Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

[aparch]

I would agree with that.


And many are still driving like a bat out of hell as if it was post-apocalyptic.

Agreed to both counts. Traffic volumes are growing, traffic speed still insane.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

Agreed to both counts. Traffic volumes are growing, traffic speed still insane.

FTR, the above is a FIB saying this! That says something.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

It was just a brief news break when they mentioned it, but it sounded like Handy's story exactly. Guy just called about information, then later went to refinance and was told his loan was not current, because it was placed into forbearance without his approval.

If I find an article detailing it better I'll pass it along.

Yeah, let me clarify my initial post.

I don't doubt that part of the CNBC story you referenced or Handy's story about his girlfriend where it's suggested that simply by making an inquiry to the bank about forbearance that the person in the CNBC story and Handy's girlfriend were both placed in the "program." In fact, I suspect the banks probably had to do that, or risk some possible repercussions. Let me explain.

If you have a mortgage, and if you are late on a payment or don't make it at all, there is an automatic system in the bank that is going to spit out a form letter to you informing you of this default. The first letter will be fairly neutral in tone, but will contain some veiled threats about things that will happen if you don't bring the loan current.

Then the government passes laws relating to the pandemic, and includes this forbearance program. Basically, as I understand it, if you have a mortgage and think you are going to have trouble making all the payments in a timely fashion, you can ask the bank for forbearance and the bank must give it to you for up to six months, and that can later be extended. You don't have to fill out any applications or pay any fees for this privilege.

So, imagine you are a bank and one of your mortgagors comes in and says "I just want to ask some questions about the forbearance program." Then the mortgagor leaves or hangs up, after you explain the program.

If you're the bank, you have to put that person in the forbearance program. It doesn't cost the mortgagor anything, and doesn't hurt them in any way to enroll them. It's effectively just a note in their file that says "don't send the default letter if this person is late with their payment."

If you don't do that as the bank, then you can almost certainly bet that as soon as you send out that first default letter, Handy's girlfriend or the CNBC guy are going to claim, "I talked to them about forbearance." So, by default, and purely as a CYA move, the bank will automatically put you on the forbearance list (and keep you from getting one of those letters) if you so much as utter the word "forbearance" in their presence.

All of that makes complete sense to me, and I don't doubt either the CNBC story or Handy's girlfriend's story with respect to those facts.

What I found strange, and what I didn't think made any sense, was that part of the CNBC story that suggested the man later went to Freddie Mac or somewhere to refinance and was told he couldn't because he was not current on his loan, then suggested it was related to the forbearance request and his automatic enrollment. The only way he'd be not current on his loan is if he didn't make the payments on time. Has nothing to do with being in or out of the forbearance program.

 

[Rover]

Re: Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

Yeah, let me clarify my initial post.

I don't doubt that part of the CNBC story you referenced or Handy's story about his girlfriend where it's suggested that simply by making an inquiry to the bank about forbearance that the person in the CNBC story and Handy's girlfriend were both placed in the "program." In fact, I suspect the banks probably had to do that, or risk some possible repercussions. Let me explain.

If you have a mortgage, and if you are late on a payment or don't make it at all, there is an automatic system in the bank that is going to spit out a form letter to you informing you of this default. The first letter will be fairly neutral in tone, but will contain some veiled threats about things that will happen if you don't bring the loan current.

Then the government passes laws relating to the pandemic, and includes this forbearance program. Basically, as I understand it, if you have a mortgage and think you are going to have trouble making all the payments in a timely fashion, you can ask the bank for forbearance and the bank must give it to you for up to six months, and that can later be extended. You don't have to fill out any applications or pay any fees for this privilege.

So, imagine you are a bank and one of your mortgagors comes in and says "I just want to ask some questions about the forbearance program." Then the mortgagor leaves or hangs up, after you explain the program.

If you're the bank, you have to put that person in the forbearance program. It doesn't cost the mortgagor anything, and doesn't hurt them in any way to enroll them. It's effectively just a note in their file that says "don't send the default letter if this person is late with their payment."

If you don't do that as the bank, then you can almost certainly bet that as soon as you send out that first default letter, Handy's girlfriend or the CNBC guy are going to claim, "I talked to them about forbearance." So, by default, and purely as a CYA move, the bank will automatically put you on the forbearance list (and keep you from getting one of those letters) if you so much as utter the word "forbearance" in their presence.

All of that makes complete sense to me, and I don't doubt either the CNBC story or Handy's girlfriend's story with respect to those facts.

What I found strange, and what I didn't think made any sense, was that part of the CNBC story that suggested the man later went to Freddie Mac or somewhere to refinance and was told he couldn't because he was not current on his loan, then suggested it was related to the forbearance request and his automatic enrollment. The only way he'd be not current on his loan is if he didn't make the payments on time. Has nothing to do with being in or out of the forbearance program.

Facts have no place in a discussion about banking and finance on this message board. Away With You!

 

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

Re: Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

Wut?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">When the so-called “rich guys” speak negatively about the market, you must always remember that some are betting big against it, and make a lot of money if it goes down. Then they go positive, get big publicity, and make it going up. They get you both ways. Barely legal?</p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1260574760930545666?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 13, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[aparch]

What I found strange, and what I didn't think made any sense, was that part of the CNBC story that suggested the man later went to Freddie Mac or somewhere to refinance and was told he couldn't because he was not current on his loan, then suggested it was related to the forbearance request and his automatic enrollment. The only way he'd be not current on his loan is if he didn't make the payments on time. Has nothing to do with being in or out of the forbearance program.

I was unsure of that part as well, and I didn't fully catch the exchange between the hosts who mentioned it when they asked about that part themselves. Hopefully there is a follow up story/clarification.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

Wut?

Wall Street won't be very happy with that Tweet, so it won't get much press.

 

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

Wall Street won't be very happy with that Tweet, so it won't get much press.

Guessing it got Roy Moore’s attention with the barely legal thrown in there

 

[Handyman]

Re: Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

Yeah, let me clarify my initial post.

I don't doubt that part of the CNBC story you referenced or Handy's story about his girlfriend where it's suggested that simply by making an inquiry to the bank about forbearance that the person in the CNBC story and Handy's girlfriend were both placed in the "program." In fact, I suspect the banks probably had to do that, or risk some possible repercussions. Let me explain.

If you have a mortgage, and if you are late on a payment or don't make it at all, there is an automatic system in the bank that is going to spit out a form letter to you informing you of this default. The first letter will be fairly neutral in tone, but will contain some veiled threats about things that will happen if you don't bring the loan current.

Then the government passes laws relating to the pandemic, and includes this forbearance program. Basically, as I understand it, if you have a mortgage and think you are going to have trouble making all the payments in a timely fashion, you can ask the bank for forbearance and the bank must give it to you for up to six months, and that can later be extended. You don't have to fill out any applications or pay any fees for this privilege.

So, imagine you are a bank and one of your mortgagors comes in and says "I just want to ask some questions about the forbearance program." Then the mortgagor leaves or hangs up, after you explain the program.

If you're the bank, you have to put that person in the forbearance program. It doesn't cost the mortgagor anything, and doesn't hurt them in any way to enroll them. It's effectively just a note in their file that says "don't send the default letter if this person is late with their payment."

If you don't do that as the bank, then you can almost certainly bet that as soon as you send out that first default letter, Handy's girlfriend or the CNBC guy are going to claim, "I talked to them about forbearance." So, by default, and purely as a CYA move, the bank will automatically put you on the forbearance list (and keep you from getting one of those letters) if you so much as utter the word "forbearance" in their presence.

All of that makes complete sense to me, and I don't doubt either the CNBC story or Handy's girlfriend's story with respect to those facts.

What I found strange, and what I didn't think made any sense, was that part of the CNBC story that suggested the man later went to Freddie Mac or somewhere to refinance and was told he couldn't because he was not current on his loan, then suggested it was related to the forbearance request and his automatic enrollment. The only way he'd be not current on his loan is if he didn't make the payments on time. Has nothing to do with being in or out of the forbearance program.

While I dont doubt that may be the case...that is a ridiculously stupid policy. Talking to the bank about forbearance is not an excuse for defaulting on a loan so why would the bank need to CYA? The whole point of inquiring is to get information...

How about instead of this you just respond to the email with the terms and the question "Do you agree"? (that is what I had to do for my speeding ticket yesterday) How about you inform them "Due to COVID-19 we have amended our policy and because you inquired about a possible forbearance we automatically enrolled you." then you include the terms and a note saying that if you do not want to participate reply or contact the bank". Something...ANYTHING. Wells emails her and sends her crap all the time they couldnt do that now? If she had paid via direct deposit would they have rejected the payment like the web site did? Would they have explained why cause that would have freaked out my girlfriend.

Now I will give Wells Fargo the benefit of the doubt (though they dont deserve it) and say that I dont think there is anything nefarious about any of this. (unlike their other scams ) I just think it is stupid. They could have put in 1% more effort and had a policy that made sense. Hell they would have been better off just putting everyone in forbearance and sending out a letter to each customer that wants to opt out can. The problem isnt they put her (or the CNBC guy) in the program the problem is they didnt inform anyone which is not the way to do things. Even though we all knew anyways Fedloans sent out an email (and some got a letter as well) telling everyone their student loans were in forbearance...why couldnt Wells Fargo do that?

In the end it wont matter...it just annoyed the hell out of her and caused her stress. Which in turn caused ME STRESS!

I guess it is fitting Rover works for the banks...much like them he hasnt been able to communicate a coherent point in 15 years

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

While I dont doubt that may be the case...that is a ridiculously stupid policy. Talking to the bank about forbearance is not an excuse for defaulting on a loan so why would the bank need to CYA? The whole point of inquiring is to get information...

How about instead of this you just respond to the email with the terms and the question "Do you agree"? (that is what I had to do for my speeding ticket yesterday) How about you inform them "Due to COVID-19 we have amended our policy and because you inquired about a possible forbearance we automatically enrolled you." then you include the terms and a note saying that if you do not want to participate reply or contact the bank". Something...ANYTHING. Wells emails her and sends her crap all the time they couldnt do that now? If she had paid via direct deposit would they have rejected the payment like the web site did? Would they have explained why cause that would have freaked out my girlfriend.

Now I will give Wells Fargo the benefit of the doubt (though they dont deserve it) and say that I dont think there is anything nefarious about any of this. (unlike their other scams ) I just think it is stupid. They could have put in 1% more effort and had a policy that made sense. Hell they would have been better off just putting everyone in forbearance and sending out a letter to each customer that wants to opt out can. The problem isnt they put her (or the CNBC guy) in the program the problem is they didnt inform anyone which is not the way to do things. Even though we all knew anyways Fedloans sent out an email (and some got a letter as well) telling everyone their student loans were in forbearance...why couldnt Wells Fargo do that?

In the end it wont matter...it just annoyed the hell out of her and caused her stress. Which in turn caused ME STRESS!

I guess it is fitting Rover works for the banks...much like them he hasnt been able to communicate a coherent point in 15 years

I would say two things in response to your post.

First, with respect to why WF should or should not do more follow up communication with her, my response would be "why is it necessary?" They don't need anything from her. Why spend the time or money necessary to do follow up communications? Even if they just send emails instead of burning money for postage, someone still has to check to see if there are response emails, and follow up. It would probably be easier for WF just to put in place a program where they're not going to send out any default letters for awhile, to anyone.

Second, I suspect the CYA thing is similar to what happens in bankruptcy. I don't know it for a fact, but my suspicion is that the CARES act forbearance program probably forbids banks from dunning mortgagors who have asked for forbearance, or taking any other steps in furtherance of efforts to collect the debt. This is exactly what happens in a bankruptcy. An automatic stay is imposed, and banks and everyone else is prohibited from doing anything (calls, letters, emails, lawsuits, anything else) that could be construed as an effort to collect that debt. You violate that stay, you will get pounded. Banks know that.

If the CARES act contains similar language that prohibits any "collection efforts" after a forbearance request has been made, the banks are just going to shut it down, exactly like they do in a bankruptcy, until the appropriate time.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

I guess it is fitting Rover works for the banks...much like them he hasnt been able to communicate a coherent point in 15 years

Rover definitely has the right personality to be a bankster.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

I would say two things in response to your post.

First, with respect to why WF should or should not do more follow up communication with her, my response would be "why is it necessary?" They don't need anything from her. Why spend the time or money necessary to do follow up communications? Even if they just send emails instead of burning money for postage, someone still has to check to see if there are response emails, and follow up. It would probably be easier for WF just to put in place a program where they're not going to send out any default letters for awhile, to anyone.

If there’s ever a bank that should make an effort to communicate changes to a customer’s account, it’s WF. They have a recent history...

 

[Handyman]

Re: Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

I would say two things in response to your post.

First, with respect to why WF should or should not do more follow up communication with her, my response would be "why is it necessary?" They don't need anything from her. Why spend the time or money necessary to do follow up communications? Even if they just send emails instead of burning money for postage, someone still has to check to see if there are response emails, and follow up. It would probably be easier for WF just to put in place a program where they're not going to send out any default letters for awhile, to anyone.

Second, I suspect the CYA thing is similar to what happens in bankruptcy. I don't know it for a fact, but my suspicion is that the CARES act forbearance program probably forbids banks from dunning mortgagors who have asked for forbearance, or taking any other steps in furtherance of efforts to collect the debt. This is exactly what happens in a bankruptcy. An automatic stay is imposed, and banks and everyone else is prohibited from doing anything (calls, letters, emails, lawsuits, anything else) that could be construed as an effort to collect that debt. You violate that stay, you will get pounded. Banks know that.

If the CARES act contains similar language that prohibits any "collection efforts" after a forbearance request has been made, the banks are just going to shut it down, exactly like they do in a bankruptcy, until the appropriate time.

Are you really asking why they should respond to someone who is following their guidelines for finding out information? It isnt like they said on the web site "if you would like a forbearance click here" then you have a point. She followed directions to "find out more" which is even how it was worded. (she had me look at it before she inquired...havent since)

Lets say I think that makes sense though. (it doesnt) You ever accidentally clicked on the wrong link when checking out your bills? I once almost cancelled a credit card back in the day doing that while I was paying a bill. The card though didnt cancel you know why? Because upon clicking that link it verified it. It popped up a window asking me if I was sure I wanted to do this and telling me the ramifications and gave me options. In your scenario wouldnt it make sense for Wells Fargo to pop a window saying "By clicking this you are agreeing to allow Wells Fargo to access your account and blah blah blah. Wells Fargo will automatically put you in forbearance unless told otherwise blah blah blah". That would cost at worst the same amount of money and would cause no headaches or issues.

So yeah I dont buy it. If "not wasting time and money" was the issue there are, again, cheaper and more logical options. If you tell people they can request more information...maybe you should actually give them the information.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

Are you really asking why they should respond to someone who is following their guidelines for finding out information? It isnt like they said on the web site "if you would like a forbearance click here" then you have a point. She followed directions to "find out more" which is even how it was worded. (she had me look at it before she inquired...havent since)

Lets say I think that makes sense though. (it doesnt) You ever accidentally clicked on the wrong link when checking out your bills? I once almost cancelled a credit card back in the day doing that while I was paying a bill. The card though didnt cancel you know why? Because upon clicking that link it verified it. It popped up a window asking me if I was sure I wanted to do this and telling me the ramifications and gave me options. In your scenario wouldnt it make sense for Wells Fargo to pop a window saying "By clicking this you are agreeing to allow Wells Fargo to access your account and blah blah blah. Wells Fargo will automatically put you in forbearance unless told otherwise blah blah blah". That would cost at worst the same amount of money and would cause no headaches or issues.

So yeah I dont buy it. If "not wasting time and money" was the issue there are, again, cheaper and more logical options. If you tell people they can request more information...maybe you should actually give them the information.

But again, I don't think they did any of that because it's not necessary. They're not addressing a request to cancel a credit card or open a new account or pay a bill or do anything of that nature. Basically, someone made an inquiry about forbearance, so they put a note in their electronic file that said "do not send default letter." Nothing more. No need for them to make it more complicated when it really doesn't affect the account one way or the other, except that they won't send your girlfriend a default letter.

By the way, this is not a Manti Te'o girlfriend situation is it? Like Wells Fargo, I don't want to spend unnecessary time on something, so I'm trusting you on this.

 

[Rover]

Re: Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

I guess it is fitting Rover works for the banks...much like them he hasnt been able to communicate a coherent point in 15 years

If I ever want to know what its like to walk on the moon, I won't bother talking to an actual astronaut. I'll just ask Handy! Like many other subjects, having no actual experience doesn't seem to stop him from rendering an expert opinion.

By the way, this is not a Manti Te'o girlfriend situation is it? Like Wells Fargo, I don't want to spend unnecessary time on something, so I'm trusting you on this.

I'd say the odds are 50/50

Rover definitely has the right personality to be a bankster.

I more have the personality to run a professional hockey team, but unfortunately all those jobs are taken or on hold presently...

 

[Handyman]

Re: Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

But again, I don't think they did any of that because it's not necessary. They're not addressing a request to cancel a credit card or open a new account or pay a bill or do anything of that nature. Basically, someone made an inquiry about forbearance, so they put a note in their electronic file that said "do not send default letter." Nothing more. No need for them to make it more complicated when it really doesn't affect the account one way or the other, except that they won't send your girlfriend a default letter.

By the way, this is not a Manti Te'o girlfriend situation is it? Like Wells Fargo, I don't want to spend unnecessary time on something, so I'm trusting you on this.

Trust me I wish it was. The amount of ranting I had to hear about this since the beginning is ridiculous. I made the suggestion to look into it (her mom agreed which also ticked her off...she hates when I am right ) so I trust me when I say I wish it werent true. Hell yesterday I told her about the CNBC story aparch mentioned and she started freaking out again. I tried to tell her that literally nothing has changed even in the worst case scenario. Twenty minutes later she calmed down.

She has never missed a payment ever. Wells Fargo did try and get shifty on her with her first mortgage but she caught it and fixed the issue. Any possible problem or the mere possibility of one sets her off. That is how you are when you are raised by bankers I guess. When you are raised by deadbeats like I was you are a bit more laissez fare about it.

 

[Spartanforlife4]

Re: Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

Rule 1: Never do business with Wells Fargo, if possible.

 

[aparch]

Rule 1: Never do business with Wells Fargo, if possible.

They bought my mortgage a month after I closed, so I'm stuck with them for a while (unless I find a different bank to refinance through).

Knock on wood, I've had good luck with them, despite all the horror stories.

My family hasn't though. My hometown branch had an employee who opened credit cards and extra savings accounts in my Grandmother's name just to meet the salesperson's quota a few years ago.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

They bought my mortgage a month after I closed, so I'm stuck with them for a while (unless I find a different bank to refinance through).

Knock on wood, I've had good luck with them, despite all the horror stories.

My family hasn't though. My hometown branch had an employee who opened credit cards and extra savings accounts in my Grandmother's name just to meet the salesperson's quota a few years ago.

They bought mine, too. So my mortgages are owned by BoA and WF -- arguably the two most evil banks in America.

I had the only helpful and friendly customer service person from them last week but the people they sub that work to are just normal humans, not the sociopaths who run the joint.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

They bought hers too...at least for this house.

I use US Bank and they treat me fine.