Guapo wrote:Because they are required to, Steve. Do you understand how our banking system works?

Do you have any idea what context is? Your post suggests you don't.

A friend of mine, who is left of center, works for a state agency that was created to work with families whose home equity is underwater; the agency is funded through federal money created since the housing crisis began. His estimate is that 60% of his clients are just trying to game the system; they may have commited fraud to get their mortgage; they may have unreported income; they sometimes have unrecorded wealth. I guess there's something to be said for helping the other 40%. But at best this government program is 60% wasteful.

Ray Jay wrote:A friend of mine, who is left of center, works for a state agency that was created to work with families whose home equity is underwater; the agency is funded through federal money created since the housing crisis began. His estimate is that 60% of his clients are just trying to game the system; they may have commited fraud to get their mortgage; they may have unreported income; they sometimes have unrecorded wealth. I guess there's something to be said for helping the other 40%. But at best this government program is 60% wasteful.

Hmmm. Seems a bit anecdotal to me. Is there a reason why this friend of yours can't investigate his hunches?

It's fully anecdotal. I'll ask next time I see him ...

I'm just wondering if he actually in his job gives out 60% of the money to people he believes are frauds?

As another anecdote, I knew a woman who worked at the local council who, while being fairly left wing, made similar claims. When I looked at the statistics, I know she was quite mistaken on basic claims, like the prevalance of single mothers.

archduke

But the question becomes would they be able to afford a refinanced mortgage either way? If they are going to lose the property, why give the bank gov't money when they are going to end up with the property anyway

Fair point. renegotiation could only help those who qualified as reasonable long term risks ....

Ray Jay wrote:It's fully anecdotal. I'll ask next time I see him ...

I would question what would happen to someone that started "investigating" people he/she was supposed to help. I would presume your friend is not law enforcement, so what is going to happen when he starts telling his supervisors that some of those seeking help are gaming the system?

I can't see that ending well.