• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

BofA halts foreclosures in 50 states

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,301
Reaction score
50,288
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
BofA halts foreclosures in 50 states - Yahoo! News

AP-3 pm-A mushrooming crisis over potential flaws in foreclosure documents is threatening to throw the real estate industry into chaos, as Bank of America on Friday became the first bank to stop taking back tens of thousands of foreclosed homes in all 50 states.

The move, along with another decision on foreclosures by PNC Financial Services Inc., adds to growing concerns that mortgage lenders have been evicting homeowners using flawed court papers, without verifying the information in them.

...

The bank did so in reaction to mounting pressure from public officials inquiring about the accuracy of foreclosure documents. A document obtained last week by the Associated Press showed a Bank of America official acknowledging in a legal proceeding that she signed thousands of foreclosure documents a month and typically didn't read them. The official, Renee Hertzler, said in a February deposition that she signed up to 8,000 such documents a month.
This is an odd one. By doing this, it could slow recovery, but on the other hand, processing foreclosures that have not even been read by the proper officials is something that really should not happen.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
BofA halts foreclosures in 50 states - Yahoo! News



This is an odd one. By doing this, it could slow recovery, but on the other hand, processing foreclosures that have not even been read by the proper officials is something that really should not happen.
it actually saves the bank a lot of money in the short term, and in the long term, they may be able to turn those mortgages around. but they aren't doing it out of the kindness in their hearts......
 

Erod

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,356
Reaction score
8,095
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
So Dodd led the charge with Barney Frank to "encourage" banks to make these loans, and now he wants to stop the banks from collecting whatever they can for them after the loans defaulted?

What a putz.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
So Dodd led the charge with Barney Frank to "encourage" banks to make these loans, and now he wants to stop the banks from collecting whatever they can for them after the loans defaulted?

What a putz.
that makes no sense whatsoever. he's not stopping the banks from collecting, they are stopping themselves, temporarily.
 

Erod

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,356
Reaction score
8,095
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
that makes no sense whatsoever. he's not stopping the banks from collecting, they are stopping themselves, temporarily.
From the CNN story: "Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced Friday that he will hold a hearing to investigate allegations of improper mortgage servicing and foreclosure processing on Nov. 16, the day after the Senate returns from recess."

He's sticking his nose into the mess he created.
 
Last edited:

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,301
Reaction score
50,288
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
From the CNN story: Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced Friday that he will hold a hearing to investigate allegations of improper mortgage servicing and foreclosure processing on Nov. 16, the day after the Senate returns from recess.

He's sticking his nose into the mess he created.
He is looking into whether the foreclosures where handled properly, as in whether the paperwork was even read before it was signed. No one is saying the banks cannot foreclose, only that they have to do so properly.
 

Erod

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,356
Reaction score
8,095
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
He is looking into whether the foreclosures where handled properly, as in whether the paperwork was even read before it was signed. No one is saying the banks cannot foreclose, only that they have to do so properly.
And as the Bank is saying, yes, they have done so properly.

There is NO advantage for a bank to foreclose. They do so because they have to. Unfortunately, a high number of foreclosures doesn't look so good for the economy, and if you can slow down or halt them, you can make things look rosier than they are....right before an election.

This is purely political, and Dodd is pulling the strings.
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This sounds like the banks were sticking it to the people again. The first time was with the banks doing sub-prime loans to people that couldn't afford them, the second time was banks repackaging the loans as investments, the third time was the bailouts, and this time with improper checking of the foreclosures so they could seize the homes for quick resale. I say let's just get rid of the banks and start over. Screw them since they've already made massive profits off of the taxpayers.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
This sounds like the banks were sticking it to the people again. The first time was with the banks doing sub-prime loans to people that couldn't afford them, the second time was banks repackaging the loans as investments, the third time was the bailouts, and this time with improper checking of the foreclosures so they could seize the homes for quick resale. I say let's just get rid of the banks and start over. Screw them since they've already made massive profits off of the taxpayers.
so you believe the banks wanted people to default on their loans....and on the flip side, aren't the people who took out those loans responsible as well? your reasoning is faulty here. banks DON"T WANT those homes on their books. they would rather people be able to pay their mortgages.
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
so you believe the banks wanted people to default on their loans....and on the flip side, aren't the people who took out those loans responsible as well? your reasoning is faulty here. banks DON"T WANT those homes on their books. they would rather people be able to pay their mortgages.
Yes, I believe that the banks were looking to be predatory by not using sound judgment in giving out the loans to those that couldn't afford it. The banks pushed for relaxed lending regulations, which normally would have prevented the sub-prime mess to begin with, in order to make extra money. The banks have the homes on the books with the loans to begin with and the homes being foreclosed on just means that the banks can make more money from a second sale of it.
 
Last edited:

Taylor

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
14,198
Reaction score
5,642
Location
US
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It also allows many to stay in their homes, and that's a big plus, even if it's only temporary...

ricksfolly
Not a big plus for those of us dutifully making our monthly payments on houses that continue to decline in value...

As we allow idiots who bought homes that they couldn’t afford live in them payment-free.

This is a short term solution with long term consequences.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Not a big plus for those of us dutifully making our monthly payments on houses that continue to decline in value...

As we allow idiots who bought homes that they couldn’t afford live in them payment-free.

This is a short term solution with long term consequences.
not really. sooner or later they will have to pay the piper....in the meantime, having no vacant houses in your neighborhood keeps crime down, and keeps your property value from further declining.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Yes, I believe that the banks were looking to be predatory by not using sound judgment in giving out the loans to those that couldn't afford it. The banks pushed for relaxed lending regulations, which normally would have prevented the sub-prime mess to begin with, in order to make extra money. The banks have the homes on the books with the loans to begin with and the homes being foreclosed on just means that the banks can make more money from a second sale of it.
do you understand what you just wrote? a bank makes a 300k loan to someone who can't afford it, with very little down. they make a little in interest, then have to foreclose. in the meanitme, property values are halved. so now they can sell it for 150k........WHOA! what genius!

i'm not sure you understand how these things work.
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
do you understand what you just wrote? a bank makes a 300k loan to someone who can't afford it, with very little down. they make a little in interest, then have to foreclose. in the meanitme, property values are halved. so now they can sell it for 150k........WHOA! what genius!

i'm not sure you understand how these things work.
Oh I understand how these things work, but do you? I ask because you're missing two of the four things I said as my reasons for scrapping the banks and starting over.

That's why the banks got the bailouts after getting the money for selling the loans as an investment. Once they got the bailout, any money from the sale of a home would be pure profit. Besides it's not like the banks actually invested money into this since they can create money out of thin air on a computer based upon the down payment. The down payment goes onto their books as part of their reserves and 90% of the value of the reserve can be created as new money. Don't you just love fractional reserve banking?
 

Erod

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,356
Reaction score
8,095
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes, I believe that the banks were looking to be predatory by not using sound judgment in giving out the loans to those that couldn't afford it. The banks pushed for relaxed lending regulations, which normally would have prevented the sub-prime mess to begin with, in order to make extra money. The banks have the homes on the books with the loans to begin with and the homes being foreclosed on just means that the banks can make more money from a second sale of it.
OK, can't go with you there.

If someone buys a house for $500K, the bank has to cut that check to the previous owner/builder for $500K. If they only collect a year's worth of payments, then have to turn around and sell it for $250K, then the bank has lost money.

What's happening is the bank is desperate to collect what it can to SERVICE ITS OWN DEBTS. However, it is still in the best interest of the bank to receive payments, not foreclose. I'm certain, as BoA has stated, it is doing everything it can to collect house payments before they decide to foreclose.

This whole "process" argument is just a sham to slow down foreclosures and make the housing picture look slightly better prior to an election. Come December, it will be "Foreclose away!!", and the Dems will blame it on the new Republican Congress heading into 2012.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Oh I understand how these things work, but do you? I ask because you're missing two of the four things I said as my reasons for scrapping the banks and starting over.

That's why the banks got the bailouts after getting the money for selling the loans as an investment. Once they got the bailout, any money from the sale of a home would be pure profit. Besides it's not like the banks actually invested money into this since they can create money out of thin air on a computer based upon the down payment. The down payment goes onto their books as part of their reserves and 90% of the value of the reserve can be created as new money. Don't you just love fractional reserve banking?
oh, so now you're saying the banks knew the collapse would happen and they would be bailed out. again....genius!
 

Erod

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,356
Reaction score
8,095
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Oh I understand how these things work, but do you? I ask because you're missing two of the four things I said as my reasons for scrapping the banks and starting over.

That's why the banks got the bailouts after getting the money for selling the loans as an investment. Once they got the bailout, any money from the sale of a home would be pure profit. Besides it's not like the banks actually invested money into this since they can create money out of thin air on a computer based upon the down payment. The down payment goes onto their books as part of their reserves and 90% of the value of the reserve can be created as new money. Don't you just love fractional reserve banking?
Good point on the bailouts. Not sure just how much the banks got, but if they were made whole on the majority of their bad loans, then I guess, there could be some residual profit from the second sale.
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
oh, so now you're saying the banks knew the collapse would happen and they would be bailed out. again....genius!
I don't know where you got that idea from, since I certainly didn't say it. Would you stop strawmanning me by putting words in my mouth?
 

Erod

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,356
Reaction score
8,095
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
oh, so now you're saying the banks knew the collapse would happen and they would be bailed out. again....genius!
No, he/she is saying that the last bailout made them whole on many of these foreclosures, so the second sale is pure profit. It's a valid argument.
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Good point on the bailouts. Not sure just how much the banks got, but if they were made whole on the majority of their bad loans, then I guess, there could be some residual profit from the second sale.
I doubt that there were any true 'bad' loans since under the fractional reserve bank system the individual banks can create money out of thin air by taking 90% of a deposit and create ten times the amount in new money. For example, a bank receives a 1 million dollar deposit. Out of that 1 million, they can take 900k of it to create an additional 9 million dollars, so did the banks actually lose money?
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Good point on the bailouts. Not sure just how much the banks got, but if they were made whole on the majority of their bad loans, then I guess, there could be some residual profit from the second sale.
so when a bank sells a loan.........it's not sold? roflmao. silly, silly, silly.
 

Erod

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,356
Reaction score
8,095
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I doubt that there were any true 'bad' loans since under the fractional reserve bank system the individual banks can create money out of thin air by taking 90% of a deposit and create ten times the amount in new money. For example, a bank receives a 1 million dollar deposit. Out of that 1 million, they can take 900k of it to create an additional 9 million dollars, so did the banks actually lose money?
It truly is mind-boggling.

And to think, counterfeiting is illegal for the rest of us.
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
so when a bank sells a loan.........it's not sold? roflmao. silly, silly, silly.
When the banks sell the loan, it is treated like a regular deposit. They can take 90% of the deposit to create 10 times the amount in new cash to be lent out. The remaining 10% has to stay within the bank on the cash balance sheet as a reserve to cover deposits of the people that use the bank for savings and checking accounts.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom