Winner, winner, chicken dinner. (Tax eaters, not tax payers...)

That is why the graph is labeled "Select".

Am I missing something, or is the monthly income shown pretty low?
That's the sort of income I look for in a prospective tenant for a one-bedroom apartment.
Of course their median financial situation shown would certainly be better off than the condition they are in under this mod.

sm_landlord wrote:

Am I missing something, or is the monthly income shown pretty low?

I would expect defaults and delinquencies to start at the low end, on properties that were largely overvalued, with no equity.

Blackhalo wrote:

I would expect defaults and delinquencies to start at the low end.

Yep, but not until the credit card is maxed out.

sportsfan wrote:
Scary to think how many people with that level of income qualified to buy a house.
... AND YOU GET A HOUSE!
... AND YOU GET A HOUSE!
... AND YOU GET A HOUSE!

Nearly 1 in 4 Californians under age 65 had no health insurance last year, according to a new report, as soaring unemployment propelled vast numbers of once-covered workers into the ranks of the uninsured.

The state's uninsured population jumped to 8.2 million in 2009, up from 6.4 million in 2007, marking the highest number over the last decade, investigators from UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research said.

People who were uninsured for part or all of 2009 accounted for 24.3% of California's population under age 65 -- a dramatic increase from 2007 driven largely by Californians who lost employer-sponsored health insurance, particularly over the last year.

About 1 in 4 in California lack health insurance, a UCLA study finds - latimes.com

Those are scary bad numbers... and as CR said, these are the "good" candidates! But this is still a common situation: my boss just got an offer on his house from a guy who had to have his parents co-sign the loan the DTI is so high even though he is a professional in his mid-30's.

It sure is a good thing none of the things coming out of what's left are going up like taxes, food, gas...

sm_landlord wrote:

Am I missing something, or is the monthly income shown pretty low?

Really. $32,433/year is not a lot of income. I think that is below the median national household income, and with a family is probably near food stamp territory.

Doofus, looking at those numbers I imagine we have redefaults already.

Golf is the 'sport' of business, as a lot of grown men hit a little white ball around and then go chase after it...

"Loans that were / are Option Arms had very low required payments"

can you fog a mirror?
No? That's alright let's just check your pulse.
Damn my stethoscope must be acting up.
Just sign right here.

Juvenal Delinquent wrote:

Golf is the 'sport' of business, as a lot of grown men hit a little white ball around and then go chase after it...

Thus ruining a perfectly good walk.

I have to agree with josap. That income would be plenty to buy a decent home here in Cincinnati. Plenty of decent properties here in 100K range. Of course, that would require people to be realistic when buying a house and we all know that doesn't happen much. Obviously not in California or the Northeast.

Median income by state.

Income - Median Income for 4-Person Families, by State

this is for 2008. I think it is lower now due to un/underemployment.

American Idol for fat people. 15 minutes of fame.

Does anyone know if these DTIs are calculated at the modified rate, or the rate after 5 years? I assume the former.

Because if these are at the modified rate, that rate goes away after 5 years.

This program is a disaster.

Mr Slippery wrote:

Really. $32,433/year is not a lot of income. I think that is below the median national household income, and with a family is probably near food stamp territory.

The median household income in the U.S. is around $44,000/year. The poverty line varies with household size. For a household of 3 people (around the average), the poverty line (where you're eligible for food stamps) is $18,310.

$32,433 is a middle class income in the U.S. If it seems poor to you then you may not be middle class.

You must realize that many of these peoole have unreported or grey market income.

toevery7body for your concern

burnside wrote:

Doofus, looking at those numbers I imagine we have redefaults already.

For those who are striving to live rent/payment free for as long as possible, that would be the likely tactic. Without any near term equity incentive, I fail to see any other outcome.

sm_landlord wrote:

Further ruining a perfectly good walk. Can you tell I'm not a golfer?

The irony is that you're not allowed to take a walk on my local course unless you're golfing.

I suspect that rule applies to most courses, but I wouldn't know that from experience.

ghostfaceinvestah wrote:

Because if these are at the modified rate, that rate goes away after 5 years.

Yep, goes up after 5 years.

Why they think this is so much better than an ARM I have no clue. Truth is, even if you make it through the 5 years, you will default when the payments recast. Long can kick.

Where are the caseworkers from Child Protective Services? This woman is obviously suicidal.

Only :suckers: pay mortgages.

All I ever hear from the talking heads on tv is how higher home prices are good for the economy (ok, banks). I've yet to see anyone mention that lower prices means lower monthly mortgage allowing people enough extra disposable income to actually survive on something other than beanie weanies.

Am I missing something, or is the monthly income shown pretty low?
That's the sort of income I look for in a prospective tenant for a one-bedroom apartment.

Ninja loans are your friend.

I made the tour, and got my MPGA card...

Unlike other forms of golf, one must walk the course under MPGA rules~

Here is my recent experience dealing with the HAMP program. After losing my job two years ago, I used credit cards to pay my bills and finish my degree. I now have a job as a high school teacher, which is quite rewarding. I had dug myself such a financial hole, my only way out was through chapter 7 bankruptcy. I struggled to remain current (or close) on my mortgage and contacted my lender about restructuriong through HAMP. I was told that since I was in ch. 7, they could not do anything with my loan. After my discharge, I now can afford my home and current debts (new attitude on life. I desire very little other than a roof over my head, my family, and food in my belly.) My rate, however, is adjustable and currently at 6%.

I contatced my lender about applying for the HAMP program. I collected the considerable paperwork and submitted only to be denied because I have "sufficient funds." I understand! I can afford the current payments. but what happens when the rate adjusts to a very realistic 10% in the next five years? I no longer can come close to paying that note. I'm not looking for a reduction to my principle. I'm looking for the security and peace of mind of knowing my payment will not increase 30%. All I'm looking for is a fixed rate that I can afford, and I need help because no lender will touch me with a refi because of my credit (even though I have over 30% equity in the home.) I'm trying to do the right thing and be proactive with my finances. I contacted my lender to appeal the situation, but was again shot down because my current debt was "insufficient." Perhaps I need to order more cable channels and drive a more expensive car to increase my monthly costs? I was actually told by not only the lender but the HOPE assistance person that my best option was if (when) my rate increases, to miss a few payments and then reapply for the program. I currently am not deemed to be in financial distress, even though I promise you I'm walking a financial tight rope while living quite frugally. I guess there was a two day window that I missed between my bankruptcy and when I was deemed financially sound. How's that for shooting yourself in the foot. I'm sure I am not an isolated case. This kind of bufoonery is happening every day. The conversation abruptly ended when I asked the lender's rep. if he could for a minute put the table and spreadsheet aside and allow common sense and reason to enter the conversation. The rate adjusts in August and locks for another year. Hopefully, it will still be sub-7 range, and I'll be ok another year. Maybe then I'll be able to refi.

fed-seen-on-hold-prior-wording-intact: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

Policy statement's language likely to change in April, analysts say

The Federal Reserve will repeat its pledge that interest rates can remain at historic lows "for an extended period" following its meeting Tuesday, analysts said.

But the oft-repeated language of the policy statement -- closely followed in financial circles -- isn't necessarily expected to remain in place for much longer. Continued positive economic data may serve as the catalyst for Fed officials to end the "extended period" pledge in April, Fed watchers said.

Altering the wording would be a clear signal that the Fed is more sanguine about the economic outlook and believes ultra-low rates are no longer necessary -- and financial markets would react accordingly.

For the time being, however, the Federal Open Market Committee "will stay the course" and not make significant changes to the wording of the statement, economists at Barclays Capital said.

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

...either taxpayers or an insurance risk pool will get that honor.

To openly want that prize, I say she should be denied all forms of welfare & medical assistance. There is no justifiable reason to support someone who is consuming too much (literally) and not producing nearly enough.
.
The Symbol of Moral Hazard for the '10s.

yagij wrote:
There is no justifiable reason to support someone who is consuming too much (literally) and not producing nearly enough.
Uhh.. Wall*Street come to mind?

Juvenal Delinquent wrote:

Maybe she's just emulating Wall*Street and wants to be too big to fail?

QOTD!

Wall*Street has a financial overeating problem, and a thin skin.

Mike in Long Island wrote:
And if that wasn't bad enough - they are apparently men (and presumably some women?) who pay her a fee to watch her gorge herself on fast food via web cam. :shudder: icon needed or some mind bleach.
Luckily for them, it only takes one hand to run a mouse.

sportsfan wrote:

Unfortunately, these people (permanent mods or rejects) paid much higher prices and I doubt they had much higher incomes then.

These people really should have walked. The prin was not reduced, the loan will reset, the equity will not match what is still owed. If you walk you can get a FHA loan in 3 years and buy a house at a much lower price with payments you can afford to make.

yagij wrote:

To openly want that prize, I say she should be denied all forms of welfare & medical assistance. There is no justifiable reason to support someone who is consuming too much (literally) and not producing nearly enough.

I'm sure she's producing and I'm equally sure that I want no part of it!

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

Uhh.. Wall*Street come to mind?

I actually have to give Wall^Street a 2nd place ribbon to this gal, but maybe I'm just itching for a crab battle.
.
I can't stop Wall*Street, and I can't take away her 2 litters either.

how

markegg wrote:

I desire very little other than a roof over my head, my family, and food in my belly.

That's a healthy attitude.

Have a good day, folks.

fat woman soap....

a fragrance with aroma's like mcdonalds, kentucky fried chicken and taco bell mixed with grape soda....

Cinco-X wrote:

The result is a potential financial doomsday, or what bond analysts call a maturity wall. From $21 billion due this year, junk bonds are set to mature at a rate of $155 billion in 2012, $212 billion in 2013 and $338 billion in 2014.

What? Are you telling me everyone was kicking the can at the exact same time?

Hoocoodanode.

noob goldberg wrote:

What? Are you telling me everyone was kicking the can at the exact same time?

That's what the NY Times is saying.....I was just quoting them.

Cinco-X wrote:

That's what the NY Times is saying.....I was just quoting them.

Sorry, I should have explicitly directed my outrage at the Times. I certainly was not shooting the messenger.

About 20 years ago, my partner and I were on the sidewalk in front of our retail store in Santa Monica, and Oliver Stone and some other guy comes walking by, and Oliver Stone says to the other guy and points to our store: "See this business, they'll go broke in 6 months"

ha

Report: FDIC Seeking Buyers for Puerto Rican Banks

Juvenal Delinquent wrote:

Farrell's trough runneth over with doom...

I'm amazed he finds the energy to get out of bed in the morning.

That is just sad. Those are the people with jobs.

What about the folks who lost jobs who would otherwise have no problems with the mortgage? There are people around here who are losing homes after being in them for 10 of 15 years.

TakeDaMoneyAndRun wrote:

What about the folks who lost jobs who would otherwise have no problems with the mortgage? There are people around here who are losing homes after being in them for 10 of 15 years.

Unfortunately, that's just long enough to be deluded into thinking you had real equity in your home and were justified in extracting some of it to take a "well earned" cruise..........

funny that.

Hi CR --

Looks like you made your calculation for borrower monthly income with the "Median Monthly Payment" value. If you see the note, that excludes taxes and insurance (I used excel solver to calculate this as $475.43.)

Here's what your table should look like:

Monthly Income 4236.43 4236.43
Front End (PITI+HOA) 1906.39 1313.29
Back End (total) 3236.63 2533.38
After Debt Income 999.80 1703.04

Since insurance and taxes combined are approximately 2% of the value of the home, that would give the mean home value per mod of roughly $285,000. Also, that would give a House Price to Gross Income ratio of approximately 5.6!!!