Comments on: Foreclosure Help Forum

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 01 May 2008 21:09:21 +0000

2 homes were saved from foreclosure this month (April 2008) in California. Not by new loans but, by working on the existing loan. I was a third party to the negotiations mentioned and what I found out is most lenders have all these requirements for the employees, keeping them from being able to help, for fear of their jobs. This is not who you want to talk to, you’re looking for someone who can influence a decision for you. It really sounds easy but it’s far from it. Most of the time spent in the 5 months of talks, was sending and resending, faxing and refaxing, and talking to three different departments. So hang in there! And don’t quit. Ask for help, it works.

By: Moe

Moe — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 03:46:30 +0000

Well said Paul.

By: Moe

Moe — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 03:45:43 +0000

Thanks for the independence disclaimer. I like that one.

I truly feel the motives serve a dual purpose. One would be to defer loss. Why? Because if they "really" modified more mortgages and cooperated in more short sales, they would have to report these losses to investors. The numbers and the losses are gargantuan. It would cause the market to panic and drop their stocks even more, making may lenders stocks worthless, thus putting them out of business. So, essentially it's a stall tactic to recover from the massive bleeding that they are suffering. However foolish, they must do it so they do not die a painful death.

The second purpose would be to suffer the losses on the taxes, HOA fees, and lawn care to become massive real estate holders. They will not only control the lending industry, now they will control how and when real estate is sold and the money that is being borrowers on those homes that they sell. Talk about the kings of monopoly.

So, how can that not be lucrative to control every loan that is made on each one of those homes you own?

Think about that.

We are not talking about one loan. We are talking about in 2-3 years when Mr. Jones refi's again, they will get that loan if they do their job and if they own real estate on every corner they can cut their multi million dollar advertising budgets in hold because when you call that sign, your going to get a Countrywide or Bank of America Real Estate agent who will sell you the home and do the loan. Oh, and he's on salary now plus commission because he has to because all the other real estate brokerages are out of business.

Sounds pretty logical to me to make watermelons out of small potatoes. They just need some time in their laboratories.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:53:11 +0000

Being a landlord is not profitable when you do not want to be one… that’s true. But if you make it your business to be a landlord, and not just a landlord but a huge corporate one, and hire all the out of work mortgage people to become property managers, then you have a gold mine. Your giant corporation would set the rent prices, the sales prices, and the poor tenants would rely on the same unscrupulous people who sold them loans to rent them homes.

- Paul

By: ANTHONY RUBERTO

ANTHONY RUBERTO — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:38:59 +0000

MOE,

I JUST POSTED THE E-MAIL IN A NEW THREAD"FORECLOURE SHAM, BAD BR ATTORNEY"

I hope this helps; keep up the good work
Anthony

By: Theresa

Theresa — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 01:53:51 +0000

I have some potential foreclosure problems of my own. I do not work for a bank or any other mortgage related industry – that’s my independence disclaimer.
I have to say that I think the email copy comment in the ‘email copy’ above is way off base. I question the sender.
If the paper asset is worth more than the uncollectible loan amount, and the bank holds the asset (as opposed to liquidating) yes there is the ability to defer the loss, but.. we’re forgetting the cost of carrying the loan. How do we account for the interest that is not being paid on the loaned amount? What about property taxes? If the bank owns the house, they are responsible for taxes. Then there is the whole insurance and liability issue. I have a hard time believing that a bank is intentionally trying to sit on empty houses just to defer a loss.
They are incurring a current loss on the money tied up in the house, not to mention subjecting themselves to potential vandalism and other costs to keep the properties up. What about HOA dues. Who’s out there making sure the weeds are taken care of.
I also think that there is not a lot of money in being a landlord and collecting rent. Banks aren’t going to intentionally put themselves in a position to keep watch over such small potatoes..

By: Moe

Moe — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 01:03:05 +0000

Thanks so much! We need to unite and fight against these ill informed fools.

By: Moe

Moe — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 00:01:41 +0000

Anthony,

Thanks for the stopping by!

Can you please be so kind and visit my forum at http://www.loansafe.org/forum/index.php I would love for you to share and help others going through this same things as you have. Many are not as savvy as you and cannot possibly even begin to defend let alone help themselves against these lenders and their lawyers.

That is one of the reasons that I am building an extensive network of mortgage law and real estate attorneys that can fight for homeowners and help them stop foreclosure.

This looks like a predatory lending case. Fire your darn BK attorney. These BK attorneys often give homeowner ill informed advice and tell them to claim bankruptcy when they should have spoke with a predatory lending attorney who knows what they are doing and can sue these lenders.

Have you found an attorney?

Regards,

Moe

By: sswiz

sswiz — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:30:43 +0000

here ya go moe
http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/03/real_estate/bailout_backlash/index.htm?postversion=2007100316

By: Moe

Moe — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:19:32 +0000

Is this still somewhere on CNN?