Quoting myself for emphasis since it's exactly what you did.
Lurker wrote:Heh. Kulaf's favorite tactic. When wrong expand the debate.
Kulaf wrote:Well since you are all about backing up claims. I await your data showing how many people got pushed into ARM's even though they could afford regular financing.
Ddrak wrote:In the US it took me 4-6 weeks to get an appointment with a GP.
Let's let Dd tell us more about this if he feels comfortable doing so. I would like to know if the doctor he was trying to get in to see and already accepted him as a patient.
It was closer to 3 months for a first appointment. For regular appointments it was actually 4-6 weeks. What was also shocking is the 3 admin staff they had to employ just to manage the insurance paperwork generated.
Sorry, but any lag longer than a day or two, even for new patients, is completely unacceptable in a modern health care system. It's simple supply and demand - there's a lack of GPs because the insurance companies don't pay them enough for what they do, and force them to stick to 10 minute interviews that really give zero chance of properly diagnosing anything. Forcing people to emergency for things that can be dealt with by a GP is a waste of resources that puts lives at risk.
I understand that this is also related to tort reform issues.
See you are just the typical no nothing. You think ARM = bad. ARM's are good loans for what they are for. Interest only loans are ARM's with an interest only payment OPTION. See that word OPTION. I am at least speaking as someone who was in the industry. How many loans have you originated? Hell how many have you even signed?
Clearly your news clips trump my actual experience.
Ok I am still unclear here Dd. First appointment for what? A checkup? Was there something seriously wrong that needed immediate attention? Could you provide a frame of reference?
Kulaf wrote:Clearly your news clips trump my actual experience.
Apparently.
The bank heads admitted they were targetting people with ARM's and interest only loans because there had been a drastic drop in refinancing of existing loans.
So how many people did you screw over pushing risky loans? Or were you the last honest lender begging people not to buy more than they could afford?
Kulaf wrote:Clearly your news clips trump my actual experience.
Apparently.
The bank heads admitted they were targetting people with ARM's and interest only loans because there had been a drastic drop in refinancing of existing loans.
So how many people did you screw over pushing risky loans? Or were you the last honest lender begging people not to buy more than they could afford?
God yer dense. Yes the people that NEEDED to refi were directed to ARM's because they did not QUALIFY for fixed rate loans. Most of this orriginated in CA where most home loans exceed the FHA max and loans are commonly split between a fixed rate loan and an ARM. Those same people that were refinancing were the ones that were using continual refi's to live above their means in an appreciating home market.
Once the bubble started to burst they couldn't support their lifestyle and it collapsed around them.
I never pushed people into any loan. And I think I have already given the example of the one couple that wanted a fixed rate loan so we got it all ready and told them the amount of home they could afford before they went out with their agent to look. When they came back they were just gushing how they found this new home but it was 20k more than what they were told they could afford. They neded up in an IO ARM even after we fully disclosed all of the issues and told them they would NEED to refi out of it in no more than 2 years time.
I just wish you actually knew what you were talking about and the pages upon pages of disclosures we were required to go over and the various pamplets we provided people to help educate them. I learned the business from a very scroupulous lady who in the 5 years she was a LO never had one of her customers go into forclosure. So fuck you very much.
Kulaf wrote:Ok I am still unclear here Dd. First appointment for what? A checkup? Was there something seriously wrong that needed immediate attention? Could you provide a frame of reference?
Checkup, though even when I had scary stuff going on (panic attacks which do an awesome job of mimicking heart attacks) it took about a month to see the GP about it after the emergency room visit.
Like I said - it's just a sign that GPs are crazy overloaded. I think the insurance industry is partially to blame there, with frivolous litigation being the other half.
It's interesting hearing people talk about ARMs now. ARMs are the only option over here. No bank is crazy enough to open themselves up to the risk of a 30 year fixed loan.
I totally agree about GP's being overloaded.....but it really has nothing to do with the Healthplan you may or may not be on. It's just supply and demand. And getting everyone on some kind of government healthplan isn't going to speed that up one iota......in fact as the demand will go up.....it will probably make the wait longer.
Kulaf, I'm talking about 2003-2005. When existing home refinancing dried up the banks went after other consumers to spur new mortgages and started pushing interest only loans and ARMs into areas they were not meant to be used. They did this to bolster their profits with loans they believed to be risk free thanks to CDS's.
And did the industry increase emphasis on those type of loans around 2003 - 2004 in order to increase their profits because refinancing was in decline?
Most traditional banks don't dabble in the sub-prime market. Certainly the explosive grows of CA markets and the need for non-traditional financing led the formation of some new sub-prime lenders.
Look I am not trying to say thet consumers are the reason the banks failed. So let's not even go there. Certainly the underwriting in the sub-prime market was pretty shitty. But what I won't let you do it put the cart before the horse. The american home buyer was the driving force of the bubble......and the reason for its collapse.
I mean look at Ditech.com. People so desperate to hear what they want to hear willing to get a damn home mortgage over the Internet. Sure they are getting fucked......but hey they got the home they wanted.
The bubble wouldn't have been as damaging without widespread use of ARM's, and the fact is the industry was responsible for the explosion of those types of risky loans. It wasn't just Ditech, it was major banks like Citibank and Countrywide.
Your bank might have been honest and above board, but a ton of them weren't. The banks pushing the risk did it because they wanted the profits and thought they weren't going to be the ones screwed when the loans defaulted. It isn't fair to blame the consumer for the corruption of the system.
Let me also address your issue with people "pushing" higher rates. Let's for instance say John Smith qualifies for a 9% loan. Let's also say that for every quarter percent above 9 the LO gets a point comission in addition to whatever they are making on the loan.
So if John goes to 5 different LO's for loans there is a good chance that some are going to be going for the extra point......and a good chance that some of them will not be. That is why you shop for loans and that is how most sales people....which is what most Loan Officers are......get incetivized and have since there have been comission sales.
But it's a fact that the financial industry used ARM's to target new consumers that were never a good fit for them, and they did it to bolster profits because conventional refinancing was in decline. It's a fact they thought the loans were risk free for the banks even when the consumer defaulted.
Are you going to continue to argue against those facts? Because it illustrates a lot more about you than me.
Again this is more illustration of your ignorance of loan origination and underwriting. All loans have risk. If there were no risk.....there would be no need for loan underwriters. Even when a bank is preparing loans for purchase they have to meet a specific underwriting criteria which determines the risk of the loans.
It's a fact that the financial industry used ARM's to target new consumers that were never a good fit for them, and they did it to bolster profits because conventional refinancing was in decline. It's a fact they thought the loans were risk free for the banks even when the consumer defaulted.
It wasn't really ARMs that did it, but loans that had extremely low introductory rates which ballooned out to the standard variable rate (plus a bit) after 1-5 years.
A standard variable rate loan is usually no problem at all, in fact you should end up paying less over the life of the loan than a fixed rate one will as the banks have to gear the fixed rate mortgages to cover their own risk.
