...and how exactly would the bank be to blame? Did they force you to take the money? No? Then it's not the bank's fault.

Personal Responsibility. Two words that are sorely lacking in this whole subprime cr@p garden.

If things are going to keep going this way, I'm going to go out and lease a Bugatti Veyron, and then get the government to pay it off for me because I didn't understand the paperwork. Surely, because they gave me the keys, it must be mine.:rolleyes:

Your pal,
Meat.

This is eaxctly my point!

Fred,

Both articles shed good insight on this. I know this has gotten a little off topic as I included the sub prime concerns. I did not intend to heist the thread. I just think that corporate mentality in today's world is a far cry from what customer service is really all about.

It seems to me that corporate greed is what brought all this crap about in the first place. Surely I am not the only one that noticed there is a new bank on every damn corner in every town. They made bad loans to good people "betting on the come" and they too shall pay the ultimate price.

Ask for trouble and it will come a knocking on your front door.

pfft!

Nope, it's the democrats. It's always the democrats.

Jimmy Carter's Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 and the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act of 1982 shoved through by the democrat-controlled house.

Congress put us where we are now ... and yet - surprisingly - they can't seem to remember that, blaming a president for the fiasco they caused 28 years ago.

democrats say they saw this coming ... but I don't recall seeing any legislation pending before the democrat-controlled Congress to stop it from happening. But boy, is this Congress good at naming bridges and post offices!

Your pal,
Meat.

Meat, it's like saying the Nigerian e-mail scams aren't the fault of Nigeria, those suckers they took in, well, it's their own fault. OK, fair enough, it IS their own fault. But come on, that doesn't make it right.

Do the financiers follow all the rules and do it legally or is there fraud involved in some of these housing loans? No question there IS fraud, and law suits ARE being filed, as they should be. Here in Hawaii recent newspaper articles have been focusing on the pressure apraisers are under to deliver a certain price to the lender. IF they don't bring the property in 'at the right price' they quickly find themselves out of a job. There are other apraisers willing to 'work with the bank' to get the 'number' right. Thats gotta change, law suits may be the only way. If you lease that Bugatti with intent to defraud, use fraud to secure it, or are 'suckered' into the lease BY fraud, someone should get sued! WHO that may be will have to be decided on a case by case basis.

I've been in involved in various real estate deals a LOT over the last 20 years or so. I've never seen it so easy to manipulate the market financiers as it has been until recently. It seems the whole nation was caught up in this mess. I hope most people have now gotten the message, but there will ALWAYS be suckers, gamblers and con men around to play the game. I, for one, just won't be to quick to condem those who made a bad decision, it's likely they ARE going to pay for it anyway. I don't want to kick them when their down. It could have been me, maybe I just got lucky (more like smelled a rat). It was like 'one' of those voices in my head said, 'Be careful', of course that was only one of many voices... :D

This is all true, Steve. But in a way we can not exclusively blame corporate greed because the relatively new kid, corporate structure, was never designed to accomodate any sort of moral conscience.

What the recent invention of corporate business entity has done is allow standard human greed to operate at here-to-fore unheard of power levels. Corporate officers are bound by law to make decisions that benefit their stockholders in quarterly dividends if nothing else ...this quarter, not next. They must seek short term profit first and foremost, theoretically within todays willowy law.

I've seen CEO's admit on documentaries that what they did was not right. But it was what rang up the tills here and now, that fleeting ticket to the closest Pearly Gate to avoid the Hell of the Next Board and the eternal death of a career. If they could do it, they had to do it. Tremendous pressure. And why?

Because we let them.

I suggest the way to rein it in is to pass laws that limit the flexibility of corporations, or any other single large group, to dominate an economy. This suggestion constitutes a reversal of 50 years of corporate political gains. Unfortunately these necessary restrictions will immediately hinder totally free enterprise, a basic dear tenet of capitalism. The secret is balance between the needs of the whole vs. the selfish opportunities of a few very shrewd elite. Don't like overly powerful unions? Well a corporation is nothing more than a powerful union for stockholders with plenty of elite deadwood of its own.

We the people have to pass the laws and say, "These are the new rules for ethics, caveat emptor as usual, but also, let the seller to the public beware of public harm". In other words, a limited bit of injected socialism to cool the embers of total dog-eat-dog. There will be the usual screams of pain, the lobbyists, the frantic press releases. :rolleyes:

There is hope that McCain or Obama are on the side of Mom-and-Pop, Joe six-pack, the middle-class labor of America that pays for it all ...every single nickel of profit anywhere. (Hillary, God forbid, is as pro-corporate as anything we've had for well over 15 years ...years of having our fate, and our childrens fate, decided in a boardroom.)

Are we in lethal trouble? Is it too late for America? Not if we still produce, not if we still consume, not if we still trade in spite of a corrupt political system that unequally divides the pie. The danger is when we quit producing. The danger is when those that did produce believe they can no longer carry the burden of freeloaders ...and stop. Where will the pie come from then? :JEKYLHYDE

The lack of incentive in pure capitalism can be as great as the lack of incentive in pure socialism.


...

Looks like there will be new terms: PPS,SID, & APS:

Payment Protection Systems, Starter Interupt Devices, Asset Protection Systems

Article:

Late on car payment? Meet instant 'repo man'
Tuesday, June 13, 2006

By DEBORAH YAO
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Alison Zaccone :
Payment Protection Systems, Inc. (PPS), the manufacturer of ON TIME, the patented starter interrupt system that ensures timely collection of customer car payments, has merged with Sekurus, Inc.

Sekurus’ proprietary products and solutions are used to secure and manage the sub‑prime auto loan portfolios of both buy-here-pay-here auto dealerships and financial institutions throughout the world. It is an international leader in providing asset protection, tracking and overall payment management. Sekurus, Inc. will be the name of the new company, while Mike Simon, president and CEO of Payment Protection Systems, will assume the same title and responsibilities.

“This is a very exciting opportunity for both companies. Growth has accelerated so rapidly during the past few years that we needed to find a partner that shared our long-range business plans and international goals,” said Mike Simon, president and CEO of Sekurus. “This new relationship now enables us to offer a fuller range of products and services to a wider variety of financial institutions around the globe.”

The Sekurus product line will now include:

– ON TIME: The renowned electronic starter-interrupt unit that tracks payments and prevents a vehicle from starting if a customer’s scheduled payment is not made. ON TIME is used worldwide by lending institutions and car dealerships that provide automobile financing to individuals who are sub-prime or high credit risks.

– SEKURIT: The car industry’s most user-friendly anti-theft security device, SEKURIT arms and disarms itself with an automatic, hands-free system. It not only provides consumers with the most sophisticated anti-theft technology available, but also offers new car franchises a product that has no charge back, no drive away costs, and an installation process that is quick and easy.

Sekurus, Inc. is an international company focusing on automobile asset protection, management and tracking. The company’s proprietary systems and solutions are used to secure and manage the sub‑prime auto loan portfolios of both buy-here-pay-here auto dealerships and financial institutions. The company’s asset protection systems secure the multi-million dollar inventories of automotive dealerships for dealers, their insurance companies and their floor planning financial institutions.

Article:

LIMERICK, Pa. -- Rashida Redd punched in a six-digit code in her Pontiac Grand Prix and got a new lease on life.

The 34-year-old Pottstown mother of five had to file for personal bankruptcy about a year ago in the face of mounting medical bills from her husband's open heart surgery. Despite her poor credit history, Redd was able to lease the 3-year-old car from Williams Pre-Owned of Limerick on the condition that it have a starter-interrupt device.

"At least I was able to save the house," Redd said.

The device, the size of a cigarette pack and mounted under the dashboard, flashes green if she has made a car payment on time. If she misses her $94 weekly payment, it won't let her car start.

Starter-interrupt devices are becoming a popular way for lenders to ensure that they get paid, and consumers seem willing to accept them to get into nicer cars, use a smaller down payment and qualify for a lower interest rate, according to device manufacturers.

Ken Shilson, managing partner at Shilson Goldberg Cheung & Associates in Houston, an accounting firm that works with auto dealers who make use of the device, said the market for them is growing.

The major manufacturers of the device report double-digit increases in sales so far this year, compared with the same period a year ago. An estimated 1 million are in use today, he said.

Consumers with poor credit often are faced with interest rates of more than 20 percent -- nearly triple the rate drivers with good credit can get, Shilson said. They also have to pay a down payment equal to 10 percent to 20 percent of the car's purchase price, while buyers with good credit can buy a vehicle with little or no money down.

Redd's car is equipped with a device made by Payment Protection Systems Inc. of Temecula, Calif. It's one of three manufacturers that dominate the market -- the others are PassTime in Littleton, Colo., and Pay Technologies of Cleveland.

The companies make a variation of the same device: The units are connected to the starter and emit a brief series of sounds or flashes of light, days before the payment deadline. If the customer then makes a timely payment, he or she can contact the dealer for a new code that will allow them to operate the vehicle. Some devices are remotely controlled by dealers.

Devices typically are mounted under the dash or hidden in places such as a glove box.

Manufacturers say the device won't kill the engine while the car is being used; it will only stop the vehicle from starting. Also, consumers late on payments are allowed emergency starts, the companies say.

Shilson said the devices are mainly geared for the "buy here, pay here" market -- consumers with the lowest credit scores. Typically, these buyers have filed for bankruptcy or had a repossession.

"Buy here, pay here" customers also are limited to how expensive a car they can buy, typically $5,000.

Jack Gillis, a spokesman for the Consumer Federation of America and author of "The Car Book," doesn't like the idea of having a third party have control over a driver's vehicle.

"It's a rather draconian measure to take," he said. "What these companies are able to do is sell cars at virtually no risk to themselves, with all the risk to consumers."

But Auto Trakk LLC of Montoursville, Pa., Redd's lender, said the device lets the company consider serving even the riskiest customers. "It enables us to look at lower credit scores," said Denny Sullivan, marketing manager.

"It's a rather draconian measure to take," he said. "What these companies are able to do is sell cars at virtually no risk to themselves, with all the risk to consumers."


Duh! Sounds good to me! Why should a seller 'assume the risk' of non-performance? If the buyer cannot perform, he/she loses the car. Why should the seller assume a 'buyer' can walk away with his car without paying? All this crap about how it hurts somebody's feelings is just that...CRAP. You have to lie down in the bed you made, do so and don't whine about it. I know that a lot of people get hammered in life, unexpected things like medical disasters, lay-offs, closures, downsizing, etc...but stop this merry go round of psycobabble and fingerpointing and just get on with it and do your best. Life isn't fair....so what!?!

:)

I agree that the seller should not have to assume the risk, but I also think the buyer should look at their ability to pay before buying something. Before I buy anything I know I can pay for it. If someone as dumb as I am can figure that out, why can't others? Also I use a credit card as I hate writing checks, but I pay it off each month and that way I just have one check to write. :rolleyes:

Ron :eek:

Meat,
Come on man do you have to disagree with everyone one everything? Geeze man are you French? :LOL:

Wes,
OK, Fair Enough. Corporate greed has come a long way in a very short time, wouldn't you agree? I think there does need to be something done to stop this from happening again. I am not sure our current congress could pass anything other than a "High Ball". I think that if they did try to write law that would control this it would be so non-user friendly for the little companies and very pro- Big Corporation it would do more harm than good.

I do not think we (taxpayers) should bail out the mortgage lenders. I do not think we (taxpayers) should bail out the mortgage holders prior to foreclosure. I do however feel for those that got sucked in by some smooth talking mortgage broker and either has or will loose the family home because of it. I said, I feel for them but I would not bail them out.

We need to remember that although some own their homes outright most do not. It is because of the corporate greed that more and more people do not even pay mortgage payments today as opposed to rent payments.

Of course most home owners facing foreclosure will not have the funds to press a lawsuit. For those that bought 'investment properties', that clearly 'speculated' on an investment, they have no case, period. I applaud those few who do and are pressing a law suit for 'fraud' against their lender to secure their primary residence. It's important that these few cases be heard, the facts brought to light, the corrupt lenders be held accountable.

It's kind of like the SAAC vs Shelby lawsuit. SAAC's position is the 'contract' with Shelby was secured by fraud. While it's easy to say, 'they signed it and a contracts a contract' it's an important point of law as to wether that contract is in fact legally binding or not. What portions are or aren't. Was it secured through fraud or not. The courts will decide after hearing the relevant facts of the case.

Doesn't make what right? There's no free lunch, everyone knows that. Greed is only good if you're the one holding the fishing pole.

There may be fraud, and there may not be fraud. Filing a lawsuit doesn't indicate guilt or innocence, it only indicates that an attorney got a job.

Appraisers are under no pressure to deliver a certain price to a lender. In fact, an appraiser will very quickly find himself out of a job if he's giving false information to the lender. Appraisers don't work for lenders. They don't work for real estate companies. They're a neutral third party who provides a valuation based on comparable sales of similar houses in a particular neighborhood. Lenders rely on the information from the appraiser to determine whether the price of the home is in line with other homes in the area, and to verify that they're not making a bad investment.

So have I. I've got a real estate license, my parents were agents - my dad a broker, I've worked for many real estate companies, appraisers, escrow companies and mortgage companies.

I will. ESPECIALLY when I'm going to get to be one of the lucky Pierres who gets to bail them out because I was smarter than they were.

Your pal,
Meat.

Show me where I've disagreed with everyone on everything.

Your pal,
Meat.

Yes, I agree corporate greed has come a long way. But I think it is corporate power that behooves natural human greed that we see. But we can legislate some of the power away without killing the goose that lays the golden egg. As a sole proprieter or partner in business, a man is personally liable for his actions and a fine or prison time can easily put him out of business. The CEO of a corporation, all of its officers, are nearly untouchable, even if they own most or all of the stock.

The major corporation can be sued or fined which usually amounts to a small token amount, usually inconsequential to the vast budget. The faceless corporation, which has the same rights as an individual, cannot go to jail such as an individual who is afoul of the law such as a sole proprieter or partner. All the rights, no moral consequence or conscience.

We have to at least try to do something to rein in the powerful monsters and use common sense to protect little companies. The little efficient companies are the heart and soul of America but they are being crushed.


...
I don't think we should bail out lenders either. Like we've been doing right along by letting them borrow excessive money at low prime rates and lending it to consumers at 3 and 4 times the prime cost rate. Pretty high "handling charges" if you ask me. Corporate welfare. Why don't we temporarily eliminate the middle man and offer loans directly to consumers at prime rate to afford a little affordability? Think they won't pay back their cheap government loan? Hold it conveniently out of their checks like we do income tax. (Or put a black box payment lock on their door that won't let them back in. :LOL: )

I don't think we should bail out the mortgage holders prior to foreclosure either. Sell the current defaults with a 1% (6+ percent, my a$$) or flat rate realty commission ceiling. People like you, Scott, I and others did our part to actually build houses and watched as our customers helplessly blew huge purchase fees on "paperwork" and then eventually paid several times what the house originally cost in payments over the years. I smell low-contributing freeloaders. Something is lop-sided here.

When the system recovers, do what has never happened yet. Reverse the trend of corporate political reign and domination. It's time to face that no one ever makes a profit in the stock market without someone losing their capital. And no loss in the market occurs without someone making a profit. I think we should restrict it to a low roar. Unlike a game of Monopoly, we want everyone to stay in the game here.

Market manipulation and white collar crime destroys America just as bad as any other threat. Send violators to Guantanamo and waterboard them. :p


...
That's the truth and it is a shame. Third world countries have people that can't afford to own a home. It used to be the American Dream.

Sometimes I wonder if any of us own a home. My mortgage is paid but I now pay double per month what the original combined mortgage/tax-insurance escrow payment was. I now just pay the city once yearly to rent my home and rent (taxes) will soon be going up again when the assessed worth of my home goes down. No city yet has successfully declared bankruptcy ...they can't; they just raise the rent.


...

I believe in Karma, What goes around comes around.

Those who are so quick to condemn may be the ones one the other side of the fence someday and need to be rescued themselves. We should take care of each other and try to help those we can, as opposed to kicking them when they are down. I for one am not perfect, I do not have holes in my hands. There are undoubtedly some that think they are.

I agree there is nothing wrong in, or with getting a good deal, that is just business.

Wes,
Once again, I agree.

We have to at least try to do something to rein in the powerful monsters and use common sense to protect little companies. The little efficient companies are the heart and soul of America but they are being crushed.

It is the little companies and the common individuals that are being crushed in today's America. Everyone can't be Microsoft.

I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me.

Well, that's a pantload. I, for one, wouldn't dream of getting a subprime or stated income loan on something I couldn't afford. Therefore, I can't see that I'd need the government to bail me out from such a thing.

Your pal,
Meat.

I saw something on the news that kind of surprised me. All this time I thought that to get a loan to buy a house or anything big, they checked to see that you could pay for it. Now I hear on the news that the loan institutions are going to start checking peoples incomes to be sure they can make the payments before they lend them money. Maybe I didn't understand what they were trying to say, but it seems strange to me that any loan institution would have lent out huge amounts of money without some kind of background check on the person borrowing it. Now they have a situation in Redding that is turning bad quickly. The houses that have been foreclosed on are turning into dumps as homeless and dopers break in and live in them. The neighbors are complaining and the Redding city council says they can't afford to send a code enforcement person out to get those people out and it would cost to much to notify the corporations that foreclosed on these houses and make them clean up the mess. What did I miss in this? :confused:

Ron :o

Meat, thanks for making abundantly clear your radical position on, well, everything. Your extreme position(s) make it impossible to take you seriously any more, so I'll move on...

The way loans USED to work did consider your ability to pay, debt to income ratio, length of job, the typical stuff. When the housing 'boom' came along much of those safegaurds were reduced by unscrupulous financiers. The 'bank' (a rather broad term) was willing to take a 'risk' along with the buyer. The potential win/win situation only fed the fire. Here in Hawaii, you found a financier that could 'get r done' because he knew all the right people. The right appraisers, the right loan officers, the right mortgage people, if you wanted a loan bad enough, there was a way. The safegaurds against such fraud were significantly reduced in the quest for dollars.

No way that was 'just' Hawaii. Anyone that doesn't believe appraisers weren't under pressure to bring in the right 'numbers' (uh, that would be you Meat) lives in a fantasy world. Loans were being made from the top (CEO) down and many many players along the way were involved, caught up in the greed. Really, it's a national disgrace.