Here's a good primer on the Robo-signing issue from PBS. But as even they have to concede at the end of the article:
The reality ... is that most people signed a note, owe the money, and cannot pay.
The Robo-signing made it difficult for some people to modify their existing mortgages that they were already late on but I need to see some evidence that banks were foreclosing on people who were current and paid up on their mortgages. Not buying it.
Luckily Bob you don’t have to take my word for it, the settlements are all out there for the public to see at their own viewing pleasure. And frankly it would be a weird thing for me to lie about.
Luckily Bob you don’t have to take my word for it, the settlements are all out there for the public to see at their own viewing pleasure. And frankly it would be a weird thing for me to lie about.
I don't think you're lying I just think there is more to the story than you either know or are revealing. I'm certain that there might be a handful of cases where what you described might have happened but they're outliers and not the norm.
What incentive does a bank have to foreclose on a property where the payments are current?
Luckily Bob you don’t have to take my word for it, the settlements are all out there for the public to see at their own viewing pleasure. And frankly it would be a weird thing for me to lie about.
I don't think you're lying I just think there is more to the story than you either know or are revealing. I'm certain that there might be a handful of cases where what you described might have happened but they're outliers and not the norm.
What incentive does a bank have to foreclose on a property where the payments are current?
Jfc! When the financed value is significantly below market value. Fuck you are a retard.
Luckily Bob you don’t have to take my word for it, the settlements are all out there for the public to see at their own viewing pleasure. And frankly it would be a weird thing for me to lie about.
I don't think you're lying I just think there is more to the story than you either know or are revealing. I'm certain that there might be a handful of cases where what you described might have happened but they're outliers and not the norm.
What incentive does a bank have to foreclose on a property where the payments are current?
Jfc! When the financed value is significantly below market value. Fuck you are a retard.
The reverse was the problem during the housing meltdown fucking retard.
And I'm still not seeing any evidence that these type of bank foreclosures were at all prominent.
Luckily Bob you don’t have to take my word for it, the settlements are all out there for the public to see at their own viewing pleasure. And frankly it would be a weird thing for me to lie about.
I don't think you're lying I just think there is more to the story than you either know or are revealing. I'm certain that there might be a handful of cases where what you described might have happened but they're outliers and not the norm.
What incentive does a bank have to foreclose on a property where the payments are current?
Jfc! When the financed value is significantly below market value. Fuck you are a retard.
The reverse was the problem during the housing meltdown fucking retard.
And I'm still not seeing any evidence that these type of bank foreclosures were at all prominent.
Of course you don’t see evidence. Because you are an imbecile. Keep looking retard.
You can read her entire announcement speech here where she states no less than 24 times that she is going to "fight" against and for various things.
But I have a question for the libs, how many of you actually believe this statement to be true?
For the people meant fighting for middle class families who had been defrauded by banks and were losing their homes by the millions in the Great Recession.
Do any of you really believe that "millions" of people lost their homes on account of being defrauded by banks?
And is the concubine selling fear?
And another question, do Rats all believe in the one drop rule? Because I keep seeing these politicians who aren't even half black who call themselves "African American."
About as much as I believe we were being "invaded" by rogue Mexicans. Like you, there are emotional little girls out there who believe whatever they want to believe.
Luckily Bob you don’t have to take my word for it, the settlements are all out there for the public to see at their own viewing pleasure. And frankly it would be a weird thing for me to lie about.
I don't think you're lying I just think there is more to the story than you either know or are revealing. I'm certain that there might be a handful of cases where what you described might have happened but they're outliers and not the norm.
What incentive does a bank have to foreclose on a property where the payments are current?
I’m not sure it was always a conscious effort by the banks, more of a controls and systems issue. It was my first job out of college so I’m not going to claim I had high level insight.
I will also concede that there were plenty of people who were taking out loans who should have had no business getting the type of loans for houses they were receiving. The blame for that I think falls on both the customer and the banks that were giving out insanely predatory loans to people who they knew had no chance of being able to pay.
You can read her entire announcement speech here where she states no less than 24 times that she is going to "fight" against and for various things.
But I have a question for the libs, how many of you actually believe this statement to be true?
For the people meant fighting for middle class families who had been defrauded by banks and were losing their homes by the millions in the Great Recession.
Do any of you really believe that "millions" of people lost their homes on account of being defrauded by banks?
And is the concubine selling fear?
And another question, do Rats all believe in the one drop rule? Because I keep seeing these politicians who aren't even half black who call themselves "African American."
About as much as I believe we were being "invaded" by rogue Mexicans. Like you, there are emotional little girls out there who believe whatever they want to believe.
Great, you don't believe a claim I never made. Good for you Kunt.
If you weren’t trying to engage everyone in bad faith all the time to get your daily dopamine hit you could just google “foreclosure robosigning recession” and read up. The practice was widespread and millions of people did lose their homes. Not all of them lost to robosigning but almost certainly in the hundreds of thousands.
It was the Timmy Geithner “foam the runway plan”. The banks only paid a relatively small settlement for doing so. For someone that pretends to be smart online you are such an easy mark, all the time.
FunFact: Bob has also purported the notion that Fannie & Freddie was the main reason for the financial crisis in recent times.
Fannie and Freddie were part of the problem. There is no getting around that. But they were far from alone. I lived this on the pretend law side.
Wall Street was as complicit as anybody. In hindsight, I should have taken one of several opportunities I had to leave my practice and join a group who splintered off from Lehman to do our own loan origination, package and sale business. Fannie and Freddie were big customers.
Who was at fault? All of us. The Clinton administration and their zeal for pumping up liquidity into the mortgage lending market so that "everybody can live the American dream and buy a home" (even those who couldn't afford it). Fannie and Freddie, as the instrumentality of that policy, Wall Street sleeze who made tons on the packaging and securitizations. The rating agencies, who were fucking asleep at the wheel, Wall Street, again, for lying to the rating agencies and selling high risk securities to people looking for fixed income. The greedy consumer in Seattle buying a $1M house making $125k / year. Everybody was at fault. There were no victims.
Fine. I'm a mysogenist then. But that doesn't change the fact that Kamala has a face like a bloodhound and a grating, whiny voice that sounds like a starving cat. And look at those man hands. JFC.
I'd hit it. Without a doubt. It's what separates us from women. We can hit that which we hate with terrible enthusiasm. Ask @PurpleThrobber . He'll tell you.
The banks are still holding a large bag of shit housing under water
Because if they dump it its 2007 all over again
Banks make money when you make your payments not when they foreclose
Investors make money off that stock. That's why banks started holding
They have to mark to market. And write down losses. And set aside capital against underwater loans. The regulators oversee it all. And then the banks foreclose.
Luckily Bob you don’t have to take my word for it, the settlements are all out there for the public to see at their own viewing pleasure. And frankly it would be a weird thing for me to lie about.
I don't think you're lying I just think there is more to the story than you either know or are revealing. I'm certain that there might be a handful of cases where what you described might have happened but they're outliers and not the norm.
What incentive does a bank have to foreclose on a property where the payments are current?
I’m not sure it was always a conscious effort by the banks, more of a controls and systems issue. It was my first job out of college so I’m not going to claim I had high level insight.
I will also concede that there were plenty of people who were taking out loans who should have had no business getting the type of loans for houses they were receiving. The blame for that I think falls on both the customer and the banks that were giving out insanely predatory loans to people who they knew had no chance of being able to pay.
Now there's something we can agree on. But you need to ask yourself what allowed the banks to make loans to people they knew couldn't afford to pay the loans?
You can read her entire announcement speech here where she states no less than 24 times that she is going to "fight" against and for various things.
But I have a question for the libs, how many of you actually believe this statement to be true?
For the people meant fighting for middle class families who had been defrauded by banks and were losing their homes by the millions in the Great Recession.
Do any of you really believe that "millions" of people lost their homes on account of being defrauded by banks?
And is the concubine selling fear?
And another question, do Rats all believe in the one drop rule? Because I keep seeing these politicians who aren't even half black who call themselves "African American."
About as much as I believe we were being "invaded" by rogue Mexicans. Like you, there are emotional little girls out there who believe whatever they want to believe.
Great, you don't believe a claim I never made. Good for you Kunt.
I didn't say you made the claim Kunt, though I'm sure you are sympathetic to those who do. Try and read better, and your debate skills will improve. Dumb dumb.
If you weren’t trying to engage everyone in bad faith all the time to get your daily dopamine hit you could just google “foreclosure robosigning recession” and read up. The practice was widespread and millions of people did lose their homes. Not all of them lost to robosigning but almost certainly in the hundreds of thousands.
It was the Timmy Geithner “foam the runway plan”. The banks only paid a relatively small settlement for doing so. For someone that pretends to be smart online you are such an easy mark, all the time.
FunFact: Bob has also purported the notion that Fannie & Freddie was the main reason for the financial crisis in recent times.
Fannie and Freddie were part of the problem. There is no getting around that. But they were far from alone. I lived this on the pretend law side.
Wall Street was as complicit as anybody. In hindsight, I should have taken one of several opportunities I had to leave my practice and join a group who splintered off from Lehman to do our own loan origination, package and sale business. Fannie and Freddie were big customers.
Who was at fault? All of us. The Clinton administration and their zeal for pumping up liquidity into the mortgage lending market so that "everybody can live the American dream and buy a home" (even those who couldn't afford it). Fannie and Freddie, as the instrumentality of that policy, Wall Street sleeze who made tons on the packaging and securitizations. The rating agencies, who were fucking asleep at the wheel, Wall Street, again, for lying to the rating agencies and selling high risk securities to people looking for fixed income. The greedy consumer in Seattle buying a $1M house making $125k / year. Everybody was at fault. There were no victims.
I've never claimed that Fannie and Freddie were all of the problem. Also Bush continued the same policies started by Clinton.
Comments
Here's a good primer on the Robo-signing issue from PBS. But as even they have to concede at the end of the article:
The reality ... is that most people signed a note, owe the money, and cannot pay.
The Robo-signing made it difficult for some people to modify their existing mortgages that they were already late on but I need to see some evidence that banks were foreclosing on people who were current and paid up on their mortgages. Not buying it.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/faulty-paperwork-lending-institutions-have
What incentive does a bank have to foreclose on a property where the payments are current?
And I'm still not seeing any evidence that these type of bank foreclosures were at all prominent.
I will also concede that there were plenty of people who were taking out loans who should have had no business getting the type of loans for houses they were receiving. The blame for that I think falls on both the customer and the banks that were giving out insanely predatory loans to people who they knew had no chance of being able to pay.
In either case, you claiming moral superiority to steal from the haves, so the have-nots can share a whole lot less.
Because if they dump it its 2007 all over again
Banks make money when you make your payments not when they foreclose
Investors make money off that stock. That's why banks started holding
Wall Street was as complicit as anybody. In hindsight, I should have taken one of several opportunities I had to leave my practice and join a group who splintered off from Lehman to do our own loan origination, package and sale business. Fannie and Freddie were big customers.
Who was at fault? All of us. The Clinton administration and their zeal for pumping up liquidity into the mortgage lending market so that "everybody can live the American dream and buy a home" (even those who couldn't afford it). Fannie and Freddie, as the instrumentality of that policy, Wall Street sleeze who made tons on the packaging and securitizations. The rating agencies, who were fucking asleep at the wheel, Wall Street, again, for lying to the rating agencies and selling high risk securities to people looking for fixed income. The greedy consumer in Seattle buying a $1M house making $125k / year. Everybody was at fault. There were no victims.