Bio
Blogging on politics and social issues from a mom's perspective - my tax dollars are NOT going to things I value and its time to change that. All kid...
 
 
 
 

Most Popular

Cut your mortgage by 30%

  • Share This Post
  • Pin It
  • 1
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

I live in an expensive part of the world.  I watch real estate closely, I check Clean Offer every day (thanks to my amazing realtor, Warren Mullen).

The FDIC is FINALLY floating the brilliant idea of slashing mortgages.

FDIC Chair Sheila Blair

FDIC Chair Sheila Bair

(Hmmm, notice who is offering to FIX things for the American taxpayer, after we’ve been sold up river by the male dominated banking system and the Federal Reserve?  A WOMAN…)

Economists agree that decreasing mortgages might be the only way to stop the massive avalanche of future foreclosures.

I see that most houses that go on the market in my area (San Francisco Bay Area) go on the market at inflated prices that reflect the real estate bubble of a few years ago.  Problem is, that bubble has burst.  No one can get loans, bank lending is super-tight despite being bailed out by billions of hard earned American dollars.  If you missed ONE credit card payment, your credit score could drop 100 points, your credit cards can shoot their interest rate up to 29% and you are screwed.  NO HOME FOR YOU!

The houses that do sell, sell for 20% to 30% off the asking price.  So, in my opinion, banks should be forced to lower mortgages 20-30%.

And I’m not alone in thinking this…

Economists like Yale University’s John Geanakoplos, have argued that cutting the principal on delinquent loans should have been the administration’s practice all along. For the nearly quarter of American homeowners who owe more on their mortgage than the house is worth, it’s by far the best way to keep them in their homes and reduce foreclosures, Geanakoplos said in an interview last month.

Guess who benefits?  Banks?  Yes.  YOU?  YES.  Finally, a solution that benefits the taxpayer who keep the economy afloat.

Obama’s plan of loan modifications? FAILURE.  1/3 of American homeowners have underwater mortgages.  With loan modifications, the bank agrees to make your 30 year mortgage into a 40 year mortgage.  If you carry a $1,000,000 mortgage, you pay $2,160,000 over 30 years, at 5% interest.  So now the bank agrees to charge you a bit less interest.  But you’re paying an extra 10 years for a mortgage that is more than the value of your house.  Guess who profits from the loan modification?  Not you.

The only solution is REAL WORLD.  Home values have dropped 30%.  Drop mortgage values by the same 30%.  NOW.

  • 1
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
9to5to9 5 pts

My question is this: As someone who deliberately did NOT buy during the run-up despite the propaganda from Realtors and the approaches from lenders hawking liar loans, why should I have to pay for someone who indulged? And I will pay - if you think loan markets are tight now, wait until banks have to swallow 30 percent losses, even if they're only on paper. Not that I have much sympathy for banks, who have already collected years of interest on loans for inflated values. Or Realtors who raked in commissions on homes they knew were overinflated because, in some instances, they or the banks were pressuring appraisers to overvalue homes.

It's not the first time in the state's history that many homeowners have been underwater - many, many people were in the same boat in the late 1990s after that bubble burst. Why should today's buyers be different? Anyone who's lived in California for more than 10 years should have recognized the bubble for what it was.

I suppose to a certain extent I could gag and manage to choke down very limited principle cuts. I would hope they wouldn't apply, though, to people who drunkenly re-fied during the runup to use their houses like ATM machines.

And I would hope that the plan would be more closely aligned to what conservative economist Martin Feldstein ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122697004441035727... ) suggested more than a year ago, with responsibility being divided among the banks, the homeowner and, yes, the government. No way should the government - read, the taxpayers, which includes me - be forced to foot the whole bill for a hangover when we never drank a single drop.

Debra Legg
9to5to9 ( http://debralegg.com/ )