tommyleo

On the same day, I applied via phone for credit-line increases for two credit cards -- one is BofA, the other is Barclays. I received a letter from each bank, and both letters were dated 5/20/13. BofA says that my FICO score, 739, was provided by TU. Barclays says it obtained my credit score, 685, from TU -- but Barclays did not specifically cite the source of the score. I called TU and was told that TU only provides a Vantage score, and does not provide a FICO score. So what's going on here? How did I wind up with two different scores from two banks who both claim that the scores -- not just the reports -- were provided by TU (who then claimed that it only provides Vantage scores)?

So, what you're saying is that the Investor's interest is more important than that of the homeowner? The Investor took the same risks as the homeowner by backing the loan. The big difference here is that the Investor won't be homeless. If the banks would simply follow the guidelines set forth by HAMP there would be far fewer foreclosures. Not everyone wants to walk away from their home, even if they are in the negative. But, every time that a bank refuses to work with a homeowner, that in turn lowers the property values of the homes surrounding that property and encourages even more people to simply walk away. More rubbish. I never said anything about the lender's interest vs. the borrower's, so why deflect the debate with that statement? But if you insist, then take your point to its logical conclusion. Before we get to that, stop calling only the lender the "investor". The borrower is an investor, too. I'm tired of hearing from homeowners who bought their homes as "investments" several years ago and are now calling themselves "victims." Just as investors who lost a lot of money in the dot-com bubble were not victims, neither are those who lost money in the RE bubble (with the exception of those who were clearly defrauded by having their loan documents changed). If you bought a house in the last few years and you now have negative equity, it is not the banks' fault. It's yours. You bought an asset during a bubble. And when you do, you get burned. Second, the lender and the borrower do not, as you claim, have the same risk. Such a statement shows your ignorance of simple finance. The lender is looking for either a fixed return or for a future opportunity to sell the loan at a modest profit. The borrower, on the other hand, has (theoretically) unlimited profit potential because he is buying an asset with debt. The downside, of course, is that the borrower's potential for loss is very steep. The logical conclusion? Well, what if the RE bubble continued for many years, and some of these homeowners sold their homes for huge profits (which, btw, is exactly what many people did before the bubble popped)? Do you think the sellers would have shared their profits with the lenders who lent them the money? Of course not. But now that the borrower's investments (that is, their homes) are losing value, you want the banks to modify the terms of the loans? That's hypocrisy. Yet it's exactly what many of the enablers of the victim mentality are preaching these days. And let's stop with the foreclosure = "homeless" fallacy. None of the people who are walking away from their homes are going to homeless. Instead, they will be doing what they should have done in the first place: renting!! (Or, if they have no shame, they are buying a cheaper home before walking away from their present property with negative equity.) Remember, these people can still afford to pay their mortgages. But they'd rather throw a hissy fit and walk away. We also hear about how some people can no longer afford their mortgages because the monthly payments increased too much. We are often told that these people will be "homeless". Again, that's baloney. Yes, they will lose their homes (that they never should have bought in the first place). But since they could still afford the monthly payments before the payments increased, these people can still afford to rent. The only people for whom I have pity are those who have lost their jobs and can't afford to pay their mortgage. But they can't afford rent either, so for these unfortunate people even a loan modification wouldn't help. Not to beat a dead horse, but again- let's get real. The people losing their homes at this stage in the game (and from here on out) are largely doing so because of the inherent job losses and income reductions resulting from the bursting of the "cheap credit" bubble, NOT the housing bubble, which was a mere symptom of the larger crime. It would be really nice if the media would actually report this little "minor" detail once in a while. The fact is that the real crooks in this game have already made off in the dark and will not be held accountable. Many of those neighbors, family members and friends of ours who are walking away are making a strategic decision. They see their vulnerability written on the wall. Do they wait until they in turn suffer a debilitating income reduction, job loss or depleted savings before they walk? Or do they walk away now and save as much as possible to weather the next 3-7years...risking the possibility of having to file BK in order to avoid any judgements against them? For many, this risk is well worth it. Sure sounds better than being on the hook for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in monopoly money. This isn't about crooks and gamers anymore. People are wising up to the game. You pretty much ignored my last post. That's fine. As for your assertion that it's OK for people to be walking from their homes because they are worried about future loss of job/savings, that's dangerous. If walking is OK, then shouldn't all homeowners with a mortgage (even those with equity) do the same? If you lose your job and can't pay your mortgage, it's not going to matter if you have positive or negative equity: the bank takes your home. Yet you think it's OK for those who have negative equity to walk away now -- just in case things get bad later. If you truly believe that, then you have to also expect all mortgage holders to walk in order to protect themselves. And if all mortgage holders walked, you'd see a housing crash the likes of which none of us ever imagined. Try extrapolating what you suggest, or be careful what you wish for. And what exactly is the "crime" that you keep referring to? Easy credit? Well, if the banks' providing easy credit is a crime, then all of the borrowers are guilty of receiving illegal funds. It's too easy to blame only the "big, bad banks" and cast the borrowers as victims. If so, you've just insulted the intelligence of every person who bought a home with "easy credit" over the last several years. As I wrote earlier, borrowers knew what they were doing and were just being greedy, too. And the lucky/smart ones who sold their homes before the crash made a lot of money. But I don't see you demanding those borrowers to return their profits, which were only made possible by the "crime" of easy credit. BTW, I agree that easy credit is the cause of the housing crash. But no one forced borrowers to borrow so recklessly. Everyone is guilty: the lenders and the borrowers.

So, what you're saying is that the Investor's interest is more important than that of the homeowner? The Investor took the same risks as the homeowner by backing the loan. The big difference here is that the Investor won't be homeless. If the banks would simply follow the guidelines set forth by HAMP there would be far fewer foreclosures. Not everyone wants to walk away from their home, even if they are in the negative. But, every time that a bank refuses to work with a homeowner, that in turn lowers the property values of the homes surrounding that property and encourages even more people to simply walk away. More rubbish. I never said anything about the lender's interest vs. the borrower's, so why deflect the debate with that statement? But if you insist, then take your point to its logical conclusion. Before we get to that, stop calling only the lender the "investor". The borrower is an investor, too. I'm tired of hearing from homeowners who bought their homes as "investments" several years ago and are now calling themselves "victims." Just as investors who lost a lot of money in the dot-com bubble were not victims, neither are those who lost money in the RE bubble (with the exception of those who were clearly defrauded by having their loan documents changed). If you bought a house in the last few years and you now have negative equity, it is not the banks' fault. It's yours. You bought an asset during a bubble. And when you do, you get burned. Second, the lender and the borrower do not, as you claim, have the same risk. Such a statement shows your ignorance of simple finance. The lender is looking for either a fixed return or for a future opportunity to sell the loan at a modest profit. The borrower, on the other hand, has (theoretically) unlimited profit potential because he is buying an asset with debt. The downside, of course, is that the borrower's potential for loss is very steep. The logical conclusion? Well, what if the RE bubble continued for many years, and some of these homeowners sold their homes for huge profits (which, btw, is exactly what many people did before the bubble popped)? Do you think the sellers would have shared their profits with the lenders who lent them the money? Of course not. But now that the borrower's investments (that is, their homes) are losing value, you want the banks to modify the terms of the loans? That's hypocrisy. Yet it's exactly what many of the enablers of the victim mentality are preaching these days. And let's stop with the foreclosure = "homeless" fallacy. None of the people who are walking away from their homes are going to homeless. Instead, they will be doing what they should have done in the first place: renting!! (Or, if they have no shame, they are buying a cheaper home before walking away from their present property with negative equity.) Remember, these people can still afford to pay their mortgages. But they'd rather throw a hissy fit and walk away. We also hear about how some people can no longer afford their mortgages because the monthly payments increased too much. We are often told that these people will be "homeless". Again, that's baloney. Yes, they will lose their homes (that they never should have bought in the first place). But since they could still afford the monthly payments before the payments increased, these people can still afford to rent. The only people for whom I have pity are those who have lost their jobs and can't afford to pay their mortgage. But they can't afford rent either, so for these unfortunate people even a loan modification wouldn't help.

While the prof is correct in saying that it's in the underwater homeowner's financial interest to walk away, he supports his "no shame" belief with this rubbish: "Yet there is an inherent imbalance in the borrower-lender relationship that makes this morality message unfair to consumers, White says: Banks set the rules during the housing boom, handing out home loans with no down payments, no income checks and inflated appraisals. Now that property values have dropped 20% to 50% in many areas, banks have been slow to modify troubled mortgages and reluctant to reduce principal debts." That's garbage. The banks still offered traditional mortgages. But many homebuyers decided to take the riskier mortgages in hopes of making a bigger profit on future resale and/or buying a much larger home than they should have. Except in rare circumstances, foreclosure is shameful and selfish. This is true, but guess what? IT ISN'T THE SUB-PRIMERS ANYMORE and hasn't been for a while now. How long does it take for some people to get this through their heads? Geez. This thing has reached well enough into the prime market to touch MANY people who did everything that they were supposed to. And it continues to get worse. And it was the cheap credit that artificially inflated EVERYTHING, not just home values, so saying that it was a "consumer problem" is far less accurate than blaming it on the fractional reserve system and wall street crooks. Also, if you'll do a search through the forums here, you will see that this professor's suggestion is hardly new. I never suggested it was only the sub-primers who are being affected. But despite what the NAR told everyone, housing prices do go down -- sometimes a lot. And any time you buy a house, it is very possible that you will have negative equity soon after. That's the risk/reward of buying a house: you could profit a lot or lose a lot. If a homebuyer doesn't like that risk, then rent. But if a home is bought and you have negative equity, suck it up and pay your mortgage (assuming you can afford the payments). People who can afford their mortgage payments yet walk away from their homes because they have negative equity are selfish and deserve to all the shame we can put on them. In the early 90's, many people had negative equity in their homes. As long as they could afford their mortgage payments, they paid their mortgages. No one suggested that they walk away then. Yet today, it's becoming ok to screw your neighbors. That's sad.

While the prof is correct in saying that it's in the underwater homeowner's financial interest to walk away, he supports his "no shame" belief with this rubbish: "Yet there is an inherent imbalance in the borrower-lender relationship that makes this morality message unfair to consumers, White says: Banks set the rules during the housing boom, handing out home loans with no down payments, no income checks and inflated appraisals. Now that property values have dropped 20% to 50% in many areas, banks have been slow to modify troubled mortgages and reluctant to reduce principal debts." That's garbage. The banks still offered traditional mortgages. But many homebuyers decided to take the riskier mortgages in hopes of making a bigger profit on future resale and/or buying a much larger home than they should have. Except in rare circumstances, foreclosure is shameful and selfish.

I hope so. Rulings like this make no sense and send the wrong message to those who do not pay their debts ("wow, maybe I don't have to pay my mortgage after all!"). Plus, it's unfair to those of us who do pay our debts on time. If you don't pay your mortgage, the bank has every right to take your home. Of course, the bank should not do anything illegal while pursuing the property. If the bank does anything dastardly, the bank should be sanctioned -- but how the heck does the home owner get to keep the property with no debt at all?? That's ridiculous. At most, the judge should have forced a modification (which the bank was not required to do in the first place, btw).

Thanks for the reply. I've been away on vacation and hadn't checked for replies lately. While I understand your logic, consider the instance where a large property (say, a 30-story rental apartment building) has dozens of investors, each owning a certain amount of shares in the property. Again, a "tenancy in common." If just one of those investors uses his equity to get a loan, and that one investor's loan goes into foreclosure, can the bank foreclose against the entire property? I'd find that very hard to believe because no one would ever want to be a shareholder in a property if just one investor's bad loan can force a sale of everyone's shares. What shields all the other investors from that one bad loan?

Okay, but perhaps it is the property investor who dropped off his card who bought the home. That is also a possibility. Maybe he sells it back to you at less than what you owed but more than he paid), and he sets up the financing? Maybe he rents it to you at fair market value so that you don't have to leave? Many possibilities, of course. But be careful calling this guy a "vulture" when he could be a savior. You never know until you find out for sure.

So they make foreclosing look attractive to the BANK and thereby encourage the bank to sell to them! VULTURES!!!!!!!!! No.... Read my post again. The investor lets the bank know that foreclosing is NOT attractive to the bank (depending on the circumstances). The investor then prevents the foreclosure and keeps the owner in the house -- and the owner gets a manageable payment schedule. Unfortunately, in your case, the bank has already sold your home, so the investor who could have helped you is out of the loop.

If someone owns only part of a property (specifically, as a Tenant in Common) and he takes out an equity loan against the property in his name only (that is, the other owners did not sign off on the loan), what happens if that loan goes into foreclosure? Can the bank force a sale of the entire property? Or can the bank only force a sale of the portion of the property that the borrower actually owns?

Before you freak out too much, there is another possibility that you may be missing. The person who left you the card might be able to buy your loan from the bank that is foreclosing on you -- AND keep you in your home. It works like this. Suppose your loan balance is $400K, and the bank would be lucky to get $300K if they foreclose on the home. The investor (the guy who left his card) goes to the bank and says: "Look, you're lucky to get $300K if you foreclosure on this home. Plus you're going to spend $40K going through the foreclosure. I'll buy the loan right now from you for $250K." So now the investor owns your $400K loan, but he only paid $250K. He goes to you and tells you that your loan balance is now only $300K and offers you manageable repayment terms. The investor can they service your loan (collect the monthly payments) or sell the loan to someone who wants to own the loan for about $300K -- making the investor a profit of $50K. And you now have only a $300K loan, with manageable repayment terms. So it's a win-win for you and the investor. So the guy who left you a card may not be a vulture. (Well, the bank thinks he's a vulture!)

I have a USAir MC and I'm in the market for a new car, likely in the $40K range. I can pay in cash, but I'd prefer to use the card to earn the miles, especially since 10K miles will immediately be converted to elite status. I'd pay off the card immediately. So while I know that MC prohibits a merchant from implementing a maximum charge for CC purchases, I've heard from various sources that many car dealers do not allow more than $3K-$5K of the purchase price to be put on a CC. Has anyone had any experience with this? I did find an old thread (from 2006) that attempted to deal with this issue, but the thread became a squeezing a lemon match because one of the posters is a car dealer who was quite arrogant. (I'd imagine that in today's economic climate, he may not be...)

Yup. I'm going through the same with them lately. Even the supervisors are rude. It's really sick.

Thanks a lot!!!

Three of my accounts (BofA HELOC, Chase CC, BofA CC) have had a zero balance for months. Yet EX contiues to report that I have monthly payments on these acounts, as high as $993/month. (TU and EQ correctly report the monthly payments as $0.) I disputed these accounts with EX and they did not change them. In fact, they "verified" these monthly payments as being correct even though they clearly report zero balances as well! I've since spoken with three customer service agents at EX and they have got to be the most unhelpful bunch of people I've ever encountered in customer service. They all speak like robots, interrupt my sentences, and they all tell me the same thing: "Contact the creditors." They take no responsibility for these errors, instead blaming the creditors' reporting as the sole reason for the errors -- even though TU and EQ do not show the same errors. BTW, I also spoke with a manager at EX. Same nonsense from her. If anyone can help, I'd greatly appreciate it.