Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Can the banks be directly blamed for the plight of those they wish to foreclose on?

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 24, 2011, 4:25 p.m. EST by fabianmockian (225)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I, for one, am interested in whether a actual link can be made between the banks and those people upon whom the banks are so actively foreclosing. Can some research follow a chain of custody that leads directly from the underwater, unemployed, homeowner to their former employer, to whatever entity financed that former employer. In the research that I envision, analysts would speak to homeowners who had lost their jobs and were now on the verge of losing their homes. Eventually the research would begin to profile people who were recently laid off, but a good start would be those who have the greatest need. The analyst would then root out where the company of the person with the hardship received the credit that allowed it to make payroll month in and month out. Said analysts would then expose the bank that refused to loan money or extend credit to keep the company operational, especially those that received any of the bailout money from the federal government. It is my hope that through this research, blame could be placed on the banks for causing the lose of an individual's income, which directly led to that individual losing their home. Put another way, the research would implicate the loan shark who broke the legs of the indebted (or incapacitated them in some other way) and still demanded their money at a VAR (variable adjusted rate). Are there any researchers and grant writers out there who would be interested in taking on this challenge? Contact me at sessions_present@hotmail.com and put "Holding Banks Accountable" in the subject line.



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 2 years ago

This is the answer of Bill Black of Savings and Loan crisis fame speaking from the street of an #Occupy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XJe7O-3QBc&feature=player_embedded

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 2 years ago

Our government guaranteed a bailout to the banks since they knew the homeowner would eventually lose their job since they were moving out of the country. Everybody knew except the general public what was going to happen to them and that is why those that profited off of it plus being bailed out would be a win win for them and a lose lose for us.

[-] 1 points by Dugese (16) 2 years ago

The government knows that it does not have enough jail space to lock up all of the predatory lenders that created this mess. Predatory lending was like a bank movement of such overwhelming magnitude that it could only be stopped by natural market forces. There will never be justice, but at the very least you would think that banks could be forced to offer some realistic alternative to foreclosure for homeowners. It should be up to the lenders to come up with a solution at this point, and a court to vet it. A reasonable alternative to foreclosure, that is the onus of the loan servicer to create, should be a legal requirement at this point, but instead we have nothing. Another way would be to license foreclosures to keep banks from getting too out of control. By licensing foreclosures, governments (local and federal) could begin to get a grip on bank activity that affects their communities, and limit it to an amount that does not destabilize economies and feed unnaturally on itself creating a death spiral crash, which is what has happened. I know the counter argument would be that banks would be less willing to lend if there were foreclosure licenses, but I do not feel that the foreclosure licensing needs to be unreasonable, just a reasonable limit on foreclosure activity, so that it does not crash the economy.

[-] 1 points by exmachina (94) 2 years ago

I don't know if they "can" by law but they bloody well should. F'n parasites!