Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ogi who wrote (55974)	1/25/2008 6:03:31 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78428

For sure, as you adjusted mortgage principal for shared responsibility you'd also have to remove all legal barriers inhibiting current holders of that mortgage paper from suing its originators, and/or any middlemen in between ... call it the As Ye Sow, So Shall Ye Reap act Credit card applications still come thick and fast in the mail here ... 1.9% for 6mo intro offer from one, and it's not a small outfit, i don't even open envelopes from them, or the MBNA types ... probably could get one worth five grand or so for the cat, let her pay her way for a change

To: ogi who wrote (55974)	1/25/2008 7:23:41 PM
From: loantech	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78428

In most cases full disclosure to the public IMO. They wanted the low teaser rate and believed rates would not rise so took ARMS. They also lied on income sections etc. They knew better but then so did the stupid bankers that gave them out.Full disclosure on negative amortization. It usually is all spelled out.

To: ogi who wrote (55974)	1/26/2008 10:03:43 AM
From: Metacomet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78428

I do think many mortgage holders were victimized for the benefit of the commissions involved which were in place to feed the paper up the line to the derivatives market. Exactly. There may have been a small percentage of borrowers with the sophistication to knowingly exploit these lending opportunities, but that would have been a fairly small subset of the borrowers. The majority of these folks, as you said, were either knowingly or more probably, unintentionally victimized by incompetent advisors. The entire gravy train was energized by the erroneous mantra that "real estate always rises". Operating from this premise, realtors and lenders, compensated for making deals, encouraged their clients to borrow as much as they possibly could even if it involved a bit of fudging. When the property "inevitably" increased in value, they could always sell at a substantial profit or refi, with sufficient cash out to deal with any financial strain. In most cases, the "advisors", who had just passed a real estate or mortgage brokers exam didn't know any better. The blame properly lies at the feet of a government that allowed a regulatory structure to be bypassed at the behest of powerful and greedy real estate/homebuilding/financial interests who merely asked for and received the special benefits this administration has awarded to all who supported their rise to power.