And for their next trick...

i'm just so happy you're not an agent!! :D

red ink - now that's exactly what they deserve! and i said it WAS profitable - as long as the sun was shining..

visitor45, I'm not a real estate agent. I buy some run down houses, one at a time, renovate, and resell them. Most of the time without listing them with a broker because I have to keep the selling price under $108,000 for low income buyers to qualify.

The remodeling of houses is a side line, my regular business is selling playground equipment for elementary schools and city parks.

Real estate agents can be helpful when I don't have time to show a house that needs the right buyer.

They normally make a split sales commission of 3% to the selling agent and 3% to the listing agent.

I have a lady friend realtor that sometimes helps me sell a house without putting it on multiple listings and we have agreed on 4% and I do the financing hook up.

I know what a 64 page loan package is and I'm also unsympathetic that you sit on your ass and make 1% of my money.... ; )

ps- If subprime lending was so profitable, why are all the holders of subprime paper up to their nuts in red ink ???????????

by the way, ussfb, i think you are suggesting in that other thread, that you are a listing agent? you should have cleared 9k on a 100,000 purchase, or something like this?

i have to tell you, i am not impressed with agents. i think they are the stupidest, laziest people in the world who earn much more than they deserve. most of them can barely write up a proper contract. and, in my experience, it's one fuck up after another from both agents. and yet, they make a fortune on one sale.

now on the same purchase, i get 1% LOF and i do more work than you could even imagine or want to know about without your head spinning and eventually falling off.

so, i am unsympathetic about your losses. :)

thank you, ussfb, for your thoughts.

i work with government loans and military veterans. the reason "some loans" were approved to "some people" is because:

1. it was easy to convince a poorly qualified person they could really own their own house with no money down and a 2% interest rate!! yes, most borrowers are that gullible. but wait, there's more!!

2. it was easy to close the deal if all the underwriter had to do was look the other way

3. sub-prime lending was INCREDIBLY profitable

4. when it came to regulating the crooks that used discriminatory lending practices (coincidentally, the same reason CRA was created in the first place) the regulators were nowhere to be found - the reason is because most sub-prime lenders are not regulated by CRA. so i fail to see how you can stand by your comments.

greed and arrogance within the lending world led to a false belief that the bubble could never burst. whoops!

by the way, i've watched white US military veterans WALK AWAY from their homes, purchased with government funds, because they started to lose value. yes, people are that stupid. this is an issue based on greed and zero accountability. and CRA set out to accomplish something positive for communities and lots of banks profited, and lots of people were taken advantage of.

i don't see how you can deny any of this

visitor45, I'm of the opinion that we all have the right to like or dislike any person or thing or food or drink that we may choose, for whatever reason.

You were just exercising that right by mistakenly referring to me as being biased against minorities, but you're dead on center about liberals, the ones that want to make us all dependant wards of the government.

I'm perfectly capable of solving my own problems without big brother's controls and administration fees, but I do thank you for granting me the right to disagree,,, obviously.

If you're involved in the mortgage industry, you might ask a mortgage contract underwriter why it is that loans to some people are approved without applying the rules of credit scoring and ability to repay that apply to all non-minority white applicants.

I've always viewed that as blatant discrimination.

If a rule is a good rule, then it should be a good rule for everyone. Don't you agree?

btw - The rules do also equally apply to liberals.

ussfb, i've been heavily involved in the mortgage industry for over 4 years. i simply say you are wrong about cra because of your bias against minorities and liberals. you are welcome to disagree, obviously

visitor45, have you read or watched anything on TV about major mortgage banks going under and taking the stock market down with them ??

Yeah, that's it, CRA forced mortgage loans.

Just to save time go to > http://forum.lumra.com/~Dear_Dookie

ussfb, where are you drumming up your talking points on cra? i suggest you do some unbiased research on the legislation and report back here immediately with the truth and fact.

sad thing is, all of us are paying for a war that some of us do not agree with. so what's your point, ussfb?

Nothing new about that, it's the end result of all socialism.

Russia and much of Europe in fact, are still trying to dig their way out.

Whatever....it's looking like the Reps are going to get canned over it

No OZnBrat, what doesn't work any more is the CRA, passed by liberal democrats, imposing bad business practices on the banking industry. That ended with the failure of Fanny and Freddy.

Sad thing is, people that were financed into houses that they really could not afford to buy will still loose their homes, and all the rest of us will have to pay off their bad debts.

If we can get the government out of the banking business, then only banks that make bad loans will have to cover their own losses.

OMFG RJ!!! Are you REALLY so bat-shit fucking insane to try and pass that off that total psychotic bullshit like we haven't even had a Rep/Con Whitehouse for 8 years with a Rep/Con majority to back it up for 6 that couldn't do a thing about what they call "a mess" now!

What, they were all asleep while this was going on during THEIR watch? LMFAO!!!

No way!!.....The Republicans may be calling "this mess" a whore now, but they've been gang-banging her for the better part of a DECADE, and deliriously loving every fevered, greedy, drooling minute of it!

The depths which you Rep/Con excusers are willing to publicly humiliate yourselves and betray your own intelligence and common sense by spewing OBVIOUSLY weak outrageous bullshit on behalf pf leaders who don't give a fuck about you except for how much they can trick & train you into defiling yourselves in their defense just amazes me to no end.

It's like a political version of "The Body Snatchers" and having to listen to mindless Rep/Con zombie Pod People chanting complete WTF nonsense.

Well, guess what? Fear, Hate, Smear and Hypocrisy doesn't work anymore, and without them, the Rep/Cons don't have a chance.

Democrats who blame this mess on anyone except themselves are either delusional or deceitful.

Sadly, the Republicans, who had a very slim margin in Congress, also had a few idiots who refused to see what was happening. But this is largely a liberal mess, not caused by "deregulation", but by government throwing a monkey wrench into the mortgage system by demanding that "affordable" housing loans be made to those who could not pay them off.

Since 1977 HUD and the CRA, the mongoloid bastard step children of Democratic administrations, have forced banks to make bad loans in order to be in CRA compliance.

Anyone raising a question about the effects of FDIC enforcement of HUD and CRA rules has routinely been accused of racial discrimination.

Bottom line is, banks will always willingly make loans to customers with a good credit history that have the income ability to repay the loan. Money earned by making good quality loans is the only way a bank can stay in business, as they have no other profitable product to provide to customers.

For many years, CRA compliance has forced many banks to loose money and made it necessary for them to merge, at a loss, with larger banks.

Currently, some of the larger regional banks have totally stopped making mortgage loans, developed their credit card account services and investment account services where HUD and CRA rules don't apply. These banks are now profitable, pay stockholders dividens, and have no red ink on their ballance sheets.

Why is Bush using American's tax dollars to protect rich greedy corporations and their executives (most of whom are big-time Rep/Con contributors) from going broke from their own greedy recklessness?

DUHHH!

Why did Halliburton, Blackwater, etc. etc. etc. get NO BID war contracts worth multi-billions, and free passes for blatant fraud, wrong-doing and mismanagement (ie: massive corporate embezzlement of taxpayer money)?

Why did the Bush admin. fight so hard and nasty for oil companies who have 68 million acres of on-and-off-shore oil leases already available for immediate drilling, to get millions of acres more of restricted and protected areas opened up to them for "Vitally important exploration and drilling" that they haven't even bothered to do on the millions of acres of leases already available to them?

Why does the Bush admin. want to protect the billion dollar "Golden Parachutes" and bonuses for CEO's and executives of these failing companies they want US to bail out?......what, reward for a job horribly done?

secretary paulson received $164 million in 2006 from goldman sachs. now he wants $700B to protect his stocks and assets in the company. and bush is allowing him to do this.

why?

Yeah, but everyone got the term wrong.....

It was the Rep/Con's "Contract ON America"

Didn't the Republicans control both houses from 1994 thru 2000+? All that 'Contract with America' stuff?

More nonsense from the Neo-Con spokes-dweeb. McBush and Gramm have their grubby fingerprints all over this mess... and he's currently so skeeered of Obama he's hiding from the debate.

If he can't do two things at once, where will be be when there's a war and a hurricane and business problems, and health care and immigration....and ... and...