bank of america paid bonuses to foreclose

[3rdnlng]

if this is true, then why foot drag on refi's as is alleged? why push people into forclosure, when by your reasoning refi would be better for everyone? because, at the time, it was not. boa found they could do better going through the foreclosure process or cornering people into higher rate internal refi's that save the homeowners nothing than offering refi's through the gov't program that they were contractually obliged to assist with.in regards, to your first paragraph, i guess your arguing that because $25 billion isn't a relatively large hit to companies with bigger balance sheets than a large number of nations, that it's not much money. and by extension, not important....too big to fail indeed - that's the problem.

 

That bolded part is just painful to read. I know that you never use capital letters but that combined with improper use of punctuation and incomplete sentences, makes your posts as difficult to read as they are to understand.

[....lybob]

Again, you don't know this. All you have is the article which lifted the plaintiffs' contentions.

 

It's very likely that many of the article's allegations are due to very poor coordination of BoA's mortgage systems in the wake of buying Countrywide. It's probably more that incompetence than a concerted effort to intentionally push people into foreclosure instead of refinancing.

If mistakes are made in both directions then it's probably incompetence, if mistakes are almost all in one direction then it's probably criminal activity.

[birdog1960]

Everything I wrote was in response to the later theme in this thread that developed that "The Banks MUST have been doing something wrong, why else would they settle?" As folks have been trying to point out to you: Because it made more sense, business-wise to settle than to fight it. Everyone wins.

 

In response to the earlier portion of your post -- You actually answered your own question: Because it's MORE PROFITABLE to lend to the same borrower at a higher rate than at a lower rate. IE: "Internal" refis vs. HAMP refis. By the way, I'm not excusing B of A's alleged misdeeds on the referened CNBC article. If those allegations turn out to be true, I hope they come down extremely hard on them. My guess, though, is that the allegations are somewhat overblown and what we're really talking about are low-level managers of the people who deal with the customers and paperwork put into place some bad incentive structures, and/or were responding to incentive structures of their own that weren't thought out properly. I'd be HIGHLY surprised, if, for instance, there was a directive coming from a position of any relative authority that said "Don't process HAMP applications, let them sit in a stack and then lie to customers about it".

 

Also, part of the huge problem with the early stages of HAMP was they way that (surprise, surprise!) the gov't designed the program. To keep it simple -- The reason the early HAMP (and other HAMP-type programs) didn't work was because the risk continued to be with the banks that originated that modification, whether or not they sold the loan or whether or not they followed the guidelines properly. When the gov't finally came out with the HAMP 3 (or whatever iteration it was) they finally got it correct by having the risk of the loan going into default ultimately come down to whomever bought and owned the loan.

yes, i knew that it was more profitable. that may be an answer but not to the question posed. why weren't they doing HAMP refi's as they contractually agreed to. if i sign a lease for an office and someone offers me a better deal at a better location can i just walk away from the contract on the first lease? that would be more profitable for me.the fact is, a very small percentage of eligible troubled mortgages have been refi'ed through HAMP and millions of foreclosures have occurred with real consequences to us all. the allegations brought forward recently are a possible explanation. inefficiences or issues with the regulation may well be also. but, given all that we've seen since the crash, why would anyone (outside of the banking industry) give the banks the benefit of the doubt?

Edited June 20, 2013 by birdog1960

[DC Tom]

yes, i knew that it was more profitable. that may be an answer but not to the question posed. why weren't they doing HAMP refi's as they contractually agreed to. if i sign a lease for an office and someone offers me a better deal at a better location can i just walk away from the contract on the first lease? that would be more profitable for me.the fact is, a very small percentage of eligible troubled mortgages have been refi'ed through HAMP and millions of foreclosures have occurred with real consequences to us all. the allegations brought forward recently are a possible explanation. inefficiences or issues with the regulation may well be also. but, given all that we've seen since the crash, why would anyone (outside of the banking industry) give the banks the benefit of the doubt?

 

You have absolutely no idea how HAMP works, do you? Call your bank, and try going through the process. You'll find out how !@#$ed up it is on all levels.

[birdog1960]

That bolded part is just painful to read. I know that you never use capital letters but that combined with improper use of punctuation and incomplete sentences, makes your posts as difficult to read as they are to understand.

fair enough...maybe i'll start diagramming my sentences before i post.

[DC Tom]

fair enough...maybe i'll start diagramming my sentences before i post.

 

Better not. Tough to clean crayon of a computer screen...

[GG]

If mistakes are made in both directions then it's probably incompetence, if mistakes are almost all in one direction then it's probably criminal activity.

 

You and I don't know that. Again, the CNBC story was largely a rehash of the plaintiffs' allegations. Of course you're not going to get the full set of data from that one.

[3rdnlng]

fair enough...maybe i'll start diagramming my sentences before i post.

It's difficult enough to understand what you are trying to say let alone decipher what that period is in the middle of a sentence, or if it really is two incomplete sentences. Im serious, your posts are sometimes hard to follow, or need to be read over again to figure out what I think you meant to say. It makes your posts more "dismissable", and trust me, you don't want to do that.

[birdog1960]

It's difficult enough to understand what you are trying to say let alone decipher what that period is in the middle of a sentence, or if it really is two incomplete sentences. Im serious, your posts are sometimes hard to follow, or need to be read over again to figure out what I think you meant to say. It makes your posts more "dismissable", and trust me, you don't want to do that.

i'm having flashbacks to sister mary alice from 4th grade. i feel really guilty now. is that what you're aiming for?

[3rdnlng]

i'm having flashbacks to sister mary alice from 4th grade. i feel really guilty now. is that what you're aiming for?

 

Guys that wear kilts shouldn't also wear patent leather shoes.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Bird Dog,

 

Just a friendly tip. You're arguing against Tom's straw man. The main point of your opening post is that BOA signed a contract stating that they would help struggling home owners in return for a massive amount of money. They then failed to uphold their part of the deal. That's the point.

 

Tom is arguing that HAMP is not TARP.

 

I'm sure soon he'll be telling you you don't understand any of this.

 

Nope.

 

Your entire argument is built on a fundamental lack of understanding of how ANY of this works.

 

Check.

 

You have absolutely no idea how HAMP works, do you? Call your bank, and try going through the process. You'll find out how !@#$ed up it is on all levels.

Better not. Tough to clean crayon of a computer screen...

 

Oh no, we've entered the part of the thread where 3rd and Tom start jerking each other off.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Bigfatbillsfan

[Bigfatbillsfan]

It's difficult enough to understand what you are trying to say let alone decipher what that period is in the middle of a sentence, or if it really is two incomplete sentences. Im serious, your posts are sometimes hard to follow, or need to be read over again to figure out what I think you meant to say. It makes your posts more "dismissable", and trust me, you don't want to do that.

 

You have to read his posts over again to figure out what he's saying because you don't know how to read well. and idiots tend to dismiss what they don't understand. That's part of what makes them idiots.

 

You also spelled "I'm" and "dismissible" wrong you jackass.

[3rdnlng]

You have to read his posts over again to figure out what he's saying because you don't know how to read well. and idiots tend to dismiss what they don't understand. That's part of what makes them idiots.

 

You also spelled "I'm" and "dismissible" wrong you jackass.

 

Right, I have a typo in one word. Dismissable was the right spelling for the word I used to convey my message. Cute little trick reading what Tom wrote and then predicting what Tom would write. You are a gift that just keeps on giving.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Here's the actual text of the Consent Judgment entered against B of A a little over a year ago in the national mortgage servicing suit:

 

https://d9klfgibkcqu...BoA-4-11-12.pdf

 

If you don't feel like reading the lengthy Consent Judgment, here's a 4 page executive summary of how the overall settlement (not just the settlement with B of A) was incorporated into individual consent judgments against each of the five national mortgage servicer defendants - - the summary was prepared by an assistant attorney general of North Carolina:

 

https://d9klfgibkcqu...y-7-23-2012.pdf

 

Here's a Washington Post article describing the court appointed settlement monitor's most recent report (published Wednesday) about how the national mortgage servicers are complying with their obligations under the Consent Judgments:

 

http://www.washingto...3c30_story.html

Edited June 22, 2013 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[3rdnlng]

Here's the actual text of the Consent Judgment entered against B of A a little over a year ago in the national mortgage servicing suit:

 

https://d9klfgibkcqu...BoA-4-11-12.pdf

 

If you don't feel like reading the lengthy Consent Judgment, here's a 4 page executive summary of how the overall settlement (not just the settlement with B of A) was incorporated into individual consent judgments against each of the five national mortgage servicer defendants - - the summary was prepared by an assistant attorney general of North Carolina:

 

https://d9klfgibkcqu...y-7-23-2012.pdf

 

Here's a Washington Post article describing the court appointed settlement monitor's most recent report (published Wednesday) about how the national mortgage servicers are complying with their obligations under the Consent Judgments:

 

http://www.washingto...3c30_story.html

 

You're not serious are you? Get some sleep.

[birdog1960]

Here's the actual text of the Consent Judgment entered against B of A a little over a year ago in the national mortgage servicing suit:

 

https://d9klfgibkcqu...BoA-4-11-12.pdf

 

If you don't feel like reading the lengthy Consent Judgment, here's a 4 page executive summary of how the overall settlement (not just the settlement with B of A) was incorporated into individual consent judgments against each of the five national mortgage servicer defendants - - the summary was prepared by an assistant attorney general of North Carolina:

 

https://d9klfgibkcqu...y-7-23-2012.pdf

 

Here's a Washington Post article describing the court appointed settlement monitor's most recent report (published Wednesday) about how the national mortgage servicers are complying with their obligations under the Consent Judgments:

 

http://www.washingto...3c30_story.html

Wow. Thanks for that. I must admit, i didn't wade through the 1st pdf very far but your 2nd and 3rd citations confirm my suspicions. It begs the question, why isn't this all over thew national TV and radio airwaves? This is seriously scary shite. As I said before, this affects everything in the attempted economic recovery and normal American's everyday life from our home values to job creation. It's extremely short sighted and callous. I'm starting to become numb to these actions but currently remained stunned.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Right, I have a typo in one word. Dismissable was the right spelling for the word I used to convey my message. Cute little trick reading what Tom wrote and then predicting what Tom would write. You are a gift that just keeps on giving.

 

The first part of my post was originally in a quote of one of Birdog's posts. I predicted that one before reading Tom's response. Tom operates on a pretty predictable system. If Birdog gave him a redirect to the original point Tom would claim that Birdog was incapable of having the discussion with him.

 

And "dismissable" isn't a word you jackass.

[DC Tom]

The first part of my post was originally in a quote of one of Birdog's posts. I predicted that one before reading Tom's response. Tom operates on a pretty predictable system. If Birdog gave him a redirect to the original point Tom would claim that Birdog was incapable of having the discussion with him.

 

And "dismissable" isn't a word you jackass.

 

Birddog's original post made the contention that BofA broke the law by not following the requirements of TARP. My point was completely relevant, as there was no such requirement, and Birddog was referring to a completely different program.

 

You, naturally, can't even understand that much.

[birdog1960]

Birddog's original post made the contention that BofA broke the law by not following the requirements of TARP. My point was completely relevant, as there was no such requirement, and Birddog was referring to a completely different program.

 

You, naturally, can't even understand that much.

I'm not an expert on finance or banking. Freely admitted. I can smell skunk when I'm near it. This smells very bad, like the day my dogs cornered one in my garage. The banks are not fulfilling their appointed obligations. That's hurting homeowners that might otherwise be spared foreclosure and thus the economy in general. Agreed?

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Birddog's original post made the contention that BofA broke the law by not following the requirements of TARP. My point was completely relevant, as there was no such requirement, and Birddog was referring to a completely different program.

 

You, naturally, can't even understand that much.

 

 

No, the opening post holds the contention that BoA refused to uphold the conditions of the deal they made. And did so intentionally. It's about the actions of the bank.

 

I'm not an expert on finance or banking. Freely admitted. I can smell skunk when I'm near it. This smells very bad, like the day my dogs cornered one in my garage. The banks are not fulfilling their appointed obligations. That's hurting homeowners that might otherwise be spared foreclosure and thus the economy in general. Agreed?

 

Let me answer for Tom.

 

TARP is not HAMP. Therefore your point is invalid.