TomAiello 26 #26 April 16, 2009 QuoteMy mortgage had an early payment penalty. Yes, but it was there when you took the money. The conditions on these loans were added after the loan was made, which would obviously be an illegal attempt to modify the contract if anyone aside from the government didi it.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #27 April 16, 2009 QuoteWell, more like you want to pay off your mortgage, but the bank wants you to pay an early-payoff penalty, they don't take personal checks, and the mortgage person is only there 9-3 Monday to Wednesday. (Which is often what happens.) Not really. These guys are willing to pay at any time and place and in any manner. There's a huge difference in being particular abut repayment and totally not accepting it.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #28 April 16, 2009 Quote Imagine if you took out a mortgage on your home, and had the money to pay it back, but the bank told you that instead of accepting your payment, they wanted you to re-arrange the furniture in the living room, and re-paint the house, and get rid of that woman you're living with, and get a new dog... I would consider that a reasonable request if the bank held notes on all of your neighbor's houses, your mercury painted furniture was full of termites and bedbugs, the woman you're living with has the bubonic plague and she's sharing her fleas with your rabid dog which you allow to run freely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #29 April 16, 2009 >There's a huge difference in being particular abut repayment and totally >not accepting it. Agreed. If they really do refuse to accept it at all, that's a big issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #30 April 16, 2009 QuoteQuotewhy aren't they allowed to pay the money back? once they have the money in the bank to pay the gov back do they still have to follow the gov's rules? Yes. Until the government allows them to pay back the loans. Imagine if you took out a mortgage on your home, and had the money to pay it back, but the bank told you that instead of accepting your payment, they wanted you to re-arrange the furniture in the living room, and re-paint the house, and get rid of that woman you're living with, and get a new dog... just a thought here, what if the banks sued the government to force them to take the money. that would be fucking weird in this country. what the hell though, the executive and legislative branches are up to their assholes in this thing, the remaining branch needs to check them. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #31 April 16, 2009 Quote>Which is usually a bad idea to accept. Agreed. But if someone is 100% positive they won't pay off their mortgage early, and are also getting a better deal with the mortgage that has the penalty - it might make sense. As always, it's up to the homeowner to decide if he wants to risk that. It doesn't even require that much certainty. Only a very small portion of mortgages are carried for their full term, but sometimes it's still advantageous to get a mortgage with a penalty if it has better terms in other aspects. When comparing the mortgage with the early payoff penalty to the one without, the borrowers need to determine the payoff date at which the two mortgages cost the same in constant dollars. If it's more probable that the loan won't be paid off before that date, the borrowers are better off accepting the loan with the penalty, even if they anticipate ultimately paying it off ahead of schedule. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #32 April 17, 2009 QuoteQuote Imagine if you took out a mortgage on your home, and had the money to pay it back, but the bank told you that instead of accepting your payment, they wanted you to re-arrange the furniture in the living room, and re-paint the house, and get rid of that woman you're living with, and get a new dog... I would consider that a reasonable request if the bank held notes on all of your neighbor's houses, your mercury painted furniture was full of termites and bedbugs, the woman you're living with has the bubonic plague and she's sharing her fleas with your rabid dog which you allow to run freely. Which is a completely irrelevant analogy. The banks are paying back the money because they don't need it. They think their companies are fine and some are posting record gains. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #33 April 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote Imagine if you took out a mortgage on your home, and had the money to pay it back, but the bank told you that instead of accepting your payment, they wanted you to re-arrange the furniture in the living room, and re-paint the house, and get rid of that woman you're living with, and get a new dog... I would consider that a reasonable request if the bank held notes on all of your neighbor's houses, your mercury painted furniture was full of termites and bedbugs, the woman you're living with has the bubonic plague and she's sharing her fleas with your rabid dog which you allow to run freely. Which is a completely irrelevant analogy. The banks are paying back the money because they don't need it. They think their companies are fine and some are posting record gains. But don't forget that G-S lost over $3 billion in the last quarter of 2008, and $1.2B in December alone..If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #34 April 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Imagine if you took out a mortgage on your home, and had the money to pay it back, but the bank told you that instead of accepting your payment, they wanted you to re-arrange the furniture in the living room, and re-paint the house, and get rid of that woman you're living with, and get a new dog... I would consider that a reasonable request if the bank held notes on all of your neighbor's houses, your mercury painted furniture was full of termites and bedbugs, the woman you're living with has the bubonic plague and she's sharing her fleas with your rabid dog which you allow to run freely. Which is a completely irrelevant analogy. The banks are paying back the money because they don't need it. They think their companies are fine and some are posting record gains. But don't forget that G-S lost over $3 billion in the last quarter of 2008, and $1.2B in December alone.. So they lost money last year which means the government can now (4 months later) clean house and not accept the money back? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #35 April 17, 2009 QuoteQuote I would consider that a reasonable request if the bank held notes on all of your neighbor's houses, your mercury painted furniture was full of termites and bedbugs, the woman you're living with has the bubonic plague and she's sharing her fleas with your rabid dog which you allow to run freely. Which is a completely irrelevant analogy. The banks are paying back the money because they don't need it. They think their companies are fine and some are posting record gains. I would say it's completely relevant. We're talking about the risk to the "neighborhood" via the perilous activities of one "homeowner". If the banks simply want to shed the government intervention so that they can return to the good old days of unchecked "modernized commodities" trading, the I'd say it's a problem. They may be "posting record gains" but if those gains are based on financial instruments that, through failure, might bring down not only their company (which would be fine with me) but the entire financial backbone of our country (which would be/was very bad) then I vote for continued government interference until we can figure out the best way to deal the potential problems. I don't want government running the banks but I do want them regulating them. The current free market capitalist model rewards failure and I don't want to see my country collapsing because a few well heeled folks decided that the color of their multinational parachutes was more important than the US's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #36 April 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Imagine if you took out a mortgage on your home, and had the money to pay it back, but the bank told you that instead of accepting your payment, they wanted you to re-arrange the furniture in the living room, and re-paint the house, and get rid of that woman you're living with, and get a new dog... I would consider that a reasonable request if the bank held notes on all of your neighbor's houses, your mercury painted furniture was full of termites and bedbugs, the woman you're living with has the bubonic plague and she's sharing her fleas with your rabid dog which you allow to run freely. Which is a completely irrelevant analogy. The banks are paying back the money because they don't need it. They think their companies are fine and some are posting record gains. But don't forget that G-S lost over $3 billion in the last quarter of 2008, and $1.2B in December alone.. So they lost money last year which means the government can now (4 months later) clean house and not accept the money back? So they've had one good quarter after a terrible one. Does that mean they and the system they represent is in good shape?If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #37 April 17, 2009 >The banks are paying back the money because they don't need it. They >think their companies are fine and some are posting record gains. Cool! Sounds like it worked. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #38 April 17, 2009 Quote>The banks are paying back the money because they don't need it. They >think their companies are fine and some are posting record gains. Cool! Sounds like it worked. It's like giving a fat guy an extra large pizza when he already has 3 on the table while a starving homeless guy watches from the window. If that is ending hunger, then i guess youre right...So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #39 April 17, 2009 >It's like giving a fat guy an extra large pizza . . . Ah, revisionist history returns to SC! From September 2008, here's a NYT description of your "fat guy:" ===================== Although it was not widely known, Goldman, a Wall Street stalwart that had seemed immune to its rivals’ woes, was A.I.G.’s largest trading partner, according to six people close to the insurer who requested anonymity because of confidentiality agreements. A collapse of the insurer threatened to leave a hole of as much as $20 billion in Goldman’s side, several of these people said. Days later, federal officials, who had let Lehman die and initially balked at tossing a lifeline to A.I.G., ended up bailing out the insurer for $85 billion. ====================== So it's more like giving a starving guy a lot of extra large pizzas, then having him put on some weight and wanting to return the favor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #40 April 17, 2009 Ahhh, I forgot. Bill V and his infallible band of robinhoods are never wrong! Of course they'd be in a little bit of trouble if AIG collapsed, a lot of people would be, but that's AIG. Goldman could have pulled themselves out without AIG eventually. Point being, they were one of the few in a good enough position once AIG was able to follow through on their legal binding contracts that they didn't need any bailout money. Never wanted it in the first place. It get's jammed down their throat while they are shaking their heads and waving hands no. Now, they try everything to puke it back on the hand that overfeeds, since that hand can also never be wrong.So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #41 April 17, 2009 QuoteAhhh, I forgot. Bill V and his infallible band of robinhoods are never wrong! Of course they'd be in a little bit of trouble if AIG collapsed, a lot of people would be, but that's AIG. Goldman could have pulled themselves out without AIG eventually. Point being, they were one of the few in a good enough position once AIG was able to follow through on their legal binding contracts that they didn't need any bailout money. So, what you're saying is that after they got the $13 billion taxpayer dollars through AIG that they didn't need money from the taxpayer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #42 April 17, 2009 pretty much. they didn't need any additional $$$ anyway, and didn't need the government interfering with their operations, or threatening their execs pay grade, or the negative press from the great O costing them (and everyone else effected) millions for moving last minute meetings all over the place. If AIG went down, a lot of people would have gone down or been damaged badly. makes some sense to step in there a little bit (maybe a lot) i suppose, but just so they could follow up on what they guaranteed! Goldman didnt need anything other than what was legally owed to them from AIG, NOT the government.So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #43 April 17, 2009 I'm not sure how anyone can say that GS would have been fine without the second influx of bailout money. They got it, now they're doing ok and don't need it. Does that mean that the loan did its job? Or more importantly, is GS really ok or are they feeding people cooked figures in order to shake off any government influence? For example, how does GS's $1.3 billion dollar December loss figure into January's profit? Maybe if they figure out a way to restart their fiscal year every eleven months (dumping the losses in the twelfth) they'll be rich! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #44 April 18, 2009 QuoteI'm not sure how anyone can say that GS would have been fine without the second influx of bailout money. You can say the Moon is made of green cheese if you think no-one is going to check.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #45 April 18, 2009 > Bill V and his infallible band of robinhoods are never wrong! I think that's "band of merry men" if you're going for a more historically accurate insult. >Of course they'd be in a little bit of trouble if AIG collapsed, a lot of >people would be, but that's AIG. Goldman could have pulled themselves >out without AIG eventually. Maybe. They may have made it without the help. They may have collapsed when AIG couldn't pay up. In either case, bailing them out certainly speeded their recovery. Now, whether or not that was a good thing is an interesting question. I don't think it was, overall. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #46 April 18, 2009 Quote Ahhh, I forgot. Bill V and his infallible band of robinhoods are never wrong! Of course they'd be in a little bit of trouble if AIG collapsed, a lot of people would be, but that's AIG. Goldman could have pulled themselves out without AIG eventually. Point being, they were one of the few in a good enough position once AIG was able to follow through on their legal binding contracts that they didn't need any bailout money. Never wanted it in the first place. It get's jammed down their throat while they are shaking their heads and waving hands no. Now, they try everything to puke it back on the hand that overfeeds, since that hand can also never be wrong. +1 ... Buffett put in $5B of his own into the company. Goldman Sachs was likely the least in "need". Of course, there was the mindset when Paulson changed his mind and instead bought equities in the banks instead, that by forcing all the largest banks to take TARP funds, it would hide from the public which ones were really in trouble. I think we saw that in the wake of Wachovia and Washington Mutual, and Citi. What I would like to know is why that couldn't be accomplished without buying stock in the company versus actually buying assets, since all the banks were getting stung.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
