Again, the problem of perspective:
That the bank factors in a rate that amounts to insurance (for the bank) is not
the same thing as the borrower's loan being insured. It is calculated based on
what might never be recovered from loans.
The borrower can consider his payments insured if he, separa
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
>
>>I answered this in another post, but I'll explain a little bit
>>differently here. I see the mortgage insurance as insurance against
>>the borrower being UNABLE to pay back the money, not just choosing to
>>default.
>
> Well you can see thing
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 7:41 PM, John Williams
> wrote:
>>
>> That suggests that you are not going to strategically default. I
>> wonder if there are any other clues that the lender was able to glean
>> that suggested you would not strategical
>I answered this in another post, but I'll explain a little bit
>differently here. I see the mortgage insurance as insurance against
>the borrower being UNABLE to pay back the money, not just choosing to
>default.
Well you can see things however you wish, that is your prerogative.
However, if yo
On 22/10/2010, at 9:07 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
>
>
> And yes, by the way, we're having a tough time financially right now. I was
> laid off from LiveWorld a couple of years ago and I've been building up
> consulting and developing some new analytics tools, but it's hard. And we
> have a daug
On 22/10/2010, at 2:39 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
>
> There is no question that lenders have violated the law in many ways -- look
> at the foreclosure mess right now. The reason they have panicked and stopped
> foreclosures is because they realized that they took illegal shortcuts.
Well, that an
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 7:41 PM, John Williams wrote:
>
>
> That suggests that you are not going to strategically default. I
> wonder if there are any other clues that the lender was able to glean
> that suggested you would not strategically default.
I'm curious "strategically defaulting" moral i
> So, you think that violations of TiLA and RESPA are properly described as
> "incompetence?"
I cannot answer that without a lot more details which are probably
impractical for you to provide to me.
> Meanwhile, today, I'm taking a break from running an orbital floor sander
> that I'm using to re
You did a poor job of quoting there, Dan. It would be helpful if you
could just quote the directly relevant parts.
> If I am paying for insurance for the lender in case I don't pay it back, why
> is it immoral to accept the penalty for not paying it back, knowing that I
> prepaid insurance for the
Nick wrote
>"Some of the causes of the depression that Posner cites are...the housing
^^
bubble...
I hope my pointing to causes worked out. I won't argue the point, I agree
with it. But, he's saying the housing bubble is a cause of the problem, not
an effect. Which I think,
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
> Nick wrote:
>
>
> >I see that as a market failure that should have been prevented via
> >regulation (or, more correctly, enabled via deregulation).
>
> First, I'm sorry you are stuck in a bad situation. That's sucks.
>
Thanks for saying so.
Nick wrote:
>I see that as a market failure that should have been prevented via
>regulation (or, more correctly, enabled via deregulation).
First, I'm sorry you are stuck in a bad situation. That's sucks.
But, I'm curious as to how the deregulation caused the real estate bubble.
Now one cou
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:02 PM, John Williams wrote:
>
>
> To me, it sounds like they are incompetent (although in their defense,
> all of the loan securitizations have made the situation complicated).
> But since you want to modify an agreement in your favor, you more or
> less need to jump thro
-Original Message-
From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On
Behalf Of John Williams
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:34 PM
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
Subject: Re: Loan modifications (was Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries)
On Thu, O
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Chris Frandsen wrote:
>
> On Oct 21, 2010, at 2:02 PM, John Williams wrote:
>
>> But since you want to modify an agreement in your favor, you more or
>> less need to jump through their hoops, even if they are ridiculous.
>
> John, do you believe in negotiation/ old
On Oct 21, 2010, at 2:02 PM, John Williams wrote:
> But since you want to modify an agreement in your favor, you more or
> less need to jump through their hoops, even if they are ridiculous.
John, do you believe in negotiation/ old fashion bargaining?
There is always the option to walk away from
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
> They lied to by saying they had no choice because the loan
> owner would not allow them to make the modification, admitted that another
> division of their own company owns it, then tried to tell us that they could
> not disclose who owns it.'
Nick,
Your clarification makes things sound quite different to me. I'll agree
that being off by 2% on a payment due to a misunderstanding is not
reasonable grounds for breaking a deal especially if they fouled up
substantially. If all you are asking is for an interest rate that matches
the prese
Some clarifications. The problems I had with our lender regarding the loan
modification had nothing to do with whether or not they were willing to make
one. It was the way they behaved as we qualified for it and then the way
that they screwed it up so that we have to re-qualify all over again. Th
19 matches
Mail list logo
