Blown Mortgage - Latest Comments

Re: HUD Expands Making Home Affordable Eligibility

Carly — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:25:15 -0000

Does anyone know when they will start to consider the second mortgage as part of the housing debt ratio for this program?

Re: Lewis: We’ve arrived at a point of madness

ffoote — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:07:24 -0000

To paraphrase the Onion, Americans now clamor for a new bubble to invest in. Once that occurs, we can be sure to see the same cast of characters, no doubt.

Re: Court halts bogus HOPE NOW operations

Michael R. Jerome — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:24:24 -0000

January 5 2009; I and my wife have been taken in by this company to for $1500.00. We had several phone conversations with them explaining how they was dealing with our financial problem.All false , and then they was gone.

Re: Recovery? Mortgage apps down, prime delinquencies up

Glenn — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:43:35 -0000

I agree with the basic premise of the article. There's been caution all across the board. Even consumers who are still employed don't want to spend, and that means they don't want to take the risk of getting a new house and the accompanying mortgage. They're just not sure how long their jobs will last.

Until new industry is established in the U.S., consumers will continue to retreat from spending.

Re: Is Trust Returning to the Mortgage Industry?

JCH — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:52:33 -0000

Thanks!

Re: Push-Pull at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

david — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:06:34 -0000

it is the real solution. Either that ir loosen up requirments on existing warehouse banks on loan ratios. the product is good now because of full doc. YOU MUST LOOSEN IN ORDER TO MOVE IT....

Re: Is Trust Returning to the Mortgage Industry?

Totalentreprise — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 04:20:04 -0000

Good blog post

Re: The Tale of Two Countrywides & Maybe Bank of America

Shirley — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:43:40 -0000

Countrywide and Bank of America are the biggest, worst, greediest, selfish, immoral, unethical liars and thiefs that have ever been on the face of this earth!!! I cannot tell you how many times they have cheated us out of money, charged late fees when payments were not late and more. We are the unfortunate ones that started out with a mortgage at Countrywide, which then became Bank of America. We tried to get a loan modification with Bank of America as my husband has no work and with my pay I cannot even begin to pay the major bills. They told us we do not qualify because we have too much debt. What? Is this a joke? They received billions of dollars which is what that money was for in the first place and they tell us they cannot help us?? I can tell you that all of the crooks that work there are helping themselves to the money and not one person is doing anything about it!! Ain't it great?

Re: Loan Modification Help: Get Your Loan Modification Approved

gretap — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:26:53 -0000

Hi there- unfortunately, I have already sent my lender my F/S before I found you. I expect my lender to re-open my loan mod file and begin the loan mod negotiation with them. In my f/s submission, I did not include my desired monthly mortgage amount which you suggested because the f/s form came from my lender and specifically asked for me to include our expenses towards food, gas, car insurance, cell phones, etc. - I had to include them in my monthly expenses. However, my declaration of expenses were lower than our current income and makes room for a modified mortgage budget. I made sure that our debt to income ratio not including mortgage allows 30% to be budgeted for mortgage- in short, our expenses is 40% of our income. I hope this is good enough.

I have mentioned above that I am hoping for my lender to re-open our loan mod file. Here's what happened- Back in April, I sent them all the docs they where asking except for one. The next thing I found out just last week was that we were scheduled for auction on 7/17. They failed to communicate to us that they closed our file due to the missing doc until I called last week. Yesterday, I sent them the missing doc. I asking loss mitigation to re-open our file and cancel the auction slated on 7/17. I also found out that they are not the lender of my loan but they service my loan. Apparently, they sold our loan to another financial institution. My question is should I be dealing and negotiating with the 3rd party or should i be dealing directly with the owner of my loan which is the lender? BTW, I called the lender and they could not find our loan. Where should I start? should I ask for a copy of of the deed we signed? should we file papers in the court in order to stop the proceedings? what is our defense? should we do it ourselves or should we hire? I have been looking around as to who can help but afraid to hire anyone. We are obviously under the gun. I also feel I need help in the negotiation part. FYI, I was laid off from my job 2 years ago because of a medical condition, hence, we lost half of our income.

Please HELP!! Thanks a million.

Re: The Mortgage Broker vs. Mortgage Banker Argument

Mortgage Banker — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:32:31 -0000

I have been in the Mortgage Banking business for over 25 years. During my career, I have worked for some major, large banks. I now work for a Mortgage Banker. We do offer many types of loans and our rates are very good, usually better than large banks and mortgage brokers. We do not overcharge our clients and have no "hidden" fees. During my career I have heard so many complaints about mortgage brokers. They do have hidden fees, most are not completely honest with their clients and they do make lots of money on most loans. They do not have any more products than we offer, whether is be a a large bank or at a mortgage banker shop. Brokers are out to make a buck and they do not let much stand in their way!

Re: Why is Citigroup still in business?

Constantine von Hoffman — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 10:55:33 -0000

Your clear abundance of common sense may'disqualify you from working at a financial institution.

Re: New Report Links Foreclosures and Homelessness

Catherine — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 09:49:59 -0000

nice post, morgan. thanks for the shout out! (i'm the PR girl for the National Alliance to End Homelessness.)

Re: California trys to deter loan modification and foreclosure rescue scams

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:34:52 -0000

I paid them until I received docs and

My modification was done in about 15 days

Re: Subprime Bananas

Shnaps — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:45:16 -0000

I dunno Morgan. They look a little too green yet. By the time that house sells, they should be ready for banana bread.

Re: Why is Citigroup still in business?

Dianne Levy — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:36:52 -0000

An idea: Instead of rewarding executives with proven incompetency’s in order to keep staff, what about letting them go and hiring some thousands of the competent people who are out of work and about to lose homes?

They could be matched, i.e. Wells Fargo has my home loan. They don’t really want to negotiate – and I’m sorry for both of our sakes that it has come to this – but I would like to keep my home. Wells could hire me at a high salary, a vacation package and health benefits. I’m fine with that.

I am a highly qualified marketing assistant with excellent Web skills (including social networking), and I type 90+ wpm. I have also written an eMarketing guide for anyone wishing to do this on their own and contribute to my “Buy a Book, Build Your Business, Save A Home” fund.

My resume: http://www.diannelevy.com/pdf/LevyResume.pdf
The Guide: http://www.terrapublishinghouse.com/publication...

Thank you.

Re: Wells Fargo Names Most of California Severely Distressed

Marie — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:54:41 -0000

P.S.
Prudential wants us to be accepted by Wells Fargo
despite the fact that we are already approved by a different Lender,
and, seek to deal with our own Lender as planned...........
WHAT is this all about????
Is this even legal????????????????????????????

This can't possibly be legal.

I assume that they'll approve us for the DOUBLED asking price,
while our own Lender would not approve such NONSENSE...
Banks are NOT supposed to lend for anything higher than the real appraised value....

This whole thing seems illogical.

WHERE do we report this?

Re: Wells Fargo Names Most of California Severely Distressed

Marie — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:45:51 -0000

We made an offer 3 MONTHS ago on a house.
We were approved for the mortgage.
We were the ONLY offer on a property that had been listed over 200 days.
Our offer was accepted by the Seller.
Then...... we understood it as a Short Sale.
????????
Our contract had a written date for Escrow.

The Realtor kept saying that, the Bank wanted the sale to go through....
If it went into foreclosure, it would cost them a lot of money.......
To maybe get half the value......

We had an ACCEPTANCE by the SELLER.
So...... we had a valid contract.

If the Bank had the right to reject the offer.........
then,
why do we need a contract with the Seller?
The Seller is really NOT the Seller then????????????????

3 MONTHS of being yanked along...... for NOTHING.
Just a waste of our time.
We did so much running around on this.....

SOMEHOW, now, for 3 weeks....... we could not reach our Realtor.
Next thing I knew, he lied and said that the house was going up for auction.
"He'd tell us the auction date"...
"The Bank had refused the offer though the Seller accepted it... ?????????

Never heard from the Realtor again.
Found out elsewhere that it was a lie.

It became Bank owned AFTER our offer was accepted by the Seller.

If it was never owned by the Seller.........
why was it contracted between Seller and Buyer?
We are being told that the Bank took possession
WEEKS AFTER our offer had already been accepted...

It now became listed by Prudential.
We saw a post in front of the house.
We contacted them.
They refused to give us a listed / asking price....

A week of searching....... for the price....
"No price yet." was said by the listing Agent.

Then, proceeding to paint any old which way...
Tore up the blinds. Cut up the cables........
The house now looked an awful mess............
Why were they covering the water damage with paint?
That's deceitful, and illegal.

The story gets worst....
They hiked the price way up high..........
almost DOUBLING the previous asking price..
So.... now, they were telling us that our renewed offer would not be accepted.

I thought that deceitful Real Estate gimmicks were supposed to end......???

What is the solution in this seemingly unfair nightmare?
We don't intend to pay TWICE the value, nor would we have the funds,
which had been the reason for shopping along a lower property price in the first place...
NO Bank will lend us the money to OVERPAY for anything........

WHERE does one report this?

We are told that
it was illegal to post a sign, and refuse to state an asking price.

Then..... we're told that they belong to a different Realtor Board.

How many gimmicks must we wade through?????????

This nonsense should be illegal.

We are totally bewildered.
What a let down!!!!!

If anyone knows any solution, or law to protect our rights,
please inform us.

Thank you.

Re: California Foreclosure Prevention Act goes into effect tomorrow

burrows — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:18:29 -0000

I don't see how this moratorium could help our economy. But, I was hoping it would give the lenders a chance to catch up with their increased workload. And so, I expected to be able to stay in my house through the summer.

Yesterday, when I got home, there was a notice of sale at auction taped to my front door.

The moratorium is as phoney as obama's other so-called efforts to provide relief for the people.

Re: I Hate Realtors!

Geesus — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:36:32 -0000

I understand. I live in Boston and I have to say the realtors (don't understand why that word is suppose to be capitalized)in Boston are by far the most easiest people to hate. They lie try to stress out people into buying because they think they are a college student,(when they are not) and they feel like they have the right to have an open house whenever they so please, with no regard to the people living there.

I'm generalizing here, but for all the realtors I've met, they are all the same. They have no shame in Boston.

Re: Don’t Forget Commercial Real Estate Problems

Apartments in Melbourne — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 06:16:43 -0000

Welcome to John Waller's blog dedicated to lenders involved in the foreclosure of commercial real estate mortgages, enforcement of security ...

Re: Goldman bonuses largest in firm’s 140-year history

Benjamin Shoemaker — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:01:21 -0000

Firstly, I thought that one of the many things that was incorporated into TARP was limit on the bonus struture and pay-out amounts. How does that factor in to this latest round of gross inequities?

Secondly, the really sick nature of taking the money from the tax payers, after taking the money from the unsuspecting first time buyers paying through the nose for stated income or no income verification loans (backed of course by AIG's "creative" securities insuance) shows just how far corporate greed has gone. Oh and where is the media coverage on all this latest hoopla? Yeah, I'm not hearing anything either.

Re: California trys to deter loan modification and foreclosure rescue scams

Ryan — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:04:05 -0000

Did you have an experience with Wall Street? What do you know of their performance record?

Re: Goldman bonuses largest in firm’s 140-year history

expres12 — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:02:12 -0000

They made their money on the backs of taxpayers. It pays to have your people serve on the treasury.

Including collateral from before and after the rescue and payments made by Maiden Lane III, a vehicle created by the Fed to retire the swaps, Goldman Sachs received about $14 billion from AIG, Societe Generale got $16.5 billion, and Deutsche Bank AG received $8.5 billion. More than a dozen other banks got a total of about $23.1 billion.

Our government effectively made a cash infusion through AIG and this Maiden Lane vehicle to Goldman and the other banks,” said Haag Sherman, who helps oversee $7.5 billion as chief investment officer of Houston-based Salient Partners.

Both quotes from http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087...

The AIG bailout was done to benefit Goldman and other primary dealer banks, but especially Goldman. The AIG bailout served as a conduit for taxpayer dollars to enrich Goldman and like players without the stigma of receiving TARP money directly. The AIG bailout aided other banks as well, which how some are able to repay TARP now. It's a great scheme, repay taxpayers with their own money.

Re: Roubini: Obama banking reforms get it 75% right

Captain Ned — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:35:27 -0000

Yep, that's what I'd say, and I'll be even more right if and when this abomination gets signed into law.

I also agree that we have all the laws we need, especially at the state level. I definitely agree with the resources issue. Most state-level banking departments are self-funded through licensing fees and assessments, so we can never take in more than we spend. When crunch time hits our revenue goes down, so we shrink when we should grow.

Here's my simple way of doing things:

All bank-level activity is regulated primarily by the FDIC. FDIC is lead agency on every bank exam; the states, OCC & Fed can participate jointly but have no lead role beyond enforcement of jurisdiction-specific issues. Safety & soundness is solely FDIC's call. Legislation is passed to remove the Federal preemption on activity by subsidiaries and d/b/as of Federally-chartered institutions. If you want to benefit from the Federal preemption, you need to do it in the name of the bank whose deposits FDIC insures. You need to buy the reputation risk. If you wish to hide the business in subsidiaries, you're fully subject to state-level law. OTS is closed and the Home Owners Loan Act repealed. Federal thrifts either convert to National Bank Act institutions or state-chartered institutions.

I'm no fan of giving the Fed the systemic risk powers proposed, but some level of systemic risk authority needs to be there if FDIC has a bad day and doesn't clamp down when it should. I've got no good way of structuring this in advance because the next crisis won't look like the last few. I think one good thing would be a single term for any Fed Chair. We all put our faith in Greenspan for far too long, only to be hosed in the end.

Re: Roubini: Obama banking reforms get it 75% right

Don — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:03:41 -0000

Excellent post Morgan!