• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama seeks to aid 9 million homeowners

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,862
Reaction score
10,300
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The Obama Administration's housing rescue plan will be unveiled in a speech today. CNN has reported early details. The plan includes what has been a controversial item to date, allowing bankruptcy judges to modify mortgage contracts.

The Obama plan calls for:

• Helping borrowers who owe more than 80% of their home's value to refinance and reduce their monthly payments.
• Creating a $75 billion homeowner stability initiative to reduce monthly payments for at-risk borrowers by subsidizing interest rates. The goal would be to bring payments to no more than 31% of a borrower's income...

Obama seeks to aid up to 9 million borrowers - Feb. 18, 2009
 
Maybe I misunderstood something.

I heard that the FedGvmnt was going to spend $x to help people out of foreclosures, by getting/forcing lenders to lower interest rates and re-finance houses based on their current value.

So... I refinance my house at, say, 60% of what I bought it.

5 years from now, when real estate process go back up, it might be worth 25% more than what I bought it.

What keeps me from selling that house at a HUGE profit?

Obviously, I am not in that situation – but I am paying for people who are -- and thery stand to make a LOT of money off of it.

Anyone else have a problem with this?
 
Maybe I misunderstood something.

I heard that the FedGvmnt was going to spend $x to help people out of foreclosures, by getting/forcing lenders to lower interest rates and re-finance houses based on their current value.

So... I refinance my house at, say, 60% of what I bought it.

5 years from now, when real estate process go back up, it might be worth 25% more than what I bought it.

What keeps me from selling that house at a HUGE profit?

Obviously, I am not in that situation – but I am paying for people who are -- and thery stand to make a LOT of money off of it.

Anyone else have a problem with this?

That's exactly my problem with it.

I was thinking about this the other day and I think I came up with something that is better than the current set up.

Let the modifications go through, but with a lien existing on the property that is not repaid until the sale of the property. For example, if someone's principle on their loan is reduced to 60% so that they can pay their mortgage, then 40% of the loan amount should be placed as a non-interest gathering lien on the property.

If the person sells at 125% of the original purchase price/ loan amount, then the lien gets paid and the person makes the 25%. It's not perfect, but it's better than them making teh 40% that it was reduced PLUS the 25% of equity growth.

Now, let's say they sell for 90% of the purchase price/loan amount. THEN the bank will need to waive the final 10% but they can still recoup the 30% that they otherwise would have lost entirely. In essence, it becomes a short sale for the bank and the homeowner receives 0 profits.

This could prevent people from using the restructurings in order to profit for themselves.

As it stands, a smart (although corrupt) person could declare bankruptcy to lower their Mortgage lien and still potentially fix their credit in four or five years in order to gain huge profits with little detrimental effect.
 
Maybe I misunderstood something.

I heard that the FedGvmnt was going to spend $x to help people out of foreclosures, by getting/forcing lenders to lower interest rates and re-finance houses based on their current value.

So... I refinance my house at, say, 60% of what I bought it.

5 years from now, when real estate process go back up, it might be worth 25% more than what I bought it.

What keeps me from selling that house at a HUGE profit?

Obviously, I am not in that situation – but I am paying for people who are -- and thery stand to make a LOT of money off of it.

Anyone else have a problem with this?

It is unlikely that home values are going to overinflate again anytime soon.
 
It is unlikely that home values are going to overinflate again anytime soon.

But in some regions we might be seeing an over-deflation of prices that will cause a rebound in those areas.

If I bought before the over-inflation, and then finagle things to get my lien reduced while the market is overly deflated in my area and then the market rebounds a bit to the correct values (still greater than when I purchased), I could make huge profits.
 
It is unlikely that home values are going to overinflate again anytime soon.
Irrelevant to the issue.

Even if the value of the home makes it back to the original price and it takes a while to do it, it is still a lot of money, and it is still at you expense.

Why dont you have a problem with that?
 
That's exactly my problem with it.
I was thinking about this the other day and I think I came up with something that is better than the current set up.
I have NO issue with the difference between the original mortgage and the 'adjusted' mortgage going back to the government upon sale of the property.

Neither should anyone else.
 
But in some regions we might be seeing an over-deflation of prices that will cause a rebound in those areas.

If I bought before the over-inflation, and then finagle things to get my lien reduced while the market is overly deflated in my area and then the market rebounds a bit to the correct values (still greater than when I purchased), I could make huge profits.

How could the correct values be greater than the overinflated values? :confused:
 
**** no, the prices of homes hasn't fallen to the correct levels yet. We have to wait for that, any sort of money thrown at the problem will only start the bubble again.
 
It is unlikely that home values are going to overinflate again anytime soon.

I'll probably buy property some time in the future. But this is a bit of a pisser.
I was waiting for prices to fall, and then be greedy.
But with the way things are going, who knows what the hell is going to happen.
If the government keeps intervening in the market, getting it hot with corrupted entities, bailing it out... who is going to buy the properties to rent to those that lost their homes?
They're just getting subsidized housing from the government.
Good deal if you can get your neighbor who kept his act together to pay your mortgage... with government coercion.

I believe many people had the same idea.
They see irrational exuberance and wait for the correction.

Now?
The government is the correction.
 
Last edited:
Irrelevant to the issue.

Even if the value of the home makes it back to the original price and it takes a while to do it, it is still a lot of money, and it is still at you expense.

Why dont you have a problem with that?

I just don't see how home prices would become more overinflated than they previously were given the state of our economy.

If it were possible, I would have a problem with that. I don't think it's possible.
 
The Loan Ranger | The Big Money (via politico)

[T]he Obama homeowner bailout is expected to use government funds to supplement homeowners' monthly payments—in the short term, a lifeline not only for homeowners, but for financial institutions, pension funds, and other stakeholders facing insolvency because their mortgage-related holdings have plummeted in value.

Then what? That's where the picture gets gloomier. The tricks loan mods have been using to keep borrowers out of foreclosure are variations on the acrobatics lenders used during the bubble to shove customers into unpayable mortgages. A loan mod might forestall payments for a few months, then add the amount that didn't get paid to the final years of the mortgage. Or it could reduce interest rates by a few points temporarily—but sooner or later, that interest rate must rise back up and the borrower must pay off the remaining balance as if he or she had been paying the full interest rate all along. If that sounds like an Option ARM to you, you're catching on—many of these loans are in a state of "negative amortization," in which the total amount owed grows instead of shrinking over time. Sooner or later—sooner, if one hopes to be able to sell the house—the total comes due. The bailout will undoubtedly lower that shocker of a final bill, but the government's funds can only stretch so far.
 
I just don't see how home prices would become more overinflated than they previously were given the state of our economy.
They do not need to bceome 'overinflated' for my criticism to be valid.

No matter how you want to look at it, people who are defaulting on their mortgages are being given equity in ther home at your expense, equity that -they- get to cash in on at the time of sale.

Why dont you have a problem with that?
 
They do not need to bceome 'overinflated' for my criticism to be valid.

No matter how you want to look at it, people who are defaulting on their mortgages are being given equity in ther home at your expense, equity that -they- get to cash in on at the time of sale.

Why dont you have a problem with that?

It's not any different than bailing out the bank because it loses money, or paying welfare to these people who will be homeless. It's at my expense one way or the other.
 
It's not any different than bailing out the bank because it loses money, or paying welfare to these people who will be homeless. It's at my expense one way or the other.

What about the people who used these properties as investments?
 
What about the people who used these properties as investments?

Do you mean should they lower the rent that the tenants pay?

There should be a provision for that for sure.
 
How could the correct values be greater than the overinflated values? :confused:

The key was purchasing before the over-inflation occurs. The purchase price in that scenario would not be over-inflated.


For example, I live in a 72 unit condo complex. I purchased my condo very early and got a better price than most people in the building. When the units were being sold, there was such a high demand at the time, that some of the units that sold after mine went for 20-30% more in value than mine did.

The average unit in the building went for 15% more than mine did.

But personally, I would not have purchased my unit for any more than what I paid at the time.

Also, NONE of the units in the building sold for less than mine did. Every single one of them sold for what I bought at or higher.

Now, there are a couple of foreclosures and short sales in the building. The current value of the units is dictated by these foreclosures and short sales, but it is overly-deflated since they are currently selling at slightly below what I paid for mine (and they are selling at that price which is about 90-95% of what I bought mine at. One was on the market recently for a good deal less than that, but there ended up being a bidding war that broke out and it ended up selling at that price range as well. Happy times for me!)

But the thing is, for most of the people in the building, 90-95% of what I purchased for is a helluva lot less than what they purchased for.

So in a few years when they are able to sell, they might sell for 105-110% of what I purchased for in order to minimize their losses.

Either way if I sell for 105-110% of my purchase price, I come away with profits.


Because I bought before the over-inflation of the units in my building, I can potentially make a nice profit if I have the patience whereas, right now if I sold, I'd lose money.

To a degree, the future value of my condo will be dictated by the average purchase price of the units in my building and the surrounding buildings (the majority of which got converted to condos after my building was converted).

Having gotten mine at the lowest possible price at the time, it is unlikely that after the overly-deflated market rebounds to the correct values that the correct value will be less than what I paid, and in all liklihood it will be above what I paid by a small amount.

If I were to remove 40% of my principle balance though nefarious means, I could stand to make huge profits given these facts.
 
Last edited:
It's not any different than bailing out the bank because it loses money....
It IS different. The banks are getting loans, that they will pay interest on.

or paying welfare to these people who will be homeless.
False premise. Foreclosure does not necessarily equal homelessness.

So... why do yo NOT have a proiblem with giving people tens of thosands of dollars in free equity?
 
The key was purchasing before the over-inflation occurs. The purchase price in that scenario would not be over-inflated.


For example, I live in a 72 unit condo complex. I purchased my condo very early and got a better price than most people in the building. When the units were being sold, there was such a high demand at the time, that some of the units that sold after mine went for 20-30% more in value than mine did.

The average unit in the building went for 15% more than mine did.

But personally, I would not have purchased my unit for any more than what I paid at the time.

Also, NONE of the units in the building sold for less than mine did. Every single one of them sold for what I bought at or higher.

Now, there are a couple of foreclosures and short sales in the building. The current value of the units is dictated by these foreclosures and short sales, but it is overly-deflated since they are currently selling at slightly below what I paid for mine (and they are selling at that price which is about 90-95% of what I bought mine at. One was on the market recently for a good deal less than that, but there ended up being a bidding war that broke out and it ended up selling at that price range as well. Happy times for me!)

But the thing is, for most of the people in the building, 90-95% of what I purchased for is a helluva lot less than what they purchased for.

So in a few years when they are able to sell, they might sell for 105-110% of what I purchased for in order to minimize their losses.

Either way if I sell for 105-110% of my purchase price, I come away with profits.


Because I bought before the over-inflation of the units in my building, I can potentially make a nice profit if I have the patience whereas, right now if I sold, I'd lose money.

To a degree, the future value of my condo will be dictated by the average purchase price of the units in my building and the surrounding buildings (the majority of which got converted to condos after my building was converted).

Having gotten mine at the lowest possible price at the time, it is unlikely that after the overly-deflated market rebounds to the correct values that the correct value will be less than what I paid, and in all liklihood it will be above what I paid by a small amount.

If I were to remove 40% of my principle balance though nefarious means, I could stand to make huge profits given these facts.

Well, this program is for people who owe more than 80% of their home's value and would look to bring payments into 31% of their income.

I'm not sure if you qualify. I'm also not sure if the 80% is based on value at time of purchase or the current value.

But if you do qualify, you could only knock off 5 -10%. That's the current market value difference.
 
It IS different. The banks are getting loans, that they will pay interest on.


False premise. Foreclosure does not necessarily equal homelessness.

So... why do yo NOT have a proiblem with giving people tens of thosands of dollars in free equity?

That's your false premise. It's only free equity if prices overinflate again, which is unlikely to happen.
 
That's your false premise. It's only free equity if prices overinflate again
Wrong. Its free equity if the value of the home goes up at ALL.

So... why do yo NOT have a proiblem with giving people tens of thosands of dollars in free equity?
 
Wrong. Its free equity if the value of the home goes up at ALL.

So... why do yo NOT have a proiblem with giving people tens of thosands of dollars in free equity?

"Going up at all" is not equal to "tens of thosands of dollars".
 
"Going up at all" is not equal to "tens of thosands of dollars".
Going up tens of thoussands of dollars doesnt require "overinflated prices".

So... why do yo NOT have a proiblem with giving people tens of thosands of dollars in free equity?
 
Going up tens of thoussands of dollars doesnt require "overinflated prices".

So... why do yo NOT have a proiblem with giving people tens of thosands of dollars in free equity?

You haven't proven that these homes are undervalued by tens of thousands of dollars.

If they are, then that is a problem. That can be fixed by the provision that Tucker put forth. The OP's story doesn't have the particulars laid out.
 
You haven't proven that these homes are undervalued by tens of thousands of dollars.
I dont have to -- for your argument to hold water, YOU have to prove that if the value of these houses increase in value by tens of thousands of dollars, they would then be overinflated.
 
Back
Top Bottom