Comments on: Why won’t Frannie do principal reductions? A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: mattmc Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:51:05 +0000 Felix- this is totally wrong. Our principle is no principal reduction- it punishes the responsible (and the lucky, but mostly the responsible). Just because you signed a contract saying you would pay for the house someday gives you no special rights.

Some other ideas:
Payback the loan or become a renter. What about a plan to just give the house back to the bank and have the current resident pay rent? This could create a lot of jobs in property management companies.

Reduce the credit score impact of foreclosure. It was a one time national condition and a lot of people got caught out cold.

Ultimately, the banks are going to recognize the loss, why provide unfair benefits to housing gamblers?

By: M.C.McBride Sun, 09 Oct 2011 17:34:37 +0000 Principle reduction is a stupid idea. Bankruptcy is the only way forward for many people.

By: SGinOR Sat, 08 Oct 2011 04:10:59 +0000 I don’t know. This would have helped a bunch at the beginning. All the mortgages on the books at the time should have been reduced in principal by 20% and converted from ARMs (where necessary) to straight 30 year at 5%. Yes – yes, you would have had a slew of angry folks who played by the rules screaming foul. But many of those people watched their employers and jobs disappear and got sucked into the maelstrom anyway – and lost THEIR homes. And – the banks were perfectly willing to repossess property instead of looking to keep some cash flow going. Because they knew they would get help in the form of bailouts. Natural and true economics don’t work because we’ve allowed these corporate entities to get so big and hold sway over so many middle income jobs that they know they have us by the short hairs and can do pretty much anything they want.

By: deemerk Sat, 08 Oct 2011 00:37:52 +0000 I can’t give Felix much for smarts, in spite of his heritage. Free rides to those underwater, including banks, are not part of natural economics. The key to investing in houses is RISK and REWARD.

If you are smart, you end up being with a reward of being a homeowner at the end of your mortgage term.

If you are stupid, and you get in way over your head due to slick salesmanship to you who did not do due diligence, then, admit it: YOU ARE NOT TOO BIG TO FAIL, no matter what they taught you in your elitist high school.

Suggest you go to college and take a course in economics; and, for starters, READ SAMUELSON and stay away from KEYNES and John Kenneth Galbraith, two fine examples of failed economic socialism.

By: txgadfly Fri, 07 Oct 2011 23:35:17 +0000 Ok. Just be sure to hand me the average amount of money everyone in this plan gets. I spend money too, and my spending would also help the economy. The mere fact that I do not have an underwater house should be irrelevant. All it means is that I was not greedy. Time for a change! I want my money too.

By: FirstCapital Fri, 07 Oct 2011 22:48:50 +0000 Why do taxpayers have to pay down principals of those who bought homes they could not afford. Everyone has had a decrease in property value the past few years.

Is Obama about to forgive billions in mortgage principal?

How about the responsible taxpayer/homeowner who is propping up the economy?

It’s interesting to see that individuals who are current on their loans and have mortgages that were funded with a set of standards are now asked for even higher credit standards to refinance.

By: LadyGodiva Fri, 07 Oct 2011 15:19:04 +0000 Please, people, the problem is not that prices are falling. They have to fall, because they got way out of whack with incomes over the past two decades. Are incomes coming back? No? Then why should prices?

End the debt ponzi now. If people need to find new places to live so be it. At least they won’t be debt slaves.

Felix, you know as well as I do that principal reductions, even if they could be forced upon unwilling lenders, will not be deep enough to make a difference for those in serious trouble. They will only benefit the same people who have benefitted from low interest rates and refi options. GREAT! Not the target audience!

You might as well mandate wage increases and mandatory hiring programs as keep pressing for principal reductions. There is no pure villain and no pure victim in this story. And for every person “saved” by such a program there will be another who loses (an investor, a would-be buyer, a taxpayer).

By: KenG_CA Fri, 07 Oct 2011 13:45:50 +0000 Danny, I don’t think the concern over defaulting mortgages is necessarily over the borrowers, but rather the impact it will have on other housing prices, banks, and the economy in general. It was rising defaults in 2007/08 that triggered the debt crisis, and another round of increasing foreclosures will not be a good thing for people not connected to the loans, like you.

By: silliness Fri, 07 Oct 2011 07:18:57 +0000 I have come to seriously dislike all mortgage holders. They are a plague upon America just like the evil bankers. If someone has a mortgage, they will have all the equity they need when they make that last payment. Why are we in such a rush to forgive debt that isn’t due for 20+ years? Isn’t the whole point of buying a house to live in it for 30 years and own it free and clear when you are ready to retire? If that’s not the goal, then people shouldn’t buy houses. Rent. There is just no need to do this. If someone can’t afford the payment, and especially if they live in a non-recourse state, they should just move out. So sorry if that screws up their credit rating. That’s the price of mismanaging your finances.

By: Danny_Black Fri, 07 Oct 2011 07:01:04 +0000 Ah the media lexicon of debt – borrow and can’t pay back then you deserve to have the debt written off, borrow and pay it back in full ahead of schedule and you have been “bailed out” and are evil.

Why exactly do these people deserve to have their loans paid off by people who didn’t buy at the top of the cycle?