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,
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 and
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 daughter
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 you
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Nick Arnett nick.arn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 7:41 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com
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
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net 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
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
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Nick Arnett nick.arn...@gmail.com 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
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 1:00 PM, Chris Frandsen lear...@mac.com 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
-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, Oct 21
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:02 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote:
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
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
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net 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
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,
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
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
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 7:41 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote:
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
