I understand that. That's why I said lenders and guarantors. But what we're really talking about are the government guaranteed stuff. I can assure you my bank down the road is not going to lower my interest rate because their risk went up in a now underwater house. I don't argue with articles and research reports. If you have a point make it. But you aren't addressing the issue I'm bringing up. New mortgages are a different deal. with existing underwater mortgages, if you help a homeowner out, there is no way to do that without financial ramification to another party. Thus, it is a government bailout. Whether the government foots the bill or shifts the burden to the banks, or onto other homeowners or whatever. The burden of that financial situation has to be shifted somewhere away from the person is having the problem.
Neither do they want to foreclose and own another house that they can't sell. It seems like there is a middle ground here. The point I made, that you missed, is that it may take a balance of mortgage-backed securities and privatization for optimum results. The link was a citation you could check for details. You could at least read the abstract. You didn't listen to my earlier post about not supporting bailouts. I think the government absolutely should shift MUCH of the burden to the banks and not sparing the homeowners entirely. I support offering some HELP to loaners and borrowers, not bailing them out. They would have profited in good times, they must bear losses in bad times. That is the way loans and investments work.
And that should be up to the bank's discretion. It shouldn't be mandated by the government. I did read the abstract. It had nothing to do with refinancing homeowners who are in trouble. It discussed optimal structure of the mortgage industry as a whole. I don't see how it's pertinent to my question. Okay, so you support bailouts, just not government bailouts. Bailout homeowners at the expense of the banks right? The problem is that is a drain on shareholder value so it's still costs anyone who owns a mutual fund. What I'm asking specifically is what is the "HELP" you talk about. Be specific. What "HELP" should the federal government force banks to give?
Y'all are bickering, but I think that we are all pretty much on the same page. For informational purposes, I'll post any other info that I find on HARP 2.0 here.
I'm not repeating it again. I stated what I thought several posts ago. Yes, I think the banks should eat most of their losses, not the government. They are the ones who made risky loans. You offer blind protectionism of the greedy banks at the expense of the taxpayers in an attempt to "save" the foolish borrowers.
No you didn't. Now you've made a point. I think they should too but what does the government have to do with it. It sounds like you're saying the government should force banks to modify loans to lower interest rates even though they are upside down and the banks wouldn't normally do this. Is that what you are saying? Speak up, don't tap dance around it. I think it should be left between the banks and borrowers with no government interference.
If that's what happens through the ordinary course of business without the government interfering, I agree.
I've been making points all along, you are just being contrary. You are now arguing with yourself and trying to put words in my mouth. I've said what I wanted to say. If you don't like it, tough chit.
Typical. I asked a simple question, if you don't want to answer it, that's fine. I have been very clear about my two points. 1.) We don't need the government getting involved in a mortgage bailout program. 2) We should allow banks to work this out with their customers You argue that banks should carry some of the burden but refuse to answer how we would force them to do that and if the government should force them to modify loans even if they don't want to.
