I agree. And it also amounts to some government pressure to get private industry to fix its own problems (as the OP mentioned). This is something like the bail-out of LTCM that was orchestrated, but not funded, by the feds.
-Will
william dot trice at ngc dot com
My theory is that they know this. The thing they're after is a more even distribution of the foreclosures over time.
I don't know the numbers, but say for the sake of argument there's a million folks who are known to be going over the edge next year. This program will keep some of 'em strung along. Some have no hope, even with it they'll default anyway. Some will be able to hang on for a year or two. Some will be able to hang on for the entire five years but eventually
2013 gets here and the fat lady sings.Which looks better? A million folks losing their homes in a single year? OR Two hundred thousand (assuming an even distribution) a year for five years?
I think they're just doing it to keep the year-over-year numbers low ("Look! See -- we reduced the number of folks thrown out of their homes last year! Aren't we good little politicians!") ... but in the end, the same (or near the same) number of folks have lost their homes to a foreclosure. Typical DC -- a lot of hand waving, a photo op or two with someone recently "saved" by the program, leverage it all for more votes and in the end ... nothing really gets done at all.
Just my opinion. No facts to support it.
.
If it were spread out like that, I'd be less concerned, the current articles (mostly read on NYT) suggest 'saving' about 360K people, for at least those 5 years, but 1.4 million that will likely still foreclose.
I looked through this thread, and didn't see this link here;
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.