Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Poor, poor management. It sounds like there was literally nothing they could do.

is this substance to you?

have you heard of the "golden rule?"

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Poor, poor management. It sounds like there was literally nothing they could do.

It also sounds like 1972.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

It also sounds like 1972.

can someone tell me why I should try to engage in this mess?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I am a stupid troll, i admit that. but months ago I posted that the banks were fucked in this foreclosure mess becuase many loans will not be fixable. there will be gaps in the chain of title they cannot fix and thus the deadbeats will be left in their homes.

I based this theory on this: Judges were telling banks to bring in their proof of ownership, and the lawyers didn't bring anything. I do not know anything about bank law (actually I know more than most posters here, but not enough to claim i know anything (hi GGG!)). I am however a lawyer. i know if a judge tells me to bring proof to his chmabers next tuesday, I will be there with 1) my evidence, if it exists, or 2) a new assignment to fix any gap, if such a new assignment could be obtained.

since lawyers were showing up w/o proof, I hypothesized that the entity that would have to sign the new document no longer existed and i saw no way for the deadbeat not to be left in the home.

the mob here called me ignorant, with the more polite assuring me there would be no problem.

Well, guess what, the deadbeats are being left. The bank that own the notes are not being challenged by anyone in the chain, the entity challenging ownership is the one that everyone must agree has no equity- the occupant.

I got a call from a family friend, the guy has a PhD, he was asking me how to prove a document is an original- he was in the middle of foreclosure as he had not paid a mortgage payment in a year. BUT the loan owner has a sloppy chain of title. the crazy thing is the friend thought the bank was evil and he was the good guy.

this has got to be a major hit that is still coming at the banks. unless congress somehow passes a "fuck the home occupant" law millions of people are going to suddenly own a home- no rent- they won't be able to sell it I suppose, but maybe can transfer their squatters rights?

1. The problem with coming in with a new assignment is that they would have to restart the clock on the foreclosure--if the Lender wasn't the real party in interest on day one of the foreclosure notice, it was completely ineffective. So there wasn't anything to present in *that* case, but they could restart at the beginning.

2. Because of #1 and related and unrelated but similar problems, and also because of the robo-signer "scandal" and figuring out who's going to pay the out of pockets (the servicer *really* doesn't want to, because they got about tree-fitty to perform the role and are losing money just making copies), there are thousands of mortgages in default which are not being actively pursued for foreclosure. Also, the Lenders not knowing what the hell to do with the props after they become REO encourages delay, too.

3. Given the environment created by 1 & 2, and marginally ethical lawyers + whacky As-Seen-On-TV schemes (akin to credit repair), a lot of people believe that they have more defenses to foreclosure than they really have.

Thus, you have a lot of people who have stopped paying their mortgages, think they have a good legal position to challenge foreclosure when it comes, and a lot of Lenders who are extremely slow seeking their remedies* reinforcing the mistaken belief that there is a documentation problem that creates or strengthens defenses. This results in thousands of people staying in their houses for months or years w/o paying the mortgage, but not in any situation that would prohibit foreclosure, nor in any way reduce the principal owed (penalties and fees, there might be a decent argument, depending on how the assessing of them is handled).


*note: no laches argument, as the remedy is contractual, not equitable.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

can someone tell me why I should try to engage in this mess?

I'm still waiting for you to apply your sophisticated, practical understanding of unions to explain the interactions between Michelle Rhee and the DC teachers unions. Since you waded into that conversation to call me ignorant, presumably you have something smart to add to it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm still waiting for you to apply your sophisticated, practical understanding of unions to explain the interactions between Michelle Rhee and the DC teachers unions. Since you waded into that conversation to call me ignorant, presumably you have something smart to add to it.

would you please summarize your knowledge and experience with unions so I know how much background I will need to provide along with my explanation?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

is this substance to you?

have you heard of the "golden rule?"

I think I've been very clear that I often don't support what unions want. But they don't run everything. When someone tells a story in which the union is the sole bad guy, the tacit point of the story is to divert attention from other participants.

Your response was to tell a story about the decline of the U.S. auto industry in which management was helpless to stop the unions from wrecking everything. Although you blamed Democrats too, so I suppose it was somewhat more sophisticated account than you might have given.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

would you please summarize your knowledge and experience with unions so I know how much background I will need to provide along with my explanation?

I'll raise my hand to ask a question if I can't follow you. Go ahead.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think I've been very clear that I often don't support what unions want. But they don't run everything. When someone tells a story in which the union is the sole bad guy, the tacit point of the story is to divert attention from other participants.

Your response was to tell a story about the decline of the U.S. auto industry in which management was helpless to stop the unions from wrecking everything. Although you blamed Democrats too, so I suppose it was somewhat more sophisticated account than you might have given.

serious question: do you think this post is polite?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

1. The problem with coming in with a new assignment is that they would have to restart the clock on the foreclosure--if the Lender wasn't the real party in interest on day one of the foreclosure notice, it was completely ineffective. So there wasn't anything to present in *that* case, but they could restart at the beginning.

2. Because of #1 and related and unrelated but similar problems, and also because of the robo-signer "scandal" and figuring out who's going to pay the out of pockets (the servicer *really* doesn't want to, because they got about tree-fitty to perform the role and are losing money just making copies), there are thousands of mortgages in default which are not being actively pursued for foreclosure. Also, the Lenders not knowing what the hell to do with the props after they become REO encourages delay, too.

3. Given the environment created by 1 & 2, and marginally ethical lawyers + whacky As-Seen-On-TV schemes (akin to credit repair), a lot of people believe that they have more defenses to foreclosure than they really have.

Thus, you have a lot of people who have stopped paying their mortgages, think they have a good legal position to challenge foreclosure when it comes, and a lot of Lenders who are extremely slow seeking their remedies* reinforcing the mistaken belief that there is a documentation problem that creates or strengthens defenses. This results in thousands of people staying in their houses for months or years w/o paying the mortgage, but not in any situation that would prohibit foreclosure, nor in any way reduce the principal owed (penalties and fees, there might be a decent argument, depending on how the assessing of them is handled).


*note: no laches argument, as the remedy is contractual, not equitable.

The chain of title scandals are side shows, and side shows the servicers would love to have us believe are the real problem with curing the housing market's ills (or at least a much bigger part of it than they actually are).

The real problem is even if fcs could slide through with no paper problems, nobody wants to buy the fucking shit. It's an inventory problem. The 800 lb gorilla no one discusses is the investors in the shit securities tied to a lot of these properties are going to take 40-70% losses on most of this shit. Nobody wants the mass realization of loss everyone knows is out there to hit in a wave. The thinking at the outset was, "Lets fc as we need to, and hopefully the housing market will rebound, the economy will rebound, and this problem will work itself out. Refis and buyers looking to grab discounts will swoop in. Why not? Rates are crazy low!"

Too bad the banks (who own the servicers) won't lend on this shit. Too bad nobody who could afford the monthly payment has 20% to put down.

Now the servicers are stuck with a scenario where the more they fc, the more they debase their own inventories. There is no rebound, there is no wave of buyers. There's everybody who might be a buyer/speculator waiting, because we all know, there's a monster loss out there the servicers are trying to ease through the system slowly over time, and that prices are not going to stabilize for still many more years.*

Shiller's wrong. The problem isn't too many people believing there'll be a better deal tomorrow. The problem is too many people rightly believing there will be a better deal tomorrow, and too much quick information proving anyone taking a contrary view is a clueless cheerleader.

We need a mass workout. Fuck moral hazard. Call it "Mortgage Court." Put the borrowers in a room with representatives of the servicers with actual authority and force the parties to work it out.

*Geographically, they will in certain areas, and at certain price points. But we're talking macro, so I'm going wide.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

serious question: do you think this post is polite?

Yes. I also think I did you the courtesy of reading what you said and giving you a serious response. What kind of response do you think you deserved? Were you responding in that exchange, what response would you have made?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The chain of title scandals are side shows, and side shows the servicers would love to have us believe are the real problem with curing the housing market's ills (or at least a much bigger part of it than they actually are).

The real problem is even if fcs could slide through with no paper problems, nobody wants to buy the fucking shit. It's an inventory problem. The 800 lb gorilla no one discusses is the investors in the shit securities tied to a lot of these properties are going to take 40-70% losses on most of this shit. Nobody wants the mass realization of loss everyone knows is out there to hit in a wave. The thinking at the outset was, "Lets fc as we need to, and hopefully the housing market will rebound, the economy will rebound, and this problem will work itself out. Refis and buyers looking to grab discounts will swoop in. Why not? Rates are crazy low!"

Too bad the banks (who own the servicers) won't lend on this shit. Too bad nobody who could afford the monthly payment has 20% to put down.

Now the servicers are stuck with a scenario where the more they fc, the more they debase their own inventories. There is no rebound, there is no wave of buyers. There's everybody who might be a buyer/speculator waiting, because we all know, there's a monster loss out there the servicers are trying to ease through the system slowly over time, and that prices are not going to stabilize for still many more years.*

Shiller's wrong. The problem isn't too many people believing there'll be a better deal tomorrow. The problem is too many people rightly believing there will be a better deal tomorrow, and too much quick information proving anyone taking a contrary view is a clueless cheerleader.

We need a mass workout. Fuck moral hazard. Call it "Mortgage Court." Put the borrowers in a room with representatives of the servicers with actual authority and force the parties to work it out.

*Geographically, they will in certain areas, and at certain price points. But we're talking macro, so I'm going wide.

Yep.

There are people trying to figure out an effective, enforceable way to split the existing notes, lien stripping the 1A down to the current value of the house and holding 1B as a balloon-type mortgage, due on sale for an amount greater than the 1A loan amount (basically betting on inflation), with some split to the HO. The intent would be to buy a portfolio of non-performing loans for, say 40 cents, and get them back to performing on the first 45-50 cents (which is about what the collateral is worth). Problem is, you need to *know* that you have no enforcement risk, minimal bankruptcy risk, and you can't deal with 50 jurisdictions-->you need a federal law that messes with a genuine state law issue. But, if that could get working, we'd clear a lot of the f/c backlog.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Yes. I also think I did you the courtesy of reading what you said and giving you a serious response. What kind of response do you think you deserved? Were you responding in that exchange, what response would you have made?

you should run for a judge position, because I can't imagine any other job your your idea of what "conversation" is would be sucessful.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

you should run for a judge position, because I can't imagine any other job your your idea of what "conversation" is would be sucessful.

Thank you for the career advice, but enough about me. I'd still like to hear how your worldly wisdom and knowledge can shed some light on the negotiations between Michelle Rhee and the DC teachers unions. Ever since you told me that I obviously don't know anything, it's been clear that you have a lot to add to the conversation. Tell me: What was it about Rhee's proposals that the unions didn't like, and why did they do what they did?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Thank you for the career advice, but enough about me. I'd still like to hear how your worldly wisdom and knowledge can shed some light on the negotiations between Michelle Rhee and the DC teachers unions.

do you recall when Thurgreed and I questioned the players' and coaches' decisions in the world Cup? you and the other soccer fans refused to engage us because our basic lack of knowledge was so widespread that you could hardly be expected to explain what the participants had intended, I bleive a quote was "since you don't know what they are trying to do how can you expect to intelligently question how they are trying to achieve it?"

Back then i was offended, but now i understand your point.

you should give it a week then reread what penske and i have tried to tell you the last few days.