HAMP's purpose isn't to save people's homes

If you listened to Obama Administration and the MSM you would have thought that the Making Homes Affordable program was designed to help people stay in their homes. You would have been mistaken.

Of the nearly 760,000 modifications that have been enrolled in three-month trial plans, less than 32,000 have transitioned into permanent relief for homeowners. Nearly 87 percent of the modifications under the administration's program are for investor-owned mortgages.

That's right - the program is designed to bail out real estate investors and speculators, not homeowners. OTOH, maybe its possible that even those aren't the real target of this government handout.

More than 99 percent of mortgage modifications that include cutting principal are for those mortgages owned outright by a bank, meaning they are held in the bank's portfolio.

Could HAMP really be just another bailout for the banks? You decide.

The actual report is attached to this post.

Subject Meta: 

Forum Categories: 

AttachmentSize
OTSOCCmortgageQ3_09.pdf309.98 KB

Clearly not for people

If the purpose was to keep people in their homes we would've had debt forgiveness/principal reduction a long time ago.

RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.

You must have Javascript enabled to use this form.

I attached the actual report to this post

I do that quite often and here are the reasons.

1. The government often doesn't grasp the idea of permanent links, so they can break on referencing links and then you cannot find the original data.

2. On many EI reports, they list "current" and so the report and the graphs of that monthly indicator are gone, so you cannot go back and compare what the previous report said. This is especially true on BLS initial weekly claims. Fortunately I had put the actual report on EP and that's how I became aware there was a consistent pattern of revising the previous week's report upward, which always made the current report look like it was trending downward.

3. I personally find these embedded sites for PDFs obnoxious. Firstly they give no link reference, so you have no idea where something came from or if it has been corrected or updated. But worse, PDFs already suck and browsers already have embedded tools for you to view them. All you're doing is adding yet another layer of embedding to a document....and why do that since EP software allows file uploads and linking to those files locally.

4. I try to get original reports in order to review them. It is so often another article, journalist and even blogger will highlight something in a report, but if you go read it yourself, you might find something very different in it. And why not read the original? This is the day of online distribution so while we can overview things, there's no reason EP readers shouldn't be directed to the original if they want to check out the reports directly on their own.

Now this article, by Shahien Nasiripour looks like he did quite a bit of digging to find the difference between types of investors and on first pass read of the actual report, "investor" i.e. bank owned, is buried...

so, linking to journalists who did their homework is worth it, but I still like to show the original.

(Anybody else noticing Shahien Nasiripour has been writing some very good investigative type of articles? I have.)

You must have Javascript enabled to use this form.