what about loss of homes due to loss of jobs. Irrisponsible people who took out loans that they knew could have payment rise above what they could afford are saved but those of use who can't find work and lose our homes (with equity) are screwed because we are not taken into account? Why is the government not requiring a grace period for those losing jobs so home owners can keep their homes during this rough time? Does the government want to own everyones home? I was responsible and took out a loan I could afford. I didn't take out an irrsponsible loan, with no money down. Obama says he is helping responsible home owners. I was responsible but what if I can't find a job because there are no jobs out there? Does that make me irresponsible when you compare me to someone who took out an irrsponsible loan? Responsible home owners who are in jeapardy of losing their home due to loss of jobs should be given a grace period until they are able to locate work.
Enough said!
JE
of CO
@
Mar 06, 2009 16:01:38 PM
Cram Down Expectations
Many homeowners already expect the cram down provision to become law and are forestalling foreclosure and bankruptcy in anticipation. If it doesn't happen, these people will just give back the homes in a Chapter 13 filing and add substantially to the glut of unsellable homes on the market.
Isn't keeping these folks in their home at a reduced principal and interest rate better for the lenders, investors, the economy and the homeowners better than increasing foreclosure inventory. The foreclosures are destroying value of all homes.
The Democrats should have put it in the stimulus bill/ The Republicans didn't vote for the stimulus even without the cram down provision.
JRTW
of FL
@
Feb 05, 2009 18:00:21 PM
solution to home crisis
It sounds weird though a viable option, American family lives in big house uses more space than they need. So for families who are heading for a foreclosure, they can be given a option to share a house and other family can help them in loan payment in turn. When done with one house they can go for the payment of the other house for the other family. So, its kind of going back to joint family ventures and bringing American families together. Just a rough idea which should be refined in lot of ways....foreseeing the things which may happen while doing this thing. One more things all home should be bought by the govt. as per McCain's plan...strictly no business.
mike
of CA
@
Nov 26, 2008 14:06:29 PM
Cram Down
Kittle's recent testimony is an obvious concoction: He argues that allowing BK judges to cram down mortgages would raise rates for all borrowers since new risk premiums would have to cover cyclical downturn risk: This is a red herring argument. If banks went back to responsible lending and required mortgage insurance for anything less than 20 percent down and did not facilitate liars loans, there would be almost zero increase in risk premium. MBA's Kittle conveniently fails to acknowledge the concept of mortgage insurance which was standard fare before the lax underwriting standards--zero down, liar loans, etc became par for the course. Cram downs have been allowed on second homes and lien stripping is allowed in the 9th district for primary residents and these allowances don't seem to have made too much of a difference as far as folks pursuing "cram downs". Simply put, a bankruptcy judge is in the best position to look at somebody's situation and determine if they are attempting to game the system. If somebody is lying to the judge, this is a felony. Kittle's rate raising argument holds even less water if cram down provisions are implemented to stem existing mortgages that run risk of foreclosure. If there was a grandfathered period that applied to folks who bought in the last 5 years, one would be hard pressed to make the case that primary residential mortgages going forward should include a risk premium for potential cram down. Kittle is a tool of the MBA and banks that have created the secondary market for troublesome loans/fueling irresponsible lending. It's time to pay the fiddler, Mr. Kittle.
Justin McCarthy
of CA
@
Nov 22, 2008 13:21:20 PM
Cramdown
Allowing bankruptcy cramdown relief for home loans to be mead to be made made in the future may or may not be advisable depending whether it will make interest rates and downpayment requirements too much higher inthe future.
Retroactivley changing the bankruptchy rules to favor borrowers who got their loans already will be seen as a bad idea--- those lenders are already paying a high price in defaults and written off debt, and further retroactively weakening their rights and abilities to collect what they can from their mortgages and collatersl would further lower their assets and destableize our financial system. Better to create a fund to assist those particular borrowers or others who were verifiably harmed by the meltdown based on their need or merit, and go after the particular lenders who were unscrupulous, rather than attacking and injuring all of them as if they were all making loans like a Countrywide Bank.
JE of CO @ Mar 06, 2009 16:01:38 PM
JRTW of FL @ Feb 05, 2009 18:00:21 PM
mike of CA @ Nov 26, 2008 14:06:29 PM
Justin McCarthy of CA @ Nov 22, 2008 13:21:20 PM
of CA @ Nov 13, 2008 00:31:31 AM
Back to blog