Borrowers exit troubled Obama mortgage program

[Renae]

these folks' home ownership futures were terminal but for Obama's modification program
if we could save 27% of terminal cancer patients who otherwise would bite the dust, i think that would be termed a success


and still no wingers willing to offer their specific thoughts about what Obama should have done that he failed to do to assist these folks in financial distress

"HE" should have done nothing. It's not his job, not his purview. And until we get back to remembering who and what the PRESIDENT is, we'll keep getting horrible Gov't programs that waste money and do little all to impress people that think it's the Gov't's job to save them. What the Gov't needs to do is get out the way and let the markets correct. People will have a rough go of it, and then things will get better, instead they'll be perpetually awaiting the next Gov't solution.

 

[justabubba]

"HE" should have done nothing. It's not his job, not his purview. And until we get back to remembering who and what the PRESIDENT is, we'll keep getting horrible Gov't programs that waste money and do little all to impress people that think it's the Gov't's job to save them. What the Gov't needs to do is get out the way and let the markets correct. People will have a rough go of it, and then things will get better, instead they'll be perpetually awaiting the next Gov't solution.

make up your mind. before, you insisted that 27% of defaulted borrowers was a poor measure for the president's mortgage modification program
now you complain if it exceeds 0%
your posts indicate you haven't a clue what this topic is actually about ... and you are the OP!

 

[justabubba]

I don't characterize 27% as anything, because 27% is the wrong number. I've pointed this out to you three times, yet you continue to lie about it. Why? Do you think that if you repeat it enough it will magically become true?

27% was the percentage of those who pursued assistance in the mortgage modification program to avoid foreclosure
what number do you have which would better describe what has happened with the Making Home Affordable (MHA) program ... and please provide a cite to sustain whatever number you put forward

And you're either incapable of reading English or so disingenuous that it's not worth responding to you. I explained (politely, I might add) that you understandably misinterpreted the article. When you responded with your characteristic derision and willful blindness, I tried again. If you still can't understand what I'm saying, that's your problem.

you cannot articulate or defend a position and the reader who calls you on it has the problem ... in your mind. i am not laughing with you

I know, where would I get the "dubious, unsupported position that there is any evidence of underperformance"?


(Reuters) - A U.S. program aimed at helping struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure has been oversold by the Treasury Department and is likely to be a failure when it wraps up in 2012, a report from the watchdog overseeing the $700 billion bank bailout said on Tuesday.

Home loan modification program oversold: watchdog | Reuters

I've tried linking and quoting, but that doesn't seem to make an impression on you. Perhaps large text will have an effect.

note that the IG's position is not that the program is underperforming but that the IG does not find the standards established concurrent with the MHA program as adequate to measure its effectiveness

Other than a report from the Gov agency overseeing the program, you're absolutely right.

a report which challenges the benchmarks employed to determine the effectiveness of the program does not assert that the program is underperforming

look at this washington post article excerpt:

The inspector general's report warned that many borrowers are at risk of redefaulting on their mortgages even after receiving help under the federal program; many owe significantly more than their homes are worth, or have second mortgages or other debts.

In a response included in the report, the Treasury said the program's success should not be measured solely by how many borrowers receive loan modifications. The administration is also pursuing other strategies to avoid foreclosures, such as encouraging short sales in which borrowers sell their homes for less than what they owe.

The program "should be measured by how many eligible homeowners are able to are able to avoid the pain and stigma of foreclosure by reducing their mortgage payments to affordable levels while either remaining in their homes or transitioning with dignity to more suitable housing," said Herbert M. Allison, assistant Treasury secretary for financial stability. "The number of permanent modifications is one element, but not the only element of gauging the success."

Treasury report lowers estimate of home borrowers helped by key program - washingtonpost.com

what we know is that 27% of those who were in default, but who have pursued the opportunity to preserve their home have done so. only because of the Obama mortgage modification program

Obama is helping those who are in a position to help themselves
others who have lost their job, or bought more home than they could afford when the adjustable rate spiked, or who bought at the top of the market with no/minimal down payment, and who are now upside down in a debt which far exceeds the underlying value of the home they purchased ... they are not in a position to be helped by the modification program. but possibly some of them will benefit from the opportunity to sell their home short and use the funds now available for moving costs into another residence they can afford


and still, you are unable to accept my challenge to describe the specific actions Obama has not taken but should have taken to aid more home buyers who are unable to make their payments. that's right, you have NO expertis in the industry. you have proven that. repeatedly

 

[RightinNYC]

27% was the percentage of those who pursued assistance in the mortgage modification program to avoid foreclosure

Sounds familiar, where have I heard that before?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ed-obama-mortgage-program.html#post1058816576

Oh, that's right - I explained it to you a dozen posts ago. Do you really need me to explain why "27% of those in the program" is not the same as "27% of people facing foreclosure" as you repeatedly claimed?

what number do you have which would better describe what has happened with the Making Home Affordable (MHA) program ... and please provide a cite to sustain whatever number you put forward

I've offered you a half dozen links, yet you don't seem to have read any of them.

you cannot articulate or defend a position and the reader who calls you on it has the problem ... in your mind. i am not laughing with you

Given your performance in this thread, I'd be more concerned if you were.

note that the IG's position is not that the program is underperforming but that the IG does not find the standards established concurrent with the MHA program as adequate to measure its effectiveness

a report which challenges the benchmarks employed to determine the effectiveness of the program does not assert that the program is underperforming

It's like the english language means something different to you than it does to the rest of us.

The Obama administration’s main foreclosure-prevention program risks helping few borrowers and may do more harm than good by “merely spreading out the foreclosure crisis” over several years, federal investigators said.

Just 2.8 percent of the 6 million borrowers with loans delinquent more than 60 days have had their loan modifications made permanent through February.

And the number of homeowners with loans delinquent more than 60 days is rising far faster than the number of loans being made permanent each month.

As of January, there were 5.6 million homeowners who were 60 days or more behind on their payments. That means about 400,000 more people fell behind on their payments from January to February, compared to about 50,000 who received a permanent modification in that same period.

And most hilariously:

While Treasury officials still publicly proclaim the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, will help 3 million to 4 million borrowers, internally they project that about half that number will receive permanent alterations to their loan terms, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program wrote in the report.

If you read "internally they project that about half that number will receive permanent alterations" and think "gee, that doesn't sound like underperforming," then I submit that you don't actually understand what the word "underperforming" means.

look at this washington post article excerpt: Treasury report lowers estimate of home borrowers helped by key program - washingtonpost.com

what we know is that 27% of those who were in default, but who have pursued the opportunity to preserve their home have done so. only because of the Obama mortgage modification program

Obama is helping those who are in a position to help themselves
others who have lost their job, or bought more home than they could afford when the adjustable rate spiked, or who bought at the top of the market with no/minimal down payment, and who are now upside down in a debt which far exceeds the underlying value of the home they purchased ... they are not in a position to be helped by the modification program. but possibly some of them will benefit from the opportunity to sell their home short and use the funds now available for moving costs into another residence they can afford

First, read your own ****ing article title: "Treasury report lowers estimate of home borrowers helped by key program"

Yea, can't see where I would get the idea that the program is underperforming!

Second, so the other 6 million people facing foreclosure don't deserve help?

Also, you don't seem to understand that "number of people helped" is not the only useful metric. There's also something called "cost." With a $75b program, even if a million homeowners receive permanent long-term modifications, that's a cost of $75,000 per person. Do you still think that's a good idea? What about if only 500k are helped in the long-term? 250k?

How much per person are you willing to spend?

and still, you are unable to accept my challenge to describe the specific actions Obama has not taken but should have taken to aid more home buyers who are unable to make their payments. that's right, you have NO expertis in the industry. you have proven that. repeatedly

You lie/fail to read the words on the screen over and over again and I'm the one who's proving his ignorance?

 

[Renae]

make up your mind. before, you insisted that 27% of defaulted borrowers was a poor measure for the president's mortgage modification program
now you complain if it exceeds 0%
your posts indicate you haven't a clue what this topic is actually about ... and you are the OP!

WTF are you blathering on about? You asked a question, "What should Obama do?" I answered it "Nothing".

YOU are the one cheerleading a false 27% helped, as RightNYC proved, the number was like 1.57% or there about. Either way, both were horrible success numbers and proof the system failed, miserably.

YOU are the one that's off in la-la land.

 

[ZGM]

How would you avoid home foreclosure?

President Obama's so-called home loan modifications program is, I think, helping homeowners escape foreclosure, while dissidents say it's doing nothing.

How would you escape foreclosure?

Borrowers exit troubled Obama mortgage program | savannahnow.com

 

[RightinNYC]

Moderator's Warning:

Threads merged

 

[justabubba]

Sounds familiar, where have I heard that before?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ed-obama-mortgage-program.html#post1058816576

Oh, that's right - I explained it to you a dozen posts ago. Do you really need me to explain why "27% of those in the program" is not the same as "27% of people facing foreclosure" as you repeatedly claimed?

the same 27% in the article cited by the OP, the article which began this discussion

I've offered you a half dozen links, yet you don't seem to have read any of them.

read them all, but like your posts, they contain no factual information - only bogus opinion

Given your performance in this thread, I'd be more concerned if you were.

my performance in this thread has been to devastate your whining that a 27% success rate is not good performance when we are looking at a base of individuals who would otherwise have been subject to foreclosure and the loss of their homes

It's like the english language means something different to you than it does to the rest of us.

you are the one who reads a 27% success rate and deem that underperformance when the reality is salvaging 27% of homes which would otherwise be lost to creditor liquidation sales is an admirable accomplishment

And most hilariously:



If you read "internally they project that about half that number will receive permanent alterations" and think "gee, that doesn't sound like underperforming," then I submit that you don't actually understand what the word "underperforming" means.

key word here is "project"
the reason they require the modification participants to first do a trial run is to weed out those who (again) agree to repayment terms - even tho reduced - that they still cannot meet
how about let's instead recognize that 27% of the folks have been able to secure their homes against forced sale and step away from idle speculation

First, read your own ****ing article title: "Treasury report lowers estimate of home borrowers helped by key program"

Yea, can't see where I would get the idea that the program is underperforming!

how is this underperforming?
Obama's modifiaction program establishes criteria which must be met before participants can enjoy a permanent loan modification; to pay lower payments because of reduced interest rates and extended loan maturities. no more accepting verbal quotes of income. now wage statements must be provided. the participants must be willing to allow the IRS to share their recent federal tax returns, to allow the loan modification to be reliant on sound data. this is good governance - unlike what preceded the Obama administration

Second, so the other 6 million people facing foreclosure don't deserve help?

certainly they are entitled to receive the loan modification help - IF - IF they can meet the criteria which requires them to actually be able to pay the loan back under the modified terms
if they are unable (or unwilling) to repay their mortgage, then what assistance should they expect? well, Obama has covered that, too. he is providing a moving allowance to those borrowers who are so upside down in their homes and who are without the means to pay that they can now agree to a deed in lieu of foreclosure (short sale) to bypass the foreclosure sale process - which is an expensive one. one which undermines the value of the present housing stock
i ask again, and you have yet to provide an aswer other than you are without expertise in this industry (which IS painfully obvious), exactly what more should Obama be doing to assist those home owners who are now in default. if you insist he is underperforming, then explain what he should instead be doing to become adequately performing (in your mind)

Also, you don't seem to understand that "number of people helped" is not the only useful metric. There's also something called "cost." With a $75b program, even if a million homeowners receive permanent long-term modifications, that's a cost of $75,000 per person. Do you still think that's a good idea? What about if only 500k are helped in the long-term? 250k?

How much per person are you willing to spend?

the government covers the cost of money incurred by the lender who participates in the loan modification when the maturity of the loan has been extened. the subsidy for the loan mod is for that extended period of loaned money the lender had not originally anticipated. similarly, that subsidy provides for the reduced income to the lender where the interest rate of the mortgage is reduced. so, tell me the size of the loan balance, the old maturity, the new maturity, the old interest rate and the new interest rate and i will be able to tell you in each and every situation what the cost to the government will be

You lie/fail to read the words on the screen over and over again and I'm the one who's proving his ignorance?

yes. you are. you are not stupid but it is abundantly clear you have absolutely no expertise in this environment

 

[RightinNYC]

yes. you are. you are not stupid but it is abundantly clear you have absolutely no expertise in this environment

And it's abundantly clear that you have no interest in honestly debating this topic.