Rick Santelli is the man!

[WDCRob]

Re: Rick Santelli’s Chicago Tea Party

I don't see how anyone can argue that the people in mortgage debt aren't the ones at fault.

Until recently no one has ever wanted more than they could afford. Never. In the history of man, consumers have never been greedy until the start of the housing boom. That's why banks and lenders have, until just recently, always given borrowers whatever money they requested.

For whatever reason this perfect arrangement, in place for centuries, has broken down as borrowers were stricken by a sudden desire to consume more than they could afford and asked for too much credit. It's a bitter pill, but going forward lenders may need to become more selective about who they lend to. This change in consumer behavior was obvious only in hindsight of course. It was completely unforeseeable until it was too late. A true black swan in my opinion.

[sunskyfan]

Re: Rick Santelli’s Chicago Tea Party

Each time one of these loans goes into forclosure taxpayers are already on the hook for the loss, forclosure costs, and indirect economic costs of these people losing thier homes.

It would makes sense to me to try a limit the loses to taxpayers by helping these borrowers pay back thier loans to taxpayers.

Okay. So what is the indirect economic cost of the government taking money from me as a renter with $1000 rent through taxes and a devalued currency giving it to people with loans of up to $700k and mortgage payments of $3k a month (assuming 40 year/4%)???? Assuming they can even make the payments! I made the right decision to not buy the last 5 years. I should have the right to spend my money how I think is best. I have not only earned the money I have earned the right to spend it by BEING WISE! Certainly the guy you are asking me to bail out didn't earn either end of that bargain. Sorry. I think that he should live in my $1000 a month rental and I should be able to buy his house at $240k (which is where the market will probably put it eventually) and my payments are 1000 per month (40 year.4%). Will "the government" take a loss? You assume "the government" won't anyway and all you have done is kept a guy in a house he hasn't earned and disenfranchised those who made the right economic decisions.

Santelli is right on.

[kelton56]

Re: Rick Santelli is the man!

This housing bill is designed to do two things:

First, it is designed to save banks the costs of foreclosure, estimated at roughly $80,000 per house when you factor in attorney fees, bank personnel, maintenance and repairs, realtors fees or auction fees to re-sell, and taxes and insurance while a dwelling is vacant, and probably other expenses I can't think of at the moment.

Second, it is an attempt to prevent the erosion of future property tax revenues collected by municipalities, counties and states by attempting to stabilize home prices.

Any benefits accruing to homeowners, neighbors or anyone else is purely coincidental.

[kelton56]

Re: Rick Santelli is the man!

This housing bill is designed to do two things:

First, it is designed to save banks the costs of foreclosure, estimated at roughly $80,000 per house when you factor in attorney fees, bank personnel, maintenance and repairs, realtors fees or auction fees to re-sell, and taxes and insurance while a dwelling is vacant, and probably other expenses I can't think of at the moment.

Second, it is an attempt to prevent the erosion of future property tax revenues collected by municipalities, counties and states by attempting to stabilize home prices.

Any benefits accruing to homeowners, neighbors or anyone else is purely coincidental.

[flintlock]

Re: Rick Santelli is the man!

Answer to Rick Santelli: Yes, I would pay my nieghbor's mortgage.

Rick Santelli is exactly the problem: un-American greed disease that has spread throughout the current generation.

In fact, there is nothing more American then paying your nieghbor's mortgage and asking nothing in return.

I need your address for the mortgage company. Thanks neighbor!

[sunskyfan]

Re: Rick Santelli is the man!

Trust me ... foreclosures will not cost $80k. Real Estate fees are adjusting as well as are the other things.

You do have a point on property taxes. But this bring up the conflict generated by the condition where the owner can't pay up ... even his taxes. What do we do next? The Fed Government steps in to pay the owner's property taxes? How about we give the owner a tax holiday? How about everybody that owns a house they can't pay the mortgage on gets a GM car the can't make payments on? It's cheaper than letting the cars set on a lot somewhere. Right?

[goadam1]

Re: Rick Santelli is the man!

Why would you trust cnbc (owned by GE) and this little rant. A better debate may be needed but I don't trust the CNBC assholes. Next we can talk mustard seeds.

It is true that the democrats may be offering your own money but the Republicans (corpratist) are offering your own anger.

[kelton56]

Re: Rick Santelli is the man!

Trust me ... foreclosures will not cost $80k. Real Estate fees are adjusting as well as are the other things.

I've adjusted for inflation, extensive repairs necessary for owner-damaged homes, etc. This estimate is nearly two years old.

http://www.therealestatebloggers.com...60000-dollars/

Freddie Mac Says Typical Foreclosure Costs 60,000 Dollars

If you are one of the thousands of American’s facing foreclosure, you may have a great deal more bargaining power than you ever thought. Analysis from Freddie Mac and large banks show that their cost to foreclose on your home is in the range of 60,000 dollars on average

[mercerbear]

Re: Rick Santelli’s Chicago Tea Party

You are wrong on so many levels oh where to begin.

1) George Bush (not that I don't like to blame him for many things) did not put us on the hook for trillions with FRE or FNM these institutions failed and were seized. The reason these institutions failed was because Barney Frank and Co. made them lend to unqualified borrowers through legislation and mandatory CRE credits. Then they allowed them to leverage up and totally looked the other way instead of regulating them. The Dems started the programs and as long as they were working for their interest promoted them.
2) The people who took out the mortages signed a contract and commited to pay back the money. They bought a house at a price and took a loan at a price they should not be allowed to by legislation break the contract. It is up to the lenders and borrowers to work out the differences. If a lender wants to work out a loan they can but they will only do it if they feel that the borrower can repay. It has happened and will continue to happen all the time. It should be resolved between the two parties.
3) Allowing judges to cramdown mortgages in bankruptcy is just a bad idea. People for this are for breaking of contracts and do not understand what bankruptcy and the rule of law is all about. Bankrupcy is basically the venue where a debtor with equity in their property can resolve their debt through a negotiation with their creditors. All parties are represented and as long as the debtor can show the ability to pay and the creditor feels it is better off then a plan will be confirmed and the new contract will be struck. Once you leave it up the government to enforce you have basically given the government the right to meddle in private matters.
4) So the servicers who rubber stamped mortgages that should not have been made get a bail out.

So lets assume you are right and only truly needy people get the bail out money you have still redistributed wealth from the peole who work hard to pay the bills. If someone bought to much house for their income they are getting a reward for not being prudent. They should not.

If a borrower was defrauded his recourse is to sue the lender. The courts can handle this as well.

If a special circumstance such as health or layoff happens lenders have the right to forbearance. If not bankruptcy will allow for the successful confirmation of a plan to resume payments and abide by the contract.

Now the idea that stopping your neighbors forclosure saves the value of your house is also part of this debate. I own a home not an investment and as long as I did the prudent thing and took out a 30 year fixed mortgage what do I care what the value of the house next to me is today. This is where I live and will live for 30 years we do not mark to market our shelter because of two bad years over time the house will appreciate at the same rate as inflation the mortgage will be paid off and the value will be there.

The only possible solution is to clear the market let prices fall to the level that they stabilize. People are very smart they will start to buy when they percieve value and stability. They will not buy when things are uncertain. This has happened before. It happened in the 70's and the early 90's and the solution was let the market find the bottom and recover. It is doing this very well without the government. We recovered then we will recover now as long as the government does not play games. Unfortunalty I think the Government is just playing politics and will end up prolonging the downturn and my children will pay the extra price.

Very well said!

[sishya]

Re: Rick Santelli’s Chicago Tea Party

Rick Santelli is simply un-American garbage. Yes I would pay my nieghbors mortgage as that is the American thing to do.

Can you pay part of my mortgage ? I will send you my address.
I am serious.

[xtronics]

Re: Rick Santelli is the man!

Answer to Rick Santelli: Yes, I would pay my neighbor's mortgage.

Rick Santelli is exactly the problem: un-American greed disease that has spread throughout the current generation.

In fact, there is nothing more American then paying your neighbor's mortgage and asking nothing in return.

I can set you up for you to pay my mother in law's mortgage. My father in law has Parkinson disease - they are having a hard time.

(start the betting pool)...

[Uno]

Re: Rick Santelli is the man!

If your mortgage is held by Fannie or Freddie then I already am!

You people are so retarded you need to actually read the bill and stop watching CNBC and Fox garbage. LOL.

The day GW Bush nationalionlized Fannie and Freddie all taxpaypers were put on the hook for trillions of dollars in mortgages.

If you foreclose on these homes then TAXPAYERS TAKE THE LOSS! NOT a private bank.

The bill only includes public mortgages. Private mortgages got no help which is why the banker mouthpieces like Santelli are being told to rant.

The ONLY option for Obama is how to MINIMIZE the LOSS to TAXPAYERS.

As others posted, foreclosure is typically the MOST EXPENSE for TAXPAYERS. Please think people.

It is much cheaper to help people on the verge of forclosure to stay in these homes and keep making payments TO THE TAXPAYERS.

The ONLY argument is what the best combiniations of interest rate relief, cram downs, incentives to modify loans, and forclosure result in MINIMIZING LOSSES TO TAXPAYERS.

THANK YOU OBAMA FOR SUCH A TAXPAYER FRIENDLY BILL!

Wilbur Ross (part of rant) owns the largest 3rd party mortgage servicer in the country and is a vulture investor trying to flip deep discount mortgages. I'll save those details for another post!

Rick Santelli and Wilbur Ross are un-America scumbags. Period. Try and Think people.

[Uno]

Re: Rick Santelli is the man!

An illustration, (numbers are not meant to be accurate), to help you CNBC & FOX simpletons understand a point. Probably a waste of time though!

Outstanding Mortgage Amount $500,000.
Current Wholesale Home Value $250,000.

Borrower has a solid job, cannot make the payment because it adjusted.

Rick Santelli Option: Forclosure. Cost to taxapyer: 250,000 + 60,000 forclosure fees + indirect taxpayer costs (no property taxes being paid)

Total $300,000 plus PER HOME (multiple by millions)

Obama Option(s): Help the family stay in thier homes and pay back TAXPAYERS.

a) Interest Rate Relief: Lower the rate so the entire $500,000 gets paid back over 30 years. Loss to taxpayer $0.

b) Cram Down: Split the diff. Lower the mortgage to $400,000 and refinance into a non-recourse loan so the $400,000 has to be paid back. Loss to taxpayer $100,000.

c) Other options of loan modifications to MINIMIZE LOSSES TO TAXPAYERS.

I'd like to start a FOX & CNBC NEWS GARBAGE PARTY - dump 1,000 tons a crap in front of the studio doors because that is all these shows are.

[sunskyfan]

Re: Rick Santelli is the man!

Nice IDEAL world. Let's say that only half of these people go ahead and default after your shinigans. A very optimistic assumption by-the-way. Then you loose the $100k and the $250k and you still have to foreclose and you encured the damage to the economy by rewarding bad behavior. You are fogetting that this guy you are helping probably has $15k in credit cards he can't pay off either. All with the assumption that they have a sound secure job.

If you really do like this approach ... I have a perpetual motion machine I can sell you that will make oil obsolete.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Rick Santelli’s Chicago Tea Party

You are wrong on so many levels oh where to begin.

1) George Bush (not that I don't like to blame him for many things) did not put us on the hook for trillions with FRE or FNM these institutions failed and were seized. The reason these institutions failed was because Barney Frank and Co. made them lend to unqualified borrowers through legislation and mandatory CRE credits. Then they allowed them to leverage up and totally looked the other way instead of regulating them. The Dems started the programs and as long as they were working for their interest promoted them.

Do you happen to have reliable data on how many of the subprime mortgages were issued by lenders subject to the CRA legislation?

A reporter for the McClatchy Newspapers makes the following claim, "...only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans."