During the Depression (the one started in 1929) my grandfather went down to
the bank and bought the mortgage on his farm for about 7 cents on the
dollar.

So why 700 Billion $ and all these laws?

Wouldn't it be better (and simpler) to give people with mortgages the
opportunity to buy their mortgage for pennies on the dollar?

It may not fix every problem, but it would certainly be of great benefit and
reduce the cost of housing.

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:26:30 -0600, "Charles Momsen"
said:

Wouldn't it be better (and simpler) to give people with mortgages the
opportunity to buy their mortgage for pennies on the dollar?

With whom would you propose to negotiate the price?


With the Feds of course! After all the banks are claiming the debts are
bad and feel that you should pay for them. So you could basically give
the twits who took out mortgages they couldn't afford the houses, and
you can pay the banks for them. Or you could let the banks foreclose
and sell the homes at bottom line prices, write of the rest of the debt
and have you pay,,,,,hmmm looks like the only difference is who gets
the houses in the end..... carpet baggers or fools who can't figure out
a simple budget.

Cheers
Marty

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:26:30 -0600, "Charles Momsen"
said:

Wouldn't it be better (and simpler) to give people with mortgages the
opportunity to buy their mortgage for pennies on the dollar?

With whom would you propose to negotiate the price?

The one holding the mortgage. Merrill Lynch just sold their mortgages for 22
cents on the dollar.

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:07:07 -0400, said:

With whom would you propose to negotiate the price?
Bankruptcy judges.

So every time somebody with a mortgage goes bankrupt, you steal a little a
chunk of money from the guys that made it possible to buy the house, eh? And
the judge decides how much to steal.

Oh no, steal nothing, use the taxpayers money to recompense the bank.
Oh,,, wait a sec,, that might cost near a trillion dollars, the American
public would never stand for that!

Cheers
Marty

If you're the guy providing money for people to buy houses, that's sure
gonna encourage you to lend more. Gee, you might even charge everybody
higher interest for taking the additional risk that some judge might steal
some of the money. Ya think?

I'm not at all sure that bankruptcy was what the OP had in mind.

wrote in message
...
On 24 Sep 2008 12:41:07 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:07:07 -0400, said:

With whom would you propose to negotiate the price?

Bankruptcy judges.

So every time somebody with a mortgage goes bankrupt, you steal a little a
chunk of money from the guys that made it possible to buy the house, eh?
And
the judge decides how much to steal.

If you're the guy providing money for people to buy houses, that's sure
gonna encourage you to lend more. Gee, you might even charge everybody
higher interest for taking the additional risk that some judge might steal
some of the money. Ya think?

I'm not at all sure that bankruptcy was what the OP had in mind.

Your interpretation is extremely twisted and dishonest. You sound like
someone connected with banks.



By his own admission. He advises bank regulators!


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

wrote in message
...
On 24 Sep 2008 12:41:07 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:07:07 -0400, said:

With whom would you propose to negotiate the price?

Bankruptcy judges.

So every time somebody with a mortgage goes bankrupt, you steal a little a
chunk of money from the guys that made it possible to buy the house, eh?
And
the judge decides how much to steal.

If you're the guy providing money for people to buy houses, that's sure
gonna encourage you to lend more. Gee, you might even charge everybody
higher interest for taking the additional risk that some judge might steal
some of the money. Ya think?

I'm not at all sure that bankruptcy was what the OP had in mind.

Your interpretation is extremely twisted and dishonest. You sound like
someone connected with banks.


I believe Dave is trying to make a point. He has more experience and is
closer to the action on this issue than anyone else here, afaik. I just wish
he was a bit more open and direct with his enlightenment as some people do
actual regard what he has to say.

Dave should take a cue from our most enlightened newsgroup member, the
always truthful, fair, objective and balanced Jonathan Ganz whose only bias
is one towards the truth. Discussions with Jon are always a win-win
proposition as everyone walks away a better person, both in character and
knowledge. Perhaps Jonathan will intervene here and moderate the discussion
in the beneficial format he uses in every discourse. I can only marvel at
Jon's seemingly innate ability to get to the truth and essence of the matter
at hand and the wonderful way he brings others into the fold. If he were to
go onto the motivational speaking circuit he would not only improve the
world, he would garner trillions in fees and the income tax paid would pay
for the current financial crisis many times over. Yes, such great men still
do exist and even walk amongst us. Great fortune is ours.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:47:17 -0400, said:

If you're the guy providing money for people to buy houses, that's sure
gonna encourage you to lend more. Gee, you might even charge everybody
higher interest for taking the additional risk that some judge might
steal
some of the money. Ya think?

I'm not at all sure that bankruptcy was what the OP had in mind.

Your interpretation is extremely twisted and dishonest. You sound like
someone connected with banks.

In today's market with securitization, it has little to do with banks.
Most
banks will have long ago sold the paper. That's in fact what my initial
question was intended to highlight, and why I carefully said "the guys
providing money for people to buy houses" instead of "banks." The entity
taking the hit could well be your pension fund, or more likely several
different pension funds, and an insurance company. One of the problems
with
the OP's proposal is that mortgage pools are carved up in pieces these
days
so it's virtually impossible to sit down with a single entity and
negotiate
a modification. That's in part why the Dems want a judge to decide how
much
to steal from those pension funds, (and ultimately their pensioners) etc.
when there's a bankruptcy.

Dave, when the government does it, it's not stealing. It's for the common
good.
Thanks for the explanation.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:14:53 -0600, "Charles Momsen"
said:

With whom would you propose to negotiate the price?

The one holding the mortgage. Merrill Lynch just sold their mortgages for
22
cents on the dollar.

Demonstrating, of course, that you know nothing about the mortgage backed
securities market.

The sword has 2 edges:
Contesting a Foreclosure Lawsuit -- Who Owns the Mortgage?
April 22, 2008, 10:41 am
Posted by Admin in Legal Information
Rating: 0/5 Votes : 0

There has been such a backlash against the subprime mortgage market that
even homeowners in foreclosure have realized the fraud that has been
perpetrated on them. In such times of economic crisis and blatant
corruption, government representatives have little choice but to pretend
they are protecting the public from greedy mortgage companies and bad loan
products.
It is in this environment that some homeowners have begun to contest their
foreclosures and have actually had some lawsuits thrown out of court until
the bank can prove its case. The two most publicized cases have involved the
ownership of the mortgage paperwork and the lender having standing to sue
for foreclosure, and the underlying fraud of the loan contract invalidating
the entire agreement.

The first type of case, in which the homeowners ask for proof that the
foreclosing bank has the ability to sue, has certainly been a temporary blow
to the banks. One of the main reasons for inflating the subprime market was
so that loan originators could sell the mortgages to financial institutions
or other banks which could then sell the rights to the monthly mortgage
payment income to investors and transfer the responsibility to collect these
payments to specialized mortgage servicing companies.

The problem with this approach is that it has resulted in the slicing up of
the mortgage contract, with no party really having ownership of the original
paperwork. When homeowners fall behind, the servicer or trustee tries to
initiate lawsuit proceedings to sell the house at a foreclosure auction, but
judges are beginning to realize that neither of these parties originated the
mortgage and can not prove that they own the loan.

In order for a second bank or financial institution to have standing to
bring a foreclosure lawsuit into court, they must have been assigned the
mortgage. Because this was not done in many cases where mortgages were
originated and quickly sold off in large loan packages, banks do not have
signed assignment paperwork; and with the collapse of the housing market,
many of the subprime lenders have gone out of business, making it impossible
to contact the originating mortgage company.

This puts these mortgage loans into a kind of limbo, where the homeowners
are not making their payments but the banks can not prove they have any
rights to those payments anyway. Homeowners who argue this case have met
with some level of success so far, with the banks being forced to stop
foreclosure proceedings on the house until they can prove they were assigned
the loan from the originating company.

The only drawback to this victory for the homeowners is that these cases are
being dismissed without prejudice, meaning that the bank can begin the
lawsuit again if they can prove ownership of the mortgage. The judges are
not ruling on the merits of the case (whether the owners are behind and
their home must be auctioned to satisfy the debt), but only on the lack of
standing to sue -- if the bank can get an original assignment, they can
begin to foreclose again.

But in a mortgage environment where so many homeowners were given bad loans
that they did not deserve and banks are being bailed out by the public for
bad loans they never should have made, it is only fitting that the owners
should score a handful of victories in the courts. In the future, there is a
good possibility that judges will argue that banks do not need to own loans
to foreclose on houses, thereby erasing the legal standing defense of people
against corporations; but for now, homeowners have one more defense they can
use to stop foreclosure.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:43:10 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On 24 Sep 2008 12:41:07 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:07:07 -0400, said:

With whom would you propose to negotiate the price?

Bankruptcy judges.

So every time somebody with a mortgage goes bankrupt, you steal a little
a
chunk of money from the guys that made it possible to buy the house, eh?
And
the judge decides how much to steal.

If you're the guy providing money for people to buy houses, that's sure
gonna encourage you to lend more. Gee, you might even charge everybody
higher interest for taking the additional risk that some judge might
steal
some of the money. Ya think?

I'm not at all sure that bankruptcy was what the OP had in mind.

Your interpretation is extremely twisted and dishonest. You sound like
someone connected with banks.



By his own admission. He advises bank regulators!

So this whole mess is DAVE'S fault! I should have known.



There's plenty of blame to go around.... oh wait, I'm channeling Paulson.
Sorry.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:47:17 -0400, said:

If you're the guy providing money for people to buy houses, that's sure
gonna encourage you to lend more. Gee, you might even charge everybody
higher interest for taking the additional risk that some judge might
steal
some of the money. Ya think?

I'm not at all sure that bankruptcy was what the OP had in mind.

Your interpretation is extremely twisted and dishonest. You sound like
someone connected with banks.

In today's market with securitization, it has little to do with banks.
Most
banks will have long ago sold the paper. That's in fact what my initial
question was intended to highlight, and why I carefully said "the guys
providing money for people to buy houses" instead of "banks." The entity
taking the hit could well be your pension fund, or more likely several
different pension funds, and an insurance company. One of the problems
with
the OP's proposal is that mortgage pools are carved up in pieces these
days
so it's virtually impossible to sit down with a single entity and
negotiate
a modification. That's in part why the Dems want a judge to decide how
much
to steal from those pension funds, (and ultimately their pensioners) etc.
when there's a bankruptcy.


I guess it isn't true then that banks made iffy loans to people who couldn't
really afford them. Since the regs were pretty much dropped, I guess you
can't blame them for being greedy!

Pension funds? There won't be any soon enough.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com