Althouse: "Bank of America... sending letters to thousands of homeowners... offering to forgive a portion of the principal balance on their mortgages by an average of $150,000 each."

May 8, 2012

"Bank of America... sending letters to thousands of homeowners... offering to forgive a portion of the principal balance on their mortgages by an average of $150,000 each."

The idea is to "turn mortgages headed for possible foreclosure into long-term performing loans."

You have to be "at least 60 days behind on payments as of the end of January," so too bad for you if you missed the deadline on... missing deadlines. It's now too late to be too late. A new meaning for the phrase it got late early.

81 comments:

Moose said...: Far out! This'll set a really cool precedent that will eventually cause even larger consequences.

Law of Unintended Consequences here we come!; 5/8/12, 11:03 AM
Matt Sablan said...: ... You don't realize how often I hear these things and wish I had been irresponsible and tried to buy a house instead of being responsible and renting.; 5/8/12, 11:07 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Like, whenever there are whispers of student loan forgiveness. I keep thinking: "Well, darn it. If that happens, all my attempts to pay it off early is wasted money." Mortgage forgiveness?; 5/8/12, 11:08 AM
Scott M said...: Is this the bull-moose mother of all bad signals to send to young people who should be learning to save?

Let me get this straight. If I have a $250k mortgage, in a house that's fallen to, say, $225 in market value, and I'm 60+ days late on my last mortgage payment, BoA will forgive $150k, resulting in my having to finance $100k?

What kind of moron am I for making sure that my house payment supersedes all other financial obligations after feeding my family so that I never fell behind these past few lean years?; 5/8/12, 11:08 AM
Scott M said...: B of A. Be VERY of A.; 5/8/12, 11:08 AM
Jaq said...: Un - effing buhlievable....

Remember how people laughed at Pat Robertson over "Jubilee"?; 5/8/12, 11:09 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Well, it is only for people who have homes worth less than they are paying in, which makes me think that maybe this is something that normally happens? Never bought a house, so I dunno. Do the loans get altered every few years to reflect the new reality of the price/market?; 5/8/12, 11:13 AM
Anonymous said...: The destruction of reason, and of our nation, continues apace.; 5/8/12, 11:16 AM
Richard Dolan said...: Bank of America has no incentive to make this principal reduction program more broadly applicable that it absolutely must. The key statement in the article is this: "The principal reduction offers from Bank of America Home Loans are the result of a $25 billion settlement agreement earlier this year with 49 state attorneys general as well as federal authorities who had been investigating allegations of abuses over the handling of foreclosures."

You can be sure that the bank's attorneys structured the settlement as narrowly as possible, and would be delighted if, as Ann suggests, the conditions mean that it got late early for anyone wanting to claim a principal reduction. That would be especially true if the settlement provided that any unclaimed principal reductions would simply expire (I don't know whether it does or not).; 5/8/12, 11:21 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Do the loans get altered every few years to reflect the new reality of the price/market?

No. Never.

Why should the lender take a real loss just because circumstances have made the collateral worth less than the loan amount. The borrower TOOK the money. The borrower SPENT the money. The borrower signed a contract. Tuff pookey if the deal went sour. They need to pay it back or face the consequences.

BAC Shareholders should be furious about this.; 5/8/12, 11:28 AM
Cincinnatus said...: Like the previous HAMP program, the qualifications will make the program apply to a very tiny fraction of homeowners. So again, the media will cause homeowners to besiege BOA/CW with requests that will be denied 99% of the time.; 5/8/12, 11:29 AM
Joe said...: Matt, does your car loan get modified as it depreciates?

The answer is no.

This program was forced on Bank of America. Many of the mortgages at issue were part of their Countrywide Acquisition. Countrywide were a bunch of crooks so some of this is proper. The rest is just politics.

Let me get this straight. If I have a $250k mortgage, in a house that's fallen to, say, $225 in market value,

Let's say you owe $240k on your principal and the market value is now $225k. You'd have your principle adjusted to $225k. If done this year, you'd be okay. Next year, you'd owe taxes on $15k of income.

One consequence is that by doing this, you may more easily be able to do a short sale. If you do a short sale or get foreclosed next year, it would theoretically reduce your tax burden on your debt forgiveness.

Were I setting this program up, I'd throw in a twist; if you sell the house within a specified period and make a capital gain up the original amount, you'd own me a portion.; 5/8/12, 11:32 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Do the loans get altered every few years to reflect the new reality of the price/market?

Does your car loan get reduced every year because the resale value of your car goes down? If your car is in a wreck and loses value do you expect that your car loan should be reset?

Why should housing loans be any different?; 5/8/12, 11:32 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Ha @ Joe

Great minds think alike. LOL

I was posting at the same time as you.; 5/8/12, 11:33 AM
Bryan C said...: "Well, it is only for people who have homes worth less than they are paying in, which makes me think that maybe this is something that normally happens?"

It isn't. Home prices sometimes go up and sometimes go down. The potential selling price of a home means nothing until the homeowner intends to sell. The amount of money the homeowner borrowed from the bank in order to make the purchase remains the same, regardless of the value of what it was spent on.

Same as a car loan, except with bigger numbers. Which is why the whole "underwater mortgage crisis" has always been nonsense on stilts.; 5/8/12, 11:34 AM
rhhardin said...: I imagine that they forgive you only to the point that your payments make market sense, which is the point at which you can sell or rent the house.

They already took a theoretical loss on your mortgage so it doesn't cost them anything more, and they get to realize the loss today for tax purposes.

Future lesson for bank: know your customer.

The incentive effects are hard to guess. People still paying already decided against strategic default, involving having to move and taking a credit hit.; 5/8/12, 11:37 AM
Matt Sablan said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/8/12, 11:38 AM
Matt Sablan said...: That all makes sense. Oh well. Weep for B of a.; 5/8/12, 11:38 AM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: The problem with the settlement agreement is the government didn't insist that mortgage reduction be dependent on weight reduction.; 5/8/12, 11:42 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: They already took a theoretical loss on your mortgage so it doesn't cost them anything more,

The Bank may have a theoretical current loss based on the value of the collateral to the amount lent. If the borrower is forclosed upon the bank will experience a real loss in the difference between the real cash that was lent and the resale value of the home....not to mention all of the costs associated with foreclosure and holding OREO.

Doing this program will also turn that hypothetical loss into a REAL loss.

I used to be a stock broker and the hardest thing to do was to get people to realize that a 'paper' loss is not real until you sell. Not to panic over temporary dips in the market and not to sell on a dip.

The BAC shareholders should be pissed.; 5/8/12, 11:45 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Joe:
I think the feds passed a law in 2006 that exempted debt forgiveness on primary residences from one's taxable income calculation. The timing of the law makes me think the feds must have seen the housing bubble coming.; 5/8/12, 11:49 AM
Joe said...: AJ, that's why I said "this year"; the law ends December 31, 2012.; 5/8/12, 11:51 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: the feds passed a law in 2006 that exempted debt forgiveness on primary residences

Yes they did; 5/8/12, 11:53 AM
ricpic said...: Pays to be a deadbeat when a deadbeat rules.; 5/8/12, 11:54 AM
X said...: The idea is to "turn mortgages headed for possible foreclosure into long-term performing loans."

if it follows the HAMP and HAMP2 trends, it will have the opposite effect.; 5/8/12, 11:54 AM
Dan in Philly said...: Good move on their part. I'm not late and I don't see how this hurts me, I am paying my bills and if those properties go into foreclosure it probably hurts me more than it helps me. Is it "fair"? No, but I don't see how that matters, does it?; 5/8/12, 11:54 AM
Scott said...: B of A gets an immediate tax loss on the principal written down, but they get it back in interest on the back end.

And they get the non-performing loan pools off the books.

And they get the state AGs off their backs.

(Didn't Bear Stearns have a huge business in improving underperforming mortgage portfolios? I hope B of A doesn't get a taste for this kind of business.); 5/8/12, 11:57 AM
Joe said...: FYI, The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act was introduced in Congress on September 25, 2007, and became law on December 20, 2007.

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 extended the law through the end of 2012.

And yes, it was pretty damn obvious by 2007 that there was a housing bubble and it was about to burst. (The bubble was obvious to me in 1999, I just thought it would burst sooner and not get as out-of-control as it did.); 5/8/12, 11:59 AM
Tank said...: All of these people have a nicer house than I do.

Me, who bought a small house I could afford, with a small mortgage, and pay my mortgage on time every month.

Yay.; 5/8/12, 11:59 AM
Rob said...: And now a word to people who have continued to pay their mortgages: suckers!; 5/8/12, 12:02 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Joe- I did not know the law had an expiration date and I was mistaken about the year it was enacted.; 5/8/12, 12:05 PM
Jon Burack said...: I don't know how others feel, but this is in my opinion an utter outrage. Why do I say that? I pay my mortgage to Bank of America. I am NOT behind on a payment and have never been behind on one - despite having a very tight budget through these recent hard times. My house is slightly underwater. So had I been irresponsible, I could benefit from this deal, but because I was not irresponsible I will not benefit. I don't know, Ann. My first inclination, after screaming at my computer screen, was to want to sue the F***ing B***ards. Any hope there? -- yes, I know, probably not. Besides,BoA is only doing it because the government is forcing it to, right? Anyone who thinks this deal is anything other than an outrageous incentive to parasitism (and votes for whoever is pandering to the parasites), please do not bother responding to me at all -- please. One more thing, supposedly they will forgive up to $150,000? Did I get that right? My whole house is worth about that. Is it the poor, dear suffering "middle class" that is in the behemoth houses that will be able to take advantage of this scam? What a joke.; 5/8/12, 12:05 PM
rcommal said...: On the one hand, this doesn't change our situation. We bought less than what we were qualified for, we have never been underwater, we have never missed a payment (despite both of us having lost jobs at some point since 2009 and relying entirely and solely on our own resources throughout for all things), and we are still on track to pay off the mortgage before our son graduates high school (this was always the plan) even if we don't pay it off early, which we are still attempting. In this sense, it doesn't affect us and so I try not to let it bother me.

OTOH, I can't help feeling, from time to time, that a bit of justice has passed us by. It's a waste of energy, and I bat it away, but still, that sense does nag every now and again.; 5/8/12, 12:06 PM
Michael said...: Moral hazard. Reward the people who do not honor their obligations and you will discourage those who would. This is just terrible.; 5/8/12, 12:12 PM
Peter said...: "Do the loans get altered every few years to reflect the new reality of the price/market?

I dunno. But this surely sets a precedent for the future. Who (other than certain "government sponsored enterprises") would want to buy mortgage loans- knowing that if the borrowers can't pay they'll be expected to modify the contract in the borrower's favor?

In short, we're either headed for a future in which no one will qualify for a mortage without perfect credit, or one in which mortage risks are endlessly subsidized by taxpayer funds provided to said government-sponsored enterprises.; 5/8/12, 12:15 PM
Michael said...: DBQ. Will there not be a big tax to the borrower for the forgiven debt? I think, and hope, they will. Surprise!; 5/8/12, 12:15 PM
Paul said...: I've better rush out and buy that $500,000 dollar house I've always wanted with a BOA loan! Then just forget to pay for a few months and 'vola'! Loan is now $350,000!

Is this America, the land of opportunity, or what?; 5/8/12, 12:19 PM
crosspatch said...: I have a friend whose home mortgage is "under water". She divorced several years ago but can not get the loans refinanced to get her ex-husband off the loans. He has since had problems with alcoholism and hasn't paid his taxes and as a result, liens have been placed against the property because she can not get him off the loan without refinancing and she can't refinance while it is under water.

She has managed to continue paying her mortgage, in fact, she has been trying to pay it down ahead of schedule to get it above water. Every time she looks into a program to assist in some forgiveness of principal, she discovers she has to be delinquent on the loan. She feels she is being penalized for being responsible.

I agree with her. In this country we seem to continually penalize responsibility and thrift and subsidize irresponsibility. It is just so damned frustrating.; 5/8/12, 12:26 PM
Fred Drinkwater said...: I refinanced my mortgage through Countrywide some years ago. I remember being surprised, at the time, at two things: the hoops I had to jump through to prove I was not laundering money, and the almost total lack of hoops to jump through to prove I was creditworthy.
My principle balance is now less than the $150K *average* reduction mentioned; suppose my current note-holder will forgive the whole thing for me?
I thought not.; 5/8/12, 12:28 PM
MadisonMan said...: Hovde (Senate candidate here) has a commercial about Wall Street Greed and DC Corruption, and this is a great example.

I hope he can make it through the Wisconsin Primary.; 5/8/12, 12:39 PM
Thorley Winston said...: "The principal reduction offers from Bank of America Home Loans are the result of a $25 billion settlement agreement earlier this year with 49 state attorneys general as well as federal authorities who had been investigating allegations of abuses over the handling of foreclosures."
I’ve never understood the logic behind these settlements. If I’m a borrower that Bank of America/Country Wide foreclosed on and engaged in abusive practices in the process, how does reducing the mortgage principal of someone who BOA/CW didn’t harm with “abusive” foreclosure practices rectify the harm to the people that were the “victims” of “abusive” foreclosure practices? If BOA/CW actually harmed someone by committing illegal actions, then restitution should be made and limited to the people that they actually harmed by their illegal actions and this should not be used as an excuse to provide a windfall to other BOA/CW customers.

It seems to me that these sorts of “consumer protection” settlements are really more about redistribution by attorney’s general that are looking to buy support for a future race for governor or Senator.; 5/8/12, 12:42 PM
ndspinelli said...: I'm reading the book Driving Mr. Yogi. "Got late too early" sounds like a Yogism.; 5/8/12, 12:47 PM
n.n said...: It offers a perverse disincentive to people who have acted in good faith and gone out of their way to remain responsible for their voluntary commitments to others.

Oh well, it seems that this conclusion is unavoidable(especially if there are sufficient number of individuals affected) and either people will be corrupted by it or ignore it as an inevitable idiosyncrasy which is a progressive feature inherent to a diverse population.

I wonder how Americans will respond.; 5/8/12, 12:50 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "I'm not late and I don't see how this hurts me..."

-- The two payments you could have elected to skip is money you could have spent elsewhere, such as improving your home's value or investing. Not only that, but people who skipped payments now may have to actually pay less than you, solely because they missed their payments.; 5/8/12, 12:53 PM
Simon Kenton said...: "The idea is to "turn mortgages headed for possible foreclosure into long-term performing loans.""

Concur in the remarks of the commenters above. Another point is that we will all be better off if these loans go under. 1) Experience - guide - flakes are flakes, and the unlucky are unlucky. These loans are not going to get healthy. The program may put them into a period of remission, but the cancer will win. 2) There are a bunch of kids out there who are winners: building capital, building renovation skills, waiting for the chance to provide quality housing to renters. This stupid program designed to scrape the AGs off BoA's back is keeping the housing stock from being renewed by the hands of kids who should be rewarded for their prudence and industry. The backlog needs to be cleared and it needs to end up owned by people who will treat it respectfully and turn it to serve the housing needs of others.; 5/8/12, 1:09 PM
Joe said...: Based on recent history, most of those who will have their mortgages adjusted will foreclose anyway. This will just stretch it out and mean that BofA has to do two write downs instead of one.

(I'm not trying to defend BofA. I can't stand the company. My oldest credit card is with them because they bought MBNA. I also made some money off of there stock a few years ago when I bought just after their low and sold two years later.); 5/8/12, 1:17 PM
Portia said...: If they did that for me, I wouldn't owe anything. :D

But then Wells Fargo has my loan. :(; 5/8/12, 1:24 PM
bagoh20 said...: It would have been more fair to extend the payments, cut the interest rate or both, but not change the principle. Eventually, the market will return and the loan will be reasonable to the value.

What they have done here is stupid and immoral.; 5/8/12, 1:26 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: It isn't. Home prices sometimes go up and sometimes go down. The potential selling price of a home means nothing until the homeowner intends to sell. The amount of money the homeowner borrowed from the bank in order to make the purchase remains the same, regardless of the value of what it was spent on.

Same as a car loan, except with bigger numbers. Which is why the whole "underwater mortgage crisis" has always been nonsense on stilts.

Not really. A lot of Americans move every year, and the incentive to move often increases in a recession to find work. You can drive your car to your new work location. You cannot (usually) drive your house.

The problem is that you can't get out of an underwater home loan, without coming out of pocket for the amount you are underwater. I had to do so 22 years ago, and it wasn't pleasant, and that was really only for the real estate commissions, which back then meant less than $10k. Imagine it being $50k or more, and you needing to move for a new job. The alternative being to stay unemployed and ultimately go into foreclosure.

Part of the much higher rate of failed loans is a good part of why auto loans have always been much more costly than mortgage loans, on a percentage basis. I do know people who are underwater on their car loans, and for them, it is their third time in a row. It doesn't help that they can only afford junkers, which go underwater immediately upon their first major breakdown. The loan companies thrive on people like that.

Back to houses - the more housing crashed, the more houses went underwater, and, ultimately, the more that went into foreclosure. And, the more that went into foreclosure, the worse the market got for reselling houses, the more people went underwater, etc.

Of course, if you don't need to sell and are just fine where you are, and continue to be fully employed, then you should be fine - unless you happened to be one of those who jumped into a house that you could only afford with the teaser rates, or through the lower ARM starting rates (Or, couldn't afford in the first place, but most here have little sympathy for them). Now the mortgage payments have jumped significantly, esp. since we actually are going through some inflation due to the amount of money the fed has printed over the last couple of years, and the markets expect even more. Normally, you would refinance into a fixed rate mortgage. But that requires that the property not be underwater...; 5/8/12, 1:28 PM
edutcher said...: Hasn't Dictator Zero had some harsh words for B of A in the last few months?

Maybe a little visit from Solly and da boys...; 5/8/12, 1:39 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: If I’m a borrower that Bank of America/Country Wide foreclosed on and engaged in abusive practices in the process, how does reducing the mortgage principal of someone who BOA/CW didn’t harm with “abusive” foreclosure practices rectify the harm to the people that were the “victims” of “abusive” foreclosure practices?

Talked to a friend recently who represents the mortgage industry as a whole (as opposed to individual lenders). He reminded me that the problem with the "abusive practices" is that they mostly revolved around the paperwork. The paper work had not kept up with the money trading hands. But, in the end, the mortgagor/borrower had borrowed the money, got the land, and owed someone the monthly payments. The monthly payments stopped, and someone should have been able to foreclose. And, sometimes, the party foreclosing didn't have the legal right to do so, because of bad paper work. But, note, that they had a legal obligation from those upstream to provide them with proper title to the loans. So, what we are mostly talking about are technical problems, that can be fixed given time. And, in some defense of the companies foreclosing, they mostly didn't realize the problem until too late, and they had started the foreclosures - remember, it wasn't their people who screwed up the paperwork, but someone up stream who had sold the notes to them.; 5/8/12, 1:43 PM
Revenant said...: Bank of America can do whatever it wants with its own money -- but I get the sinking feeling this will ultimately be passed on to taxpayers.; 5/8/12, 1:46 PM
george said...: My understanding is that BOA was more or less forced to take on Countrywide when the whole meltdown occurred. I am sure they were prodded and had assurances as to what they would be liable for. The government was running everything at the time and needed the help getting it all sorted out. No good deed goes unpunished.

But hey, that whole "let the government step in to make sure everyone has a house" thing worked so well we are going to "let government step in and make sure everyone has health care" now. In fact we jumped into doing the latter before we even stopped cleaning up the mess created by the former.

Real geniuses running this country ain't they?; 5/8/12, 2:23 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: DBQ. Will there not be a big tax to the borrower for the forgiven debt? I think, and hope, they will. Surprise!

@ Michael

Not under this current law that expires in december. If it is your primary residence the normal taxation of forgiven loan as income is waived.

"The Mortgage Debt Relief Act of 2007 generally allows taxpayers to exclude income from the discharge of debt on their principal residence. Debt reduced through mortgage restructuring, as well as mortgage debt forgiven in connection with a foreclosure, qualifies for the relief."

Moral hazard indeed!!

More government interference in the free market. This entire mess in the mortgage industry can be directly put on the backs of the Democrats and Congress, starting with the CRA regulations that encouraged and actually FORCED the banks to make bad loans.

The government's nasty interfering fingerprints are all over this.

BAC shareholders should be more than pissed.; 5/8/12, 2:45 PM
Bryan C said...: "Not really. A lot of Americans move every year, and the incentive to move often increases in a recession to find work."

I do understand that. But building a life around the assumption that you can always sell your home for more than you paid is a serious mistake with utterly predictable consequences.; 5/8/12, 2:59 PM
tim maguire said...: Bank of America is free to manage their portfolio as they wish, but I'm a little envious of the people who were smart enough to be more financially irresponsible than me.

On the bright side, B of A using their shareholder's money to prop up housing values is much better than the government using my money to prop up housing values; using my tax dollars to make sure I over pay for my house, if I ever manage to get past renting, which I may not, what with these high taxes and crazy real estate values.; 5/8/12, 3:04 PM
robinintn said...: I've paid cash for college, law school, 2 houses and every car I've owned.

Everytime a winner is picked, I'm a loser.; 5/8/12, 3:28 PM
MadisonMan said...: remember, it wasn't their people who screwed up the paperwork, but someone up stream who had sold the notes to them.

If you're buying a note, isn't it incumbent on you to get all the correct paperwork that's involved with the note?

That doesn't change my thoughts about this BoA program, which are reflected adequately in the comments upthread.; 5/8/12, 3:35 PM
lge said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/8/12, 3:40 PM
lge said...: Let's all join in a rousing chorus along with Hank Williams, on "You're Just in Time to Be Too Late" ==> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LARIpPXEZY

(And don't forget: the ultimate cause of the housing meltdown was that Congress ordered affirmative-action standards in granting home mortgages. They wanted to "decrease the racial disparity" in home-ownership.); 5/8/12, 3:42 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: Here is an idea: to offer anyone with a mortgage a loan at 1% for the same amount, but the loan had to be paid off in a maximum of 15 years, and the payment could not be less than their current payment on their current mortgage. The result would allow people to get above water fast (if they are under water), and for people to pay off their debt much faster).

Yes, this would cost the government a lot of money, but at least the money would go directly to the problem in a relatively fair way - reducing the debt of middle class America quickly.; 5/8/12, 3:54 PM
Methadras said...: so they honest suckers who pay on time and are diligent on their mortages get no help, but if you are a 60 deadbeat and you've ruined your credit, why they will beat down your nearly foreclosed door to help you.; 5/8/12, 3:57 PM
MayBee said...: More and more, the incentive is to do the wrong thing.; 5/8/12, 4:05 PM
Sabinal said...: the funny part is there is no guarantees that the reciepients would be able to afford the lower loans too. Most are underwater because of job loss or reduction. They would walk away from either 100k or 250k. they just. cannot. pay.; 5/8/12, 4:10 PM
Michael said...: Bagoh20 has used the right word to describe this, the old fashioned word "immoral". Extending the term and/or lowering rates would have been a better course.; 5/8/12, 4:10 PM
Nora said...: This's just mad, and it makes me mad. If my mortgage was with BoA, I would sue BoA in general and whoever is rewsponsible for this decission personally. I'm sure there is a case for discrimination in this, a severe one, no?; 5/8/12, 4:40 PM
furious_a said...: Episode 1 (or 2) of House of Lies -- BofA betting that they won't get the worst-case number of taker-uppers.

And here we've been making our mortgage payments to BofA, like suckers.

"everect gagoo"; 5/8/12, 4:48 PM
Steve Koch said...: If you are buying, stay away from short sales because you can end up waiting forever before you get a response from the bank. Buying foreclosures is great but remember banks don't disclose known problems with the house so you have to know what you are doing.

No doubt the dems somehow have a hand in creating this latest moral hazard.

A less corrupt approach is for the gov to not intervene, let the banks foreclose and resell to somebody who can actually afford to buy the house. Markets are great, let them work.

Every time the gov intervenes, it decreases investor confidence because the gov keeps changing the rules. Increasing investor and consumer confidence will do wonders for increasing the velocity of money and getting the economy back on track. Sometimes boring and predictable (like Mitt is) is a good thing.; 5/8/12, 4:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Why weep for B of A? They have been in bed with the government, Acorn, and community activists for years.

It all looks fuzzily humanitarian until we realize that we, the taxpayers, end up paying for it all.

http://ahead.bankofamerica.com/; 5/8/12, 5:45 PM
Eric said...: Bank of America is free to manage their portfolio as they wish...

I would agree if it wasn't being strong-armed into this by state politicians.; 5/8/12, 5:56 PM
Eric said...: If you are buying, stay away from short sales because you can end up waiting forever before you get a response from the bank.

Depends on what your time frame is. I bought a short sale and it worked out very well. Banks are anxious to get this stuff off the books, they just want to make sure everything is on the up-and-up. It takes a little longer than normal, but not too long unless there's more than one loan involved with different institutions.; 5/8/12, 6:01 PM
rhhardin said...: It's good luck for some people and not for others.

That's life.

There's little benefit in wishing that your neighbor's cow dies if you have no cow yourself.; 5/8/12, 6:28 PM
Steve Koch said...: From wikipedia entry about short sales:

"it can still take several months for the process from start to finish, often requiring multiple levels of approval."

"Some junior lien holders and other with an interest in the property may object to the amounts other lien holders are receiving. It is possible for any one lien holder to prevent a short sale by refusing to agree to negotiate a reduction in their payoff to release their lien...[Iowa is an exception]...If a creditor has mortgage insurance on their loan, the insurer will likely also become a third party to these negotiations as the insurance policy may be asked to pay out a claim to offset the creditor's loss.

The wide array of parties, parameters and processes involved in a short sale can make it a complex and highly specialized form of debt renegotiation. Short sales can have a high risk of failure from inability to obtain agreement from all parties or they might not be approved in time to prevent a scheduled foreclosure date."

Eric may have had a good short sale experience but, as wikipedia stated, many of these short sales drag on for months and sometimes take so long that the deal falls through. Eric seems to think banks like short sales which is counter intuitive since a short sale requires that the banks take a haircut. Normally a bank would prefer a foreclosure to a short sale.

In general, short sales are much less predictable and more likely to fall through than buying a foreclosures.; 5/8/12, 9:07 PM
Paul said...: Expect in seven months BOA gets bailouts from Obama IF he is re-elected. Otherwise BOA goes the way of Enron.; 5/8/12, 9:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Besides,BoA is only doing it because the government is forcing it to, right?

Bank of America and dozens of other banks and mortgage companies committed massive fraud through robo-signing of transfer documents. We are talking about hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of individual felonies. They have clouded the title of countless properties. If all the rules were followed, I doubt that they could prove they actually were the mortgage holder of record on the properties.

They got off with a slap on the wrist.; 5/9/12, 7:35 AM
Anonymous said...: The paper work had not kept up with the money trading hands. But, in the end, the mortgagor/borrower had borrowed the money, got the land, and owed someone the monthly payments. The monthly payments stopped, and someone should have been able to foreclose. And, sometimes, the party foreclosing didn't have the legal right to do so, because of bad paper work.

Did your friend mention that much of the paper work was fraudulently signed, which is in many cases a felony.

Besides, isn't it the duty of the party transferring the mortgage to file the proper work? Why should the homeowner suffer for the bank's negligence and fraud.; 5/9/12, 7:41 AM
Shanna said...: My entire loan is under 100k. More fool me, apparently.; 5/9/12, 8:41 AM
Michael said...: FF. not actuallly makin mortgage payments doesnt figure into this I suppose.; 5/9/12, 9:13 AM
ken in tx said...: I have BOA savings and checking accounts, and a BOA mortgage. I have not received any letter offering me a deal. Of course I am on-time with my payments. I also own BOA stock and my stock holding took a $10,000 hit in the great recession. I am waiting for it to go back up before I sell. This latest development does not sound good to me.; 5/9/12, 11:16 AM
brycecanyonhorseback said...: The Obama loan modification program is designed to help about seven-nine million Americans who are facing financial difficulty and those who would wish to take a loan. This is great. Nice article.

obama loan modification; 11/23/12, 3:41 AM
Title Loans Utah said...: Who bought a small house I could afford, with a small mortgage, and pay my mortgage on time every month.
Car Title Loans utah; 2/28/13, 12:28 AM