Agreed - and even if it weren't, it's not really altruistic. They are basically identifying mortgages where they would likely foreclose and end up losing a ton of money and instead trying to take smaller losses. It's actually the smart economic thing for them, and I have no idea why it took this long or the fraud settlement to make them do it. My only point was that unlike some of the other debt forgiveness ideas (such as was DaDakota proposed), it's not actually costing taxpayers anything. And for those wondering where the government is in supporting the little guy, this is it - they basically forced the big banks to give away $25B or so straight to homeowners in need.
Seems like a pretty lenient settlement given the restrictions. Basically, the present value of the new loan has to be more than what they could get by foreclosing. It almost seems that should be a business decision the banks make on their own without being 'forced' into it through legal action over their fraudulent actions. Major: the $25b the banks are being forced to 'give away' is primarily money they already lost through their poor lending practices. They're just being forced to recognize that...and deal with it subject to all sorts of caveats.
Since when is that new? Drug laundering for ravenous murderers across the border? FINE. RECORD FINE. k, we're done here. whoo whoo, look at the money we got from Wall Street! The place oozes money, it's like slapping a wrist at best.
Agreed - but because of the settlement, the $25B is directly being given to homeowners as opposed to being lost in other ways. Even though, as we both noted, this is something that just seems like common sense to have done regardless, they weren't actually doing it. So without the settlement, they are likely foreclosing and causing all sorts of additional chaos.
