Al Bundy;1112519 wrote:Maybe we have different ideas of "average people", but I believe that "average people" are able to read and do basic calculations. If they can't read and do basic basic calculations, they probably shouldn't be signing the documents.

What is presented takes alot more than average reading comprehension and basic calculations with a structure of rules that completely favor the lender and hidden fees to bankrupt the borrower.

isadore;1112563 wrote:What is presented takes alot more than average reading comprehension and basic calculations with a structure of rules that completely favor the lender and hidden fees to bankrupt the borrower.

I just want to see if I have everything right. If the banks make a loan to someone, the bank is taking advantage of him. If a bank tells someone that he can't afford the loan, the bank is discriminating against the poor. Everyone deserves to have their dream house even though some work harder than others and sacrifice other things to save for the house. If someone can't read and do basic arithmatic, it is the bank's fault. Did I forget anything?

Al Bundy;1112677 wrote:I just want to see if I have everything right. If the banks make a loan to someone, the bank is taking advantage of him. If a bank tells someone that he can't afford the loan, the bank is discriminating against the poor. Everyone deserves to have their dream house even though some work harder than others and sacrifice other things to save for the house. If someone can't read and do basic arithmatic, it is the bank's fault. Did I forget anything?

It is always nice to get an alternative view, a defender of the banking institutions that destroyed so many lives and plunged our nation into the economic abyss known as the Great Recession. Of course they can do it themselves since the Supreme Courts says corporations are people with free speech rights and unlimited funds to make sell their point of view. But besides that they have you and several of your cohorts at this site. Its nice to see you use cardstacking in their favor, your a natural J P Morgan or at least a Lehman Brother. Mortgage agreements involve much more than regular reading comprehension and basic math. Too many Americans trusted bankers and found that out. And it is the bank's fault as they tricked millions of Americans into mortgages that were not in their best interest. Then after making these loans, they bundled them, got Moody's to lie about their value and sold them to others.

You have two options...FIXED or ADJUSTABLE rates. Tricky tricky

Footwedge;1112475 wrote:2 pages? Really? You have 10 forms to fill out...each multiple pages. Did you buy a house?....or a dog house?

I said car financing. If I spent 30 minutes reading that, you think I'm going to ignore a home mortgage? If I did, I wouldn't have any excuses and wouldn't blame anyone but myself. You're justification (excuse) was that no one has the time to read those things. No one does. Wrong. Smart and responsbile people do, because they know better.

This all really make me LMFAO. Used to work with a lady who told me "that's Democrats for you....they don't think anyone should be responsible for anything". That was 15 years ago.

isadore;1112505 wrote:gosh it would be great if you could struggle to be minimally sympathetic to average people who have been abused and cheated by the agents of powerful financial institution using deceptive documentation. But to put it bluntly that is too much to ask.

Again, you don't seem to think people have any responsibility for their situation. Owning a home is a privilege, not a right. Let's start there. Then, no one put a gun to their head. Don't sign anything you don't understand. These people are as much victims of their own greed as they are of the lenders. And this is what happens when you have a govt that views home ownership as some sort of social scorecard.

It's not that I'm unsympathetic to these people's situation. I just refuse to excuse or free them from any and all accountability. People need to be responsible and accountable for their choices. Hopefully they pass these painful lessons on to their children to learn from.

bases_loaded;1112830 wrote:You have two options...FIXED or ADJUSTABLE rates. Tricky tricky

so much more involved in those financing agreements.

gut;1112925 wrote:I said car financing. If I spent 30 minutes reading that, you think I'm going to ignore a home mortgage? If I did, I wouldn't have any excuses and wouldn't blame anyone but myself. You're justification (excuse) was that no one has the time to read those things. No one does. Wrong. Smart and responsbile people do, because they know better.

You said car financing? My bad. I misread. But I'm happy you brought up car financing. I bought a new Legacy a few months ago...and I financed about a third of it. And you know what? It would have taken me 3-4 hours to read all the fine print on it as well. Did I do it? Nope. I wanted to know the APR...AND THAT WAS IT.

This all really make me LMFAO. Used to work with a lady who told me "that's Democrats for you....they don't think anyone should be responsible for anything". That was 15 years ago.

LOL. I think your genalization here is a reach....but whatever. Like I said up above...I'm a college educated person with a business degree.....and I failed to understand the penalty for paying off my first mortgage early. Now....I will admit....and have admitted....just because the bank shaded the truth, I should have done my homework. And at that time (1987), not only was I staunch Republican, I was further to the right than Quaker Oats is.

HitsRus;1112232 wrote:1977 Jimmy Carter pushes for and signs the Community Re-investment Act to help banks reach out to low income families.
1995 Bill Clinton expands the CRA by requiring banks to meet a quota for low income loans and increasing punishments to banks who did not make enough loans to the economically disadvantaged.

As Isadore so aptly noted..."Banks don't give people anything"( because a business needs to make a profit)...that profitability issue was addressed in...
1999 Bill Clinton signs the Graham Leach Billey Act(passed with bi-partisan support) which allowed banks to merge with insurance and investment companies provided they met the government's mandated quota for low income loans.

Please don't insert facts into isadore's opinion laden rants.

gut;1112930 wrote:Again, you don't seem to think people have any responsibility for their situation. Owning a home is a privilege, not a right. Let's start there. Then, no one put a gun to their head. Don't sign anything you don't understand. These people are as much victims of their own greed as they are of the lenders. And this is what happens when you have a govt that views home ownership as some sort of social scorecard.

It's not that I'm unsympathetic to these people's situation. I just refuse to excuse or free them from any and all accountability. People need to be responsible and accountable for their choices. Hopefully they pass these painful lessons on to their children to learn from.

victims of their own greed, really. Wanting to own a home for your family is not some reprehensible goal. And you have the financial institutions offering them a chance to fulfil this part of the American dream. They are drawn in by introductory rates but hidden in the agreements are terms that place the borrower at great financial disadvantage.

bases_loaded;1112830 wrote:You have two options...FIXED or ADJUSTABLE rates. Tricky tricky

Seems simple enough, doesn't it? Usually a fixed rate mortgage is of higher APR than an adjustable, especially in today's world of bottomed out rates. But that is an irrelevant point anyhow.

Most Americans do not understand the concept of interest rates, let alone compounding interest rates. It says a lot regarding our educational system, no?

Sub prime lending involved many factors. These people who were knocking down 10 bucks an hour had no business in financing a home for 100K. Most sub primes were based on a first year interest break...and lower monthly payments....corrected after the first year. Many more were offered huge tax incentives which I am sure was huffed by the loan officer...but meant nothing to the average sub prime home buyer.

Again, who exactly understands the pros and cons of a home mortgage? The college educated lender who can calculate payments, APR, and how to calculate the variable rate change through the click of his mouse, or the guy yanking down 10 bucks an hour?

Obviously, one of the 2 screwed up pretty badly, given the hundreds of thousands of foreclosed mortgages, right?

And again....the lending officer...i.e....the salesguy, made his "nut" by closing homes...in the form of commission. The book of business transcended the possibility or even probability that many loans would default....if the bubble was to burst.

The homes are/were collateralized...and as such....the heavy risk was on the buyer...not the seller.

Footwedge;1112999 wrote:You said car financing? My bad. I misread. But I'm happy you brought up car financing. I bought a new Legacy a few months ago...and I financed about a third of it. And you know what? It would have taken me 3-4 hours to read all the fine print on it as well. Did I do it? Nope. I wanted to know the APR...AND THAT WAS IT.

So you got burned once, and still didn't learn your lesson? If you did get burned on your car loan, could you honestly blame anyone but yourself?

isadore;1113029 wrote:victims of their own greed, really. Wanting to own a home for your family is not some reprehensible goal. And you have the fihnancial institutions offering them a chance to fulfil this part of the American dream. They are drawn in by introductory rates but hidden in the agreements are terms that place the borrower at great financial disadvantage.

They are drawn in by greed to buy homes they can't afford. It has never been hard to spend a few minutes on the internet to learn and understand the risks with adjustable rate mortgages. Same thing with credit cards. It is (or should be) well known how expensive it is to pay interest, yet many still fall victims to their own greed piling up debt buying stuff they really can't afford.

What's the old saying? "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". But apparently ignorance in other aspects of our lives IS an excuse.

Footwedge;1113044 wrote: The homes are/were collateralized...and as such....the heavy risk was on the buyer...not the seller.

Not actually true. People can and were buying homes with only 5% or 3% down (the infamous FNHMA first-time home buyer, still available I believe, rightly so), 0% in some cases. These are typically non-recourse financing, which means the LENDER was assuming all the risk. The housing market didn't nearly cause a financial meltdown because the banks had no skin in the game.

gut;1113081 wrote:They are drawn in by greed to buy homes they can't afford. It has never been hard to spend a few minutes on the internet to learn and understand the risks with adjustable rate mortgages. Same thing with credit cards. It is (or should be) well known how expensive it is to pay interest, yet many still fall victims to their own greed piling up debt buying stuff they really can't afford.

What's the old saying? "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". But apparently ignorance in other aspects of our lives IS an excuse.

Although you present it as a negative home ownership has long been goal for families as part of the American dream. Deregulated financial institutions then pushed loans that gave working people the false hope of home ownership. They were pushed with a brilliantly deceptive advertising campaign. The loans were pushed as quite affordable to the average working American. The possibilities of rising interest payments and escalating fees were well hidden. A decent society should protect its citizens from these scams that can bring them to financial ruin.

gut;1113074 wrote:So you got burned once, and still didn't learn your lesson? If you did get burned on your car loan, could you honestly blame anyone but yourself?

Um...when you pay off a car loan early, you don't pay a penalty for doing so. My example regarding my mortgage was a perfect example of preditary lending.

gut;1113097 wrote:Not actually true. People can and were buying homes with only 5% or 3% down (the infamous FNHMA first-time home buyer, still available I believe, rightly so), 0% in some cases. These are typically non-recourse financing, which means the LENDER was assuming all the risk. The housing market didn't nearly cause a financial meltdown because the banks had no skin in the game.

I never said they had no skin in the game. I said the buyer had to incur most of the risk. Which they did.

Now everybody wants to pour it on Isidore for his views. If there wasn't deception and outright fraud going on with predatory lending practices, then why did the AG's of 49 states sue the private (not F &F) lenders for fraud?

Moreover, those that "sold" these loans were collectively so crooked in their spin, the new lending practices for sub primes were changed (2008 I think)...such that an independent officer, outside of the lending institution, had to be used when closing a deal.

Footwedge;1112252 wrote:The mortgage legalese papers were comprised of over 35 pages.

How many of those pages are federally mandated disclosures of information meant to protect the borrower.

Footwedge;1112252 wrote: It would have taken over 6 hours of reading all the fine print and probably 3 days to understand every nuance stated.

You can request to review the documents pertaining to the loan agreement prior to signing. Loans using the primary residence as collateral such as refi's or home equity loans federal law allows a 3 day right of rescission after signing.

Footwedge;1112252 wrote:Whether you think so or not, the documents are "bank loaded" in the small print, and I was verbally lied to regarding the penalties for early payoff. I was burned....and it cost me thousands. Why? Because I trusted the bank people...and that was a mistake.

Then you should have hired legal counsel. Americans don't think twice about seeking legal counsel concerning their finacial matters after they croak. Nor when they are throwing their spouse to the curb. My wife and I just this year purchased a coffee shop. We hired legal counsel to protect us finacially during this transaction. Turns out a dispute arose concerning tax liability on the property. Our legal team had it covered. Truth is most Americans for some reason just don't want to pay the extra money to protect themselves during a mortgage transaction.

lulz...

More red vs blue bickering.

And we wonder why politics in this nation are so screwed up... Keep arguing with eachother, that solves everything! :rolleyes:

isadore;1113146 wrote:Although you present it as a negative home ownership has long been goal for families as part of the American dream.

I've said no such thing. Owning a home is a privilege, not a right. Owning a bigger home isn't a right, either. Not sure what this has to do with the debate, but you're not paying attention if you think I've offered an opinoin on the merits of home ownership.

isadore;1113146 wrote:Deregulated financial institutions then pushed loans that gave working people the false hope of home ownership.

You mean deregulated institutions like FNMA and FMAC? And the 58% of the population or whatever the number of current home owners is might contest your claim about "false hopes of ownership". You're not being intellectually honest here - what happened was Bob & Jane go looking for houses. Bob & Jane would LOVE to have the $200k house but can really only afford a $150k house. Bob & Jane find an ARM that enables them to buy the $200k house. It's too good to be true! Bob & Jane's greed cost them their hope of home ownership and, ultimately, nobody else.

isadore;1113146 wrote:They were pushed with a brilliantly deceptive advertising campaign. The loans were pushed as quite affordable to the average working American. The possibilities of rising interest payments and escalating fees were well hidden. A decent society should protect its citizens from these scams that can bring them to financial ruin.

And they WERE affordable They were and ARE good products. But you don't use the lower rates to buy more house than you can afford. This goes back to greed - rather than take the savings from these lower rates and putting it in their pocket, people immediately paid that savings forward into a more expensive house. The worst loans were the negative amortization that deferred interest payments into higher loan outstanding - and no matter what else, if you're buying a $300k house and your pymts are only $1000 a month a little common sense should have been setting off all kinds of alarm bells.

There is simply, absolutely no excuse for not understanding what you sign. Beware the used car salesman. In most cases, these people could not afford standard interest/pymts on these houses. It was simply more house than they could afford, and even a minimal amount of due diligence on their part would have made this clear. They are just as guilty of greed as anyone else in this mess.

Footwedge;1113254 wrote:I never said they had no skin in the game. I said the buyer had to incur most of the risk. Which they did.

No they didn't, especially in cases of 0% down or even 5% down. The default risk premium in most mortgages is traditionally not very high. Most of what you really are paying for is just the cost of capital, competing with demands for capital paying various interest rates. Various higher risk segments, sure (segments that tradionally couldn't get loans at the normal 7-8% rates with 20% down, which should tell you something about the risk assumed here).

Besides, you talk about the buyer assuming more risk like it's a bad thing or unfair. Shouldn't the person BUYING an asset be assuming most of the risk? Truthfully the problem with non-recourse, the low money down and the low interest rates is the buyers actually didn't have nearly enough skin in the game to act any more responsibly. The buyers chased easy money in the era of greed just as much as any one else.

Footwedge;1113211 wrote:Um...when you pay off a car loan early, you don't pay a penalty for doing so. My example regarding my mortgage was a perfect example of preditary lending.

And your failure to read your car loan is the perfect example of not learning your lesson. Prepymt is only one potential issue that can arise. You've demonstrated that you will learn your lessons one at a time.

majorspark;1113489 wrote:How many of those pages are federally mandated disclosures of information meant to protect the borrower.

Back in 1987, probably none.

You can request to review the documents pertaining to the loan agreement prior to signing. Loans using the primary residence as collateral such as refi's or home equity loans federal law allows a 3 day right of rescission after signing.

The 3 day window that you refer to was probably not in effect back then. The point is....I wouldn't have read 6 pages of legalese even if I had a month to cancel. The key things on the loan for me was the first year APR, what the criteria would be for the change of rate per year (loan was adjustable....was not tied to prime rate), when the annual change would take place, mineral rights, property tax monthly withholdings, home owner insurance monthly withholdings, property assessment fees, and late fees, should I fall behind the schedule. As a sole proprietor whose business volume usually matched the performance of the overall economy, I knew that a "hot economy" with rising interest rates would not effect my ability to pay my mortgage. Conversely, a recession would have led to even lower rates.

Most people do not have the wherewithall to understand and figure out what was best for their own needs. And that's my point on the whole thing. The problem was with the premature payoff scenario. This was buried on page 32 in the fine print.

Then you should have hired legal counsel. Americans don't think twice about seeking legal counsel concerning their finacial matters after they croak.

Again, very, very few people pay lawyers hundreds of dollars to review mortgage papers. They just don't. Unless there are property line disputes or if there was some other issues related to leave behinds from the previous owners. And such leave behinds encompassed one page of clearly defined things...such as a garage door opener, or the washer/dryer. It was the bank's legalese that did not match up with what was told to me verbally.

My wife and I just this year purchased a coffee shop. We hired legal counsel to protect us finacially during this transaction. Turns out a dispute arose concerning tax liability on the property. Our legal team had it covered. Truth is most Americans for some reason just don't want to pay the extra money to protect themselves during a mortgage transaction.

Entirely different scenario than the "clean" mortgage deed transfer and selecting a mortgage plan that best served my needs.

I've used the services of lawyers for similar things as you have described......usually business related....but not for reviewing a mortgage transaction. If there is even one person here that hired a lawyer to review their bankers form crap, I'd be amazed. It just doesn't happen in most cases.

gut;1113497 wrote:And your failure to read your car loan is the perfect example of not learning your lesson. Prepymt is only one potential issue that can arise. You've demonstrated that you will learn your lessons one at a time.

Did I say I failed to read my car loan papers? I spent a half hour going over the importwnt points...just like you did. I did ask about prepaying amounts greater than the monthly payment, and was told that the overance would come right off the balance principle.. And, no penalty at all for early payoff...the way EVERY SINGLE EFFIN LOAN, secured or unsecured, that I have ever signed up for in my 40 year adult life....with the exception of the mortgage setup that I've cited. You see, most people in business want to keep their customers and have them come back...and not try to hoodwink people.

Credit cards...$75000 unsecured business loan, cars, and what have you...only my first bank pulled that schit.

Maybe in your line of work, beating customers out of a few thou is your ticket to success. Well good luck with that in keeping your reputation in tack.

The prepayment penalty is on the Note (which is usually about 10-15 page) under the section titled "prepayment penalty"

Never seen it any differently.

Most likely you were hosed though in the fact that you probably bought points and were never told.