March 24, 2010
— Purple Avenger Interesting ploy they're offering. They'll reduce your principal amount by up to 30% over 5 years is you'll just please keep paying on time.
Of course there's going to be a modest balance sheet hit from doing this, but it won't be as bad a hit as pulling the trigger on a foreclosure what would move your "asset" into the "liability" column and trigger adding hefty reserves.
Will this (up to) 30% be enough to turn people away from strategic defaults? I don't know. If someone could line up alternate accommodations that were still significantly cheaper than continued paying, probably not.
It seems in the "game of chicken" between borrowers and lenders, BofA just flinched. Obviously they don't see any significant rebound rebound in housing anytime soon, or they'd not be making such offers.
It will be interesting to see how many people they get to bite. A haircut is always better than a trip to Madame Guillotine I suppose.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at
07:20 AM
| Comments (88)
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: J. Wilde at March 24, 2010 07:24 AM (ZE0Hi)
Posted by: fluffy at March 24, 2010 07:25 AM (4Kl5M)
Yes, there are still many, many people who will default in the near future but have not yet done so.
Posted by: Driver at March 24, 2010 07:25 AM (eXZjc)
Posted by: Lone Marauder at March 24, 2010 07:27 AM (/bVuS)
Posted by: PaleRider at March 24, 2010 07:29 AM (GAC+X)
In a similar feat of accounting legerdemain, GM just broke even. It's amazing what can be accomplished, when you don't care who gets the credit administration representatives on the Board.
On further reflection, Reagan may have been taken too literally. The housing market of the last two decades was based on not caring who got the credit.
Posted by: comatus at March 24, 2010 07:29 AM (/VEEI)
Posted by: Hedgehog at March 24, 2010 07:29 AM (oQIfB)
Undoubtedly, but credit scores only matter when people buy things they currently can't afford to pay cash for. This too is changing. Credit card balances and usage is down.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 24, 2010 07:30 AM (53zf+)
It's a big carrot, if there's the potential that the property value will begin appreciating again someday.
Posted by: mrkwong at March 24, 2010 07:30 AM (G8Eo0)
Amount owed on loan must be 120% or more of FMV of house? So, it won't work if you're not significantly underwater.
Posted by: GMan at March 24, 2010 07:30 AM (sxq57)
Eh--read the details. I see no terms to lower payments and it's intended to only benefit those 20% underwater back to actual value.
Which leads me to this oldie (relatively), but goodie:
All those bad loans? STILL BAD.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 24, 2010 07:31 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: fluffy knows cliches at March 24, 2010 07:32 AM (4Kl5M)
They were loaning to people who don't have credit scores. Or forwarding addresses, I'm guessing.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 24, 2010 07:32 AM (mR7mk)
The original mortgage modification whacked the credit score
The problem, is if you take the new Bof A, and they whack your credit score, then what happens to your ability to do anything else? You become thier servant.
Foreclosure is still better for the consumer
Posted by: Cromagnum at March 24, 2010 07:33 AM (QZFcc)
Posted by: Jean at March 24, 2010 07:33 AM (PjevJ)
Posted by: Bill D. Cat at March 24, 2010 07:33 AM (a9UO0)
Yeah. And now the money I was saving up for a down payment is going to be worthless after the hyperinflation.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 24, 2010 07:34 AM (mR7mk)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 24, 2010 07:34 AM (53zf+)
The problem, is if you take the new Bof A, and they whack your credit score, then what happens to your ability to do anything else? You become thier servant.
Foreclosure is still better for the consumer
How will foreclosure not be a worse whack to your credit score?
Posted by: taylork at March 24, 2010 07:34 AM (0Hn5w)
Why am I writing this in this thread? Because this post made me think of the somewhat stealthy way (at least temporarily) socialist governments try to hide the decline they engender. Employment may go up, but the "new jobs" will he crappy. Housing starts may go up, but the houses being built will be less affluent than before, the rules will be bent to give the impression that fewer defaults are taking place.
But at the end of the day decade, there will have been real decline. And a decade's worth of memory loss as to the way things used to be.
We must resist the Washington bullshit and lies in every peaceful way possible. WE MUST RESIST.
Posted by: ParisParamus at March 24, 2010 07:35 AM (bN5ZU)
This could only really work for economically distressed people if there was a corresponding IRS Reg that excluded this specific kind of debt forgiveness from taxable income.
Posted by: Alec Leamas at March 24, 2010 07:35 AM (IVQSY)
This BofA BS is the opposite. Take a bunch of idiots who can't balance a household budget and give them a loan. Then have taxpayers bail them out
Posted by: Ludicrous Speed at March 24, 2010 07:36 AM (LdYLm)
Posted by: steevy at March 24, 2010 07:37 AM (V1cnP)
Posted by: YaHump at March 24, 2010 07:38 AM (7fJhn)
Posted by: ParisParamus at March 24, 2010 07:39 AM (bN5ZU)
I'm pretty sure that's the long term plan. I severed all business relationships with BofA last year. The branch staff are pleasant, but their corporate policy towards customers is reprehensible.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 24, 2010 07:39 AM (53zf+)
You are a douchebag. I guess you never say the B of A loan officers giving mortgages to illegals selling oranges on the freeway off ramps here in California. They practically had a parade for them complete with balloon animals and clowns.
Posted by: mpfs at March 24, 2010 07:40 AM (iYbLN)
Aren't they the bank that busted some chicks house up and stole her parrot?
Or was that another bank?
Posted by: Entropy at March 24, 2010 07:41 AM (IsLT6)
I don't think this is necessarily aimed at the idiots. It is aimed at the people that are able to do the math on housing costs. If my house is worth $200k and I owe $300k, I'm better off defaulting, taking the credit hit, and renting a place for 7 years until the credit hit clears. By taking the BoA plan, I still take the credit hit, but I get to stay in the house.
I say "I" but my houses are actually worth more than what I paid.
Grim
Posted by: Grim at March 24, 2010 07:43 AM (gyNYk)
Posted by: CDR M at March 24, 2010 07:43 AM (cvmTR)
Yea, that was them. I sidebar'd that story a while ago. They're a real class act.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 24, 2010 07:44 AM (53zf+)
30%?? That's nothing. Just before the November elections, the federal government is going to start reducing principal by 3000%, and you don't even have to threaten a default - only promise to vote for dems.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at March 24, 2010 07:44 AM (A46hP)
People don't strategically default because they can't afford their loans. There's nothing "strategic" about that kind of default.
What BoA is trying to prevent here is someone who can pay their loan choosing not to becauuse they don't want to pay back a $500K loan on a $300K house.
Posted by: JohnG at March 24, 2010 07:44 AM (ImIF6)
Posted by: Jean at March 24, 2010 07:44 AM (h0rZ/)
It's worse than you think.
Posted by: Editor at March 24, 2010 07:45 AM (pUfK9)
They are totally in bed with the government. I think they are expecting another bailout. It's another redistribution.
Posted by: PJ at March 24, 2010 07:47 AM (pizFh)
Posted by: DocJ at March 24, 2010 07:47 AM (dt6br)
What BoA is trying to prevent here is someone who can pay their loan choosing not to becauuse they don't want to pay back a $500K loan on a $300K house.
Posted by: JohnG at March 24, 2010 11:44 AM (ImIF6)
Bingo! And since they are, it tells me they don't have the sweetheart deals that One West do, where it is in their best interest to foreclose.
Posted by: Editor at March 24, 2010 07:48 AM (pUfK9)
Stealing a person's parrot is just fucked up.
Posted by: mpfs at March 24, 2010 07:49 AM (iYbLN)
Yea, WaMu got sucked up by Chase for a song. I think they were buying turnkey physical market penetration in areas where they were scarce more than anything else. There used to be maybe two Chase branches here in Palm Beach, now there's probably 50 of them after the WaMu takeover.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 24, 2010 07:50 AM (53zf+)
I think there's more to this story. Remember, B of A took over the racketeer Countrywide at the government's "request" and has come out since with full page ads touting their contributions to community organizers so that the "underserved" can get free loans.
They are totally in bed with the government. I think they are expecting another bailout. It's another redistribution.
I do not particularly even like that chick. Nor do I like that she totally told us so. Nor it's implications. But she did.
Posted by: Entropy at March 24, 2010 07:51 AM (IsLT6)
Bye-bye, BoA.
Posted by: Blogluddite at March 24, 2010 07:53 AM (fDWFP)
Posted by: Jean at March 24, 2010 07:54 AM (tTdaQ)
So those who have been responsible, paid their bills, bought only as much house as they could afford, and do the right thing get to subsidize the grasshoppers among us?
That really ticks me off!!!
Posted by: Boots at March 24, 2010 08:01 AM (06JTY)
45: ain't that the effing truth.
When are the people who haven't been SCREWING EVERYONE ELSE finally going to stop getting punished?
Paying our mortgage on time every month (plus a little extra, in fact) while I drive a beat up car with whiny steering -- and forget about "cheap meal day" or saying "no, honey we can't afford that right now" -- is quite possibly the dumbest thing we've ever done.
And no, we're not hurting, we scrimp to save for extra fun stuff, but being responsible these days is like a sucker play. I sure wouldn't mind a 30 percent cut on our principle.
Posted by: BB at March 24, 2010 08:02 AM (qF8q3)
So those who have been responsible, paid their bills, bought only as much house as they could afford, and do the right thing get to subsidize the grasshoppers among us?
That really ticks me off!!!
Posted by: Boots at March 24, 2010 12:01 PM (06JTY)
Yup, welcome to Amerikka Comrade. Soon your retirement accounts will be government controlled too. You are too dumb to plan for your own retirement.
Posted by: CDR M at March 24, 2010 08:03 AM (cvmTR)
Posted by: GarandFan at March 24, 2010 08:03 AM (6mwMs)
That's my take. If they thought there was going to be any recovery, they'd just decline foreclosure as long as legally possible on these strategic defaulters waiting for the market to improve, then drop the hammer. That leaves the borrower on the hook for taxes, maintenance, etc in the interim and reduces the bank's outlay of "instantaneous cash"
There may be some insurance aspects to this too. If someone stops paying, and stops paying their insurance too, now the bank's risk of a total wipeout goes way up. If they foreclose and toss someone, buying insurance on an empty building is a lot more expensive than an occupied one. Vacant houses go down hill and get stripped pretty quick.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 24, 2010 08:04 AM (53zf+)
They are trying to squeeze a few more drops of blood out of the turnip and then sell the debt to someone else. They know damn good and well that these people are going to default, they just want to get a few more payments and string these defaults out so it doesn't take them down. Whoever they are targeting this offer toward is a sucker to take it because the bank has already determined they are going to have to default.
This is the same scam that is going on in the stock market; blazing hot deals that are too good to pass up but, really its a scheme to suck in more real, hard cash to paper over their "investment" losses.
Posted by: jimmuy at March 24, 2010 08:08 AM (xJzIj)
I can't imagine this density is anything other than a condition of the WAMU acquisition. The gov is in control.
Posted by: ParisParamus at March 24, 2010 08:09 AM (bN5ZU)
If you read up on the WAMU acquisition it reads like a suspense/thriller novel. Whodunnit?
Some very shady associations. WAMU was in all likelyhood practically stolen. "Firesale" does not do it justice.
Posted by: Entropy at March 24, 2010 08:12 AM (IsLT6)
There is a really simple answer to this: Let the market figure out what home prices are supposed to be.
Instead, the federal government and the banks are propping prices using false hope bought with taxpayer and borrowed money. Their other bullshit strategy is to wait until inflation hits and let the prices stay nominally stable while the dollar devalues until the nominal prices better match what an actual market would bear.
This is "ant and grasshopper," and I am having some very dark thoughts.
Posted by: MikeO at March 24, 2010 08:14 AM (lBmZl)
It seems in the "game of chicken" between borrowers and lenders, BofA just flinched. Obviously they don't see any significant rebound rebound in housing anytime soon, or they'd not be making such offers.
Don't worry, PA, BoA will just make it up with higher credit card rates and annual fees.
There is a really simple answer to this: Let the market figure out what home prices are supposed to be.
Bernanke, Geithner, and Obama will let the whole system collapse before they allow housing rates to fall down to market levels.
A typical mortgage-to-income ratio was about 3/1 in a healthy market (e.g., $150K mortgage for a $50K income). With the average home price running over $200K and the median wage stagnating or deflating, housing has a hell of a long way to drop before it can be considered healthy again. Given that the Alt-A and OptionARM resets are going to put yet another anchor on the market, I can't see how anyone with common sense would purchase a home right now unless they were 1) going to pay it off in 10 years or less; or 2) planned on living in that house for the next 40 years and had a ton of savings to deal with downturns and potential job losses.
Posted by: David Axelrod's Combover at March 24, 2010 08:27 AM (/Pw+r)
They want to excuse some of the principle if people will continue to pay on time. This is for people who are NOT deadbeats and who probably could afford their original loan to begin with. The collapse of the market in places like CA, FL, and NY have caused them to now owe more on the house than what it is worth, and what's more not only do they owe more than it is worth but they could walk away from the loan and buy a new house with LOWER payments and still owe LESS money.
Right now the only thing that is stopping people from doing this is personal honor. That is something that has been getting to be in short supply over the past few years. And it is no wonder when you have idiots like Piss Dodd, Bwarney Fwank, and Jugears paying off loans for the indigent with THEIR tax money. In short, having honor now means you are a damn sucker.
So how are they able to do this? The same thing that started this whole freaking mess; CRA. Under the old rules if you walked away from a loan your credit score would go to absolute shit and you would not be able to borrow enough money to buy a 50 cent coke until you paid it all back plus ten years. Banks are no longer allowed to do that.
So don't blame BOA on this crap sandwich. They are just trying to get back some of their money before the whole system collapses.
Posted by: Vic at March 24, 2010 08:34 AM (QrA9E)
Why am I playing by the rules again? Anyone?
Posted by: Iblis at March 24, 2010 08:40 AM (9221z)
Posted by: Iblis at March 24, 2010 08:41 AM (9221z)
Posted by: Iblis at March 24, 2010 12:41 PM (9221z)
Really? They likely don't actually have the note in hand. It's probably gone in a poof. Legally, they might not have squat. They know this, people are figuring it out, and that's one of the reasons for this move.
Posted by: Editor at March 24, 2010 08:50 AM (pUfK9)
Couple weeks ago, I was "volunteered" to help out on a Habitat-for-Humanity project for my corporation "Day of Service". Nice day away from work, practiced my sheet-rock skills and got brown-noser points. Seems like the right way to get people into homes. You put in sweat equity and people help you out.
Yeah, except there's a family here that got not one but two homes via Habitat and they ended up losing both of them. I volunteered on the first, got guilted into going to work on the second and openly laughed in the face of the person who came to ask me for a donation to help them get a third place.
Posted by: alexthechick at March 24, 2010 08:52 AM (8WZWv)
When I negotiated the mortgage, the deal was I either pay, OR the bank gets the property. I don't see any moral problem with going with option B, and giving the bank the property. That risk was built into the mortgage interest rate.
However, I am only thinking about a strategic default because (a) California has a 'no recourse' statute, meaning the bank can only take my property and can't go after my personal assets, and (b) Congress has passed a law that all 'forgiven debt' - which is what the written off mortgage would be - is no longer taxable as income. Whodathunk that politicians would write laws that encourage socially destructive behavior?
Posted by: wooga at March 24, 2010 08:55 AM (2p0e3)
It's time for a tax revolt.
Posted by: MikeO at March 24, 2010 09:03 AM (lBmZl)
Yup. Here in the midwest my home value has been fairly stable; if I had somehow bought real estate in CA where FMV has dropped like a greased stone, defaulting would seem like a pretty attractive option. Lets face it; the market in places like CA or NY are not coming back soon. Or at all.
Posted by: Hatchet Five at March 24, 2010 09:03 AM (Kt5vQ)
Not only are they not coming back soon, but they haven't finished dropping yet at least in CA. When I checked a few months ago my old neighborhood in Castro Valley, CA (1950s track houses on postage stamp lots) were still selling for $550/sq ft.
That is insane because even with a job nobody can afford that except rich people. And rich people are not going to buy 1950s track houses on postage stamp lots.
Posted by: Vic at March 24, 2010 09:08 AM (QrA9E)
Posted by: alexthechick at March 24, 2010 12:52 PM (8WZWv)
Oh, no. No, no, no. It's much worse than that. It's not a tax incentive. It's an "original loan value + purchased loan price + insurance rewarded + auctioned price" incentive.
Posted by: Editor at March 24, 2010 09:08 AM (pUfK9)
Posted by: SGT Dan at March 24, 2010 09:12 AM (L0IJJ)
Habitat is much better sounding than it is in practice.
Posted by: kideny at March 24, 2010 09:48 AM (Awh8f)
WASHINGTON — Sales of new homes fell unexpectedly to their lowest point on record in February, in part because stormy winter weather kept buyers away. The results pointed to the housing industry's struggle to rebound from the worst slump in decades.
Bwahahahaha!
The housing market is going to tank this summer when the government credits end.
Then what?
As the housing market goes, so goes the economy.
As for me, I just bought a home. I expect our area to dip another 10%-15% but putting 20% down gives us some cushion and we expect to retire in our new home.
Plus interest rates will never be better.
It was all about good schools and the right neighborhood for my boy. We'll be as far away as can be from the urban blight, crime, welfare collecting animals that surround me now.
And that is more than worth the investment.
Posted by: Warden at March 24, 2010 09:51 AM (5e92V)
It didn't feel good, but I was able to pull plenty of equity from it. I'm in far better shape than a lot of people.
Posted by: Warden at March 24, 2010 09:56 AM (5e92V)
Yes, the CA market will not come back for a while. My house which I bought in 1980 on one mid-level salary would now require an income of $175K to qualify for a traditional 30-yr mortgage. A young couple is not going to do that. They are going to move to Texas.
Posted by: PJ at March 24, 2010 10:07 AM (pizFh)
I am betting that a "minority" could get it for zero money down and interest only payments for 5 years still.
Posted by: Vic at March 24, 2010 10:18 AM (QrA9E)
Posted by: The Glorious, Deep-Pocketed State of California - Where seldom is heard, a discouraging word, and th at March 24, 2010 10:18 AM (Zi+FQ)
Who is John Galt?
Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at March 24, 2010 10:27 AM (wmtV/)
News template for house sales:
Sales of new homes fell unexpectedly to their lowest point on record in (fill in blank), in part because (fill in blank) weather kept buyers away. The results pointed to the housing industry's struggle to rebound from the worst slump in decades.
Posted by: BB at March 24, 2010 10:42 AM (qF8q3)
Interesting. So the 30% will knock it down to 90% on the books, which intern allows BOA to reduce their allownace for loan loss. At the same time since the mortgagee does not have 20% into the balance they can be subject to PMI.
The savings on the ALLL (allowance for loan loss) will be huge from the change in days delinquent and the new equity balance.
I am sure they did an analysis of their portfolio and the loss on the asset side will be more than made up for with the change in ALLL. This will give them more net income (expense reduction) and good PR.
Does anyone have the exact details of the qualifiers?
Posted by: Craig at March 24, 2010 10:50 AM (iuNyN)
"unexpectedly"
When events keep wrongfooting your expectations, it's time to change your fucking expectations, Bucky.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at March 24, 2010 11:12 AM (xG9t3)
Posted by: elliot at March 24, 2010 12:27 PM (GxjUG)
Posted by: John at March 24, 2010 12:57 PM (6FYZ6)
Aside from being the bank/lender of choice for illegals (or maybe as a result), BofA is also the preferred bank for Mexican cartels to launder cash proceeds of drug sales.
Hey, maybe we have something here. That National debt is getting mighty large...
Posted by: Barry Obama at March 24, 2010 12:59 PM (Zi+FQ)
Posted by: torabora at March 24, 2010 06:13 PM (zMVot)
Break'em up. Not just too big to fail, too big to perform competently.
Posted by: chuckR at March 24, 2010 07:21 PM (khYRZ)
Amnesty Boosters: Don't Hold Your Breath! [Mark Krikorian]
Lindsey Graham acknowledges "comprehensive immigration reform" is kaput:
Immigration reform legislation is "dead" in the Senate this year, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Thursday.
Graham, who's sought to work with some Democrats on the controversial issues, said that healthcare efforts had "poisoned the well" for bipartisan cooperation going forward. . . .
Posted by: Rat Patrol at March 26, 2010 10:29 PM (dQdrY)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.1856 seconds, 216 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: PaleRider at March 24, 2010 07:23 AM (GAC+X)