iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama's Homeowners' Bailout: Is It Really Making Home Affordable?

Huffington Post   Margo Irvin First Posted: 07/16/09 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 02:30 PM ET

Zombeck Photo

Additional reporting by Matthew Palevsky

Many homeowners on the brink of foreclosure had been crossing their fingers hoping for a loan modification when President Obama announced his Making Home Affordable program, a government subsidized mortgage modification program that looked like their answer. But in practice, the "homeowners' bailout," intended to alleviate the burden of predatory lending rates, may only delay the inevitable for many who currently face foreclosure.

When it was unveiled in February, the Obama administration's Making Home Affordable (MHA) plan was hailed as a step in the right direction. The $75 billion plan promised to help as many as 7 to 9 million homeowners with their mortgages, 4 to 5 million through loan modification.

The New York Times reported at the beginning of June that only 100,000 loan modifications have been offered, with even fewer approved -- while at the beginning of June, the number of homes foreclosed in 2009 alone surpassed one million. One loan servicer told the Huffington Post they have reached out to 49,000 homeowners who might qualify for a modification under the Obama plan, and have so far approved 1,300 such modifications. That's under 3% in the four months since the program was initiated, but they say that 75% of the borrowers who apply could eventually be approved.

Homeowners testify that just getting the attention of loan servicers involves jumping through hoops and waiting for months on end. But those who have braved the bureaucratic red tape and managed to land a MHA loan modification say that these loans, too, bear scrutiny.

Loan servicers participating in the MHA program receive "Pay for Success" incentives: an up-front fee of $1,000 for each modification, and an additional fee of $1,000 a year as long as the borrower stays current on their payments, for up to three years. Under the terms of the program, a borrower's monthly payment is reduced to no more than 31% of their gross income, which can lower payments significantly. To get down to this 31% debt-to-income ratio, loan modifiers can cut interest rates as low as 2% and extend the term of the loan up to 40 years.

But the rest of the debt? It doesn't vanish, and five years later, interest rates can start creeping up again. Many of the homes now in danger of foreclosure are worth significantly less than they were before the housing bubble burst -- so some homeowners are stuck paying off loans worth more than the value of their house.

The MHA program also gives banks the option of reducing the principal, and provides incentives for them to do so. But it seems, instead, that banks modifying loans are not interested in write-downs, even for houses that are underwater (worth less than the owners' loan balance). This leads to MHA loans that may not be tenable for the long term.

Take Richard and Pamela Zombeck of Boston, MA, whose foreclosure story was featured on the Huffington Post in February. The Zombecks were given the runaround from their loan servicer for upwards of seven months and were at the end of the line, headed toward foreclosure unless they got a break.

In September 2006, the Zombecks had bought their first home in a suburb north of Boston for $360,000. A close friend who worked as a realtor recommended they apply for a zero down mortgage: "Why would you throw money at a loan when you can get 100 percent financing?" she advised them. Their two loans averaged less than 8% for the first year and would steadily increase to as high as 12% over the two years after that. Their friends in the real estate and banking industries promised them that the housing market was only going up, and they would be able to refinance in a year or two for a lower-interest mortgage.

Taking this advice, the Zombecks applied to refinance in May 2008. Their bank drew up a contract for a 5.8% principled interest loan, but decided to rewrite the terms at the last minute in response to a falling stock market and an uptick in foreclosures.

Weeks later, in early July, Pamela was laid off from her job as an event planner at Harvard University in the publishing department. "I thought I'd have that job forever," she said. "Then Harvard closed the entire office."

With things crashing down around them, and with only one income, the Zombecks turned to Second Chance Legal Services, a firm that promised to help them through the woolly details of loan modification. Second Chance convinced Richard and Pamela that they didn't have the know-how to negotiate with their loan servicer, Ocwen, and charged them $3,500 up-front. Second Chance was later served two cease and desist orders from California officials and was accused of fraud -- exploiting homeowners already on the edge of foreclosure.

In December, the Zombecks refused the loan modification that Ocwen finally offered. It was more of the same: their interest would almost double after two years from 7.44 to 13%. They would be back in the same sinking boat in two years.

Then the Obama administration announced their MHA program, meant to help people in exactly the Zombecks' situation. But it took them months to get Ocwen to approve a MHA loan modification. At first, they were denied the modification "due to insufficient disposable income." At the same time, the Zombecks were offered an in-house modification for the 2nd lien loan that included an adjustable interest rate, a 30-year interest-only term and no reduction in principal -- with extra fees added on. Pamela questioned their logic: "So we don't have enough money to pay a lower interest rate payment, but we have enough money to pay a higher interest rate payment? Makes sense, right?"

At the Zombecks' request, Ocwen reassessed their situation and offered them a government-program modification. With the Home Affordable loan modification, their interest is down to 5.125% for the first five years, and will increase after that to 5.290%. But they don't think this loan is realistic for their financial situation. According to Pamela, even though Ocwen reduced their interest, their principal is the same as before -- which means if they make full payments on time for the duration of the loan term, they'll still owe a one-time balloon payment of $250,000. "We just can't afford it," says Pamela.

When the Zombecks were sold their original mortgage, they were told that rising housing prices would ensure they could refinance before their payments increased beyond their means. The logic of the Home Affordable modification they recently received rests on a similar assumption. If the housing market doesn't rise substantially, the Zombecks will continue paying interest on a house that's significantly underwater. Pamela says, "I'd like to see someone who the [MHA program] has worked out for."

Who is being helped by the the Making Home Affordable program? If you or a neighbor has applied for or received a Home Affordable loan modification, we're eager to hear from you. Send us your stories at submissions+foreclosure@huffingtonpost.com. And sign up here to receive further updates about our foreclosure project.


Find out more about Dispatches from the Displaced, HuffPost's Eyes&Ears series of reader-submitted foreclosure stories.


Get HuffPost Eyes and Ears On Facebook and Twitter!

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS

Additional reporting by Matthew Palevsky Many homeowners on the brink of foreclosure had been crossing their fingers hoping for a loan modification when President Obama announced his Making Home Af...
Additional reporting by Matthew Palevsky Many homeowners on the brink of foreclosure had been crossing their fingers hoping for a loan modification when President Obama announced his Making Home Af...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 416
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
12:44 PM on 06/22/2009
Silly me.

I thought lower prices made houses more affordable.
photo
Lorianne
ama vitam
02:10 PM on 06/18/2009
As Matt Taibbi said today--And remember, the "Customers" he's referring to here are super sophisticated international investment bankers who were scammed just as easily as your average homeowner--

"These crap/sham mortgages, a lot of them adjustable-rate deals with teaser rates that featured sudden rate hikes two or three years after closing, would never have been possible had not someone devised a method for selling them off to secondary buyers. No local bank is going to keep millions of dollars worth of Alt-A mortgages on its books...

Most of those customers were snookered into buying this stuff because they had no idea what it was: in the case of pensions and unions particularly, a lot of these customers only bought this crap because the peculiar alchemy banks like Goldman used in devising their mortgage-backed securities made radioactive mortgages look like AAA-rated investments. (Or at least they were given these ratings by Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s, ratings agencies that were financially dependent upon the very banks they were supposed to be rating — but that’s another story)."

Bottom line people--If investment professionals were cheated so easily by this criminal activity, can we actually blame some blue collar working man with the dream of owning a house who's been assured by the nice man in the suit that everything will be just fine?
04:04 PM on 06/18/2009
well said sir, well said.
04:49 PM on 06/18/2009
By the way, are you working on well thought out remarks to my replies or are you still busy counting my posts?

:-)
04:17 PM on 06/18/2009
Looks like a lot of pension fund managers need to be replaced. Did that happen, yet?

:-)
06:49 PM on 06/18/2009
Which one? Who? I want names!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
funkalicious
09:07 AM on 06/18/2009
Why feel sorry for the Zombecks? These people want something for nothing and feel entitled to a house that they have no capital invested in. I am deeply offended by this use of my tax dollars.

They cannot believe that they are not entitled to a free home or one that they can afford? what planet do they live on? Who buys a house with no money down then demands a government cram down what entitles them to a house?

My family we have scrimped and saved and sacrificed to own our home I do not expect my neighbors to buy me a house.

The Red flag here is that she continues to deny that she should sell the house. there are only two options either make more money or sell the house. They have a small window via tax assistance to exit their poor decisions and reorganize their lives with out completely destroying their credit rating. But these people are stuck on stupid.
04:01 PM on 06/18/2009
People aren't entitled to homes they can afford? Wow.
04:24 PM on 06/18/2009
That's the whole point... they couldn't afford it. And no, they are not entitled to something they can't afford.

My parents were renting all their life so I could go to school and they could save money. When my parents were close to retirement they asked me if I could help them to buy their first home. They had 20% or so of what they needed, just enough for the down payment. I pitched in 60+% and they saved every dime to pay for the rest of it with their retirement income over the next three years!

We didn't ask the government for help. We didn't get any special mortgage rates. We didn't complain. We bought the size house we could afford for them. And they are very happy in it.

That's how you do it.

:-)
04:13 PM on 06/18/2009
It's fascinating that you people equate the Zombeck's with wanting a federal bailout, something for nothing. You seem to conveniently overlook the part of how much $$$ they've presumably been paying. How you figure they have a house for free tells me you haven't been paying attention. With a high interest rate for 3 years going in, they paid more than 40% down....oh yeah, but that went directly into the hands of the bank. Hundreds of thousands of people bought homes with no money down because the banks over-inflated their value so that no one had a choice BUT 100% financing. This isn't about people wanting something for nothing. This is about what the banks did to manipulate the market and what they're still doing. There are lots of options available that the banks are refusing to do. That's the question to ask yourself - why. And to assume this couple didn't scrimp, save, sacrifice is ignorant let alone your comment about their credit. You honestly believe at this stage of the game they have credit? The rest of your comments are immature and way out of context. Grow up and get your facts.
04:29 PM on 06/18/2009
They are paying a high interest rate as a consequence of their own actions. Without money down and without being able to repay the principal they are nothing but an eternal liability on the books of the bank. The result is that the bank has to get a higher interest rate to make up for the risk.

The Zombecks did it to themselves when they bought into 100% financing.

"There are lots of options available that the banks are refusing to do."

So let me ask you this... why should the bank carry your risk? Because it would be more convenient for you or are there any deeper reason? Because they are rich and you are not? Is that the argument? Or because they can afford to lose money and you can't?

I don't get it... please explain it to us.
12:13 AM on 06/18/2009
has anyone noticed that two trolls, KillTheMessenger and gjohntheterrible, who have ample time to insult anyone facing foreclosure or in any kind of financial trouble are commenting like crazy?

15 - 20 minutes after a post goes up there they are. They have made 17320 and 5569 comments in a year respectively. In KillTheMessenger's case that's over 40 comments a day. Must be nice to do that all day. Not work or if they do, get paid for doing nothing. In any case they're ripping someone off. Why are these guys bitching? They do nothing but insult people all day - what a country. No wonder they don't want anyone getting help. They want it all for themselves.
10:06 AM on 06/18/2009
Good point. I am flagging KillTheMessenger's posts as abusive. He adds nothing to the conversation. I will do the same for gjohntheterrible if I find that his posts are abusive as well. I encourage others to do the same. It is time to silence these trolls, not as a limit of freedom of speech, but because they clearly only want to provoke a response, and are not contributing to the rational arguments for or against a position. It is much like allowing a man with a noisemaker play it during a community meeting.
photo
Lorianne
ama vitam
12:00 PM on 06/18/2009
Who made you the speech police?
01:24 PM on 06/18/2009
Yawn.

If you have something to say to me, say it in the open, don't run squealing to Mommy. You are way too old for that.
photo
Lorianne
ama vitam
11:21 AM on 06/18/2009
It sounds like you are targeting posters with whom you don't agree
There are other posters here at HP who post more.
Are you going after all of them too?
05:51 PM on 06/17/2009
they think they have it bad, I have perfect credit, score 785, only 1 small crecit card bill, plus my hoiuse payment. I cannot get refinanced because there are no comparables in my neighborhood to give them an accurate value on my home. i live in a very stable area in a small town, where people, mostly retired have lived for 20+ years. They do not sell, the only sales in the last 2 years have been a few small houses, or foreclosures. They want people to refinance, but Fanny Mae keeps kicking me out . This has been going on for 2 months now. This is ridiculous. I know these things have been happening to lots of people. But if the government wants to help people or encourage people to refinance, they need to change regulations so that the loans can go through, especially with this new program we are talking about here.
06:35 PM on 06/17/2009
Do you need to refinance? Will it kill you if you don't? If it won't, pay whatever you have to until your principal is low enough so that you can refinance, no matter what. It might suck, but at least you get to keep your home. And it's not like you didn't know what the rate would be when you signed the loan...
12:11 AM on 06/18/2009
click this guy's name and look how he spends his day - almost 50 comments a day.
06:15 AM on 06/18/2009
So now refinancing is somehow ripping you off too? Any of these people getting a lower rate is going to affect you how exactly? You obviously spend close to a full day doing nothing more than trolling the comments and chastising people for what? Getting a good deal? Get a job or at least do yours. If this is what you do and get paid for you've hurt the situation these people are in. If this is your mission and what you choose to do all day, then you're either ripping off your employer, independently wealthy, or collecting money from the gov't. In any case you're as much of a leech as you're accusing other people of being who have worked hard for what they have. The couple in the article have worked for what they have and now are facing loosing everything because the banks continue to suck them dry.
According to you and your friend, gjohntheterrible and your ludicrous views on personal accountability everyone should have seen this coming and we're all idiots who deserve what's happened to us.
Why don't you get a job like the rest of us instead of spreading your message of hate. It's people like you who are destroying what used to be the greatest country in the world.
photo
Lorianne
ama vitam
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mjtaylor22
05:31 PM on 06/17/2009
before the program, their only option was pay up ofr be foreclosed on or hope the lender would speak to them, sorry but no other administration had a homeowners help plan,
bush gave a three minute speech and ran back inside as our economy crashed around him and his coherts
and yes I do want more beef in helping taxpayers at least as much beef as went to bailing out the banks and aig.
not sure if obama can do this with an executive order, gotta still go thru congress, you direct repreresentatives and senate, dang no wonder very little gets done in washington.
wonder fi they watered down the bill as they did the stimulus or did they try to beef it up.
hummnnnn
not mad at the president, just wish those reportign to him actually worked for him uinstead of
secretly waiting for failure.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
pfrogger
05:09 PM on 06/17/2009
I'm hearing a very heated debate here.
Everyone needs to clam down a little. Chill.

That being said, I will offer my opinion. I'm not a broker. I'm not a real estate agent. So like most, my issue is more simple. Firstly, the Zombecks seem like a fairly sensible couple: two jobs, hard-working, decided to get a home (which makes better sense than flushing the money with renting, if you can afford it), and things went bad.
My primary issue is if we can spend trillions on the bailout for big business, why can't we help out a fellow American. $3400 per month is highway robbery. On top of that, the "deals" they are getting to refinance all seem outrageous from a common sense standpoint. So big business can value their worthless assets at whatever they want, versus what they're actually worth, but the Zombecks have to take whatever horrible deal the banks dish out. The deals make no sense from a common sense point. The banks are basically ripping these people off by stalling and charging for 3400 a month. That's NOT a loan, that's theft.
I would rather help out the Zombecks pay a sensible and affordable rate for their house, which they have already paid a significant amount for, than help some big business who have decreased lending, blocked credit card interest limits, and sensible mortgage renegotiation.
photo
Lorianne
ama vitam
05:23 PM on 06/17/2009
False choice.
We shouldn't be doing either.
11:39 AM on 06/18/2009
How's your job at the bank treating you?
05:48 PM on 06/17/2009
Zombecks made one big mistake the led to all other problems: they bought their home without a down payment. Everything else follows from there.

Why are $3400 per month highway robbery? The terms banks will give you depend on your risk profile. Obviously, given the way they deal with money, these people are high risk to a lender, so they will be charged more than someone who would have put the money down, would be above water and who also would have paid way less in interest and thus could have reduced the principal.

"On top of that, the "deals" they are getting to refinance all seem outrageous from a common sense standpoint."

If you are appalled, I suggest you contact these people and you offer them a better deal with your own money. There is nothing in the world that can stop you from putting your money where your mouth is. A private loan is perfectly legal.
photo
Lorianne
ama vitam
04:45 PM on 06/17/2009
From the article: At the same time, the Zombecks were offered an in-house modification for the 2nd lien loan.

What's the 2nd lien loan?
photo
camanokat
Outta this world
07:04 PM on 06/17/2009
For a lot of people who wanted to avoid a down payment and avoid mortgage insurance, the solution was to get 2 loans, a 1st and a 2nd to buy the home. The 1st typically was 80% of the purchase price and the 2nd was 20%. These were usually "subprime" loans that adjusted upward after 2 or 3 years.
06:16 AM on 06/18/2009
you don't avoid insurance with an 80/20 loan
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
SCG
04:26 PM on 06/17/2009
That first exit from the Hopemobile is a rough one.
12:15 PM on 06/17/2009
The bankruptcy laws for individuals--not businesses--were, for all intents, thrown out two years ago under Bush.

That was no coincidence.

They knew--the knew beyond any shadow of a doubt--that the mortgage backed securities in the form of derivatives would come unwound very soon, and that the people owning the homes that underpinned that bubble (that made so many Wall Street Banks ultra-wealthy and politically powerful) would be affected by loss of value along with resetting of their rates. In order to insure that as many as possible lost those home through foreclosure, bankruptcy had to be taken away from you and me. It was!

The banks get the homes back for nothing, turn around and resell them to real speculators this time, make all new fees and the cycle goes one more time--but this time with millions of Americans living in the streets. Makes Wall Street richer, destroys middle class America. It's the perfect "two-fer" for the oligarchs.
09:57 AM on 06/17/2009
feel like couples like the Zombeck's are being unfairly critisized for something they did not do. Based on this article it looks like they bought a house that they could afford; but did they know that Pamela would lose her job? No they did not. Did they know they would have to survive on one income? no they did not.

Banks need to stop trying to get richer by collecting interest and work with home owners. Give them a break; let them pay the principle of the house with no interest for a year or two until they have a chance to get back on their feet. In no way is that a bailout for anyone. If you did that you would allow people to build equity in their homes, which would be a good thing for this economy.

For those of you who will disagree with this; tell me how forclouse is the answer to anything? By saying forclosure is the way to go for those who can't afford to make they're monthly payments you are just making this economy worse; yes you are making it worse by just saying it. I dare you to take a real estate classs and learn about how things actually work. Perhaps that is what we need to get out of this economic shithole; a bit of education for the american public and quite a lot of common sence which 90% of you seem to be lacking.
photo
Lorianne
ama vitam
01:20 PM on 06/17/2009
Ever heard of a rainy day fund?

Lots of peole don't leverage themselves so far that job loss will wipe them out.
06:18 AM on 06/18/2009
ever heard of your savings being wiped out by unemployment and high interest rates? Take a look around - it's pouring.
photo
Lorianne
ama vitam
01:57 PM on 06/17/2009
I agree, people should go to Finance Boot Camp before they buy a house.

They need to learn a few things about risk and risk managment.

They need to learn that when you sign a contract you need to fully understand it first.

They need to understand that if the value of their home goes DOWN they still must honor their contract. (I didn't see people giving the banks part of their profits when the value of homes was going up).
09:56 AM on 06/17/2009
Clearly most of you commenting on this article have missed the point; there are some comments that do make sence and are based on your understanding of what this is about; but the other 90 % of you are just to stupid to understand what has happened an what will continue to happen unless something is done.

This couple is clearly not saying they don't what to pay for their house; for god's sake they are not AIG. If you read the article carefully you can see that what they are annoyed with and fed up with is the fact that what they're being offered is only going to put them in the exact same situation 5 years from now.

The point here is why are we offering home owners help when all we're really doing is setting them up in the long run. Yes banks are offering lower interest rates; but in order to lower monthly payments what they're doing is essentially offer interest only loans...so 5 years from now you still end up in the same god damn hole where you face getting out yet another loan where you are paying interest only. In essence banks screwed up and yet we still think it's ok to let them get richer and richer.

I
photo
Lorianne
ama vitam
01:22 PM on 06/17/2009
They are are making choices!
We all make choices!
It's not the government's (taxpayers') job to make sure none of our choices have an unpleasant outcome.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Graywolf48
If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu
09:21 AM on 06/18/2009
No, it's only the taxpayers job to make sure that the banks and the major corporations choices don't have unpleasant outcomes. Privatized profits, socialized losses. Nice gig! If all that bailout money had been distributed to the average taxpayer, perhaps we'd be in better shape? The average guy would have paid down bills and mortgages to the banks and maybe had some to spare and spend on consumer goods. That probably would have us in better shape economically then just pouring money into the personal pockets and economic black holes created by the banker's and CEOs "poor choices". Oh, how we love to blame the victim in America.
photo
Lorianne
ama vitam
01:59 PM on 06/17/2009
Why not honor the terms of the origianal contract?
photo
Richard Zombeck
HuffPost Blogger
09:33 AM on 06/17/2009
In addition:
We made our payments - hence can afford the house.
We've made those payments despite layoffs and surgery.
We don't drive SUVs
We've never taken money out of the house with loans.
We were approved for refi (because of excellent credit) and it was rescinded when the economy took a nose dive.
It's not the interest rate we're refusing it's the fact that Ocwen has given us the run around for eight months while we were paying $3,500/month to stay out of default.
And that Ocwen has yet to provide us with the terms of the modification they've offered.
We're not refusing a lower interest because we want the house for free. We want to know what the terms and amortization of the loan are before we sink another dime into a black hole.
I suggest that those of you who seem so quick to judge and criticize and blame actually read the article and maybe even the news from time to time. We're not asking for a hand out. We're asking that we be allowed to pay for our house. My salary alone would allow us to do that.
12:50 PM on 06/17/2009
"We made our payments - hence can afford the house."

I am sorry... that's not the same thing. Unless you can make payments that significantly reduce your principal over time, you can not afford the house. If you couldn't do a significant down payment, you couldn't afford the house. If you had to rely on being able to refinance, you could not afford the house. If you have to rely on the lender playing nice, you can not afford the house (and worst of all you are naive to believe that they will play nice).

And from all I have seen in the article, you just could not afford that house.

And, yes, you are right, this house is a black hole for you and your only viable option, unless you win the lottery or get a much better job, is to walk away.
photo
Richard Zombeck
HuffPost Blogger
01:14 PM on 06/17/2009
I'm through explaining the obvious to people like you. It's no my job to teach you reading and comprehension. That was up to the public schools which apparently failed many of you.
We knew we would take a hit by giving our names to the Post and that we would be subjected to comments like this. Though I'm surprised that Huff Post has a low brow readership like this. The article (as was mentioned before) failed to explain things to the less educated and those who can't get past two paragraphs. It also left a lot up to the reader to infer and assumed its readers are informed - clearly you are not.

The intention was to let others know that they are not alone - I hope that was accomplished.
06:41 AM on 06/18/2009
how do you get that they couldn't afford the house? Do you have some magical insight into their finances? If they were able to pay their mortgage and be refinanced (which was blown when the "downturn") happened - they could and can.

You don't seem to aware that due to the banks greed and fleecing this is what happened. And because this happened people have lost their jobs and will loose their homes. Because the banks inflated the values of homes. It's their problem (the banks) and it's their mess to clean up. I think I'll call you TARP baby. You seem to be all for that.
photo
Lorianne
ama vitam
01:24 PM on 06/17/2009
From the article: At the same time, the Zombecks were offered an in-house modification for the 2nd lien loan.

What's the 2nd lien loan?
photo
Richard Zombeck
HuffPost Blogger
09:11 AM on 06/17/2009
I want to thank dazedandconfused62, YRG, Carolab , ReesieKitty, charmante, and others who seemingly understand. Particularly for this comment:

"Excuse me, but did you understand the EXACT terms of that refinance offer? Do you know it entailed a TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLAR BALLOON? Did you notice the second loan offer was for an ADJUSTABLE rate INTEREST-ONLY loan? Do you know you can wind up with NEGATIVE AMORTIZATION that way, which means if the value of the home goes down you can end up owing the bank MORE principal than before you started?" - Carolab

This situation is only going to get worse as long as the banks don't claim responsibility for this mess and stop with outrageous rates and fees in a successful effort to fleece the public. And these people seem to understand that.

For those of you who saw fit to ridicule our names, assume that we are intellectually challenged, ethically irresponsible, leeches, and just stupid, I quote dazedandconfused62: "And though you may not feel their squeeze yet, it'll be a nice twist when you do. Maybe then you'd have a different perspective."

It's a shame that you made it a frightening experience for others to come forward and possibly save their homes. Not through your precious taxes, but through sensible business practices.

Yet even more curious is that those of you who were the most vocal and insulting posted during the day ... when the rest of us were at work.
12:56 PM on 06/17/2009
Richard, you have already made plenty of financial mistakes. Now you are compounding them by thanking whose who support you making even more mistakes instead of listening to those who tell you that you need to stop pouring money down the sink. You will NEVER own this house the way you are going at it. Or if you will, you will have sunk three times the amount it will be worth in the best of circumstances into it. That is not sound.

If you want to "save homes", I would suggest you join the fire department. What you are doing right now does not save your home for yourself. At best it saves it for your bank.