4 Responses

  1. Joyce,

    At LEAST do us the courtesy of READING the POSTED lawsuit.

    Your comments are NOT pertinent to this action.

    This is an action on the part of homeowners who are being foreclosed on via the usage of fraudulent documents.

    Your comments would be possibly be pertinent to the suit where the INVESTORS are trying to have mortgages ‘put-back’.

    Your comments are way off-target on this being about any ‘buy-back’ or ‘repurchase program’.

    Your proposed solution of a few years of subsidies is laughable as a solution to CLOUDED TITLES. Only actions that can LEGALLY deal with that problem can be advanced as a legitimate solution. A SUBSIDY? Don’t make me laugh.

    Who put you up to this cluster of miss-leading posts?

  2. I realize that banks must consider that these loans will be considered scheduled items on their financials, but which is worse, a small subsidy for each loan, about $10,000 for a three to 5 year period or: Billions in buy back cash that they will not want to expend. Once they have repurchased the loans, would they be free to modify them so there losses are still extreme and of which the servicers are once more engaged to abuse and harrass the homeowners. The problem is not resolved by a buy back, but it does capitalize Fannie and Freddie. Then the feds later on will want the taxpayers to bail out the banks because of their liquidity requirements and also, what does this do to the reserves that are now being required by the feds. Better really think it through. We have wasted enough money with foolish recovery programs, not let’s not take another step backward. This program or plan needs some scrutinizing, but I think it can work if the feds get out of the picture. In otherwords, we are going to get the loans performing (those that can be at this time and who are eligible) once again which will halt the foreclosures. Then we can start reducing the inventory by keeping these homes off the market. It will take a year of the borrower re-establishing himself with the subsidy, then the loan I believe will not be considered a “scheduled item”. Subsidy rather than buy back may be the answer and this time, the homeowners get the money, not the servicers, and best of all, no modification is necessary. Nothing more than a simple agreement that could contain the clause that the borrower is accepting the deal and will not sue the bank. One would have to see the whole plan in order to measure the potential success to bring us out of this mess. The government will be out of the picture and the deal will be between the homeowner and the lender. The PSA’s will be getting their money so that should not be a problem there, I think. We can make an exception on the “scheduled items ” requirement ratios, or at least we should put it up for discussion. Anyone know anything about it. It is tied to the amount of reserves that could be required by the financial institutions.

  3. The decision to have the banks repurchase the loans sold to Fannie and Freddie and some of the Wall Street boys will require very careful consideration to make sure that we understand fully the repercussions of such an event. Perhaps we need to require the banks to 1) take responsibility for the mess 2) set up a subsidy program that will bring the accounts current 3)allow the loans to perform to assure securities investors, (hopefully the Americns who invested in them) will not lose more personal wealth and of course this would halt the foreclosures at this point in time. Additionally, the funds will be used for the group II loans which I consider those to be that were wrongfully foreclosed which could serve as restitution and perhaps keep this mess out of the courts. In otherwords, look at what can be done to resolve the ongoing issue with those wrongfully foreclosed otherwise the attorneys, (making out like bandits) will continue to take big profits at the expense of the people. There is so much more that can be done to shore up a strategy to address “a buy back” situation. They had best think it through clearly before jumping in there and saving Fannieand Freddie. Fannie and Freddie had to have ignored their own due diligence and quality control over lenders they were doing business with and now it appears they want the country to believe the Congress gave them an order when in fact, it had to be that Fannie and Freddie were losing market share of the loans beginning in 2000 to the subprime market. F and F never, I believe admitted that Congress told them what to do, but hey, why not let the world think it was because the Congress greatly encouraged it.. Barney Frank knew better and so did his partners on the hill. He was one man that appears to have led the charge for Fannie and Freddie to make more loans and that coupled with the fact that Fannie and Freddie wanted to make more loans, set up the American people for failure and disaster.

  4. Well, grab your popcorn folks. This will be a long movie.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: