This is sue806's Profile page. Use it to view sue806's comments, other users' replies to these comments, and comments sue806 has endorsed.

What's Happening Now

August 11, 2012 12:28 pm

The law may not require lenders to offer modifiations but it certainly does require lenders to treat all similarly situated parties the same. The mortgage industry issued over 5 million NEGATIVE EQUITY modifications to avoid the investor losses proven by the mathematical result of a +NPV setting their own NEW PRECEDENT what is the new course of business. Every homeowner with a loan to value of 80% of greater is legally, ethically and morally entitled to a similar financial advantage, capitalism and the law.
For more information see the petition located at

August 13, 2012 1:06 pm

No, It doesn’t. The new industry practice is that loss Mitigation or modifications are to be offered IF it is financially better for the INVESTOR to modify the homeowner instead of foreclosing, a positive net present value.

But the proposed rules are just a delay for Wall Street to continue business as usual with no regard for fairness or equality, when there were over 5 million modifications issued to avoid the investors fiancial loss when negative equity was involved, setting the new industry practice or legal precedent what is offered in the normal course of business for negative equity homeowners.

The home was bought and the mortage was invested in under the principles of capitalism, we need our governmental agencies to not only recongnize this but to act on it.
There is… more »

…no capitalistic financial difference to the homeowner or investor in a foreclosure situation when the property has a loan to value of 135%, 100%, 115% etc..Why would there be a difference in the modification offerred to two homeowners with the same ltv? The modification being offered is a financial incentive to remain a negative equity homeowner avoiding the investor from taking a financial loss from a foreclosure situation.

My argument is unless we treated housing as the capitalistic product it is, there will be no recovery.

What is being proposed is that we continue to allow the “fox in the hen House” making their own decisions on who gets a modification or gets foreclosed on based on totally unrevelant factors, this is what must be changed. All homeowners have a built in reliance because of existing laws that Wall Street would have to act with good faith and fair dealings with them. « less

August 13, 2012 1:07 pm

This duplicate comment was removed by the moderator.

August 20, 2012 2:06 am

That’s easy, existing laws. The financial industry already decided on which borrowers should receive a LMO for their own financial protection, the homeowners who if foreclosed on would cost the investor to lose a guaranteed portion of their initial investment proven by a +NPV. (ANY HOMEOWNER WITH A LOAN TO VALUE ABOVE 80% WOULD COST THE INVESTOR TO LOSE A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT, A POSTIVE NET PRESENT VALUE REGARDLESS OF THE HOMEOWNERS PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATUS)

Since no other branch of the govermnent has enforced existing laws, it is up to the CFPB, which was in my proposal to the government in the fall of 2008, to get the “fox out of the henhosue”.

It is in direct violation of the law when two homeowners with the same negative equity (similiarly… more »

…situated parties) DO NOT RECEIVE the same consistent similar financial incentive to remain a negative equity homeowner following is a partial list of the violations occurring : unfair, deceptive and abusive business practices,misrepresentation that modifications are about affordability when a +NPV is required, the reasonable reliance that Main Street has that the government and Wall Street would act in good faith and fair dealings or the fact that every time a homeowner is denied a negative equity modification for his/hers social economic status being put at a financial disadvantage discrimation occurs.(a partial list of business, tort and civil violations occurring on a daily basis)

Wall Street will not change their ways as long as there are NO PENALTIES THAT ARE ENFORCED since most homeowners do not have the financial whereitall to sue and the banks have the governments blessing and taxpayers money to do whatever they want, there are no penalities to them. AND MOST IMPORTANT UNTIL THE TAXPAYER PAID ENTITIES OF THE GSE’S AND THE FHA ARE INCLUDED INTO STANDARD CAPITALISTIC LMO’S, OF A MODIFICATION FOR EVERY NEGATIVE EQUITY HOMEOWNER, How do you really expect Wall Street to follow the law if the government is violating it along with them?

The solution has been given to all seven governmental agencies back in the fall of 2008. The proof is in the pudding so to speak, the OCC, and the AG’s have included PARTIAL numerous guidelines from my proposal, UNITEDINPROSPERITY.ORG to stop the Foreclosure Crisis from continuing, such as single point of contact, dual tracking, staffing, time limits, communications, standards etcc.. BUT all without including the underlying principle that housing is a capitalist product not a socialistic one. The mortgage clause of “dont pay be foreclosed on” was changed to “let me modify you if you have negative equity, not if you can’t afford it”

Because of the governments actions and inactions and the lenght of time past, it is crucial that the solution be enforced NOW not in another 6-9-12-15-18-21 months.
I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with any member of government at their convenience. « less

October 4, 2012 12:22 am

The new industry wide practice is to offer modifications as an incentive to negative equity homeowners to remain negative equity homeowners because the INVESTOR loses a guarantee portion of their money with a foreclosure sale. There are numberous laws on the books addressing this issue, the most basic and simple one is- all similiarly situated parties, the homeowners with the same loan to value are legally entitled to the same reimbursement, incentive, modification that others( over 6 milion) received.
Unless there is a national modification program like the program removing the fox from the hen house, no additional rules or laws will work simply because they will be voluntary without enforement.

August 11, 2012 3:31 pm

Hi sue, and thanks for your comment. It sounds like you’re discussing a loss mitigation option that lenders offer to some borrowers, but not to others. Under the proposed rule, servicers would be required to notify borrowers of all available LMO’s, and to tell them which LMO’s they qualify for after they’ve applied. Does this sound like it would address your concern?

August 14, 2012 3:50 pm

Hi sue, sorry I misunderstood your suggestion at first. It sounds like you’re suggesting that CFPB should regulate how servicers are allowed to decide which borrowers qualify for LMO’s. How, specifically, do you think the current practice should be changed?

October 4, 2012 12:43 pm

Hi Sue806 – We tried to include your comments on the issue post in sections 2 & 5 (Need for Enforcement). Do you think the summary is missing anything or is unclear?

No comments