I was looking through some old messages to see if I could find some particularly harrowing loan stories. This one, for a borrower who doesn't understand mortgages or mortgage terminology, would definately send them into default.
I spoke to [redacted] the [redacted] this week and she told me about a new product she is seeing called Option Arms.
The way the work is the borrower is given a payment coupon with three different payment options; a 30 year amortization (the high payment) an Interest Only (the medium payment) and a Negative Amortization (the low payment) Many borrowers will opt for the lowest payment, the negative amortization.
The lender will allow the borrowers to pay this until they hit 115% loan to value. At that point the lender requires a full payment based on a 30 year amortization. The borrower can't afford this new payment and since they now owe 115% of the value of the home they can't sell or re-fi and they lose the house
That thread header just says we could avoid puns; it doesn't say we will!!
They're definitely not pets; they just loaf around.
To say the yeast.
Any more puns and you guys are toast!
What got you all crusty today?
Mr. Jane said that yesterday they had an alligator farm in Cutoff, LA which I drove through back in the Search for Gas in South Louisiana adventure of Aught Four
Mhmm they had to stick a finger up the aligators butt to "sex" it. The jokes from there just write themselves. Please pretend I said something witty here.
I'm kinda with megan. Just how much responsibility doesn't lie with the person defaulting? Do we give a pass for stupidity? Easily intimidated by fast talking people so you sign fast? It's not fair that some people were bamboozled. Unfortunately, it was more or less legal. So fix the industry so that can't happen anymore and prosecute the less legal aspects.
If you put butter on a bread animal, will it always land butter-side down?
Did you know alligators like cheerios?
I know they like marshmallows.
Wow, DJ, that's awful! It seems intended to take people's money and then take the house.
However, I do find myself wondering how the person is really harmed. I mean, they will lose the house, but they got to live in a house they couldn't afford for a few years and pay rent below what the house was worth.
(Not that I'm defending this practice. I'm sure having your house foreclosed on is extremely traumatic, no matter how little you paid to get in there.)
eta: Crazy natter juxtaposition of the ethics of sub-prime lending and bread puns!
