Posted on 12/07/2007 5:57:26 PM PST by jiggyboy
A day after the White House unveiled a program to salvage the mortgage market, people are already talking about how borrowers might game the system.
To qualify for the fast-track program, borrowers must have a FICO score of less than 660 and it can't have increased by more than 10% since they took out their original subprime mortgage.
Because income isn't checked, some experts worry that borrowers who might otherwise be able to afford higher payments will try to lower their FICO score to qualify for a rate freeze.
"The message here is to get your FICO score down," Mark Adelson, a structured finance expert, said. "Don't pay some bills, but keep up with mortgage payments."
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
The fed isn't breaking anything. The fed is really just giving banks cover so they can change the loans that are in the banks/fund managers best interest, without getting in trouble from their investors. The banks want this.
Do you really think that with our open borders we are protected against terrorism?
We’ll see how it works.
Keep in mind that not all these people committed fraud, in fact, I’d say most did not. I’ve originated loans for years and while I never did much subprime, I am in the industry and see what goes on.
Yes, fraud occurred. However, the people that fit the profile of who would get this rate freeze are mostly low-income Americans who had poor to fair credit. A good friend of mine is among them...despite the advice I gave that was ignored.
No, but do you really think rolling over and playing dead is going to fix it either?
I understand Washington had talks and came to some agreement with the big guys. Laws against predator lending is one thing but an across the board bail-out disturbs me.
Freezing rates is breaking the contract.
Yes...but so is not paying the mortgage, to be frank.
Exactly.
No, these matters are contractual between the banks and their borrowers.
But it is not the fed doing this. This is the banks backing off the terms of their contract voluntarily. Terms of the contract are being altered to the benefit of both parties involved. All Paulson did was meet with banks and investors to figure out the guidelines for doing this. The banks want this.
The interstate commerce clause is (was) essentially a non-interference provision.
I fail to see how it is applicable.
It is more complicated than that. Many of these loans were put in funds and sold to investors. If it was only the banks involved with the borrowers, it would have been an easy fix and Paulson would not need to have been involved.
Rent a decent place with nice neighbors at a nice rate and invest the excess $. After the pot boils over, buy with cash. I knew a gal in Simi Valley in a 500K house that didn't look worth it at all. Another one in Santa Clarita saw her 150K condo become 400K in 3 years. And another one living with her rich relatives from Brazil in West Hills- 1M to 1.3M. They own businesses and are doing it right. You can't live in that area without means.
Just wait until the price drops and own the mortgage outright.
It is a money grab that should be punished based on the rules of Capitolism. Socialist bail-outs need to be left to Socialists.
It is not more complicated than that.
It is a scheme to bail out the consumers, banks and investors who entered into this business to the disadvantage of those who decided not to do so.
You would be ahead not to continue to argue, I've only been in the business for 35 years, and I'm affiliated with organizations that declined to participate for now obvious reasons.
It is being handled by capitalism. This is in both parties best interest and the government is not directly involved.
Well, I do agree with Paul that us having troops in 130 whatever countries is too many troops in too many countries. I also don’t think that we should be the worlds policeman, at the beck and call of the UN. Give me a chance and I would kick the UN out of the US.
“In defense of the world order...U.S. soldiers would have to kill and die,” Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. Foreign Affairs, July-August 1995
“What is at stake is more than one small country [Kuwait], it is a big idea - a new world order...” — George H.W. Bush
Maybe you like this new world order crap but I don’t.
lol, ignorant arrogance
I think everything I was taught as an American is mute.
My thoughts exactly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.