This entry was posted
on Saturday, December 26th, 2009 at 7:30 pm and is filed under Mortgages.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
25 Responses to “SubPrime Mortgage Mess Explained (with voice)”
What I don’t understand is people who received these loans are not automatically refinanced by law as they were clearly mislead and defrauded by those selling a product dressed up as a loan to buy a house they could one day own when in fact they could never own the property they bought with one of these loans? why are the people who defrauded the public not held accountable for their actions ?
CRA loans default at a lower rate than others.
Over half of the people that received sub-prime mortgages qualified for prime rate mortgages. There was strong pressure by lenders to to get people into the sub-prime mortgages.
The people taking out ARM mortgages never intended to pay them off or even live in the house. They were skeezy people with money to burn who intended to buy property and flip it as soon as the value of the home rose through market value that was ballooning unrealistically.
Sorry no one knows how well the CRA loans performed on an individual basis. The study the treasury department put out about that said that in bundled securities they thought that CRA loans performed just as well as the other loans in the bundle because they had no way to tell otherwise.
In my opinion with the threat of government action and litigation every time you refuse a loan you’ll just start handing them out all the time.
it seems to me that there was a novice getting a loan and a PROFESSIONAL selling the loan, yet so many want to blame the little old lady that was just trying to make a living!
The best thing you can do is arm yourself with knowledge, even better if it’s free. a little time and a few clicks now could save you years and thousands of dollars later.
More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critics.
Investing Money in Plain English Borrowing Money In Plain English Forex News & Analysis How To Trade in Futures Equity Release from Prudential The Downside of Equity Release Money Saving Tips Retirement Planning Tips for Getting A Mortgage Property Investment Tips Real Estate Investment Tips
Attention Save Your Home Come To our site we will get you in contact with a loan modification expert for free visit homesaver(DOT)tk
Thank you for your explanation – I wish I had known this years ago!
YUP!
Why don’t you mention the CRA, you don’t blame the government for this dilemma.
What I don’t understand is people who received these loans are not automatically refinanced by law as they were clearly mislead and defrauded by those selling a product dressed up as a loan to buy a house they could one day own when in fact they could never own the property they bought with one of these loans? why are the people who defrauded the public not held accountable for their actions ?
this is a great video. i actually learned what this dumb thing was about.
CRA loans default at a lower rate than others.
Over half of the people that received sub-prime mortgages qualified for prime rate mortgages. There was strong pressure by lenders to to get people into the sub-prime mortgages.
The people taking out ARM mortgages never intended to pay them off or even live in the house. They were skeezy people with money to burn who intended to buy property and flip it as soon as the value of the home rose through market value that was ballooning unrealistically.
We need 30 year fixed rate mortgages to be 2.5 % or lower.
Sorry no one knows how well the CRA loans performed on an individual basis. The study the treasury department put out about that said that in bundled securities they thought that CRA loans performed just as well as the other loans in the bundle because they had no way to tell otherwise.
In my opinion with the threat of government action and litigation every time you refuse a loan you’ll just start handing them out all the time.
very good question!
it seems to me that there was a novice getting a loan and a PROFESSIONAL selling the loan, yet so many want to blame the little old lady that was just trying to make a living!
the dumb ‘helium ballon’ voices are VERY distracting. Ugh
Not only mortgages, student loan is also crazy…many Asian countries’ college loan is only lower than 2% fixed for life…sigh!!
interesting!
really good one
Nice
mortgageartist. com
Your path to the best mortgage information resource around.
Educating yourself costs you nothing, ignorance can cost you everything.
nice
Yes as a broker in the UK i agree were all in a mess.
mortgageartist. com
The best thing you can do is arm yourself with knowledge, even better if it’s free. a little time and a few clicks now could save you years and thousands of dollars later.
the choices you make today define your tommorow.
That mortgages are realy smelly.
the bible says the same stuff about debt so there is nothing special about your koran
More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critics.
Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac? Uh, no. ACORN? Uh, nope again.
Try George Bush, Phil Gramm and all the values voters.
that was interesting.
i get it now!!
Add in illegals buying houses and kaboom.
It all started with CRA 1977 and Jimmy Carter.