[jlisenbe]

which idiots were they I wonder? the idiots who would do it again if they get the chance?

Could be.

[talaniman]

As market conditions improve so does your home value so selling when it's under valued makes little sense, and what many have been doing is refinancing at a lower interest rate, lowering the mortgage but that Obama era programs is ending and I doubt the dufus keeps it going to help more homeowners, nor mandate banks to maintain balances sufficient enough to weather a down turn without a bailout, or any of the things Obama put in place to shield consumers from the bad behavior that leads to recessions and downturns, or at least force THEM to pay for their mistakes. For sure you can't let any industry run amok and police itself.

At least we should learn from mistakes and do better.

[jlisenbe]

As market conditions improve so does your home value so selling when it's under valued makes little sense,

How on earth does that help the family that is six months behind on the mortgage and facing repossession? Their equity is gone and their credit rating is going to be tanked. And what of the bank that hold thousands of these upside down mortgages thanks to the stupidity of fed regs? They face failure one way or the other. Wow.

[talaniman]

You conflate and project as you add stuff in huh? Having an undervallue mortgage doesn't change your mortgage rate and as long as you have a job you pay what you signed for. Of course this applies to just fixed rate traditional 30 year morgages. Even offering a variable rate market driven mortgage should be illegal, because that's plain foolish. That's on the bank and regulators that allowed it. Perfect example of under regulation. All lot of inexperienced buyers fell for that simply because the banks don't tell them of such a pitfall.

Most banks I know foreclose in 90 days so being behind 6 months is uncomprehensible and nobody does that, but in your described scenario, yes consumer get screwed. That happens all the time despite the value of your home which you typically don't have any equity for years any way. I have plenty of friends who have gone through an underwater mortgage and survived just fine as long as the paid every month. None had that variable rate or balloon payment in leu down payment crap though. That's definitely a new added twist because of lax regulations.

[jlisenbe]

You conflate and project as you add stuff in huh? Having an undervallue mortgage doesn't change your mortgage rate and as long as you have a job you pay what you signed for.

Kind of an important point. "As long as you have a job."

Most banks I know foreclose in 90 days so being behind 6 months is uncomprehensible and nobody does that, but in your described scenario, yes consumer get screwed

No bank wants to foreclose on a house that they must then sell at a significant loss, and that was the situation back then in many cases. They will grant additional grace to a homeowner rather than do that in the hope that the homeowner might turn things around and catch up. 2007 was such a period of time. It was not a time where they had many options.

[talaniman]

Banks have only themselves to blame for things going south, job losses, and the lack of people having viable options, who suffered way more than the banks did. Or maybe you have never had your life interrupted by things beyond your control.

[jlisenbe]

Or maybe you have never had your life interrupted by things beyond your control.

You mean like federal regs requiring mortgages for low income, high risk families? Things like that?

[talaniman]

Show me the federal regulations that require that? You can't because they don't exist and you know it, or else you would have posted them and bolstered your position.

Why are you shilling for banks selling homes that low income, high risk folks couldn't possibly sustain under the banks terms? The banks certainly knew they could not but did it anyway.

[jlisenbe]

Show me the federal regulations that require that? You can't because they don't exist and you know it, or else you would have posted them and bolstered your position.

You may consider my position bolstered.

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/...-united-states

"Under Andrew Cuomo in 2000, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced the historic federal regulations that raised the required percentage of mortgage loans for low- and moderate-income families that finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to buy “from the current 42 percent of their total purchases to a new high of 50 percent — a 19 percent increase.”

[talaniman]

I don't know about bolstered, but it was a GREAT link as that it contained many facts despite the anti socialist bent of the author. Such as this report:

https://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archiv...eport_full.pdf

In this report, we detail the events of the crisis. But a simple summary, as we see it, is useful at the outset. While the vulnerabilities that created the potential for crisis were years in the making, it was the collapse of the housing bubble—fueled by low interest rates, easy and available credit, scant regulation, and toxic mortgages— that was the spark that ignited a string of events, which led to a full-blown crisis in the fall of . Trillions of dollars in risky mortgages had become embedded throughout the financial system, as mortgage-related securities were packaged, repackaged, and sold to investors around the world. When the bubble burst, hundreds of billions of dollars in losses in mortgages and mortgage-related securities shook markets as well as financial institutions that had significant exposures to those mortgages and had borrowed heavily against them. This happened not just in the United States but around the world. The losses were magnified by derivatives such as synthetic securities...We conclude widespread failures in financial regulation and supervision proved devastating to the stability of the nation’s financial markets. The sentries were not at their posts, in no small part due to the widely accepted faith in the self correcting nature of the markets and the ability of financial institutions to effectively police themselves. More than 30 years of deregulation and reliance on self-regulation by financial institutions, championed by former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and others, supported by successive administrations and Congresses, and actively pushed by the powerful financial industry at every turn, had stripped away key safeguards, which could have helped avoid catastrophe. This approach had opened up gaps in oversight of critical areas with trillions of dollars at risk, such as the shadow banking system and over-the-counter derivatives markets. In addition, the government permitted financial firms to pick their preferred regulators in what became a race to the weakest supervisor.

I think it bolsters my position so far, but still reading! Thanks dude.

[jlisenbe]

So what part of this supported your position? You had denied that it took place. Very plainly it did. Isn't this exactly what I had been saying?

"Under Andrew Cuomo in 2000, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced the historic federal regulations that raised the required percentage of mortgage loans for low- and moderate-income families that finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to buy “from the current 42 percent of their total purchases to a new high of 50 percent — a 19 percent increase.”

Ought to look at this as well. https://archives.hud.gov/news/2000/pr00-317.html

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development today announced new federal regulations that require the nation's two largest housing finance companies to buy $2.4 trillion in mortgages during the next 10 years to provide affordable housing for about 28.1 million low- and moderate-income families.

[talaniman]

This from the pdf linked in your article

More than 30 years of deregulation and reliance on self-regulation by financial institutions, championed by former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and others, supported by successive administrations and Congresses, and actively pushed by the powerful financial industry at every turn, had stripped away key safeguards, which could have helped avoid catastrophe. This approach had opened up gaps in oversight of critical areas with trillions of dollars at risk, such as the shadow banking system and over-the-counter derivatives markets. In addition, the government permitted financial firms to pick their preferred regulators in what became a race to the weakest supervisor.

Even though it was pushed for moderate and low income families it's becoming increasingly clear our government and regulators drop the ball to ensure banking practice and policy did not work to protect consumers and banks from the consequences of their own largress.

Obviously financial institutions used regulations from decades ago to not just get around them, but use them for their own purpose. Do you contend there is no safer way for a poor person to have a house? I believe it is, even after the disaster the banks created.

[jlisenbe]

I don't think there is a safe way, generally speaking, for a poor person to own a house. The only "solution" would be to take money from one American and give it to a poor American. I cannot find a justification for doing that. The best solution is to have a vibrant, healthy ecnonomy where anyone who wants a job can get one or even two. We have that now and we need to hold on to it. It is also wildly helpful for people to get married before having children, a position which you consistently shy away from but one which has a great deal of potential for good for poor people.

[Wondergirl]

It is also wildly helpful for people to get married before having children, a position which you consistently shy away from but one which has a great deal of potential for good for poor people.

But when a man has no money for entertainment, the easiest way to have fun is to find a lonely woman and unzip his pants.

[jlisenbe]

But when a man has no money for entertainment, the easiest way to have fun is to find a lonely woman and unzip his pants.

I'm pretty sure it takes two unzipped pants to tango. You seem to believe that women are just so weak and silly that they cannot control their own bodies. It's like I've said before. I wish everyone would lock their doors, but I have a vested interest in making sure that my doors are locked, so I better make sure I get my own business taken care of first.

Are you really suggesting that men try to find lonely women because they don't have enough money to go to the movies??? That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.

[Wondergirl]

I'm pretty sure it takes two unzipped pants to tango. You seem to believe that women are just so weak and silly that they cannot control their own bodies. It's like I've said before. I wish everyone would lock their doors, but I have a vested interest in making sure that my doors are locked, so I better make sure I get my own business taken care of first.

But he starts it and makes sure she realizes he's bigger and stronger, so resistance is futile.

Are you really suggesting that men try to find lonely women because they don't have enough money to go to the movies??? That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.

Movies, video arcades, casinos, restaurants, even McDonald's. Women are free entertainment, fat-free on top of it! And it doesn't take long!

Did I post this already? --

One woman has sex during 100 days with 100 men but will get pregnant only once. One man has sex with 100 women during 100 days and will get how many women pregnant?

[talaniman]

I think your point WG is that a male has to be responsible for HIS actions, and I agree as a guy, but females also play a big role in this also. Neither can claim blame on the other without admitting their own culpability in doing the deed. The need to breed is the most powerful human emotion there is bar none, and that's counting MANY other factors as well.

Doing the right thing for ones self also transcends upbringing, and whatever moral teachings in many cases, even fear of consequences, and no doubt you know this having read the many stories on this forum, as well as your own real experiences with real people.

Oh the answer to the riddle is it's possible all things being equal 100 females can get impregnated.

[Wondergirl]

I think your point WG is that a male has to be responsible for HIS actions, and I agree as a guy, but females also play a big role in this also. Neither can claim blame on the other without admitting their own culpability in doing the deed. The need to breed is the most powerful human emotion there is bar none, and that's counting MANY other factors as well.

Doing the right thing for ones self also transcends upbringing, and whatever moral teachings in many cases, even fear of consequences, and no doubt you know this having read the many stories on this forum, as well as your own real experiences with real people.

Oh the answer to the riddle is it's possible all things being equal 100 females can get impregnated.

I totally agree with you, tal. We women can be such desirable teases :D and may not be smiling nine months later. I just didn't want JL to echo Adam, "And the man said, 'The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, SHE gave me of the tree, and I did eat.' " Gen. 3:12 (KJV)

[jlisenbe]

I just didn't want JL to echo Adam, "And the man said, 'The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, SHE gave me of the tree, and I did eat.' " Gen. 3:12 (KJV)

I didn't. But I'm glad you finally had the courage to see the obvious. Well done!

But he starts it and makes sure she realizes he's bigger and stronger, so resistance is futile.

Yeah. That's how it happens. Right.

[Wondergirl]

I didn't. But I'm glad you finally had the courage to see the obvious. Well done!

Yep! Blame the woman....

Yeah. That's how it happens. Right.

Yep again! Or he makes promises he doesn't intend to keep.