- Find a Real Estate Professional
- Realtors®
- Mortgage Lenders
- Home Improvement Pros
- Other Real Estate Services
- Review an Agent, Lender or Pro
- Marketing on Zillow
- Real Estate Agent Advertising
- Join the Professional Directory
- Popular
- Real Estate Market Reports
- More
Replies (22)
- klarek the realist
- Contributions:7044
I hope so. I'm just glad they aren't going to reduce the principal one people's loans. A deferment is more than fair.
- chenworthandsons
- Contributions:78
I agree. that is ludicrous. Why should our tax money go to pay off people's loans who should have managed their money better. It's almost as bad as letting people claim bankruptcy when they buy to omuch on their credit card. HELLO!
- klarek the realist
- Contributions:7044
The absurd part is that they can just walk away from the loan without declaring bankruptcy. What other kind of loan can you just walk away from? Let alone one that is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars? That is a pretty sweet deal. I don't think we need to throw these deadbeats any lifelines if they don't feel like paying their stupid mortgages.
- chenworthandsons
- Contributions:78
REALLY... it is not even going to affect their credit! What the hell!
- svallejo
- Contributions:17
Government is making this housing crisis much worse, I think we will be in this mess much longer thanks to our stupid politicians. If a person can't afford their home now it's better they walk away and let the bank deal with it because they are going to default sooner or later. I think the sooner they default the faster this crisis will end and we can go back to buying houses for shelter instead of investments.......
- jimmy57
- Contributions:1511
I'm continuing to bet against the success of any government program as long as a stated goal is "putting a floor under house prices" or "keeping people in their homes." This just tells me that they either don't know what they are talking about, or are just lying. I need to hear: we can't support prices above what incomes can afford.
The $700B is just turning into a pork barrel fund. Money to cushion banks' losses, money to slow the death of unionized auto factories -- all down the toilet.
- Jack Mulrooney, "ConnecticutRealtor"
- Contributions:484
Chen - don't assume you are working with someone who cares about the value of a property. You are dealing with a BANK. If the property is still on the market, make any offer you think works for you. The worst thing that can happen is they say no..... and you can always up the offer by a dollar at a time until you win.
Banks are more affraid of the liability and the waste of the asset then they are about your offer. If they are concerned about the size of the loss they will take almost any offer.
Good Luck!
- Chris Highland, "CKHighland"
- Contributions:57
I heard first from Elizabeth Weintraub, About.com, that banks will be opening departments to handle the Rental of REO's. I didn't believe it. In my state, Maryland, banks are overwhelmed. They can't get it together to handle the short sales (only 1 in 30 go to settlement).
But then, on Monday, I saw it for myself on our MLS. At least one bank in my area is doing it, renting. They intend to hold on until the market picks up, no matter how long. Someone has to stop the blood-letting, I guess this is an attempt.
I agree that govt. is making it worse. I heard from another Realtor who is a member of an investment group, they are buying mortgages themselves for .70 cents on the dollar, and plan to sell them for .80 cents in the future. The private sector Capitalists will always find a way to provide a solution while making a buck. Gotta love it!
- Jack Mulrooney, "ConnecticutRealtor"
- Contributions:484
I have always wondered how the average politician thinks he can effectively out think a bunch of Warton grads.
These guys are generally about 5 steps ahead of the government.
- Michael Yaeger, "yaegermike"
- Contributions:754
"instead the Treasury will rely on buying stakes in banks and encouraging them to resume more normal lending."
-There is your problem. What is MORE NORMAL LENDING? Back to the guidelines that got us into this mess?? I dont think so. We wont be seeing that kind of "normal lending" ever again. The 700b bailout was a sham and every congressman and senator that voted for it should be voted out next time.. Including the beloved obama!!
- Sadanand
- Contributions:29
I guess the best use of $700B would be let the whole system handle the situtaion on its own than to bail out some select industries or companies and then use the money to pay for the unemployment benefits. This would make the people out of jobs to use the money for their daily use thereby circulating the money in the system.
- Greg Selters, "MortgageManagers"
- Contributions:16
While I agree the government is not my first choice to solve the problem (and have dropped the ball on almost every attempt to this point), but if you think for a minute that the bailout was not necessary, you don't know much about economics. I'm not a fan of the bail out, but at this point we had/have no other option. We can not stand by and let the market correct itself. We all must hope the government can resolve the problem before the straw falls on the camel's back and destroys our economy.
- Michael Yaeger, "yaegermike"
- Contributions:754
"but if you think for a minute that the bailout was not necessary, you don't know much about economics. -MM
If you think the bailout that was forced through is good for anything other than the earmarks that would buried in it you obviously know nothing about economics. I am for "a bailout" but I am completely against the version congress pushed through.
- Michael Yaeger, "yaegermike"
- Contributions:754
would = were
"We can not stand by and let the market correct itself."
Comedy gold.
It has a definite Marx brothers feel...
"You can have any kind of a home you want.
You can even get stucco.
- Greg Selters, "MortgageManagers"
- Contributions:16
I do agree with earmarks, however, what can you expect when you get a group of politicians together? I'm just amazed after 3 attempts and $2.5 trillion they still can't figure it out. Maybe if they were not so worried about steroids in baseball and the Patriots "Spy Gate" they could have invested a little more time and developed a real solution. Like I said before, we all better hope they can figure it out before it's too late.
- Michael Yaeger, "yaegermike"
- Contributions:754
"what can you expect when you get a group of politicians together?"
I expect them to serve the people and not completely screw up again. Thats why i said they need to be voted out. As soon as possible.
- Jack Mulrooney, "ConnecticutRealtor"
- Contributions:484
Better idea would be to give every homeowner $100,000. It would be cheeper. It would stabalize the housing market. It would stimulate the economy. It would put the money into the hands of people who would spend it. It would force the government and banks to correct thier own problems.
As it is currently advertised, it will only increase the benift to the stockholders, company officers and re-election funds of several well known senators and representatives.
- Greg Selters, "MortgageManagers"
- Contributions:16
How would that be cheaper??? There is an estimated 80 million home owners in the United States. Giving each and every one of them $100,000 would total $8 Trillion, slightly more than the $700 billion.
As it has been pointed out about, the $700 billion bailout has a lot of junk in it, but it will help stablize the economy and was 100% necessary. Banks were no longer lending to each other, LIBOR-OIS spread sky rocketed, and we could have lost some major players in our economy. Every one thinks beacause our economy has not improved over night the bailout was a waste, but if the bail out was never passed, let's just say Christmas might not have happened this year.
Also, the government's plan is no longer to bail out individual home owners, they are buying equities in banks which can be profitable for the tax payers in the years to come.
- Entitlements R Us
- Contributions:175
Even better plan is just to give me the $700 billion and f everybody else!
- Jack Mulrooney, "ConnecticutRealtor"
- Contributions:484
Mortgage, I hope you don't believe that the government got this one right?
I would feel a lot safer if the government owned the paper on the mortgages and not equity in a commercial bank. Too close to socialism for me....
- Greg Selters, "MortgageManagers"
- Contributions:16
Right? They could have done a lot better, but my point is they had to do some thing. Do nothing was not an option. I understand the socialism argument, however, if they stood by and did nothing the credit markets would have stalled out and the markets would have really taken a dive.
new bailout plan
Now that the gov has decided not to buy out the bad loans from the bank and instead invest in the banks themselves to improve lending, does anyone think that that means "bank owned" homes will go for a steal? I have my eye on a bank owned property in MD that I would love to lowball on, but I am a big chicken to get turned down!
From MSN Money 11/12/08 ..."The collateral damage in the financial markets forced the government to pass a $700 billion financial rescue package last month. The plan was initially to buy bad assets from banks, but Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said Wednesday that the rescue package won’t purchase those troubled assets. That plan would have taken too much time, he said, so instead the Treasury will rely on buying stakes in banks and encouraging them to resume more normal lending."
Stating a discriminatory preference in an advertisement for housing is illegal. If you think this content is discriminatory or otherwise inappropriate and feel it should be removed from Zillow, please let us know by completing the information above.
We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.