said that there has been a pretty consistent pattern of a ';bust'; in mortgages about every 18 years since World War II. We've seen problems like this before and we will survive this ';crisis.'; If you're looking for a mortgage right now, rates are still very good. The world is not ending (as the politicians who are itching to ';help'; would have us believe).
Now to your question... In summary, EVERYONE involved played a part in the ';mortgage mess'; to some extent or another.
BORROWERS -- Rather than living within their means, many borrowers decided that they wanted to have a bigger, more expensive house than they could afford. In order to afford these houses, they often turned to loan products such as ';Interest Only'; loans. With IO loans, you basically pay the minimum amount possible every month and the principal is never reduced. To complicate matters, some loans featured ';zero down'; where the borrower had absolutely NO equity in the property. Here is an illustration of a typical problem: A property is worth $800,000 at the time of purchase. The borrower takes out an Interest Only loan for $800,000 (putting nothing down). Then the property value drops to $700,000. Now the borrower has a loan for $800,000 for a property that is only worth $700,000. The borrower has ZERO equity in the property so guess what... they walk away from the property and the lender ends up taking the loss.
MORTGAGE COMPANIES (BAD OR POOR UNDERWRITING GUIDELINES) -- In an effort to make as many loans as possible (and to sell these loans to foolishly eager investors), many mortgage companies relaxed their guidelines beyond reason. Some loans had a Loan-to-Value (LTV) ratio of 100 (or higher on rare occasion!). If the property was worth $100,000, then an LTV meant that $100,000 was loaned to the borrower (as stated before, no equity). The lower the LTV, the less risky (and more desirable) the loan is. Another arguably stupid mortgage product was the ';80-20'; loan. A loan with an LTV of 80 or lower is not considered risky in the mortgage business. Therefore, Mortgage Insurance (MI) is not required for loans with an LTV of 80% or less. (If a borrower has an LTV of 85 and pays it down to 80, then they can drop the MI from the loan.) MI is basically insurance against borrower default. For example, if a borrower defaults on his loan and the lender forecloses and sells the property and loses $2000 in the process, then the MI company will cut a check to the lender for $2000 to make the lender ';whole.'; Rather than requiring borrowers to carry MI on their loans (which would have mitigated risk), the mortgage companies allowed the borrowers to take out a second loan on the same property (a ';second lien'; or Home Equity Line of Credit or HELOC). This HELOC money was then used as the ';money down'; on the first loan so that MI could be avoided. For example, if the property is worth $100,000, the borrower might get a HELOC for $20,000 and put that money down on the first loan, thereby lowering the LTV to 80 (thereby exempting them from MI). Another popular loan was an Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) or ';Fixed-Adjustable'; (where the Interest Rate is fixed for a few years and then starts to adjust (up or down) based on a financial instrument). Borrowers were allegedly given a low ';teaser rate'; and then (because they bought too much house) couldn't make the payments with the higher interest rate when the rate adjusted. (It seems hard for me to believe that an interest rate adjustment would be so severe that it would prevent someone from making their payments, but that's what the borrowers allegedly claim.) Maybe this is too many detailed examples, but suffice it to say that a lot of stupid mortgage products were offered by mortgage companies (and accepted by borrowers).
INVESTORS -- In their quest to make a ';fast buck';, investors bought up tons of these mortgages since these riskier ';sub-prime'; loans brought higher returns (higher interest rates). These investors should have performed a ';due diligence'; on the loans they bought; but they didn't. When investors purchase loans, there is usually (if not always) a ';buyback'; provision. This means that if a loan goes bad and the investor finds that there was some irregularity in the underwriting (the loan decisioning process) that the mortgage company who sold them the loan is required to ';buy back'; the loan. The problem is that most mortgage companies are ';cash poor'; (meaning that they borrow the cash that they lend from a ';warehouse lender'; temporarily until they can sell the loan to an investor and pay back their warehouse lender). So when these loans started going bad (hundreds of millions of dollars worth!), the investors demanded the mortgage companies buy back the loans (according to their agreement). So mortgage companies were now looking at buying millions and millions of dollars worth of loans back when they had little or no money of their own! So what happened? Countless mortgage companies declared bankruptcy. With all of the hullaballoo around bad mortgages, investors decided to stop buying sub-prime mortgages. Since there was nobody buying these mortgages and since mortgage companies don't have their own cash, mortgage companies found that they could no longer make these sub-prime loans. The sub-prime market dried up almost instantly.
RATING AGENCIES -- The job of rating agencies is to investigate the creditworthiness of investments (many of which included mortgage debt). These agencies did not do their due diligence and ended up giving these investments an artificially high rating. So investors thought the investments were less risky than they were. Investors will always buy investments that have a high return and low risk (but obviously they weren't low risk).
THE GOVERNMENT -- The government has always put pressure on mortgage companies to make loans to poor and/or minority borrowers. Because these borrowers typically have worse credit and/or less income and/or greater debt, they had to go to the ';sub-prime'; market to get a mortgage loan. Is it so hard to imagine that a borrower with less income, more debt and bad payment habits will default on a loan (especially when they've put little or no money down)? Of course not. But the government continues to ';wish away'; laws of basic economics and common sense. In order to ';do right'; by poor people and minorities, the government expected mortgage companies suspend their normal sound underwriting guidelines and business sense. (Obviously, the sub-prime problem goes beyond just poor borrowers, but my point is that the government contributed to the crisis to some extent.) The government is now poised and ready to exacerbate the crisis beyond what it is now by ';freezing'; interest rate adjustments. Here is an illustration of the problem: Let's say you have $5000 in cash. I'm a bank and I tell you that if you deposit your $5000 with me that I will pay you 1% during the first 2 years but then I will pay you 7% after those 2 years. So you deposit your money at the low rate of interest. After two years (when you're about to get your higher interest rate), the government comes in and says, ';Sorry. You're not getting your 7% as promised. In fact, you can't take your money out of that bank; you must leave it there and only collect 1% for another 10 years.'; What will happen when you have another $5000 to deposit? Will you put it in my bank? Absolutely not. Why? Because you don't know if you'll really get the return you agreed upon. In the same way, if the government steps in and says to the investor/lender, ';Sorry... you're not getting the return on your money that you negotiated... and you can't take back your money; you've got to leave it at the low rate,'; then guess what the investor is going to do. He will never invest in mortgages again! He will take his money to China or municipal bonds or any other vehicle in which he can get a RELIABLE return on his money. If he DOES decide to put money into mortgage debt again, he will demand a higher return to compensate for the greater risk that the government will step in and ';help'; again. (In other words, Interest Rates on mortgages will go up for EVERYONE!) Thank you Big Government Democrats and George Bush!
REGIONAL PROBLEMS -- Some regions in the USA had events that made the mortgage problems particularly bad. For example, inflated property values in California started deflating. Condos in Florida didn't sell as thought and many sit vacant. Companies providing jobs in the ';rust belt'; (such as Michigan) have moved or gone under; thereby leaving the local homeowners with no income with which to make their mortgage payments.
Sorry for such a long answer. Hope it all makes sense.
Thanks!Who is really to blame about the mortgage mess?
If you buy a home the price you pay is up to you. Nobody forces anyone to pay more than they can afford.It is a good idea to Budget and see how much you can afford as a mortgage payment and then add 10% to allow for contingencies such as recession Etc.It appears to be a Worldwide problem at the moment.We went through the same thing in the Eighties and it was hard, we went without just to pay our mortgage and it lasted for a few years.Boy did we go out when it finished.
Well if the broker shows a buyer a home they can't afford, who is the idiot buying that house? A lot of people WANT to be homeowners, but they make poor choices and shouldn't be home owners, and won't be for long. Wanting is not enough. One needs to pay your bills, not run up credit card balances, not have bad credit, etc. To be harsh, they didn't deserve to be home owners, shouldn't have qualified for loans, and didn't have enough sense to capitalize on this chance at home ownership. The lenders were ignoring underwriting, and just processing paper and giving loans to totally unqualified buyers, bundling lots of these loans together and selling them and reselling them. People bought these securities without investigating/discovering how shaky the underwriting was. Stockbrokers didn't care, and sold these shaky securities. The loan brokers and stockbrokers all made money by selling and selling. Now the new home owners are losing their homes and the entire economy is suffering.
I believe it's the fault of the buyer. Whoever in their right mind will buy a house that they ...should know, is way out of their price range. Who in their right mind will buy a home with an 'interest only' mortgage? Who in their right mind will buy a home with a rate that isn't fixed?
They all asked for the trouble they are in by not buying what they could afford.
It is really the banks fault for giving every Joe Walmart a loan.
The banks think that everyone will try to maintain a decent credit score so they have no problem giving people that have no business purchasing a home a loan.
Anyone that doesn't have a stable career doesn't need to get a mortgage.
When Joe Walmart gets fired he is not scared that the home will foreclose on him and he probably doesn't know what a credit score is. He packs his bags moves in with his cousin and works at the bait shop.
Banks don't like this and rates go up with a couple other variables but basically thats it.
The economy is a big part of it,but in todays society every buys today and pays tommorow. It been this way for years but now people are going into foreclosure because everyone else is and its an easy way out of debt.
Realtors have a minor amount of blame. They knowingly put borrowers into loans that REQUIRED fraud.
The real blame isn't with brokers at all rather with Mortgage Bankers (most of whom have already failed), with bond traders and with hedge funds. The appetite for the paper was so great that bond traders were essentially forcing Lenders (mortgage bankers and banks in some cases) to focus on saleability rather than on the borrowers ability to pay.
Saleability means the ability of the mortgage banker to sell the loan to the secondary markets.
The level of fraud is far beyond what the consumer is being told. The fraud was institutionalized at most levels of many lender. Ultimately the greatest level of fraud was committed Account Executives and managers-under orders from sales managers.
Its not the realtor's place to determine affordability. That's up to the buyer and the lender.
The Realtor would have no idea the person can't afford the house. They don't go through the buyer's financials nor do they ask them about their income or their bills. The mortgage broker does that.
The fault lies with the mortgage brokers, for approving people to finance levels that they know they couldn't afford, and the buyers who bought something that they SHOULD have known they couldn't afford. Unfortunately, since most Americans are stupid and think they can buy ANYTHING on credit, I guess I mostly blame the mortgage bankers.
It's not a matter of blaming any one person. We are all to blame. We all wanted more and more money for our properties.
As for the Realtor, the loan officers would be more to blame for putting these folks into loans that adjusted upward and outside of their ability to pay. Realtors really facilitate the part of the process, the real culprit was the loan companies.
Not consider this tho, they were also pressured by the Federal Government to come up with ways to make housing more affordable. The Fed step in, then they step out, then they step making everyone believe they are going to save the day, when they are just as much a part of this mess as the lenders.
I have no sympathy for these people who are loosing their homes. They took a chance (like gambling), that their rates wouldn't rise. They lost their gamble and people like me, who decided to go with a higher fixed rate, are the ones who have to bail them out. People really need to take responsibility for their own decisions...and not blame the lendng institutions.
Banks/lenders: for allowing closing and down payment to be rolled into the loan, now you have a house that on paper costs more then it actually is worth which causes more problems when they try to sell it due to not being able to sell for the cost of the purchase.
Appraisers: for over appraising property allowing people to get a loan for a home that is not worth what they are paying... see above.
Realtors: Realtors stick together. They make commission so if it's a buyer representative, they aren't necessarily looking to get the buyer a great deal, they are looking to get their commission. So in reality they are working with the sellers agent to ensure a high sell which can leave a sellers home on the market for to long, leading buyers to believe something is wrong with the home and unable to negotiate the prices more in their favor.
Buyers: For not sticking to their guns on a lower price for the home. For not knowing all they should know prior to purchasing a home, such as the above and their state real estate laws, etc.
Government: for not passing better consumer protection laws/regulations.
Statutes: for not passing better consumer protection laws.
Attorneys: for charging way to much money just to go over a real estate contract and give some good legal advice.
People in general: for not complaining more to the authority having jurisdiction when about the above things or to their state real estate commission for agents who behave badly.
EVERYONE SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE LAWS AND MAKE COMPLAINTS WHEN PEOPLE (REALTORS, LENDERS ETC.) DON'T FOLLOW THEM. IT'S THE ONLY WAY ANYONE WILL EVER KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING. I COMPLAINED ABOUT MY AGENTS PRACTICES TO THE STATE REAL ESTATE COMMISSION AND AFTER FOUR MONTHS THE INVESTIGATION IS CONTINUING. I HAD THE OPTION OF GETTING MY INSPECTION MONEY RETURNED $350 FROM THE COMMISSION BUT THAT IS JUST THE START. THE REALTOR MAY LOSE HIS/HER LICENSE.
The people to blame are the ones who bought more house than they could afford. They knew, getting into it, that they would be paying too much, and wouldn't be able to afford it after the ARM expired.
I get so tired of everyone blaming someone else. Those who bought a house that they couldn't afford should wake up and accept responsibility for their own choices.
Those who study mortgage trends have said that there has been a pretty consistent pattern of a ';bust'; in mortgages about every 18 years since World War II. We've seen problems like this before and we will survive this ';crisis.'; If you're looking for a mortgage right now, rates are still very good. The world is not ending (as the politicians who are itching to ';help'; would have us believe).
Now to your question... In summary, EVERYONE involved played a part in the ';mortgage mess'; to some extent or another.
BORROWERS -- Rather than living within their means, many borrowers decided that they wanted to have a bigger, more expensive house than they could afford. In order to afford these houses, they often turned to loan products such as ';Interest Only'; loans. With IO loans, you basically pay the minimum amount possible every month and the principal is never reduced. To complicate matters, some loans featured ';zero down'; where the borrower had absolutely NO equity in the property. Here is an illustration of a typical problem: A property is worth $800,000 at the time of purchase. The borrower takes out an Interest Only loan for $800,000 (putting nothing down). Then the property value drops to $700,000. Now the borrower has a loan for $800,000 for a property that is only worth $700,000. The borrower has ZERO equity in the property so guess what... they walk away from the property and the lender ends up taking the loss.
MORTGAGE COMPANIES (BAD OR POOR UNDERWRITING GUIDELINES) -- In an effort to make as many loans as possible (and to sell these loans to foolishly eager investors), many mortgage companies relaxed their guidelines beyond reason. Some loans had a Loan-to-Value (LTV) ratio of 100 (or higher on rare occasion!). If the property was worth $100,000, then an LTV meant that $100,000 was loaned to the borrower (as stated before, no equity). The lower the LTV, the less risky (and more desirable) the loan is. Another arguably stupid mortgage product was the ';80-20'; loan. A loan with an LTV of 80 or lower is not considered risky in the mortgage business. Therefore, Mortgage Insurance (MI) is not required for loans with an LTV of 80% or less. (If a borrower has an LTV of 85 and pays it down to 80, then they can drop the MI from the loan.) MI is basically insurance against borrower default. For example, if a borrower defaults on his loan and the lender forecloses and sells the property and loses $2000 in the process, then the MI company will cut a check to the lender for $2000 to make the lender ';whole.'; Rather than requiring borrowers to carry MI on their loans (which would have mitigated risk), the mortgage companies allowed the borrowers to take out a second loan on the same property (a ';second lien'; or Home Equity Line of Credit or HELOC). This HELOC money was then used as the ';money down'; on the first loan so that MI could be avoided. For example, if the property is worth $100,000, the borrower might get a HELOC for $20,000 and put that money down on the first loan, thereby lowering the LTV to 80 (thereby exempting them from MI). Another popular loan was an Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) or ';Fixed-Adjustable'; (where the Interest Rate is fixed for a few years and then starts to adjust (up or down) based on a financial instrument). Borrowers were allegedly given a low ';teaser rate'; and then (because they bought too much house) couldn't make the payments with the higher interest rate when the rate adjusted. (It seems hard for me to believe that an interest rate adjustment would be so severe that it would prevent someone from making their payments, but that's what the borrowers allegedly claim.) Maybe this is too many detailed examples, but suffice it to say that a lot of stupid mortgage products were offered by mortgage companies (and accepted by borrowers).
INVESTORS -- In their quest to make a ';fast buck';, investors bought up tons of these mortgages since these riskier ';sub-prime'; loans brought higher returns (higher interest rates). These investors should have performed a ';due diligence'; on the loans they bought; but they didn't. When investors purchase loans, there is usually (if not always) a ';buyback'; provision. This means that if a loan goes bad and the investor finds that there was some irregularity in the underwriting (the loan decisioning process) that the mortgage company who sold them the loan is required to ';buy back'; the loan. The problem is that most mortgage companies are ';cash poor'; (meaning that they borrow the cash that they lend from a ';warehouse lender'; temporarily until they can sell the loan to an investor and pay back their warehouse lender). So when these loans started going bad (hundreds of millions of dollars worth!), the investors demanded the mortgage companies buy back the loans (according to their agreement). So mortgage companies were now looking at buying millions and millions of dollars worth of loans back when they had little or no money of their own! So what happened? Countless mortgage companies declared bankruptcy. With all of the hullaballoo around bad mortgages, investors decided to stop buying sub-prime mortgages. Since there was nobody buying these mortgages and since mortgage companies don't have their own cash, mortgage companies found that they could no longer make these sub-prime loans. The sub-prime market dried up almost instantly.
RATING AGENCIES -- The job of rating agencies is to investigate the creditworthiness of investments (many of which included mortgage debt). These agencies did not do their due diligence and ended up giving these investments an artificially high rating. So investors thought the investments were less risky than they were. Investors will always buy investments that have a high return and low risk (but obviously they weren't low risk).
THE GOVERNMENT -- The government has always put pressure on mortgage companies to make loans to poor and/or minority borrowers. Because these borrowers typically have worse credit and/or less income and/or greater debt, they had to go to the ';sub-prime'; market to get a mortgage loan. Is it so hard to imagine that a borrower with less income, more debt and bad payment habits will default on a loan (especially when they've put little or no money down)? Of course not. But the government continues to ';wish away'; laws of basic economics and common sense. In order to ';do right'; by poor people and minorities, the government expected mortgage companies suspend their normal sound underwriting guidelines and business sense. (Obviously, the sub-prime problem goes beyond just poor borrowers, but my point is that the government contributed to the crisis to some extent.) The government is now poised and ready to exacerbate the crisis beyond what it is now by ';freezing'; interest rate adjustments. Here is an illustration of the problem: Let's say you have $5000 in cash. I'm a bank and I tell you that if you deposit your $5000 with me that I will pay you 1% during the first 2 years but then I will pay you 7% after those 2 years. So you deposit your money at the low rate of interest. After two years (when you're about to get your higher interest rate), the government comes in and says, ';Sorry. You're not getting your 7% as promised. In fact, you can't take your money out of that bank; you must leave it there and only collect 1% for another 10 years.'; What will happen when you have another $5000 to deposit? Will you put it in my bank? Absolutely not. Why? Because you don't know if you'll really get the return you agreed upon. In the same way, if the government steps in and says to the investor/lender, ';Sorry... you're not getting the return on your money that you negotiated... and you can't take back your money; you've got to leave it at the low rate,'; then guess what the investor is going to do. He will never invest in mortgages again! He will take his money to China or municipal bonds or any other vehicle in which he can get a RELIABLE return on his money. If he DOES decide to put money into mortgage debt again, he will demand a higher return to compensate for the greater risk that the government will step in and ';help'; again. (In other words, Interest Rates on mortgages will go up for EVERYONE!) Thank you Big Government Democrats and George Bush!
REGIONAL PROBLEMS -- Some regions in the USA had events that made the mortgage problems particularly bad. For example, inflated property values in California started deflating. Condos in Florida didn't sell as thought and many sit vacant. Companies providing jobs in the ';rust belt'; (such as Michigan) have moved or gone under; thereby leaving the local homeowners with no income with which to make their mortgage payments.
Sorry for such a long answer. Hope it all makes sense.
Thanks!Who is really to blame about the mortgage mess?
If you buy a home the price you pay is up to you. Nobody forces anyone to pay more than they can afford.It is a good idea to Budget and see how much you can afford as a mortgage payment and then add 10% to allow for contingencies such as recession Etc.It appears to be a Worldwide problem at the moment.We went through the same thing in the Eighties and it was hard, we went without just to pay our mortgage and it lasted for a few years.Boy did we go out when it finished.
Well if the broker shows a buyer a home they can't afford, who is the idiot buying that house? A lot of people WANT to be homeowners, but they make poor choices and shouldn't be home owners, and won't be for long. Wanting is not enough. One needs to pay your bills, not run up credit card balances, not have bad credit, etc. To be harsh, they didn't deserve to be home owners, shouldn't have qualified for loans, and didn't have enough sense to capitalize on this chance at home ownership. The lenders were ignoring underwriting, and just processing paper and giving loans to totally unqualified buyers, bundling lots of these loans together and selling them and reselling them. People bought these securities without investigating/discovering how shaky the underwriting was. Stockbrokers didn't care, and sold these shaky securities. The loan brokers and stockbrokers all made money by selling and selling. Now the new home owners are losing their homes and the entire economy is suffering.
I believe it's the fault of the buyer. Whoever in their right mind will buy a house that they ...should know, is way out of their price range. Who in their right mind will buy a home with an 'interest only' mortgage? Who in their right mind will buy a home with a rate that isn't fixed?
They all asked for the trouble they are in by not buying what they could afford.
It is really the banks fault for giving every Joe Walmart a loan.
The banks think that everyone will try to maintain a decent credit score so they have no problem giving people that have no business purchasing a home a loan.
Anyone that doesn't have a stable career doesn't need to get a mortgage.
When Joe Walmart gets fired he is not scared that the home will foreclose on him and he probably doesn't know what a credit score is. He packs his bags moves in with his cousin and works at the bait shop.
Banks don't like this and rates go up with a couple other variables but basically thats it.
The economy is a big part of it,but in todays society every buys today and pays tommorow. It been this way for years but now people are going into foreclosure because everyone else is and its an easy way out of debt.
Realtors have a minor amount of blame. They knowingly put borrowers into loans that REQUIRED fraud.
The real blame isn't with brokers at all rather with Mortgage Bankers (most of whom have already failed), with bond traders and with hedge funds. The appetite for the paper was so great that bond traders were essentially forcing Lenders (mortgage bankers and banks in some cases) to focus on saleability rather than on the borrowers ability to pay.
Saleability means the ability of the mortgage banker to sell the loan to the secondary markets.
The level of fraud is far beyond what the consumer is being told. The fraud was institutionalized at most levels of many lender. Ultimately the greatest level of fraud was committed Account Executives and managers-under orders from sales managers.
Its not the realtor's place to determine affordability. That's up to the buyer and the lender.
The Realtor would have no idea the person can't afford the house. They don't go through the buyer's financials nor do they ask them about their income or their bills. The mortgage broker does that.
The fault lies with the mortgage brokers, for approving people to finance levels that they know they couldn't afford, and the buyers who bought something that they SHOULD have known they couldn't afford. Unfortunately, since most Americans are stupid and think they can buy ANYTHING on credit, I guess I mostly blame the mortgage bankers.
It's not a matter of blaming any one person. We are all to blame. We all wanted more and more money for our properties.
As for the Realtor, the loan officers would be more to blame for putting these folks into loans that adjusted upward and outside of their ability to pay. Realtors really facilitate the part of the process, the real culprit was the loan companies.
Not consider this tho, they were also pressured by the Federal Government to come up with ways to make housing more affordable. The Fed step in, then they step out, then they step making everyone believe they are going to save the day, when they are just as much a part of this mess as the lenders.
I have no sympathy for these people who are loosing their homes. They took a chance (like gambling), that their rates wouldn't rise. They lost their gamble and people like me, who decided to go with a higher fixed rate, are the ones who have to bail them out. People really need to take responsibility for their own decisions...and not blame the lendng institutions.
Banks/lenders: for allowing closing and down payment to be rolled into the loan, now you have a house that on paper costs more then it actually is worth which causes more problems when they try to sell it due to not being able to sell for the cost of the purchase.
Appraisers: for over appraising property allowing people to get a loan for a home that is not worth what they are paying... see above.
Realtors: Realtors stick together. They make commission so if it's a buyer representative, they aren't necessarily looking to get the buyer a great deal, they are looking to get their commission. So in reality they are working with the sellers agent to ensure a high sell which can leave a sellers home on the market for to long, leading buyers to believe something is wrong with the home and unable to negotiate the prices more in their favor.
Buyers: For not sticking to their guns on a lower price for the home. For not knowing all they should know prior to purchasing a home, such as the above and their state real estate laws, etc.
Government: for not passing better consumer protection laws/regulations.
Statutes: for not passing better consumer protection laws.
Attorneys: for charging way to much money just to go over a real estate contract and give some good legal advice.
People in general: for not complaining more to the authority having jurisdiction when about the above things or to their state real estate commission for agents who behave badly.
EVERYONE SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE LAWS AND MAKE COMPLAINTS WHEN PEOPLE (REALTORS, LENDERS ETC.) DON'T FOLLOW THEM. IT'S THE ONLY WAY ANYONE WILL EVER KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING. I COMPLAINED ABOUT MY AGENTS PRACTICES TO THE STATE REAL ESTATE COMMISSION AND AFTER FOUR MONTHS THE INVESTIGATION IS CONTINUING. I HAD THE OPTION OF GETTING MY INSPECTION MONEY RETURNED $350 FROM THE COMMISSION BUT THAT IS JUST THE START. THE REALTOR MAY LOSE HIS/HER LICENSE.
The people to blame are the ones who bought more house than they could afford. They knew, getting into it, that they would be paying too much, and wouldn't be able to afford it after the ARM expired.
I get so tired of everyone blaming someone else. Those who bought a house that they couldn't afford should wake up and accept responsibility for their own choices.
Opinions on Reverse Mortgages?
My mom is 76 under a 67K loan with mo payments of 475 on 7.55 fixed rate. Is on fixed income total of 1,100 mo. Would reverse mortgage be a good option for her? In today's financial climate, who can you trust? I know there are a lot of smart people out there and I need to know the pros %26amp; cons. Property value of approx 100K. I don't want to steer her wrong, but I have limited knowledge of financial matters.Opinions on Reverse Mortgages?
in most cases it is a great deal == but the way i read it she has only 33k clear in her home -- it might not be worth it -- but your best bet is go to a bank that handles reverse mortgages and get there opinions!!!
in most cases it is a great deal == but the way i read it she has only 33k clear in her home -- it might not be worth it -- but your best bet is go to a bank that handles reverse mortgages and get there opinions!!!
Why do people buy a house and mortgage themselves up to the eyeballs when they clearly cannot afford it?
What drives people to this kind of financial suicide?Why do people buy a house and mortgage themselves up to the eyeballs when they clearly cannot afford it?
Forced savings and Expectation that the Property price will grow faster than the interest component of Mortgage !Why do people buy a house and mortgage themselves up to the eyeballs when they clearly cannot afford it?
greed
It is called the American Dream - home ownership. You can't blame people for wanting a home of their own. However, as a Realtor, I try to educate my buyers, sit them down, explain to them that they should get prequalified so they are not disappointed later. I usually can get a pre-approval in a couple of hours through my lender - The majority of my clients believe they can afford less of a house than they actually can, so by doing this, we all save time and money. I have never seen anyone who was that close to the edge of affording the payment - but I have seen alot of folks lately who have been affected by predatory lending, and second mortgages that put them over the edge - I think that the people you are referring to just do not understand what home ownership entails - you can't judge them as a group - each circumstance is different - there is also life's unforseen little roadblocks such as loss of job, death of one of the parties, illness, etc...
they fall for the marketing spree of the loan lender
';es'; said it pretty well as far as I can tell. I am not a Realtor and don't claim to know everything about it, I am however a banker and I am quite knowledgable about the financing process. Many people have eyes bigger than their bank accounts and they feel they are entitled to have what they dream, and they are... until it gets to the lender who's job it is to decide if they can indeed afford it or not in the real world of paper as opposed to the buyers' emotional wants or needs.
Many lenders got very loose in the bursting market in the recent past, and now we are paying for it. The days of no income/no asset qualifications at 107% (yes 107% of value, it covered closing costs and even half of the real estate brokerage fees on purchases) with zero down are over. I am glad. Now you have to qualify for it according to rules and there is no personal aspect there. paper is paper, proof is proof. If you don't qualify for that $1.2M loan I will tell you what you DO qualify for without worrying about whether or not you can make the payments to us later.
What you WANT is one thing, what you GET is usually quite a bit different. The problem in the recent past has been that what you wanted, you could get even if you couldn't pay for it. That is changing, fast. We have seen the error of our ways as a credit society. The only question now is how steep will the price be?
This is not the first time that real estate prices have fallen, equity is lost, and buyers give their keys back to the lenders. However, it is the first time in history that these loans have been packaged into complicated financial vehicles, and peddled as investments with triple A credit, when they are nothing of the sort. We'll be paying for this, for years to come. Those people who took these teaser loans knew they couldn't afford the reset rates. They thought they'd make big bucks because the value of the house would just go up, in a straight line. That's not how it works. These are people who are impatient-they want a big house, big profits, and don't want to work for it. Years ago, we called it champagne taste on a beer pocketbook. They felt ';entitled';. You know, when you tell a prospective buyer you don't think they can afford a particular property, they get insulted. They didn't want to know the truth. They'd rather borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars, and not even be able to make a repair if the heater goes out, than face the truth--they should be living in an apartment, with fixed expenses, saving money to fulfill their dream of home ownership.
It doesn't start out that way for most. It usually goes bad due to loss of job, pay cut, rise in household expenses, etc.
After the mortgage reforms, it is unlikely that someone can get a mortgage without being able to afford it. Before that there were plenty of shady lenders.
There own wish . Who are you ???
Its not a question of mortgaging themselves. It is always beneficial to buy a house and rent it out as it takes care of the loan amount up to 70% and rest amount becomes ur investment for which you always get better profit than any other investment. In case ur not able to pay the balance 30% anytime you can sell off the property. Land is always limited and hence if you can invest on it you will always fetch a good amount and will never be a loser.cosmetics maybelline express
Forced savings and Expectation that the Property price will grow faster than the interest component of Mortgage !Why do people buy a house and mortgage themselves up to the eyeballs when they clearly cannot afford it?
greed
It is called the American Dream - home ownership. You can't blame people for wanting a home of their own. However, as a Realtor, I try to educate my buyers, sit them down, explain to them that they should get prequalified so they are not disappointed later. I usually can get a pre-approval in a couple of hours through my lender - The majority of my clients believe they can afford less of a house than they actually can, so by doing this, we all save time and money. I have never seen anyone who was that close to the edge of affording the payment - but I have seen alot of folks lately who have been affected by predatory lending, and second mortgages that put them over the edge - I think that the people you are referring to just do not understand what home ownership entails - you can't judge them as a group - each circumstance is different - there is also life's unforseen little roadblocks such as loss of job, death of one of the parties, illness, etc...
they fall for the marketing spree of the loan lender
';es'; said it pretty well as far as I can tell. I am not a Realtor and don't claim to know everything about it, I am however a banker and I am quite knowledgable about the financing process. Many people have eyes bigger than their bank accounts and they feel they are entitled to have what they dream, and they are... until it gets to the lender who's job it is to decide if they can indeed afford it or not in the real world of paper as opposed to the buyers' emotional wants or needs.
Many lenders got very loose in the bursting market in the recent past, and now we are paying for it. The days of no income/no asset qualifications at 107% (yes 107% of value, it covered closing costs and even half of the real estate brokerage fees on purchases) with zero down are over. I am glad. Now you have to qualify for it according to rules and there is no personal aspect there. paper is paper, proof is proof. If you don't qualify for that $1.2M loan I will tell you what you DO qualify for without worrying about whether or not you can make the payments to us later.
What you WANT is one thing, what you GET is usually quite a bit different. The problem in the recent past has been that what you wanted, you could get even if you couldn't pay for it. That is changing, fast. We have seen the error of our ways as a credit society. The only question now is how steep will the price be?
This is not the first time that real estate prices have fallen, equity is lost, and buyers give their keys back to the lenders. However, it is the first time in history that these loans have been packaged into complicated financial vehicles, and peddled as investments with triple A credit, when they are nothing of the sort. We'll be paying for this, for years to come. Those people who took these teaser loans knew they couldn't afford the reset rates. They thought they'd make big bucks because the value of the house would just go up, in a straight line. That's not how it works. These are people who are impatient-they want a big house, big profits, and don't want to work for it. Years ago, we called it champagne taste on a beer pocketbook. They felt ';entitled';. You know, when you tell a prospective buyer you don't think they can afford a particular property, they get insulted. They didn't want to know the truth. They'd rather borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars, and not even be able to make a repair if the heater goes out, than face the truth--they should be living in an apartment, with fixed expenses, saving money to fulfill their dream of home ownership.
It doesn't start out that way for most. It usually goes bad due to loss of job, pay cut, rise in household expenses, etc.
After the mortgage reforms, it is unlikely that someone can get a mortgage without being able to afford it. Before that there were plenty of shady lenders.
There own wish . Who are you ???
Its not a question of mortgaging themselves. It is always beneficial to buy a house and rent it out as it takes care of the loan amount up to 70% and rest amount becomes ur investment for which you always get better profit than any other investment. In case ur not able to pay the balance 30% anytime you can sell off the property. Land is always limited and hence if you can invest on it you will always fetch a good amount and will never be a loser.
How much money is given for a mortgage if house needs renovation?
I am looking at a house that is extremely cheap for my market. Realtor says it needs $50k in repair, but I was hoping to put $100K into it to do the full deal (granite/stainless Sub zero appliances etc) Hypothetically, if the purchase price of the house was $100,000, would I be able to take out a loan for $200,000 to do my desired repairs? Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I am a first time home buyer. ThanksHow much money is given for a mortgage if house needs renovation?
There is a specific loan product for your needs. Not all lenders have access to it because it is what is called a ';portfolio'; loan product.
What happens is that you get the plans and specifications for the improvements and they are submitted to the appraiser so that the property may be appraised based upon completed value.
The loan is treated the same as a construction loan in that funds are disbursed based upon work completed. There must be a licensed general contractor overseeing the project.
I am a mortgage lender with more than 20 years experience and my bank, a national bank not a .com, offers this product as its specialty. I can loan in all states and will be happy to answer any of your questions. My name is Nancy, my toll free number is 800-971-4638 ext. 223.How much money is given for a mortgage if house needs renovation?
Mortgage is based on value (among many other qualifying factors). The lenders will not loan based on anticipated value after improvements.
I write a blog on the subject of credit management, mortgages, real estate trends, etc. Check it out for more information that may be helpful.
Do the other similar homes in the neighborhood, already renovated/updated of course, sell for $200,000?
The type of loan you are suggesting could be considered either a construction loan, or a home equity loan. Both of these loans would be contingent on the difference between value of home and what you paid for it.
From working in accounting and credit for years, I think that a bank MIGHT consider lending you the money to make the place inhabitable, but unless you have sterling credit, I doubt they would agree to giving you the money to do the ';full deal'; including the most expensive, state of the art appliances %26amp; interiors.
Good luck.
EDIT**** Listen to the answer below me, she sounds like she has the most knowledge in this subject.
My last word of caution is watch for falling home values, just because a house sold last year for $500,000 is no guarantee it would sell now. Talk to some experienced agents in your area to find out what houses are selling for.
There is a specific loan product for your needs. Not all lenders have access to it because it is what is called a ';portfolio'; loan product.
What happens is that you get the plans and specifications for the improvements and they are submitted to the appraiser so that the property may be appraised based upon completed value.
The loan is treated the same as a construction loan in that funds are disbursed based upon work completed. There must be a licensed general contractor overseeing the project.
I am a mortgage lender with more than 20 years experience and my bank, a national bank not a .com, offers this product as its specialty. I can loan in all states and will be happy to answer any of your questions. My name is Nancy, my toll free number is 800-971-4638 ext. 223.How much money is given for a mortgage if house needs renovation?
Mortgage is based on value (among many other qualifying factors). The lenders will not loan based on anticipated value after improvements.
I write a blog on the subject of credit management, mortgages, real estate trends, etc. Check it out for more information that may be helpful.
Do the other similar homes in the neighborhood, already renovated/updated of course, sell for $200,000?
The type of loan you are suggesting could be considered either a construction loan, or a home equity loan. Both of these loans would be contingent on the difference between value of home and what you paid for it.
From working in accounting and credit for years, I think that a bank MIGHT consider lending you the money to make the place inhabitable, but unless you have sterling credit, I doubt they would agree to giving you the money to do the ';full deal'; including the most expensive, state of the art appliances %26amp; interiors.
Good luck.
EDIT**** Listen to the answer below me, she sounds like she has the most knowledge in this subject.
My last word of caution is watch for falling home values, just because a house sold last year for $500,000 is no guarantee it would sell now. Talk to some experienced agents in your area to find out what houses are selling for.
Where is the congressional investigation into the mortgage crisis as to why Fannie and Freddie went under?
With a democrat controlled congress will we ever learn just who was responsible for their collapse, I'm sure if it was Bush or some other republican they would be issuing subpoenas demanding answers to fix blame.Where is the congressional investigation into the mortgage crisis as to why Fannie and Freddie went under?
It follows just like when Pelosi said they should impeach Bush, she backed off when she realized how many Democrats would fall with him because they too were for the invasion in Iraq...you have to ask yourself, ';Why do the Democrats insist on having the Republicans in on this bailout deal when the Democrats have the majority and they can pass anything they want?';, its simple, they don't want to take the fall for a crap deal alone. I think we need an independent investigation to find out which politicians had a hand in this collapse and they burn whoever did...I never could understand how a politician can come in to office broke and leave millionaires...someone made money off of this entire mess and we need to know who whether they're Democrat or Republican and you can bet it went on with both sides.Where is the congressional investigation into the mortgage crisis as to why Fannie and Freddie went under?
You answered your own question! It was Clinton in 1999 that de-regulated the banks, insurance companies etc to free more money to lend to sub-prime borrowers. I am sure he meant it for the good of all, but by allowing people with bad credit, no income, no down payment to buy- he basically set us up for this fall. I have worked in the mortgage business since 1986. My company refused to do these loans- because we knew it was the wrong thing to do. When a person would call us for this type of loan and we turned them down, they thought we were discriminating! Obama is second only to Chris Dodd for taking campaign contributions from Fannie/Freddie- why would the Democrats even consider investigating- they already know who caused this problem.
Dodd and Frank would end up investigating themselves and revealing Obama's connection to the fraud through ACORN, Freddie and Fannie, and that would just be inconsistent with the grand plan to market Obama into the White House.
Update: Dodd and Frank said later today that they would hold hearings on this so that steps could be taken to ensure it does not happen again. These hearings should make for some very interesting theatre. I wonder how someone holds hearings into their own malfeasance.
Look to Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, and Obama's chief housing adviser Franklin Rain,
Java: Franks and Dodd investigateing this is like Osama Bin Laden investigateing 9/11!!
Fraud is investigated by the FBI, they started it last week. Fannie, Freddie, Lehman and AIG.
Sorry, this is a Clinton deal, there will be no investigation.
We don't actually have a ';democrat controlled congress';. There are not enough Democrats to pull anything off w/o that famous ';reaching across the aisle'; thingie.
But we don't actually require an investigation to learn what happened. Just watch what's been going past you. That's all you need to do.
FM and FM worked just fine for a very long time as government agencies. Then they were ';privatized'; under the Newt Gingrich Assault on America years. It was thought that private corporations could do a better job than the Federal government in running these organizations. And Gingrich had a genuine Republican-controlled Congress to work with. Easy peasey!
More recently, Senator Phil Gramm was instrumental in inserting into a defense bill language that removed the controls on mortgages, which effectively took the brakes off the greed of the private FM and FM executives. They were no longer required to determine whether a borrower could afford a mortgage or not. Not the slightest scrap of common sense was left as mortages were granted to people who were not even asked if they had any visible means of support!
That's what all those ads for cheap mortages with unreal payment plans are about. It was enormously profitable to make these bad loans and then sell them to another finance organization and pocket the profits.
What happens when there is no oversight? Runaway abuses, that's what.
Now the government controls FM and FM again. It's too late to mop up the spilled milk. The damages must be paid....by US! The best we can hope for now is to put regulations back in place to govern how home mortgages are granted to borrowers. Borrowers must prove they can afford a mortgage, have a down payment and have steady employment....you know, just like in the Good Old Days! ;-)
And McCain is the Champion of Deregulation. Does that give you a hint?
PS: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is infamous for saying ';impeachment is off the table'; as very nearly her very first words after taking that office!
Actually, both sides are pretty responsible here.
Most know about how Obama got donations from the companies, amounting to $126,195.
What most don't know is that McCain also got donations, but his came from the CEOs and other officers of these companies; and he received $195,135--nearly $65,000 more than Obama did.
Yet Obama did take money, so he's not blameless.
What it appears to be is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were attempting to play both sides, and were quite successful at it.
It also appears they sided more with McCain. He got more money, and he also received it in such a way that he would not go down with the ship if this were caught.
You see, they have records showing that they donated to Obama, so if they were caught they would go down, but those records would take Obama down with them.
But if you didn't recognize the names of the people donating to McCain, you'd never know it was the CEOs of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae doing the donating. If they were caught, there was a good chance that McCain would not be and would still come out pretty clean-LOOKING in this (not clean, but looks clean). And he did get significantly more money than both Obama and Dodd.
Everyone is dirty in this, but McCain appears to be moreso.
Add-on:
You guys don't have to like the truth, it doesn't care if you don't like it. It won't change.
McCain got donations as well, and $65,000 more than Obama did.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac sided with McCain, but decided to donate to Obama to hedge their bets in case he won. It's that simple, everyone is to blame.
It follows just like when Pelosi said they should impeach Bush, she backed off when she realized how many Democrats would fall with him because they too were for the invasion in Iraq...you have to ask yourself, ';Why do the Democrats insist on having the Republicans in on this bailout deal when the Democrats have the majority and they can pass anything they want?';, its simple, they don't want to take the fall for a crap deal alone. I think we need an independent investigation to find out which politicians had a hand in this collapse and they burn whoever did...I never could understand how a politician can come in to office broke and leave millionaires...someone made money off of this entire mess and we need to know who whether they're Democrat or Republican and you can bet it went on with both sides.Where is the congressional investigation into the mortgage crisis as to why Fannie and Freddie went under?
You answered your own question! It was Clinton in 1999 that de-regulated the banks, insurance companies etc to free more money to lend to sub-prime borrowers. I am sure he meant it for the good of all, but by allowing people with bad credit, no income, no down payment to buy- he basically set us up for this fall. I have worked in the mortgage business since 1986. My company refused to do these loans- because we knew it was the wrong thing to do. When a person would call us for this type of loan and we turned them down, they thought we were discriminating! Obama is second only to Chris Dodd for taking campaign contributions from Fannie/Freddie- why would the Democrats even consider investigating- they already know who caused this problem.
Dodd and Frank would end up investigating themselves and revealing Obama's connection to the fraud through ACORN, Freddie and Fannie, and that would just be inconsistent with the grand plan to market Obama into the White House.
Update: Dodd and Frank said later today that they would hold hearings on this so that steps could be taken to ensure it does not happen again. These hearings should make for some very interesting theatre. I wonder how someone holds hearings into their own malfeasance.
Look to Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, and Obama's chief housing adviser Franklin Rain,
Java: Franks and Dodd investigateing this is like Osama Bin Laden investigateing 9/11!!
Fraud is investigated by the FBI, they started it last week. Fannie, Freddie, Lehman and AIG.
Sorry, this is a Clinton deal, there will be no investigation.
We don't actually have a ';democrat controlled congress';. There are not enough Democrats to pull anything off w/o that famous ';reaching across the aisle'; thingie.
But we don't actually require an investigation to learn what happened. Just watch what's been going past you. That's all you need to do.
FM and FM worked just fine for a very long time as government agencies. Then they were ';privatized'; under the Newt Gingrich Assault on America years. It was thought that private corporations could do a better job than the Federal government in running these organizations. And Gingrich had a genuine Republican-controlled Congress to work with. Easy peasey!
More recently, Senator Phil Gramm was instrumental in inserting into a defense bill language that removed the controls on mortgages, which effectively took the brakes off the greed of the private FM and FM executives. They were no longer required to determine whether a borrower could afford a mortgage or not. Not the slightest scrap of common sense was left as mortages were granted to people who were not even asked if they had any visible means of support!
That's what all those ads for cheap mortages with unreal payment plans are about. It was enormously profitable to make these bad loans and then sell them to another finance organization and pocket the profits.
What happens when there is no oversight? Runaway abuses, that's what.
Now the government controls FM and FM again. It's too late to mop up the spilled milk. The damages must be paid....by US! The best we can hope for now is to put regulations back in place to govern how home mortgages are granted to borrowers. Borrowers must prove they can afford a mortgage, have a down payment and have steady employment....you know, just like in the Good Old Days! ;-)
And McCain is the Champion of Deregulation. Does that give you a hint?
PS: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is infamous for saying ';impeachment is off the table'; as very nearly her very first words after taking that office!
Actually, both sides are pretty responsible here.
Most know about how Obama got donations from the companies, amounting to $126,195.
What most don't know is that McCain also got donations, but his came from the CEOs and other officers of these companies; and he received $195,135--nearly $65,000 more than Obama did.
Yet Obama did take money, so he's not blameless.
What it appears to be is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were attempting to play both sides, and were quite successful at it.
It also appears they sided more with McCain. He got more money, and he also received it in such a way that he would not go down with the ship if this were caught.
You see, they have records showing that they donated to Obama, so if they were caught they would go down, but those records would take Obama down with them.
But if you didn't recognize the names of the people donating to McCain, you'd never know it was the CEOs of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae doing the donating. If they were caught, there was a good chance that McCain would not be and would still come out pretty clean-LOOKING in this (not clean, but looks clean). And he did get significantly more money than both Obama and Dodd.
Everyone is dirty in this, but McCain appears to be moreso.
Add-on:
You guys don't have to like the truth, it doesn't care if you don't like it. It won't change.
McCain got donations as well, and $65,000 more than Obama did.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac sided with McCain, but decided to donate to Obama to hedge their bets in case he won. It's that simple, everyone is to blame.
What in the indicator to watch (10 yr Bond?) for lowering or rise in mortgage interest rates, and why?
I have always used the treasury as the indicator of rates rising or falling. Now, it is down to 4.027, and rates are higher that when at 4.2. Is it inflation as well, or are the lenders tightening their belts and watching the market?What in the indicator to watch (10 yr Bond?) for lowering or rise in mortgage interest rates, and why?
You need to look at the mortgage backed securities. The 10-year bond usually mirrors the mortgage backs, but sometimes there's slippage.
You need to look at the mortgage backed securities. The 10-year bond usually mirrors the mortgage backs, but sometimes there's slippage.
Who is really to blame about the mortgage mess?
I never hear anyone blame the realtor for showing buyers homes they know they can't afford. So many times i hear that it is the mortgage banker fault (which some of it is) but never on anyone else.Who is really to blame about the mortgage mess?
Those who study mortgage trends have said that there has been a pretty consistent pattern of a ';bust'; in mortgages about every 18 years since World War II. We've seen problems like this before and we will survive this ';crisis.'; If you're looking for a mortgage right now, rates are still very good. The world is not ending (as the politicians who are itching to ';help'; would have us believe).
Now to your question... In summary, EVERYONE involved played a part in the ';mortgage mess'; to some extent or another.
BORROWERS -- Rather than living within their means, many borrowers decided that they wanted to have a bigger, more expensive house than they could afford. In order to afford these houses, they often turned to loan products such as ';Interest Only'; loans. With IO loans, you basically pay the minimum amount possible every month and the principal is never reduced. To complicate matters, some loans featured ';zero down'; where the borrower had absolutely NO equity in the property. Here is an illustration of a typical problem: A property is worth $800,000 at the time of purchase. The borrower takes out an Interest Only loan for $800,000 (putting nothing down). Then the property value drops to $700,000. Now the borrower has a loan for $800,000 for a property that is only worth $700,000. The borrower has ZERO equity in the property so guess what... they walk away from the property and the lender ends up taking the loss.
MORTGAGE COMPANIES (BAD OR POOR UNDERWRITING GUIDELINES) -- In an effort to make as many loans as possible (and to sell these loans to foolishly eager investors), many mortgage companies relaxed their guidelines beyond reason. Some loans had a Loan-to-Value (LTV) ratio of 100 (or higher on rare occasion!). If the property was worth $100,000, then an LTV meant that $100,000 was loaned to the borrower (as stated before, no equity). The lower the LTV, the less risky (and more desirable) the loan is. Another arguably stupid mortgage product was the ';80-20'; loan. A loan with an LTV of 80 or lower is not considered risky in the mortgage business. Therefore, Mortgage Insurance (MI) is not required for loans with an LTV of 80% or less. (If a borrower has an LTV of 85 and pays it down to 80, then they can drop the MI from the loan.) MI is basically insurance against borrower default. For example, if a borrower defaults on his loan and the lender forecloses and sells the property and loses $2000 in the process, then the MI company will cut a check to the lender for $2000 to make the lender ';whole.'; Rather than requiring borrowers to carry MI on their loans (which would have mitigated risk), the mortgage companies allowed the borrowers to take out a second loan on the same property (a ';second lien'; or Home Equity Line of Credit or HELOC). This HELOC money was then used as the ';money down'; on the first loan so that MI could be avoided. For example, if the property is worth $100,000, the borrower might get a HELOC for $20,000 and put that money down on the first loan, thereby lowering the LTV to 80 (thereby exempting them from MI). Another popular loan was an Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) or ';Fixed-Adjustable'; (where the Interest Rate is fixed for a few years and then starts to adjust (up or down) based on a financial instrument). Borrowers were allegedly given a low ';teaser rate'; and then (because they bought too much house) couldn't make the payments with the higher interest rate when the rate adjusted. (It seems hard for me to believe that an interest rate adjustment would be so severe that it would prevent someone from making their payments, but that's what the borrowers allegedly claim.) Maybe this is too many detailed examples, but suffice it to say that a lot of stupid mortgage products were offered by mortgage companies (and accepted by borrowers).
INVESTORS -- In their quest to make a ';fast buck';, investors bought up tons of these mortgages since these riskier ';sub-prime'; loans brought higher returns (higher interest rates). These investors should have performed a ';due diligence'; on the loans they bought; but they didn't. When investors purchase loans, there is usually (if not always) a ';buyback'; provision. This means that if a loan goes bad and the investor finds that there was some irregularity in the underwriting (the loan decisioning process) that the mortgage company who sold them the loan is required to ';buy back'; the loan. The problem is that most mortgage companies are ';cash poor'; (meaning that they borrow the cash that they lend from a ';warehouse lender'; temporarily until they can sell the loan to an investor and pay back their warehouse lender). So when these loans started going bad (hundreds of millions of dollars worth!), the investors demanded the mortgage companies buy back the loans (according to their agreement). So mortgage companies were now looking at buying millions and millions of dollars worth of loans back when they had little or no money of their own! So what happened? Countless mortgage companies declared bankruptcy. With all of the hullaballoo around bad mortgages, investors decided to stop buying sub-prime mortgages. Since there was nobody buying these mortgages and since mortgage companies don't have their own cash, mortgage companies found that they could no longer make these sub-prime loans. The sub-prime market dried up almost instantly.
RATING AGENCIES -- The job of rating agencies is to investigate the creditworthiness of investments (many of which included mortgage debt). These agencies did not do their due diligence and ended up giving these investments an artificially high rating. So investors thought the investments were less risky than they were. Investors will always buy investments that have a high return and low risk (but obviously they weren't low risk).
THE GOVERNMENT -- The government has always put pressure on mortgage companies to make loans to poor and/or minority borrowers. Because these borrowers typically have worse credit and/or less income and/or greater debt, they had to go to the ';sub-prime'; market to get a mortgage loan. Is it so hard to imagine that a borrower with less income, more debt and bad payment habits will default on a loan (especially when they've put little or no money down)? Of course not. But the government continues to ';wish away'; laws of basic economics and common sense. In order to ';do right'; by poor people and minorities, the government expected mortgage companies suspend their normal sound underwriting guidelines and business sense. (Obviously, the sub-prime problem goes beyond just poor borrowers, but my point is that the government contributed to the crisis to some extent.) The government is now poised and ready to exacerbate the crisis beyond what it is now by ';freezing'; interest rate adjustments. Here is an illustration of the problem: Let's say you have $5000 in cash. I'm a bank and I tell you that if you deposit your $5000 with me that I will pay you 1% during the first 2 years but then I will pay you 7% after those 2 years. So you deposit your money at the low rate of interest. After two years (when you're about to get your higher interest rate), the government comes in and says, ';Sorry. You're not getting your 7% as promised. In fact, you can't take your money out of that bank; you must leave it there and only collect 1% for another 10 years.'; What will happen when you have another $5000 to deposit? Will you put it in my bank? Absolutely not. Why? Because you don't know if you'll really get the return you agreed upon. In the same way, if the government steps in and says to the investor/lender, ';Sorry... you're not getting the return on your money that you negotiated... and you can't take back your money; you've got to leave it at the low rate,'; then guess what the investor is going to do. He will never invest in mortgages again! He will take his money to China or municipal bonds or any other vehicle in which he can get a RELIABLE return on his money. If he DOES decide to put money into mortgage debt again, he will demand a higher return to compensate for the greater risk that the government will step in and ';help'; again. (In other words, Interest Rates on mortgages will go up for EVERYONE!) Thank you Big Government Democrats and George Bush!
REGIONAL PROBLEMS -- Some regions in the USA had events that made the mortgage problems particularly bad. For example, inflated property values in California started deflating. Condos in Florida didn't sell as thought and many sit vacant. Companies providing jobs in the ';rust belt'; (such as Michigan) have moved or gone under; thereby leaving the local homeowners with no income with which to make their mortgage payments.
Sorry for such a long answer. Hope it all makes sense.
Thanks!Who is really to blame about the mortgage mess?
If you buy a home the price you pay is up to you. Nobody forces anyone to pay more than they can afford.It is a good idea to Budget and see how much you can afford as a mortgage payment and then add 10% to allow for contingencies such as recession Etc.It appears to be a Worldwide problem at the moment.We went through the same thing in the Eighties and it was hard, we went without just to pay our mortgage and it lasted for a few years.Boy did we go out when it finished.
Well if the broker shows a buyer a home they can't afford, who is the idiot buying that house? A lot of people WANT to be homeowners, but they make poor choices and shouldn't be home owners, and won't be for long. Wanting is not enough. One needs to pay your bills, not run up credit card balances, not have bad credit, etc. To be harsh, they didn't deserve to be home owners, shouldn't have qualified for loans, and didn't have enough sense to capitalize on this chance at home ownership. The lenders were ignoring underwriting, and just processing paper and giving loans to totally unqualified buyers, bundling lots of these loans together and selling them and reselling them. People bought these securities without investigating/discovering how shaky the underwriting was. Stockbrokers didn't care, and sold these shaky securities. The loan brokers and stockbrokers all made money by selling and selling. Now the new home owners are losing their homes and the entire economy is suffering.
I believe it's the fault of the buyer. Whoever in their right mind will buy a house that they ...should know, is way out of their price range. Who in their right mind will buy a home with an 'interest only' mortgage? Who in their right mind will buy a home with a rate that isn't fixed?
They all asked for the trouble they are in by not buying what they could afford.
It is really the banks fault for giving every Joe Walmart a loan.
The banks think that everyone will try to maintain a decent credit score so they have no problem giving people that have no business purchasing a home a loan.
Anyone that doesn't have a stable career doesn't need to get a mortgage.
When Joe Walmart gets fired he is not scared that the home will foreclose on him and he probably doesn't know what a credit score is. He packs his bags moves in with his cousin and works at the bait shop.
Banks don't like this and rates go up with a couple other variables but basically thats it.
The economy is a big part of it,but in todays society every buys today and pays tommorow. It been this way for years but now people are going into foreclosure because everyone else is and its an easy way out of debt.
Realtors have a minor amount of blame. They knowingly put borrowers into loans that REQUIRED fraud.
The real blame isn't with brokers at all rather with Mortgage Bankers (most of whom have already failed), with bond traders and with hedge funds. The appetite for the paper was so great that bond traders were essentially forcing Lenders (mortgage bankers and banks in some cases) to focus on saleability rather than on the borrowers ability to pay.
Saleability means the ability of the mortgage banker to sell the loan to the secondary markets.
The level of fraud is far beyond what the consumer is being told. The fraud was institutionalized at most levels of many lender. Ultimately the greatest level of fraud was committed Account Executives and managers-under orders from sales managers.
Its not the realtor's place to determine affordability. That's up to the buyer and the lender.
The Realtor would have no idea the person can't afford the house. They don't go through the buyer's financials nor do they ask them about their income or their bills. The mortgage broker does that.
The fault lies with the mortgage brokers, for approving people to finance levels that they know they couldn't afford, and the buyers who bought something that they SHOULD have known they couldn't afford. Unfortunately, since most Americans are stupid and think they can buy ANYTHING on credit, I guess I mostly blame the mortgage bankers.
It's not a matter of blaming any one person. We are all to blame. We all wanted more and more money for our properties.
As for the Realtor, the loan officers would be more to blame for putting these folks into loans that adjusted upward and outside of their ability to pay. Realtors really facilitate the part of the process, the real culprit was the loan companies.
Not consider this tho, they were also pressured by the Federal Government to come up with ways to make housing more affordable. The Fed step in, then they step out, then they step making everyone believe they are going to save the day, when they are just as much a part of this mess as the lenders.
I have no sympathy for these people who are loosing their homes. They took a chance (like gambling), that their rates wouldn't rise. They lost their gamble and people like me, who decided to go with a higher fixed rate, are the ones who have to bail them out. People really need to take responsibility for their own decisions...and not blame the lendng institutions.
Banks/lenders: for allowing closing and down payment to be rolled into the loan, now you have a house that on paper costs more then it actually is worth which causes more problems when they try to sell it due to not being able to sell for the cost of the purchase.
Appraisers: for over appraising property allowing people to get a loan for a home that is not worth what they are paying... see above.
Realtors: Realtors stick together. They make commission so if it's a buyer representative, they aren't necessarily looking to get the buyer a great deal, they are looking to get their commission. So in reality they are working with the sellers agent to ensure a high sell which can leave a sellers home on the market for to long, leading buyers to believe something is wrong with the home and unable to negotiate the prices more in their favor.
Buyers: For not sticking to their guns on a lower price for the home. For not knowing all they should know prior to purchasing a home, such as the above and their state real estate laws, etc.
Government: for not passing better consumer protection laws/regulations.
Statutes: for not passing better consumer protection laws.
Attorneys: for charging way to much money just to go over a real estate contract and give some good legal advice.
People in general: for not complaining more to the authority having jurisdiction when about the above things or to their state real estate commission for agents who behave badly.
EVERYONE SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE LAWS AND MAKE COMPLAINTS WHEN PEOPLE (REALTORS, LENDERS ETC.) DON'T FOLLOW THEM. IT'S THE ONLY WAY ANYONE WILL EVER KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING. I COMPLAINED ABOUT MY AGENTS PRACTICES TO THE STATE REAL ESTATE COMMISSION AND AFTER FOUR MONTHS THE INVESTIGATION IS CONTINUING. I HAD THE OPTION OF GETTING MY INSPECTION MONEY RETURNED $350 FROM THE COMMISSION BUT THAT IS JUST THE START. THE REALTOR MAY LOSE HIS/HER LICENSE.
The people to blame are the ones who bought more house than they could afford. They knew, getting into it, that they would be paying too much, and wouldn't be able to afford it after the ARM expired.
I get so tired of everyone blaming someone else. Those who bought a house that they couldn't afford should wake up and accept responsibility for their own choices.
Those who study mortgage trends have said that there has been a pretty consistent pattern of a ';bust'; in mortgages about every 18 years since World War II. We've seen problems like this before and we will survive this ';crisis.'; If you're looking for a mortgage right now, rates are still very good. The world is not ending (as the politicians who are itching to ';help'; would have us believe).
Now to your question... In summary, EVERYONE involved played a part in the ';mortgage mess'; to some extent or another.
BORROWERS -- Rather than living within their means, many borrowers decided that they wanted to have a bigger, more expensive house than they could afford. In order to afford these houses, they often turned to loan products such as ';Interest Only'; loans. With IO loans, you basically pay the minimum amount possible every month and the principal is never reduced. To complicate matters, some loans featured ';zero down'; where the borrower had absolutely NO equity in the property. Here is an illustration of a typical problem: A property is worth $800,000 at the time of purchase. The borrower takes out an Interest Only loan for $800,000 (putting nothing down). Then the property value drops to $700,000. Now the borrower has a loan for $800,000 for a property that is only worth $700,000. The borrower has ZERO equity in the property so guess what... they walk away from the property and the lender ends up taking the loss.
MORTGAGE COMPANIES (BAD OR POOR UNDERWRITING GUIDELINES) -- In an effort to make as many loans as possible (and to sell these loans to foolishly eager investors), many mortgage companies relaxed their guidelines beyond reason. Some loans had a Loan-to-Value (LTV) ratio of 100 (or higher on rare occasion!). If the property was worth $100,000, then an LTV meant that $100,000 was loaned to the borrower (as stated before, no equity). The lower the LTV, the less risky (and more desirable) the loan is. Another arguably stupid mortgage product was the ';80-20'; loan. A loan with an LTV of 80 or lower is not considered risky in the mortgage business. Therefore, Mortgage Insurance (MI) is not required for loans with an LTV of 80% or less. (If a borrower has an LTV of 85 and pays it down to 80, then they can drop the MI from the loan.) MI is basically insurance against borrower default. For example, if a borrower defaults on his loan and the lender forecloses and sells the property and loses $2000 in the process, then the MI company will cut a check to the lender for $2000 to make the lender ';whole.'; Rather than requiring borrowers to carry MI on their loans (which would have mitigated risk), the mortgage companies allowed the borrowers to take out a second loan on the same property (a ';second lien'; or Home Equity Line of Credit or HELOC). This HELOC money was then used as the ';money down'; on the first loan so that MI could be avoided. For example, if the property is worth $100,000, the borrower might get a HELOC for $20,000 and put that money down on the first loan, thereby lowering the LTV to 80 (thereby exempting them from MI). Another popular loan was an Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) or ';Fixed-Adjustable'; (where the Interest Rate is fixed for a few years and then starts to adjust (up or down) based on a financial instrument). Borrowers were allegedly given a low ';teaser rate'; and then (because they bought too much house) couldn't make the payments with the higher interest rate when the rate adjusted. (It seems hard for me to believe that an interest rate adjustment would be so severe that it would prevent someone from making their payments, but that's what the borrowers allegedly claim.) Maybe this is too many detailed examples, but suffice it to say that a lot of stupid mortgage products were offered by mortgage companies (and accepted by borrowers).
INVESTORS -- In their quest to make a ';fast buck';, investors bought up tons of these mortgages since these riskier ';sub-prime'; loans brought higher returns (higher interest rates). These investors should have performed a ';due diligence'; on the loans they bought; but they didn't. When investors purchase loans, there is usually (if not always) a ';buyback'; provision. This means that if a loan goes bad and the investor finds that there was some irregularity in the underwriting (the loan decisioning process) that the mortgage company who sold them the loan is required to ';buy back'; the loan. The problem is that most mortgage companies are ';cash poor'; (meaning that they borrow the cash that they lend from a ';warehouse lender'; temporarily until they can sell the loan to an investor and pay back their warehouse lender). So when these loans started going bad (hundreds of millions of dollars worth!), the investors demanded the mortgage companies buy back the loans (according to their agreement). So mortgage companies were now looking at buying millions and millions of dollars worth of loans back when they had little or no money of their own! So what happened? Countless mortgage companies declared bankruptcy. With all of the hullaballoo around bad mortgages, investors decided to stop buying sub-prime mortgages. Since there was nobody buying these mortgages and since mortgage companies don't have their own cash, mortgage companies found that they could no longer make these sub-prime loans. The sub-prime market dried up almost instantly.
RATING AGENCIES -- The job of rating agencies is to investigate the creditworthiness of investments (many of which included mortgage debt). These agencies did not do their due diligence and ended up giving these investments an artificially high rating. So investors thought the investments were less risky than they were. Investors will always buy investments that have a high return and low risk (but obviously they weren't low risk).
THE GOVERNMENT -- The government has always put pressure on mortgage companies to make loans to poor and/or minority borrowers. Because these borrowers typically have worse credit and/or less income and/or greater debt, they had to go to the ';sub-prime'; market to get a mortgage loan. Is it so hard to imagine that a borrower with less income, more debt and bad payment habits will default on a loan (especially when they've put little or no money down)? Of course not. But the government continues to ';wish away'; laws of basic economics and common sense. In order to ';do right'; by poor people and minorities, the government expected mortgage companies suspend their normal sound underwriting guidelines and business sense. (Obviously, the sub-prime problem goes beyond just poor borrowers, but my point is that the government contributed to the crisis to some extent.) The government is now poised and ready to exacerbate the crisis beyond what it is now by ';freezing'; interest rate adjustments. Here is an illustration of the problem: Let's say you have $5000 in cash. I'm a bank and I tell you that if you deposit your $5000 with me that I will pay you 1% during the first 2 years but then I will pay you 7% after those 2 years. So you deposit your money at the low rate of interest. After two years (when you're about to get your higher interest rate), the government comes in and says, ';Sorry. You're not getting your 7% as promised. In fact, you can't take your money out of that bank; you must leave it there and only collect 1% for another 10 years.'; What will happen when you have another $5000 to deposit? Will you put it in my bank? Absolutely not. Why? Because you don't know if you'll really get the return you agreed upon. In the same way, if the government steps in and says to the investor/lender, ';Sorry... you're not getting the return on your money that you negotiated... and you can't take back your money; you've got to leave it at the low rate,'; then guess what the investor is going to do. He will never invest in mortgages again! He will take his money to China or municipal bonds or any other vehicle in which he can get a RELIABLE return on his money. If he DOES decide to put money into mortgage debt again, he will demand a higher return to compensate for the greater risk that the government will step in and ';help'; again. (In other words, Interest Rates on mortgages will go up for EVERYONE!) Thank you Big Government Democrats and George Bush!
REGIONAL PROBLEMS -- Some regions in the USA had events that made the mortgage problems particularly bad. For example, inflated property values in California started deflating. Condos in Florida didn't sell as thought and many sit vacant. Companies providing jobs in the ';rust belt'; (such as Michigan) have moved or gone under; thereby leaving the local homeowners with no income with which to make their mortgage payments.
Sorry for such a long answer. Hope it all makes sense.
Thanks!Who is really to blame about the mortgage mess?
If you buy a home the price you pay is up to you. Nobody forces anyone to pay more than they can afford.It is a good idea to Budget and see how much you can afford as a mortgage payment and then add 10% to allow for contingencies such as recession Etc.It appears to be a Worldwide problem at the moment.We went through the same thing in the Eighties and it was hard, we went without just to pay our mortgage and it lasted for a few years.Boy did we go out when it finished.
Well if the broker shows a buyer a home they can't afford, who is the idiot buying that house? A lot of people WANT to be homeowners, but they make poor choices and shouldn't be home owners, and won't be for long. Wanting is not enough. One needs to pay your bills, not run up credit card balances, not have bad credit, etc. To be harsh, they didn't deserve to be home owners, shouldn't have qualified for loans, and didn't have enough sense to capitalize on this chance at home ownership. The lenders were ignoring underwriting, and just processing paper and giving loans to totally unqualified buyers, bundling lots of these loans together and selling them and reselling them. People bought these securities without investigating/discovering how shaky the underwriting was. Stockbrokers didn't care, and sold these shaky securities. The loan brokers and stockbrokers all made money by selling and selling. Now the new home owners are losing their homes and the entire economy is suffering.
I believe it's the fault of the buyer. Whoever in their right mind will buy a house that they ...should know, is way out of their price range. Who in their right mind will buy a home with an 'interest only' mortgage? Who in their right mind will buy a home with a rate that isn't fixed?
They all asked for the trouble they are in by not buying what they could afford.
It is really the banks fault for giving every Joe Walmart a loan.
The banks think that everyone will try to maintain a decent credit score so they have no problem giving people that have no business purchasing a home a loan.
Anyone that doesn't have a stable career doesn't need to get a mortgage.
When Joe Walmart gets fired he is not scared that the home will foreclose on him and he probably doesn't know what a credit score is. He packs his bags moves in with his cousin and works at the bait shop.
Banks don't like this and rates go up with a couple other variables but basically thats it.
The economy is a big part of it,but in todays society every buys today and pays tommorow. It been this way for years but now people are going into foreclosure because everyone else is and its an easy way out of debt.
Realtors have a minor amount of blame. They knowingly put borrowers into loans that REQUIRED fraud.
The real blame isn't with brokers at all rather with Mortgage Bankers (most of whom have already failed), with bond traders and with hedge funds. The appetite for the paper was so great that bond traders were essentially forcing Lenders (mortgage bankers and banks in some cases) to focus on saleability rather than on the borrowers ability to pay.
Saleability means the ability of the mortgage banker to sell the loan to the secondary markets.
The level of fraud is far beyond what the consumer is being told. The fraud was institutionalized at most levels of many lender. Ultimately the greatest level of fraud was committed Account Executives and managers-under orders from sales managers.
Its not the realtor's place to determine affordability. That's up to the buyer and the lender.
The Realtor would have no idea the person can't afford the house. They don't go through the buyer's financials nor do they ask them about their income or their bills. The mortgage broker does that.
The fault lies with the mortgage brokers, for approving people to finance levels that they know they couldn't afford, and the buyers who bought something that they SHOULD have known they couldn't afford. Unfortunately, since most Americans are stupid and think they can buy ANYTHING on credit, I guess I mostly blame the mortgage bankers.
It's not a matter of blaming any one person. We are all to blame. We all wanted more and more money for our properties.
As for the Realtor, the loan officers would be more to blame for putting these folks into loans that adjusted upward and outside of their ability to pay. Realtors really facilitate the part of the process, the real culprit was the loan companies.
Not consider this tho, they were also pressured by the Federal Government to come up with ways to make housing more affordable. The Fed step in, then they step out, then they step making everyone believe they are going to save the day, when they are just as much a part of this mess as the lenders.
I have no sympathy for these people who are loosing their homes. They took a chance (like gambling), that their rates wouldn't rise. They lost their gamble and people like me, who decided to go with a higher fixed rate, are the ones who have to bail them out. People really need to take responsibility for their own decisions...and not blame the lendng institutions.
Banks/lenders: for allowing closing and down payment to be rolled into the loan, now you have a house that on paper costs more then it actually is worth which causes more problems when they try to sell it due to not being able to sell for the cost of the purchase.
Appraisers: for over appraising property allowing people to get a loan for a home that is not worth what they are paying... see above.
Realtors: Realtors stick together. They make commission so if it's a buyer representative, they aren't necessarily looking to get the buyer a great deal, they are looking to get their commission. So in reality they are working with the sellers agent to ensure a high sell which can leave a sellers home on the market for to long, leading buyers to believe something is wrong with the home and unable to negotiate the prices more in their favor.
Buyers: For not sticking to their guns on a lower price for the home. For not knowing all they should know prior to purchasing a home, such as the above and their state real estate laws, etc.
Government: for not passing better consumer protection laws/regulations.
Statutes: for not passing better consumer protection laws.
Attorneys: for charging way to much money just to go over a real estate contract and give some good legal advice.
People in general: for not complaining more to the authority having jurisdiction when about the above things or to their state real estate commission for agents who behave badly.
EVERYONE SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE LAWS AND MAKE COMPLAINTS WHEN PEOPLE (REALTORS, LENDERS ETC.) DON'T FOLLOW THEM. IT'S THE ONLY WAY ANYONE WILL EVER KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING. I COMPLAINED ABOUT MY AGENTS PRACTICES TO THE STATE REAL ESTATE COMMISSION AND AFTER FOUR MONTHS THE INVESTIGATION IS CONTINUING. I HAD THE OPTION OF GETTING MY INSPECTION MONEY RETURNED $350 FROM THE COMMISSION BUT THAT IS JUST THE START. THE REALTOR MAY LOSE HIS/HER LICENSE.
The people to blame are the ones who bought more house than they could afford. They knew, getting into it, that they would be paying too much, and wouldn't be able to afford it after the ARM expired.
I get so tired of everyone blaming someone else. Those who bought a house that they couldn't afford should wake up and accept responsibility for their own choices.
My mortgage is overdue and I'd like to have my daughter assume it is that possible?
She can't come up with 10 percent downpayment and I'd like to keep the house in the family. She is able to make the payments and after reading my mortgage it doesn't appear to be assumable. Also do I need a realtor to handle this?My mortgage is overdue and I'd like to have my daughter assume it is that possible?
A realtor can't help you with this. The mortgage is probably not assumable (very few are). You do have several options. First off she could just pay the bills and you leave the house to her in your will (this requires alot of trust on her part as you could change your will). Also you could give her some sort of contract to give her the house at a later date (a contract to buy later, even a rent to own contract where the rent is the same as the mortgage payment). The problem with all these options (including willing her the property) is that in order for her to take over the house you will need to get a new mortgage. Also, until you get a new mortgage you will be responsible for the current one and it will bring down your ability to by another house or anything else (if you care about this).
Anyhow I don't see how she can take over the house and pull you off it, without refinancing but you can do some other thing to give her possession of it in the future. A realtor would not help with this, to do any contractual stuff you'd need a lawyer.My mortgage is overdue and I'd like to have my daughter assume it is that possible?
only fha or va loans are assumable. I would have your daughter go to either www.fha.com or www.fha.gov to look at the requirements for an fha loan. They only require 3% down and have great first time home buyer programs. the mortgage insurance is being priced differently now, thus if she qualifies, she may not pay as much. Fha is also pretty liberal with credit scores, but your going to have to move quickly if you want her to buy the home, especially if your overdue. A realtor is not necessary in my opinion as you both could appear in front of an attorney, work out a contact and go from there and save the realtor fees. If you have an attorney in the family network, I would start there, hope this helps, feel free to ask questions and good luck
If the mortgage is not assumable, then your daughter will need to obtain financing of her own. If she doesn't have the requisite downpayment, she won't get financing. However, have her check into the assorted government loans (HUD-FHA) to see if she can obtain a lesser downpayment.
A realtor can't help you with this. The mortgage is probably not assumable (very few are). You do have several options. First off she could just pay the bills and you leave the house to her in your will (this requires alot of trust on her part as you could change your will). Also you could give her some sort of contract to give her the house at a later date (a contract to buy later, even a rent to own contract where the rent is the same as the mortgage payment). The problem with all these options (including willing her the property) is that in order for her to take over the house you will need to get a new mortgage. Also, until you get a new mortgage you will be responsible for the current one and it will bring down your ability to by another house or anything else (if you care about this).
Anyhow I don't see how she can take over the house and pull you off it, without refinancing but you can do some other thing to give her possession of it in the future. A realtor would not help with this, to do any contractual stuff you'd need a lawyer.My mortgage is overdue and I'd like to have my daughter assume it is that possible?
only fha or va loans are assumable. I would have your daughter go to either www.fha.com or www.fha.gov to look at the requirements for an fha loan. They only require 3% down and have great first time home buyer programs. the mortgage insurance is being priced differently now, thus if she qualifies, she may not pay as much. Fha is also pretty liberal with credit scores, but your going to have to move quickly if you want her to buy the home, especially if your overdue. A realtor is not necessary in my opinion as you both could appear in front of an attorney, work out a contact and go from there and save the realtor fees. If you have an attorney in the family network, I would start there, hope this helps, feel free to ask questions and good luck
If the mortgage is not assumable, then your daughter will need to obtain financing of her own. If she doesn't have the requisite downpayment, she won't get financing. However, have her check into the assorted government loans (HUD-FHA) to see if she can obtain a lesser downpayment.
A mortgage company called Vertex Financial offers a lower fixed rate at no cost. How are they doing this?
I got a letter from this company and it knows how much I owe on my current mortgage. What I'd like to know is how they can offer to lower my fixed rate without closing costs and fees (as stated in their letter)? Sounds like some sort of scam? Anyone heard of Vertex before?A mortgage company called Vertex Financial offers a lower fixed rate at no cost. How are they doing this?
well, its not a scam but it is a ploy. I just went to their site and looked it over. They have purchased your info through a lead company. They have your bank name, loan amount, type of mortgage, date the mortgage was signed, your address, and number. They looked at your mortgage note to see the details. Based on your current situation, they can say that they offer a better program. And they do, as the rest of us do. But what they dont tell you is that you arent qualified for this program. You may or may not get it. They will sell you on something else after you have signed the broker agreement.
Anyway having said all that its up to you. They are a valid company out of Highlands Ranch, CO. and have been operating for 8 years. They have no bad points against them. They company license is current and is owned by Michael Waitt. Here is his number:(877) 939-0339.
I wouldn't be afraid. Just dont expect to have no closing costs.A mortgage company called Vertex Financial offers a lower fixed rate at no cost. How are they doing this?
This is Mike Waitt, President of Vertex. While James with DIY Homes was well-intentioned in his answer, I assure you that we deliver what we promise. We have done true No Cost loans for many years, exactly as stated in our letter, and welcome inquiries from anyone who wants to learn more about them.
Sorry! No idea about Vertex Financial. But I had a very good experience with 123refinanced executives. As they are pretty good in the area of refinance at lower fixed rate.cosmetics maybelline express
well, its not a scam but it is a ploy. I just went to their site and looked it over. They have purchased your info through a lead company. They have your bank name, loan amount, type of mortgage, date the mortgage was signed, your address, and number. They looked at your mortgage note to see the details. Based on your current situation, they can say that they offer a better program. And they do, as the rest of us do. But what they dont tell you is that you arent qualified for this program. You may or may not get it. They will sell you on something else after you have signed the broker agreement.
Anyway having said all that its up to you. They are a valid company out of Highlands Ranch, CO. and have been operating for 8 years. They have no bad points against them. They company license is current and is owned by Michael Waitt. Here is his number:(877) 939-0339.
I wouldn't be afraid. Just dont expect to have no closing costs.A mortgage company called Vertex Financial offers a lower fixed rate at no cost. How are they doing this?
This is Mike Waitt, President of Vertex. While James with DIY Homes was well-intentioned in his answer, I assure you that we deliver what we promise. We have done true No Cost loans for many years, exactly as stated in our letter, and welcome inquiries from anyone who wants to learn more about them.
Report Abuse
Sorry! No idea about Vertex Financial. But I had a very good experience with 123refinanced executives. As they are pretty good in the area of refinance at lower fixed rate.
What is the effect on your credit score when you sell short on your mortgage?
I have heard your credit score drops 200 points, is that true?What is the effect on your credit score when you sell short on your mortgage?
Yes your score will drop but not 200 points for a short sale. Your credit score will drop at least 50 points and up to 100 points for a short sale. Your score will drop at least 100 points and up to 200 points for a foreclosure.
Yes your score will drop but not 200 points for a short sale. Your credit score will drop at least 50 points and up to 100 points for a short sale. Your score will drop at least 100 points and up to 200 points for a foreclosure.
What can I do about my neighbor sending me a letter with my personal mortgage account number?
We are in small claims. She is suing me. She sent me a letter with my personal mortgage account number listed and the phone number of the bank demanding I call and get a copy of the mortgage survey.
The funny thig is, there isn't one and never was. I Told her this 4 months ago.
I called the police and they said this a civil matter. I consider this to be stealing personal information. I feel as if I'm under attack. What can I do?
PLEASE................ANY suggestions would be helpful.What can I do about my neighbor sending me a letter with my personal mortgage account number?
I assume there is a dispute over property lines. A survey is not done for a mortgage, the property lines are written in you deed, what is on the deed over rides any ';opinion'; including a survey in which an honest error was made. If so the only way to clear it up is a survey, offer to split the cost with her. The property transfer and your mortgage are public record ( I look at my family and neighbors all the time, just out of interest), I can go onto the County Courthouse records website and tell you how much you paid and how much your original mortgage was, how many times you have refinanced, any liens, and any home equity loans, as well as any previous property you have purchased or sold. I can't see the terms, ie. interest rate, points paid, escrow amount. etc. This all public record, the only thing she can do with you account number is make a payment for you.What can I do about my neighbor sending me a letter with my personal mortgage account number?
Get a lawyer. Sounds like she violated your Privacy Rights.
Get a locking mailbox. If you get a statement from your bank every month she may have gotten it out of your mailbox, and tampering with mail is illegal.
The funny thig is, there isn't one and never was. I Told her this 4 months ago.
I called the police and they said this a civil matter. I consider this to be stealing personal information. I feel as if I'm under attack. What can I do?
PLEASE................ANY suggestions would be helpful.What can I do about my neighbor sending me a letter with my personal mortgage account number?
I assume there is a dispute over property lines. A survey is not done for a mortgage, the property lines are written in you deed, what is on the deed over rides any ';opinion'; including a survey in which an honest error was made. If so the only way to clear it up is a survey, offer to split the cost with her. The property transfer and your mortgage are public record ( I look at my family and neighbors all the time, just out of interest), I can go onto the County Courthouse records website and tell you how much you paid and how much your original mortgage was, how many times you have refinanced, any liens, and any home equity loans, as well as any previous property you have purchased or sold. I can't see the terms, ie. interest rate, points paid, escrow amount. etc. This all public record, the only thing she can do with you account number is make a payment for you.What can I do about my neighbor sending me a letter with my personal mortgage account number?
Get a lawyer. Sounds like she violated your Privacy Rights.
Get a locking mailbox. If you get a statement from your bank every month she may have gotten it out of your mailbox, and tampering with mail is illegal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)