BoA OWNED by person
 

This already happene with a WF location. Need new stunts people :lol:

I thought so, I remembered hearing this stuff.

maybe we can go forclose on OCC and send marshalls in and take all thier stuff :lol:

Bankers stole half of our entire fucking economy, and stuck it in their greedy pockets.

Then they took bailout money, and gave themselves fucking bonuses. They take people's fucking homes, and profit from the very financial devastation they have caused in the first place.

This, times one hundred would still not be enough to restore balance and harmony to the fucking universe, but motherfucker, it sure is the feel-good story of my fucking afternoon!

:rockwoot:

Thanks for posting...

I especially didn't like how home buyers were forced at gunpoint by those dastardly bankers to take out loans they couldn't afford. Wait, that didn't happen.:skep:

Home buyers happily signed on the dotted line and obligated themselves to pay back loans they couldn't pay back. The banks certainly bear some responsibility for what happened but the individuals who by the millions took out loans and "stuck them in their greedy pockets" with little consideration about paying them back bear some responsibility as well.

This couldn't have happened without a lot of greed on both sides.

Agreed. You reap what you sow. America, all of America, not just the banks, has been very greedy, always wanting more, and more, and more, and most people will do anything to get more. Most people will borrow anything they can, never thinking about how they'll pay it back, as they're in search of obtaining more stuff.

I missed the part where homeowners actually caused the housing price bubble, and then benefited from its crash, resulting in one of history's greatest land grabs by banking robber barons since before the Fed was established.

Oh, wait...that's because that's not exactly how it went, right?

:skep:

It certainly didn't help that people bit off more than they could chew, and/or didn't have the brains to read the small print and take a more acceptable amount of risk.

p.s. I like the 'OWNED' :zowned:

Probably didnt help that the banks were telling people wha tthey wanted to hear and jumped into these loans without doing their homework.

It should have been like it used to be: the banks looked at your ability to repay what they loaned. They see too much risk, they don't give out the money. Foreclosure was the very last result because it causes more problems than it sloves.

This whole "everyone should own a house" and giving out money like fucking water AND consumers thinking they could charge everything and never have to pay it back contributed to the downfall. I've been saving for a house for almost a decade and am finally in a place where I'm ready to move - if I can't get a fucking loan because of greed on both sides I'm gonna be PISSED.

Now is a great time ot buy, between intrest rates so low and propery values in the crapper.

I think most banks are back to being super cautios in giving out mortgages again.

Property values and home prices in my area have actually gone UP

you can always move down here with us LOL

Intrest rates are still very low, saw 4.59% on a 30 yr fixed loan

Probably because the people closer to NYC are trying to move somewhere affordable.

Gotta go FAR away from NYC for that. LI and westchester are prety expensive areas now but go north of westchester and it starts getting better.

You think banks caused the pricing bubble on their own? Home buyers bid prices up to unprecedented levels because who cares its free money and hey if they can't afford the payments they will just sell at a profit to someone else who is getting free money because real estate values never go down. That isn't exactly how it went either, is it?

You also think banks want to own all the property they got in this "land grab" as you call it? The banks only own those properties because the buyers stopped making payments and their loans are for more than the properties are now worth. Each property that goes in to foreclosure has a gap between what the property is worth and the value of the existing balance on the mortgage. That difference isn't speculative, it is a real loss to the banks since those banks actually paid out real cash money for the properties that were purchased. They would be much better off financially if homeowners just kept paying their loans. Instead they now have inventories of homes that are worth a fraction of the real money the banks loaned out for them. Every piece of land they got in this "land grab" has a financial loss attached to it.

Which they write off.

So what? Say a month ago you gave me a thousand dollars and in return I told you I would give you $1,100. Now I can't afford to give you $1,100 so I'm giving you a mountain bike worth $500 and telling you to go screw over the rest of it. Who got the better deal? But hey, you can write it off!:lol:

ETA: It is still real money that banks lost and they aren't getting back. The way those losses are accounted for doesn't change that.

Trust me, the losses (written off) are more than offset by getting to cherry pick what they're flipping. You can't tell me at the end of the day, them being the one ending up with all the assets, AND a fucking bailout that they're getting hurt.

What the fuck are you, retarded that you think I'm gonna fall for that shit?

Let's recap:

People lose their fucking homes
The banks take fucking everything
They get fucking bailout money and take huge fucking bonuses

...But really, it's them that's actually losing?

Fuck you, don't piss on my fucking head and tell me it's fucking raining.

I ain't that fucking stupid.

It's called "redistribution of wealth". Open your fucking eyes, and you'll see it, jackass. It's what's killing the fucking economy, and it's clearly in the fucking numbers.

The rich get richer dept.
 

It's real fucking simple:

You get to a point in wealth imbalance when so few have so much of all the assets, and the rest are all so fucking poor, that there's fucking no one to sell enough crap to anymore, and the economy takes a profound shit.

Welcome to that precise SHIT.

Bankers gutted the fucking economy, and took it all. Now people are acting surprised no one is buying durable goods???

Please.

We have some of the highest taxes in the state where I live. If they're looking for cheaper they're barking up the wrong freaking tree.

Apparently you are.:lol:

This a porn thread? Cuz there's a whole lotta fucking going on :lol

Gotta be cheaper than $600K generic townhomes in NNJ. And forget about real detached homes.

I'd say no, and add that apparently you fall for people pissing on your head and telling you it's raining.

The redistribution of wealth that just took place was on a grand fucking scale, son.

The fact that no one has money to buy shit reflects that.

You're buying the official press release, and I'm telling you the redistribution of wealth pulled all the money out of the economy, and it's as plain as fucking black and white.

The whole scenario really isn't much different than the old bank runs of much earlier times, but you're not even thinking on that level. You're not seeing it, and I think it's you who are in fact "that stupid".

True. Cost of living ain't much better here though :(

Rough morning, motherfucker.

Today's word is fuck. Fucking deal with it.

:lol:

:lol: I'm not fucking bashful

There was no "redistribution of wealth", wealth disappeared. Easy credit was treated as wealth and the money was spent. Overinflated values for homes was treated as wealth and the money was spent. Both no longer exist so there is less money to spend.

Where are these magical properties the banks are cherry picking and flipping at a profit? If the house can be sold for more than the remaining loan balance then the homeowners are stupid if they let it go in to foreclosure. They can sell it themselves and pay off the loan. What the banks are overwhelmingly getting instead is homes that are worth less than the remaining loan balance. That loses money for the bank. I would really like for you to explain to me how a bank is coming out ahead on a foreclosure.

Nothing that has happened has put any of the lost money back in the banks. Yes, the banks were bailed out, but pretty much all of them have paid any bailout money they received back to the government. The simple fact is that banks paid out money for people to buy property. Instead of being paid back with interest they have received the property which happens to be worth less than what the banks loaned out. You also apparently don't know what writing off a loss means.

And you call me dumb. That's the most retarded fucking statement ever fucking made.

Yep, people burned money. They flushed it down the toilet, papered their birdcages with it.

Moron.

Just look at the fucking stats on distribution of wealth, and where it's gone, and stop fucking babbling bullshit, will ya?

You're so fucking full of crap.

:lol: Oh, how I love Avatard's statements. The homes are worth less now than they used to be worth. Assets dropped in value. Money was borrowed from banks to purchase those assets. Those assets that are now worth less than they were before are owned by the banks. The banks essentially paid more for those assets than they're worth because the banks are the ones that loaned the money. The banks are still trying to sell those assets at a loss to someone else. Do you really think the banks want to hold on to those properties? Do you really think the banks want to pay the property taxes and maintenance fees on those properties? Do you really think the banks are making money on these properties?

Good grief. I really don't know why I bother arguing with you. It's always the same old thing. I actually came in here to tell goof not to bother, but then I got caught up with the same crap. I think nearly every one of your arguments makes me laugh. You remind me of jetskifast.

I'm pretty much going to echo Captain's post.

Essentially yes, the money was burned. A house is bought for say $400k with a loan. Now the borrower will not pay the loan and instead the bank gets the house back, only now it is worth say $250k. The difference between the loan amount, minus what was paid by the borrower before they decided not to pay anymore, and the current value of the house is gone. Explain to me where that money went and prove my statement is "retarded".

Essentially the same holds true for those who haven't gone in to foreclosure, only it is the equity in their house that has disappeared. The difference is unlike a foreclosure the loss has not yet been realized. Either way that money may as well have been burned.

Here is the process you have detailed so far from the perspective of the banks:

1. Take back house at massive loss because home buyer won't pay back loan.
2. ????????????????
3. EVIL PROFIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yall here Blake Lively got some nudie pics out?
Daze reel

Don't hold out on us, that isn't nice.

NSFW:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/gavon/blake-...otosmaybe-nsfw

There is nothing to hide, search for her name

Well done

Really? That's funny, because I feel like I'm the one talking to a fucking wall.

Fuck the details leading up to the rape, son (that's how this shit gets so handily fucking obfuscated here), let's talk brass tacks [end results]: At the end of the day (and the current US financial meltdown scenario), the wealth has shifted...and it's not to the poorest 99%...it's to the richest 1%.

Now, you can dress that fucking whore up all motherfucking day long, but if you take her to the prom, I'm gonna laugh and point, douchenozzle.

:lmao:

Timely:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Home-L...807382432.html

There's a lot of guilt to spread around. Plenty, in fact.

Please explain how the banks are profiting from the foreclosures.

Good grief, the author of that article is ignorant.

Ignorant or not, it takes 2 to fuck and both banks AND a fairly large number of consumers make 1 + 1...

I don't disagree.

Oh, absolutely. That is what I said in my first post too.

Sure, if you explain quantum physics. Otherwise, eat shit. Who am I, your fucking mom? Bite me. If you wanna believe stupid shit, that's on you.

Go look at a chart with the distribution of wealth before and after this fucking fart show, and then get back to me, OK? Anything else is crap. Crap perhaps you choose to believe, but that's on you...

This is true to an extent, but please rent the movie Inside Job to better understand the whole mess. It was more profitable to write subprime loans than conventional 30 yr loans because the interest rates were higher over the long term and yielded more profit when they were sold off. I believe many people were duped by loan officers for the sole purpose that banks did not care if the homeowner could pay after the fixed rate period. They packaged up these loans and sold them as CDOs to investors.

You wouldn't borrow 100k to your friend if you knew he couldn't pay...why would banks UNLESS they have had nothing to loose. The largest of greed came from the top.

:lol Typical Avatard. "If you don't believe what I say, you're an idiot." :lol

Why don't you fill in the blank on goof's step #2. You know, the one with all the question marks.

Do you want to know WHY the wealthy are wealthy and why the poor are poor? Habit, thought and action. The poor make poor choices. They buy more than they can truly afford. They don't pay attention to their money. They rely on credit because they want what the wealthy have, regardless of what they can truly afford. They live beyond their means. Sure, sometimes circumstances come around like a lost job, or huge medical bills, but in the end, the poor have simply made poor choices. If people had not been living beyond they're means, this financial crisis would not be anywhere near what it is today. People fell into the trap of "ooh, look, I can buy a brand new house with granite countertops, a huge backyard with a pool and a deck and a waterfall, etc., etc., etc." Nobody stopped to think about HOW they were paying for that. Then, after buying that house, they NEEDED patio furniture and a new bed and an entire new living room, not to mention the boat, motorcycle and $45k SUV. Why? Because they want to live like the wealthy people live and they're willing to borrow as much as anyone will lend to them, without thoughts of the consequences.

I'm not saying that all wealthy people got wealthy because they were completely honest, but many of them became wealthy because they worked hard, saved, and followed basic financial principals. They didn't become wealthy because they own banks and set up some elaborate scheme to foreclose on houses.

I'm not arguing in any way, shape or form that banks weren't partially responsible for this mess. However, the main culprit here was greed, pure and simple. Greed by the banks, greed by the loan officers that were paid on commission, and greed by the people who just HAD to have that bigger house with all the fancy crap inside. People want more and more and more, so the banks found a way to sell it to the people and the people ate it up. People kept buying more crap on credit, then when the payments got too high, they borrowed against their houses to pay off their credit cards, then did it all over again. If anyone thinks this was solely set up by the banks, just so the banks could foreclose on houses, then they really need to take a look at the big picture. And the title of that picture is "Greed."

Many of these banks did NOT hold the mortgages for subprime loans. Do you think banks were stupid? They kept the 30yr/15yr loans with 5% down/PMI and sold off the subprime loans. The ONLY purpose of the subprime loans were to sell to investors to make a buck when they bundled them and sold them off. Since these investments were AAA rated, many investors from other countries bought them up. The investors lost, not the banks, yet the banks got the bailout.

Once in a foreclosure, the bank will sell the property for it's value, then the PMI pays 25% of the market value. If the owner put 5% down and say paid 3 years in payments, the bank is not taking a loss. In many cases, the bank makes money. This is why they force you to pay PMI unless you put 20% or more down.

We can also go into how banks bet against CDOs paying out the full loan terms.

Avatard is right (not very tactful, but right). These banks and large corporations are using the government to deregulate shit/mandate legislation or tax so a small few can become very weathly at the expense of the taxpaper. It's going to lead to this country's demise.

Admittedly, tact has never been my strong suit. Pain can make you a very impatient human.

The deregulation started way back in the Carter years, but progressed significantly under Clinton and continued under Bush. The whole point was to keep from regulating derivative loans so banks could create this "subprime" loan in order to sell it off for a profit. Keep the less risky loans and sell off the risky ones. Therefore, write as many subprime loans as possible without regard to delinquency.

This was thought out way before the housing bubble. The greediest usually reside at the top.

:lol: tact is overrated

you just described me. my loan guy sold me on the adjustable rate, even though I was pre approved for almost 50k more than I paid. His argument was that it was cheaper for me on a monthly basis especially since most likely I would sell the house withing 5 years and make a profit. At the time it sounded right because it was at the time a rarity for people to loose money on a property. Since then my mortgage has been sold 5 times, and I cant get a conventional loan because the house is worth half what it was when I bought it the month before the housing market went kaput.

The banks did securitize and sell off some of the mortgages but they still hold a ton of them too. PMI is also nice for the banks when the homebuyers had to pay it. Many didn't and even when they did home values have dropped much more than 25% in many areas. In Tampa I would guess the average drop has been around 40%, but for neighborhoods built out in the 03-07 timeframe it is probably closer to a 70% decline. ETA: For condos I have seen 75-80% declines.

We can also talk about Bank of America who was pretty much doing everything right by properly evaluating potential borrowers and sticking with more traditional loans and as a result wouldn't have needed to be bailed out. All that changed when the government "encouraged" them to acquire Countrywide, the poster child for junk loans. Working off your theory it shouldn't have mattered because Countrywide wouldn't have had any exposure to the losses. Instead it was a money pit that BoA had to deal with.

I'm guessing the only time in history that the AVERAGE American could make a profit after only 5 years of home ownership was during the huge uptrend between 2000-2006 or whatever it was. Again, I'm talking average, not Joe Blow in some hot market.

Consider you have closing costs, commission, property tax, repairs, maintenance, utilities, cutting the lawn, HOA dues, and all the other bullshit costs of home ownership. Not to mention the time you waste.

Sure doesn't sound like your fault. You must really bristle at the fact that people say such stupid shit. Your the fucking posterboy for how such banking abuses harmed even the most responsible and well-meaning home buyer.

How was he abused?

It sucks that Derf got caught up in the market crash but he could have gotten a fixed mortgage. He wasn't forced into an ARM.

He also could have rented. Nobody forced him to buy when he did.

Getting caught up in the whole "make the lowest monthly payment possible, home values will ALWAYS go up" logic that was pervasive a few years ago is a shame but it's not like the bank(s) signed the contract to purchase the home.

Are you saying nobody twisted his....






ARM?






Hahahahaha :lol:

And it went even further than that, with various entities producing commercial paper that was backed by sub-prime loans. Can you imagine backing a valued product with the profit that's supposed to be made, from a money losing proposition? It was a Ponzie Scheme, of epic proportions. There never was enough money, to pay out even a small portion of the debtors.

In other words: They're not.

In some cases they may not be losing money because the loan is insured but on the other 1/2 they are still getting their asses handed to them.

As I recall they get the insured value, minus whatever the property might be valued at, which leaves them with a property that will likely only appreciate in value.

Of course it will.

Real Estate always goes up in value. :lol:

It does after it has bottomed-out and you got it at fire sale rates.

That's true.

It is highly likely that the properties that they take possession of on that day will turn appreciate.

It certainly worked for the people who did that very thing, during and after The Great Depression.

Banks did not write subprime loans knowing they would keep the loans, but rather conventional 15/30yr loans (as BofA did). As long as investors bought up the securities, everything was fine and dandy. But...after the burst, many lenders were stuck with these subprime gems and now were in deep shit when the default rate went through the roof.


It is not a theory, it is truth. Many people just don't understand how threaded greed can be. :idk:

Did you put money down on this? It was cheaper for you, but more profitable for the loan company when they sold the loan off. It's like directing you to buy a certain car model saying "this is better for you" when in reality it was better for the dealer's bottom line. It is predatory lending....borderline fraud IMO.

You're missing the point. Lenders KNEW many couldn't repay loans after the fixed period BECAUSE they knew they were going to sell off the loans to investors. Then on top of it, the Standard and Poors, Finch etc. rating agencies were in the back pockets of these banks, so naturally the investment grade of these derivatives were always AAA.

Of course no one is going to put a gun to your head to make you sign the dotted line, but that wasn't the problem. The issue is that now he cannot refinance to a fixed rate because the value is 50% of what it was only a few years later.

These people defrauded investors IMO and many should be in prision.

You've added some decent information to this thread.

The above is not an example of it.

Just curious, why not?

Take the rating agencies for instance, who here thinks they were correct in calling those assets AAA?

Because he mentions a variety of different issues that are not necessarily correlated.

They are correlated and well tied together.....they needed investors to KEEP INVESTING. And to do this, you needed to keep the investment rating at an AAA.

They were only lowered like sometime in 2009...well after the bubble....wonder why. :idk:

Like any good Ponzie or Pyramid Scheme when you stop bringing in new marks, it collapses.

Keep in mind, I'm not arguing that banks weren't greedy and didn't do some shady things. I agree, they did.

The only two concepts I have taken issue with are absolving borrowers from any responsibility when they were driven by the same greed that drove the banks, and the argument that banks are actually making money on this fiasco.

However it was handled, many banks ended up with a lot of crappy loans that have gone in to foreclosure. Those lost them a lot of money.

Banks aren't in the business of holding on to homes and making money on the appreciation. They don't have the infrastructure to deal with the inventory and they don't want to pay the taxes and bills that go with home ownership on the scale with which they are now dealing. That also assumes the insurance made them whole. In many cases the decline in value has been greater than their insurance coverage.

Even ignoring all that, no matter how likely it may be, appreciation has not yet begun. Overall home values in America have instead continued to go the other direction.

BTW, as to the video.........That lawyer has probably been in practice only a couple years, and is only doing this to get publicity.

I can't really say it much better than goof has said it. Keep in mind, the bank doesn't always sell the property for "it's value" at foreclosure. When they're holding as many properties as they are right now, many of them are taking whatever they can get just to get the properties out of their hands. And what about the people who only made a years worth of payments, often putting zero down? We can play with the numbers all day long, but I don't see anyone holding the good end of the stick right now. The ONLY people who are possibly in good shape are the ones that had a bunch of cash sitting on the sidelines and were able to buy up properties at foreclosure rates, then rent the properties out while waiting for the market to come back up. Yes, those are generally wealthy people, but it's not the banks. The banks are not in the landlord business and don't want to be in that business.

Investors for the most part own the subprime loans and therefore own the foreclosed homes. Banks are just servicers in this regard. The conventional less risky loans owned by the banks have also failed due to the economy, but those loans had money put down, insurance and most likely some years or principal and interest.

You need to replace "banks" with "investors" and then you'll have it right.

I know quite a few people who didn't know that mortgages get bought and sold all the time. :shrug:

I thought that was just a given.

It is actually both rather than one or the other. Banks still held quite a few of the subprime loans.

Perhaps not but they can profit in the sale, of that property, and have received payments towards it. They make money, on virtually every foreclosure. Believe me; both my parents were in banking for their whole lives ;)

I am assuming your parents are retired?

Once upon a time:

Joe & Mary put 20% down. If they made 5 years worth of payments and then defaulted, the bank would take back the home (that was probably worth as much as the sale price, maybe more). Since the bank had 20%+ equity in the acquired home, they would sell it and make money.

That is a very tough scenario to replicate in a down market, let alone a free-falling market. Add in the fact that many houses in the last few years were financed at 95, 100, even 110% of value and there is no profit to be had.

Retired? Yes and while this is the worst downturn in recent memory, you have to remember that this isn't the first time that housing prices have tanked. Banks made out like robber barons then, and have again. If Freddie Mac and Fannie May had been allowed to fail, then that would be one thing. Because they weren't, this situation isn't fundamentally different from previous ones.

This is the first time since the Great Depression that housing prices have TANKED.

There have been dips before but nothing of this magnitude. Not even close. (I have charts if you'd like)

The article you posted earlier said that Fannie and Freddie back about 1/2 of the loans out there. Are we not going to count the other half?

But it IS different in the fact that homes used to only be financed with 20% down. It wasn't very common for homes to be completely financed, or even over-financed like it is today, which is why banks made out like robber barons back then.

Which puts more discredit on the idea that this was some master plan, because if the banks suspected that the market could tank, they'd have required bigger downpayments.

I agree.

The banks rode the wave up just like everyone else.

They then wised up earlier than the general population and started shorting their own products and that's where things get really messy.

See that totally floored me. I wouldn't have even imagined TRYING to buy a house without at least 20% down (preferably more)

Same here, but my thoughts were on not paying PMI, was like throwing money away IMO

Exactly - it wasn't from any sense of fiscal responsibility - I'm just a cheap bastard :lol:

I fit that description too. its funny I thought we skirted the bottom when we bough tour house. Now values are still dropping and the mortgage rates are a quarter percent lower too.

Well...it wasn't planned to fail...it was just destined to fail. See the difference.

80/20 FTW!redflip

Same. :nee:

Let's not even get into how bad bank #2 gets screwed in the foreclosure proceedings.

Heck, I'm one of the people that put 0% down. But that's because I qualified for a VA loan, so I don't need PMI. Also, I made absolutely sure to buy a house I could truly afford. At the time, I got a 30 year mortgage at 6.875. I refinanced a month ago and got a 15 year at 4.25 (actually got approved 3 months ago but there were countless problems with communication between the bank and the VA). Now my payment on a 15 year fixed is a whopping $30 more per month than what I was paying on a 30 year fixed. I actually hope to have the house paid off in 5 years, but not positive I'll be able to pull that off.

80% first loan...20% second loan..0 down with no principle payments for 5 years with a low 5 year interest rate FTW!redflip

Sounds like FTL to me. Seems like nothing more than throwing money at interest, not gaining any equity. Almost sounds like renting, except person gets to also pay for all repairs and take care of all maintenance out of their own pocket. Yeah, sounds an awful lot like FTL to me.

:zowned:

Explain it to me. How is a bank making money on a foreclosure when there was little to no down payment (or in some cases the lender actually cut a check to the buyer whose purchase they were financing) virtually no principle has been paid (or all to often absolutely no principle has been paid) and the home has lost at a minimum 50% of its value? If your parents have an answer for that they should come out of retirement and move to America. There are quite a few banks were they could dictate their salaries.

Maybe it wasn't like this everywhere but from the early 2000s a lot of people in Florida bought houses like stupid people bought cars, by paying as little as possible initially and only worrying about getting the lowest initial payment possible. Hey, who cares if you can't afford it when the teaser rate ends, the payments go up by 40 or 50%, and you can no longer afford them. Just sell it and your biggest problem will be how to spend the profit! That stops working when the value of the home drops 30-40% in the more stable areas, 50-70% in the areas built out when the majority of the bad loans were written, or 70-80%+ for condos/townhouses.

In my opinion the best way to buy a house (or a car) is to work out a purchase price you can actually afford and getting a good interest rate for the life of the loan, not just the first 2, 3, or 5 years. Do that and everything else will take care of itself. If it makes anyone feel any better I don't have much remorse for people who get surprised by large balloon payments on their car or bike loans either.

It is, but as I said in my above post they thought the house would continue to have big gains in value every year. They would make almost as much as the suckers with substantial down payments and (temporarily) higher fixed interest rates, only they would have extra money to fill the house with furniture and electronics (that they also bought on credit). As I said in my first post there was plenty of greed on both sides.:shrug: