|
|
|
|
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 9:53:44 AM | How did we get from auto unions to teachers unions?? no matter. It's really irrelevant is there problems with unions? Yes but they are far less the problem then unrestrained unregulated capitalism. I've had these discussions with this particular poster before and sadly it will ultimately degrade as always into his espoused ideology instead of facts or reality. Still the point here while facts are still possible is that without unions we would still be dealing with child labor, sweat shops and virtual slavery. We see it every day around the world but turn a blind eye to it. But its not the rich buying those things made in those conditions its the everyday people. The rich over all don't spend their money they horde it hence being rich. The everyday people spend creating the growth and flow. Slowly but surely economists are even starting to open their eyes, but its a slow process because people have been shouting free market so long it keeps ringing in their ears.
it was a knock on unions in general and the damage they can cause. you have never had "these discussions" with me. this is your attempt to bait me into a disagreement because you are a troll and that's what you do. oddandy addressed you directly, yet you replied to everything I said as if I was chatting to you. you're an answer to a question that no one asked. the whole child labor sweatshop this deserves no reply. go into a costco, do you see a sweatshop? nope, I just see people working who don't belong to a union to my knowledge.
Of course YOU do, but fortunately there are many wiser heads then yours looking at the issue and pretty much universally they do not. From deceptive forms, to broker manipulations of applications they have been reviewing the process. From the failing investment banks, and internal company memos the evidence has been clear. While some were to blame for their own folly far more of the responsibility was on the lender side. After all the individual asked for the money the lender set the terms, and rather then keeping terms the individual could afford sought everything they could get. The lenders own hunger consumed them and instead of some money got none.
so the moral of this story, people are not responsible for their own actions. good, gotcha.
The rich pay the majority of taxes because they recieve the bulk of the benefits of the country. The middle classes have been taking more and more of the tax burden and the rich are divesting more and more of it and sweeping up even more income. The end result is the middle class holding more burden and getting less service hardly as you would call it fair.
they pay the majority of the taxes because they make the majority of the money. there is really no debate here. the middle class getting less services? like what? free health care for them and their children? somebody else paying for their mortgages? I guess these are the entitlements you believe in.
Wake up already.
I have been awake for several hours. now you're just being silly.
This begs the question of WHY somebody w/ a high credit score would be offered a risky loan when they would already qualify for a traditional home loan. If everybody loses on foreclosures....this just doesn't make sense.
because the talking heads in washington were lobbying for more loans to minorities, and high risk borrowers. illegals were given loans. they get foreclosed on, they just leave the country. it's been driven into our heads that it's the "american dream" to own a home and that were are entitled to it. wrong. it takes hard work, and most aren't willing to make the sacrifices.
Ive been through three closings for three homes that ive bought.
1. You dont get to see and review the lending documents prior to closing.
2. You dont get to read them at closing
3. You sign your life away and cross your fingers.
I got to see everything. you must have got your loan from some shady places.
for all those complaining that the rich don't pay enough taxes, keep this in mind.
tax revenue in 1971 $100 billion.
projected tax revenue in 2010 $6 trillion.
the money is there, the idiots need to learn how to spend it. anyone who talks about raising any taxes is insane. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 10:07:14 AM |
I got to see everything. you must have got your loan from some shady places.
Of course when I bought my houses it was before all of the recent loan practices so maybe because places were shady then they did shady things but I did get to see everything at my time too.
But there sure is a lot of Greekinese in all of those documents that too many people ventured in on faith. Certainly the entire credit industry suffers from the irresponsibility of instant gratification. Then throw in that the mortgage industry changed to where the lender didn't hold the responsibility of the loans they made so they were happy to make bad loans. Instead of turning down a bad loan and making zero profit in doing so, they could grant the bad loan and sell it in a package and make something where they normally wouldn't. Mix it all together and you've got poo-poo. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 10:28:42 AM |
it was a knock on unions in general and the damage they can cause. you have never had "these discussions" with me. this is your attempt to bait me into a disagreement because you are a troll and that's what you do. oddandy addressed you directly, yet you replied to everything I said as if I was chatting to you. you're an answer to a question that no one asked. the whole child labor sweatshop this deserves no reply. go into a costco, do you see a sweatshop? nope, I just see people working who don't belong to a union to my knowledge.
Actually I have and anyone can search topics by you or myself and see we have clashed on these issues before. As for troll I may well resemble one physically but you far outshadow me in performance of that role. I'm not baiting you to disagreement I'm simply stating the history. Oddandy addressed me directly and I haven't choosen to respond to him yet because his question requires more research before I do. He asked me where I got the information that loans were working the way I described them, therefor I have the responsibility in debate to get that information for him. Also others such as nightwing are already addressing points I would have argued for me and so I did not feel the need to engage further until I was ready to answer oddandy appropriately.
Back on the union track its true if I go to a costco I do not see a sweatshop but then if you ask the owner of costco about his views or just read his interviews you'll find he disagrees with you about just about everything. Including that he provides his employees healthcare and benefits and caps his own salary at a reasonable level. Now what do you seen when you go to a Wal-mart?
so the moral of this story, people are not responsible for their own actions. good, gotcha.
No people on all sides of the issue are responsible for their actions not just one side of it. However those who practice deceit in our society are considered doubly responsible. Additionally there is all that stuff about ethics that says those with the greater share of means and power equally have greater share of the responsibility. Pesky thing ethics.
the middle class getting less services? like what? free health care for them and their children? somebody else paying for their mortgages? I guess these are the entitlements you believe in.
Forgetting even the issues of entitlements as you call them the following functions of government have been failing because of lack of appropriate funding.
Food and Drug Safety
Import safety
Environmental Safety
Codes enforcement
Emergency Preparedness
Public works (roads infrastructure)
and those are just a few examples the issue goes on. If you get into what the government shoud be doing or as you call them entitlements it goes even further.
I got to see everything. you must have got your loan from some shady places.
That would be the point of the conversation wouldn't it? Many americans did because many of the lenders were engaging in shady to illegal practices hence the burden of blame. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 10:43:54 AM | So borrowers were offered loans that were substantially more risky than what the industry had come to regard as sensible?
The industry regarded stated loans as sensible based upon the borrower's high credit scores, length of time they owned their business (most stated loans are/were for self-employed folks,) etc.
This begs the question of WHY somebody w/ a high credit score would be offered a risky loan when they would already qualify for a traditional home loan. If everybody loses on foreclosures....this just doesn't make sense.
Go back and re-read my post. You only take a stated loan if you DON'T qualify for a traditional loan because, regardless of credit score, you don't meet the debt-to-income affordability requirements as determined by traditional underwriting standards for proving income. The example I used (and that this type of loan was intended for) is self-employed borrowers who write off as much as possible on their taxes, so while (as with a borrower I'm trying to find a loan for right now) you may gross $98k a year, by the time your wizard accountant saves your money from Uncle Samus your adjusted gross after deductions, which is what underwriters go by, is only $9k per year, which is not enough to qualify under the 41-50% debt-to-income rule. Now if said borrower had a 700 mid-score and this were a year ago, he'd be in.
I was under the impression that the majority of sub-prime loans were given to folks LACKING in sufficient credit scores. Why go Sub when you qualify for Prime?
You don't qualify for fannie/freddie conforming (come to be known as prime) if you can't prove income by their written standards. This is NOT, however, to say that all non-conforming loans are "subprime," that's a misconception the general public now has thanks to the media, who never bothered to get educated on this mess. Most stated loans were "agency portfolio" (couldn't be sold to fannie/freddie so the lender held them) "prime" paper priced at the same rates as prime, with no pre-pay, etc. They just weren't what's called "conforming" because the notes couldn't be sold to fannie mae or freddie mac.
EDIT - Note also that nobody whom would be considered a "subprime borrower" ever qualified for a stated income loan. It's the good credit folks that got those, and generally the crap credit ones that got ARMS. ARMS DO have their place, if used properly, unfortunately they were abused both by bad lenders/brokers AND borrowers who didn't do what they were supposed to, which is PAY ALL THEIR BILLS ON TIME for the next 2 years while enjoying the lower rate/payment and then come back and refi with a higher score and get a better deal on a fixed rate before the ARM adjusts.
The numbers will show that most folks who couldn't refi out of their ARMs couldnt because they continued to incur negative credit and their scores dropped during their fixed period, hence when it came time to refi out before the adjustment they didn't qualify for a loan at all, not even a crap ARM. This means 1 of 2 things, either they were their own undoing for not doing what they were supposed to do and paying their bills on time, which, under DTI rules, it is provable on paper they could afford, or 2, they never should have had a home and a mortgage to begin with because they're not responsible enough. Sounds cold but numbers and facts don't lie. The "crisis" here was borne out of extending credit to folks who never should have been given that kind of credit. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 10:45:40 AM | Hating unions is like saying I wish I could work 7 days a week, from dawn to dusk, for subsistence wages.
The FIRST strike was to provide a 6 day work week and to make it so labor could have a few minutes of daylight for personal endeavors.
Unions are responsible for EVERY advantage common folk have, and like freedom, it came with a price of blood. Lots of blood! | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 10:46:25 AM |
because the talking heads in washington were lobbying for more loans to minorities, and high risk borrowers.
High risk borrowers do NOT have a high credit score as indicated in the discussion oddandy was participating in & you quoted.....so you are comparing apples & oranges.
He was stating that the type of loans mainly responsible for the subprime crisis ironically required a high credit score to obtain. That they could have enough volume to cause the crunch w/out other influencing factors seems fishy to me....but he's answered straight enough so far & may have further insight.
Bro...taxes are NOT the problem. Stupid spending is. & it's rarely a stupid idea to help out a brother when he's down, especially if that help is 'teaching a man to fish", rather than just giving him one. Now, throwing a trillion bucks to your fat cat buddies IS a stupid idea. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 10:53:35 AM |
so the brokers opened up subprime lines of credit.......
Brokers don't and can't lend any money or open up any lines of credit, and brokers can't dream up loan programs and tell the banks they have to loan on these programs. BANKS opened up these subprime lines of credit and every other loan program and their guidelines. Banks are the manufacturer of the good, so to speak, whereas brokers are mere wholesale outlets. I'd be surprised if you honestly didn't know that.
Ive been through three closings for three homes that ive bought.
1. You dont get to see and review the lending documents prior to closing.
I can't even get a loan into underwriting without your signature on all the initial loan paperwork disclosing rate, payment, fixed or adjusted, and all required federal and state disclosures. Additionally, the lender is required by law to mail you a copy of the closing docs prior to closing, and in most states the broker also has to provide you with a copy of the final paperwork no less than 3 days prior to closing.
2. You dont get to read them at closing
3. You sign your life away and cross your fingers.
The closing agent is required by law to not only explain each and every document, but to let you read them. If you didn't, that was your choice and your fault and foolishness.
You also have a 3-day right of recision after the closing on refi's, just in case you decide to change your mind. You sign a paper acknowledging you understand this right at closing.
It's the lender's responsibility to demand sufficient income and means. The day it becomes mine only and a lender has none, I'll be first in line for a cool million $$$$.
Which is why, as explained several posts above, they have verifiable debt-to-income rules that have to be followed. The rare exception is 1 type of loan product that isn't even the boogie man we're all hearing about on TV and that isn't available anymore because it came back and bit them in the rear. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 10:55:06 AM |
Then throw in that the mortgage industry changed to where the lender didn't hold the responsibility of the loans they made so they were happy to make bad loans. Instead of turning down a bad loan and making zero profit in doing so, they could grant the bad loan and sell it in a package and make something where they normally wouldn't. Mix it all together and you've got poo-poo.
And therein lies the root of all this evil. I still don't understand why the ratings agencies that gave all these crap CMO's/CDO's AAA ratings aren't in the hot seat or under any kind of investigation for fraud. | |
|
| |
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 11:08:29 AM | | Good question. Only one I know of even by name is Moody's. Never bothered to check, but I have a feeling that, like most big bad fraudulent things in this world, you'll find pretty much the same gang of connected folks in bed together in one form or another. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 11:10:46 AM |
Intellectual superiority however does not always have to do with degrees, though your point is taken. I cannot answer for exodus, and won't.
Ah, great point FireKnight, thanks for making that observation!  | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 11:11:31 AM | Bingo!
As far as I can see the onus for this fiasco still falls primarily on the banks & major mortgage houses that got greedy to find a profitable use for the 'cheap' money available.
The "crisis" here was borne out of extending credit to folks who never should have been given that kind of credit.
Sounds like we agree on this one. Thanks for the info!
| |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 11:15:14 AM | Unions are responsible for EVERY advantage common folk have, and like freedom, it came with a price of blood. Lots of blood!
Get ready for Blackwater to be the new Pinkerton.
VVVVV At least you rag on corporate entitlements too, jM VVVVVV | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 11:16:15 AM | and the truth of the new bill comes out. another bailout for the lenders. dirty ****ers. countrywide and bank of america are going to get our money.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/24/AR2008062401389.html?hpid=topnews | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 11:27:04 AM | You know....there are government regulatory bodies that are supposed to oversee the kind of lending that goes on and prohibit the kind of risky lending that took place. Why? To prevent the dire crisis we're in now.
However, it probably didn't get much attention but there was a press conference held by these Federal Banking Regulators in 2003 where they yielded giant scissors and chainsaws and they were talking about how they were going to cut the red tape and streamline the banking industry. This was right about the time the subprime loans were starting to take off.
This was a very effective effort to get rid of regulation that was holding the industry back from such risky deals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/opinion/21krugman.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=krugman+chainsaw&st=nyt&oref=slogin
"Consider the press conference held on June 3, 2003 — just about the time subprime lending was starting to go wild — to announce a new initiative aimed at reducing the regulatory burden on banks. Representatives of four of the five government agencies responsible for financial supervision used tree shears to attack a stack of paper representing bank regulations. The fifth representative, James Gilleran of the Office of Thrift Supervision, wielded a chainsaw."
"Two months after that event the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, one of the tree-shears-wielding agencies, moved to exempt national banks from state regulations that protect consumers against predatory lending. If, say, New York State wanted to protect its own residents — well, sorry, that wasn’t allowed."
Perhaps this was in response to Bush's 2002 "Home Ownership Challege", a set of policy initiatives that were supposed to sharply increase home ownership. Of course this will end in failure as usual. The home ownership rate in America remains unchanged from 6 years ago and will assuredly end up below it was when he took the job.
So Bush's guys who were responsible for preventing risky sub-prime loans did the exact opposite of their job. The result, the current crisis...and all people do ARE BLAME THE HARD WORKING AMERICANS WHO JUST WANTED TO OWN A HOME.
Who do you think will get bailed out? The Banks who were pushing for the Deregulation or the defaulting Americans?
Picture of the banking regulators with their chainsaws and shears:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/chainsaw.jpg | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 11:28:04 AM |
As far as I can see the onus for this fiasco still falls primarily on the banks & major mortgage houses that got greedy to find a prfitable use for the 'cheap' money available.
I agree. Like I said earlier, "money" was quite literally historically cheap a few years ago (thank you, Federal Reserve central Banksters!) and there was a big orgy of printing it, spreading it, lending it, and passing the buck on to the next guy, who would pay you 102% for your note, sell it to the next guy for 102% of what he paid (because, as a rule of thumb, a 30-yr note pays out upwards of triple the principle amount over the life of the loan) and on and on until some Norwegian pension fund buys it as part of a CDO/CMO.
Even after the credit industry starts to rebound, we won't see the REAL fallout from all this for years to come. People would be shocked to find out just who/what bought all this crap paper. Pension funds, 401k's, mutual funds, etc.
That said, I don't buy 90% (yeah I'm allowing for 10%) of the sob stories I'm hearing from borrowers who claim they didn't know they had an ARM or somehow went all the way through the process without knowing what their payment would be. That's my only dog in this fight, because I've been around too long to see how that's even possible. As for the banks? Yeah, they made their bed, they should lie in it. I'm still surviving getting decent loans for decent borrowers, as I always have. I was fortunate enough to be brought into this business by a very good man, and my understanding of how you do business in this industry is a lot different from a lot of the used car salesmen who got in when the orgy was happening. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 11:34:37 AM | oddandy,
see my comment before yours.
"Two months after that event the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, one of the tree-shears-wielding agencies, moved to exempt national banks from state regulations that protect consumers against predatory lending. If, say, New York State wanted to protect its own residents — well, sorry, that wasn’t allowed."
We had regulations to prevent such a thing, the Bush administration removed them.
After you eliminate those regulations, this is the only way it could have resulted, with a crisis.
Stop blaming the little guy. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 11:42:06 AM | I was one of the lucky ones. I applied for a 5.5% fixed, was given paperwork for 4.75 Var.
One of the advantages of having a degree in econ, was to know that I could negotiate that document. I simply went through crossed out each 4.75% Var and wrote 5.5 fixed, initialed each instance. Mine is a 5.5% fixed. Not everyone knows you can do that.
People aren't just losing their homes because they bought a house they can't afford. Some bought houses that have lost 30-50% of their value. Some lost their jobs. Real wages are down, but Gas has doubled in the past few years. This is a real long term crisis caused by greed and mismanagment of our government. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 11:43:04 AM | Sorry, but it's not "predatory lending" when you only do a loan for someone if you can document that that loan + all their other bills comes out to 50% or less of their income. I forgot to add that most subprime lenders also had disposable income requirements on top of the standard DTI, meaning that not only could your total bills be 50% (sometimes less) of your income, you still had to have an additional X amount of dollars left over every month.
Remember, the "stated" income loans that beat those qualifications were only for high-end borrowers.
Predatory lending doesn't exist in mortgages. Predatory lending is the realm of payday advance outfits, car title loan places, and other 20+% loan sharks. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 12:00:59 PM | I think they call those Credit Cards......
I was one of the lucky ones. I applied for a 5.5% fixed, was given paperwork for 4.75 Var.
Yep.....me too. Sent it back, even the seller squawked about the delay (we had the same bank)...eventually got it down to a Fixed 15-year in the the low 5s & bought a point or three to get it into the 4s.
This is a real long term crisis caused by greed and mismanagment of our government.
Unless the next admin/congress makes some serious, difficult changes (the kind that have gotten people killed in the past) to economic policy in the VERY near future we are headed for a hurtin' that will set us back 100 years, economically. China may well be the only superpower 10-15 years from now. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 12:58:40 PM | Oddandy as per a different response I put that I am sure you read I apologize of my delay responding to you. As I said I wanted to get my ducks in a row as it were to address you appropriately and intelligently as you have responded to the rest of us. Bear in mind on this specific topic (home loans and lending) I am in no way an expert and so I may well have been taken in by the media.
From what I have read and links are below to some examples, while ARM's may have protections you mention they are not required to. I suspect this is going to wind up being a case of a Responsible Lender such as yourself not knowing what irresponsible lenders have been up to.
One example here is that she was offered a loan at essentially 2percent which then sprang to 6 percent in a month.
http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/bf/bll/20080403/20080403_canavan.html
Here Sheila C. Bair discusses a loan that goes from around 7% to 12% after two years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/opinion/19bair.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Here in the Wall Street Journal is discussion of a variety of the issues from the fact that teaser rates even lower then the standard AMR's are not required to be reported and so as those teaser rates expire we are likely to see even more people hit the higher interest rates and be unable to refinance and go into default, to the bundling of those loans into securities that will fail
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119205925519455321.html | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 1:19:43 PM | Hiya Fireknight, thanks for the courteous reply 
OK, let's take a look:
One example here is that she was offered a loan at essentially 2percent which then sprang to 6 percent in a month.
http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/bf/bll/20080403/20080403_canavan.html
1-month ARMs...unlike 2/3/5 year ARMS, 1st of all I'll say that NOBODY can possibly offer any justification for that type of loan. There's no time to improve your credit scores while paying the initial lower rate/payment (which is supposed to be the primary purpose of an ARM, sans investment scenarios,) so no claim to legitimacy in the product. BUT, again, she had to have signed papers stating that there is a pre-payment penalty, how long the penalty is in effect, what the penalty would be (usually 5% of the original loan amount or 6 months advance interest) and when/how/how much the ARM would adjust. It'll be a simple matter of digging out the paperwork. I predict she loses the lawsuit.
Please, folks, read what you sign. I don't doubt that some brokers, bankers, and title company closing agents lie to you, but the paperwork doesn't lie. If it did, it wouldn't be enforceable on their end.
Here Sheila C. Bair discusses a loan that goes from around 7% to 12% after two years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/opinion/19bair.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Good article, no arguments from me there.
Here in the Wall Street Journal...
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119205925519455321.html
Another accurate article with no disputes here, but I think you're misunderstanding something in the article. I wondered where you got:
From what I have read and links are below to some examples, while ARM's may have protections you mention they are not required to.
and
...the fact that teaser rates even lower then the standard AMR's are not required to be reported ...
..and I think I found it. First, let me again assure you that the borrower is required to sign umpteen papers disclosing all the details about the ARM, and on several of them the all-capitalized bold-faced type literally takes up the top 1/3 of the page. Think about it, if the borrower did NOT sign and agree to such a thing, how could the lender legally enforce the new rate/payment? I think you're misunderstanding this segment of the WSJ article, which states:
"The high-rate loan data likely understate the potential peril posed by mortgages with low teaser rates. Under federal rules governing disclosure, some subprime teaser loans do not show up as having high rates. Lenders weren't required to report loan-pricing details until 2004."
This isn't saying that lenders didn't have to disclose this data to borrowers until 2004, this is stating that lenders did not have to disclose the data to federal or state regulatory agencies until 2004, which is why "the high-rate loan data" is inaccurate. Nobody but the borrower and the bank knew the deal until then, so when banks reported their loan info to their state's department of financial institutions (or whatever it's called, the names vary from state to state) they listed it as a loan at, say, 7% and not a loan with a cap of, say, 11%.
Hope that helps. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 6:26:48 PM | The subprime mortage market grew because banks and others were swimming in money to invest in bundled mortages. The traditional market was glutted, anyone with a downpayment and decent credit could get a mortage. So, the brokers were out to expend the market, the bankers had investor money to burn, and the subprime market was developed and SOLD to people who were less than credit-worthy, e.g. stated income, interest-only, balloons, etc. on promises that the rising value of homes would enable them to refinance down the road.
It was basically a scam...........go ahead and blame the victims, but it was basically a scam.
Now, that big pot of investor money is in oil and food commodity futures and guesss what, we are all being scammed.
And arent we all stupid, huh?  | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 9:36:49 PM |
You know....there are government regulatory bodies that are supposed to oversee the kind of lending that goes on and prohibit the kind of risky lending that took place. Why? To prevent the dire crisis we're in now.
...would that be like the SEC and the like? isn't that something that FDR put together? he seemed like a trickle up sort of fellow....
man do i feel dumb reading some of these posts..... | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 10:13:24 PM | oddandy, on 3 houses we got some kind of "good faith" or disclosure statement in advance, its been a while, lets see, we signed the P&S agreement, application, etc. but got a mountain of agreements to sign at closing that we'd never previously seen.......thats how they do it in Oregon, i dont know what they do anywhere else.
My point was that the banks pushed those subprime products to expand the mortgages they could write and the brokers SOLD them.
Period.
Between slick brokers making it all pencil out and signing docs you really do not see until closing, I cannot imagine how most people could see their way to knowing all the risks.
If people with marginal incomes found they could "qualify" for a home, a dream they never thought they could afford before, the onus to me is on the lender to make the distinctions and the broker to be honest with them. | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
