Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ally Financial bets on risky subprime car loans (here we go again!)
Reuters ^ | 5/31/11 | David Henry

Posted on 06/01/2011 1:37:02 AM PDT by Daisyjane69

(Reuters) - Ally Financial Inc, the United States' largest maker of car loans, hopes that people have forgotten the time when "subprime" became a synonym for "disaster."

Ally, once known as GMAC Financial Services, is getting ready to go public this year, and is making the case that subprime loans for used car buyers are not about to produce the same results that they did in the housing market a few years ago -- a near-collapse of the financial system.

Auto loans performed relatively well during the downturn, and demand for cars is up, so auto lending is one of the few types of consumer debt that is growing.

Ally wants to show investors that this makes it different from many other banks, which are struggling with weak loan demand and their own soured mortgages.

The company is making more loans to subprime borrowers, and financing more purchases of used cars, both steps with higher risk. It has said it wants to raise the percentage of auto loans on used cars that it makes to 50 percent from its current 20 percent.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ally; allyfinancial; carloans; gmac; subprimecarloans; subprimelending; taxpayers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last
Except this time it is our tax dollars at work!
1 posted on 06/01/2011 1:37:06 AM PDT by Daisyjane69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Daisyjane69

Run away, Screaming NO!


2 posted on 06/01/2011 1:43:45 AM PDT by roaddog727 (It's the Constitution, Stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daisyjane69

I can’t tell how this upsets me.

My father bought an Escalade two years ago and financed the loan via GMAC. Now Ally has the loan.

I make the payments every month. But the idea that the loan is now with someone else pisses me off. The same thing happened with my home loan years ago.

When I built my house I went with a local bank for a loan. Then it was bought six months later by some outfit in Minnesota that had a class action lawsuit already lodged against them for illegal practices!

I sold my house two and half year later.

Anyway, it really irritated me that my bank would do that. They are no longer in business and were later bought out by USBancorp.


3 posted on 06/01/2011 1:57:01 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daisyjane69

Makes sense to me - lend $$ to someone who you instinctively know will not pay it back. Lend them enough to buy a gas-guzzling ghetto cruiser with 20” spinners, while you’re at it. Oh, and make sure it’s a zero down, no payments until 2012 deal at usurious interest rates. Not to worry - the gummint will bail you out when your enterprise goes south. Wait - you could be financing our military folks! Of course, there’s always Repo Man.

Honest to gawd.


4 posted on 06/01/2011 2:38:40 AM PDT by tgusa (Investment plan: blued steel, brass, lead, copper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

When you borrow, you give up a certain amount of freedom. The person you owe money to has the option to sell the money-making instrument to someone else.

It’s a contract that you agreed to when you took the loan.

Contracts are the backbone of any civil society.

If you didn’t want to enter the contract, then you shouldn’t have entered it.

Now you’ve entered the contract and you have certain obligations.

Contracts are the basis for individualism, individual freedom, and quite frankly all civil society flows from the enforcement and viability of contracts.

So when you think about it from that angle, its really not such a bad thing.

As party to the contract, if you don’t want those terms, simply don’t enter the contract.

Easy as that.


5 posted on 06/01/2011 2:51:05 AM PDT by NYCslicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tgusa

Where is the responsibility of the borrower?

The borrower has no responsibility for borrowing money?

And we wonder why our society is falling apart at the seams, when conservatives neglect to see the personal responsibility inherent in borrowing and lending for both parties . . . .


6 posted on 06/01/2011 2:53:32 AM PDT by NYCslicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tgusa

What kills me is that they are not only rolling the dice with taxpayer bailout money, that they have NOT fully paid back, but they have FDIC insurance as well!

Talk about betting with “house” money.....


7 posted on 06/01/2011 2:57:44 AM PDT by Daisyjane69 (Michael Reagan: "Welcome back, Dad, even if you're wearing a dress and bearing children this time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All

I just want to give credit where credit is due. I’m not some master sleuth; I stumbled on this information on a blog, so it’s only proper that I give proper credit:

http://truthingold.blogspot.com/2011/05/subprime-is-back-sponsored-by-taxpayer.html

I was so mad after reading the piece that I forgot my manners.


8 posted on 06/01/2011 3:03:15 AM PDT by Daisyjane69 (Michael Reagan: "Welcome back, Dad, even if you're wearing a dress and bearing children this time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NYCslicker

“The borrower has no responsibility for borrowing money?”

Oh, yes ....just no responsibility to pay it back. /s


9 posted on 06/01/2011 3:03:18 AM PDT by tgusa (Investment plan: blued steel, brass, lead, copper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Daisyjane69

Yup. Betting against the house, with house money. Sheesh.


10 posted on 06/01/2011 3:05:41 AM PDT by tgusa (Investment plan: blued steel, brass, lead, copper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Daisyjane69

Totally understandable.

;-)


11 posted on 06/01/2011 3:07:02 AM PDT by tgusa (Investment plan: blued steel, brass, lead, copper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Daisyjane69

Ally is indistinguishable from the rest of the corrupt organization formerly known as GM. I will never have any dealings with them for as long as I live.


12 posted on 06/01/2011 3:31:22 AM PDT by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tgusa

Reminds me of some James McMurtry song lyrics:

He’s cut that corner pasture into acre lots
Sells ‘em owner-financed, strictly to them who’s got
No kind of credit ‘cause he knows they’re slackers
And they’ll miss that payment, then he takes it back

}:-)4


13 posted on 06/01/2011 3:36:35 AM PDT by Moose4 ("By all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Daisyjane69; NYCslicker
Talk about betting with “house” money.....

Bingo. This is where bankers and the Fed have screwed over society, and this is where NYCslicker has it all wrong. Sure personal responsibility is a great thing, but when the government uses all of its powers to flood the market with cheap credit, prices of everything go up - a lot as we saw with housing and education - and you either give in or do without. The doing without part is no always so easy when it comes to a house or a car or an eduction.

Let's look at this last for instance. There is almost no professional education (doctor, lawyer, engineer) where you can count on earning enough to pay back loans on $50,000 a year + accumulated over the many years of being a student. So the responsible thing is to do without? How about the responsible thing being for the government and banks to get their snouts out of ordinary market transactions.

14 posted on 06/01/2011 5:08:07 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
My father bought an Escalade two years ago and financed the loan via GMAC. Now Ally has the loan.

Not that it helps, but Ally is the old GMAC.

15 posted on 06/01/2011 5:10:57 AM PDT by cashion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Daisyjane69
This makes me sad, when the government gets involved in any product most of the time the price of the products goes way up, look at the prices of housing. I'm sure the same thing will happen with new cars we can look forward to Cheap $50,000 to $100,000 dollar cars in the next decade, and I'm talking the low end small cars too. But that is OK the government will be right behind their favorite loan shark company handing out 10 years loan at high interest rates to everybody that shouldn't have a dime loaned to them. The government will get involved and it will be like housing, the prices will get to the point you will have to have a 30 year loan to pay it off, maybe a 50 year loan which is going to eventually be the new norm in the future. I wonder if these socialist will have 8-10 year loans in the works for cars. Maybe they can rename the old government run loan company acorn ....< /s>
16 posted on 06/01/2011 5:43:39 AM PDT by ReformedBeckite ( 1 of 3 I'm only allowing my self each day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYCslicker; All
The bank doesn't give a rat's ass about the responsibility of the borrower.

Not when the bank believes that no matter how weak its business plan or how scant its reserves, the taxpayers will be there to buy up any bad paper.

This is the lesson of TARP, and it's why I can't support any presidential candidate (sorry Herman) who was a TARP backer.

17 posted on 06/01/2011 5:57:21 AM PDT by Cash U. Nutt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Daisyjane69

I have been in a related business for 30 years. Every so often some genius looks at the interest he could be earning by lending money to sub-prime borrowers so they can buy sub-prime used cars. His business skyrockets upwards as he writes a bucketload of these loans. And everything is fine until about the 4th or 5th month into the loan, when his slow pay numbers start to creep up. But he is writing so much new paper that his sales numbers allow him to hide his bad loan numbers. Pretty soon, he has more bad loans than he can handle, or that his high interest rate can compensate for, given the cost and delay in recovering the car. And then he runs out of money at which time no sane person will invest in him anymore.

Seen it before. Seeing it now. Not pretty. Used to be that the fool was losing private money. It is a crime when he is also losing taxpayer money.


18 posted on 06/01/2011 6:21:09 AM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tgusa

-——lend $$ to someone who you instinctively know will not pay it back———

I met a guy who bought wrecked saturns and rebuilt one from several. He would then sell them, self financed, to a largely illegal customer base. They made weekly payments. When payments were missed he would tow the car. They then had to makeup past payments and prepay one ot two.

Of course they could not so he resold the car and pocketed all the payments.

Cars are different than houses. Cars can be towed away and resold without the formalities of real estate foreclosure.


19 posted on 06/01/2011 6:33:00 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. N.C. D.E. +12 ....( History is a process, not an event ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

And that entire argument rests on one faulty premise:

The borrower has no responsibility for borrowing.

Which is wrong.

I understand your position.

You want to blame banks for lending to stupid or irresponsible people.

I want to blame people for being stupid or irresponsible.

Mine is a conservative viewpoint. Your’s is a liberal victimhood viewpoint.

Clear as day.

Just make sure you acknowledge that you now follow a philosophy of victimhood for your life, just like the NAACP, just like liberals and socialists everywhere.

Do you like your new fellow travelers and philosophical brethren?

I don’t, but it’s your choice who you hang out with, figuratively.


20 posted on 06/01/2011 12:13:15 PM PDT by NYCslicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cash U. Nutt

“The bank doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the responsibility of the borrower.”

I’m not asking if the bank gives a rat’s ass, I’m asking if you give a rat’s ass about the responsibility of the borrower? When your philosophy wants to hold one side of a contract responsible for fulfilling the contract, and not the other, you are not supporting the rule of law and the ability of separate legal entities to contract with each other? Do you pretend to support a republican form of government if you do not support the viability of contracts? Because one depends on the other.

The question is do *you* recognize the responsibility of the borrower, or do *you* want to skip over that part and blame the other side of the contract (banks.) I suspect the answer is the latter. Not a very objective position. Just scapegoating without really understanding how the system works.


21 posted on 06/01/2011 12:21:54 PM PDT by NYCslicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat

“Pretty soon, he has more bad loans than he can handle, or that his high interest rate can compensate for, given the cost and delay in recovering the car. And then he runs out of money at which time no sane person will invest in him anymore.”

Then, if government does what its supposed to do, meaning let that party go bankrupt, the party goes bankrupt.

What’s the problem with that as long as government stays out of it? And why are we blaming individuals who choose to take business risk for taking business risk. That’s what businesses are in business to do, is take risk. Business and risk are two sides of the same coin. You can’t enter business without taking some risk.

Some take more than others. If they fail, they loose their money. That’s how the system is supposed to work.

Stop blaming entrepreneurs for taking risk. Its what they do. As long as government doesn’t try to save some and not others, the system works just fine.


22 posted on 06/01/2011 12:25:45 PM PDT by NYCslicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NYCslicker
I want to blame people for being stupid or irresponsible. Mine is a conservative viewpoint.

Wow! Exactly. Stupid and irresponsible people includes those who make loans with a reasonable expectation that it won't be repaid, but that the government will bail out the lender.

Stop government bailouts of lenders, allow these idiots to go bankrupt, and then i will go along with you.

23 posted on 06/01/2011 6:01:38 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

“Stupid and irresponsible people includes those who make loans with a reasonable expectation that it won’t be repaid, but that the government will bail out the lender.”

But does not include borrowers right?

My point is exactly that there is room for blame on *both* sides. Your view *ignores* the responsibility of the borrower, exactly as I explained in my first post on the issue.


24 posted on 06/01/2011 9:24:29 PM PDT by NYCslicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: NYCslicker

“You want to blame banks for lending to stupid or irresponsible people.
I want to blame people for being stupid or irresponsible.
Mine is a conservative viewpoint. Your’s is a liberal victimhood viewpoint.
Clear as day.”

No, it is NOT conservative, nor is it clear as day.

Banks should FAIL AND NOT GET BAILOUTS WITH TAXPAYER MONEY FOR THEIR STUIPD MISTAKES. That would be conservative, and not the FASCIST bull you are trying to sell.

SOCILAIZED losses and PRIVATIZED gains is FASCISM.

Debt slavery is NOT capitalism.


25 posted on 06/01/2011 9:37:01 PM PDT by TruthConquers (.Delendae sunt publicae scholae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TruthConquers

“Banks should FAIL AND NOT GET BAILOUTS WITH TAXPAYER MONEY FOR THEIR STUIPD MISTAKES.”

Agreed. And borrowers who borrow stupidly should face the consequences of that choice.

If you read my posts you will see that I have advocated for banks that make stupid bets to fail, so maybe you are missing the point. My line of reasoning is simply do not punish risk taking, and do not fail to recognize that responsibility for irresponsible borrowing also lies with the borrower. If you think that is fascism then maybe you misunderstand the meaning of fascism.


26 posted on 06/01/2011 10:01:21 PM PDT by NYCslicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NYCslicker

Look, banks default on their loans and don’t get lectured about their “morality” of letting the collateral return to the lender.

Don’t do the same to the average person.

Paying when they can’t pay anymore is just as legal as the banks who default on their loans.


27 posted on 06/01/2011 10:44:04 PM PDT by TruthConquers (.Delendae sunt publicae scholae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TruthConquers

So for the fifth post in a row, you are defending the same point:

Borrowers have no responsibility for borrowing.

Again, its very clear where you stand.

You take a populist view of a major issue, and blame one side to the exclusions of the other.

Your view: Banks are evil.

Your view: Borrowers have no responsibility for borrowing.

I tire of repeating myself. See my earlier posts for a detailed explanation of why your view is wrong, and not defensible from a conservative perspective.

As long as you cling to emotional, non-objective responses to social problems, you are arguing for the liberal point of view, that views the world from the starting point of “I wish it were thus, and so it should be thus, and so if I say it is thus enough times, it will become thus.”

The liberal victimhood mindset is like walking out to your car in the morning, looking at the car, and saying, this car ought to have gas in it, and then pretending that the car does have gas in it, and then trying to use the car.

That is your philosophy.

My philosophy is to look at objective facts and try to find solutions.

Give up emotionalism and look at facts. Individuals bear personal responsibility for borrowing, regardless of what inappropriate behavior does or does not occur at banks. The two facts are completely independent of each other.

Or you can follow you philosophy and let that lead you were it leads you, probably to some kind of dead end.


28 posted on 06/02/2011 6:14:47 AM PDT by NYCslicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: NYCslicker

“Then, if government does what its supposed to do, meaning let that party go bankrupt, the party goes bankrupt.”

Exactly, and the losses are restricted to the parties that voluntarily agreed to share the risk. They are not “socialized”, a polite term meaning that government will send men with guns to force everyone else to chip in whether they want to or not.


29 posted on 06/02/2011 6:38:45 AM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat

True enough, but we still need to acknowledge the responsibility of the borrower, regardless of whatever other parties may do proper or improper things, it does not absolve the borrower from the responsibility of borrowing the money.

Borrowing is a choice.

Borrowing, by definition, obligates a party to something. Parties who borrowed who knew or should have known they could not pay it back are just as much a problem as banks that took unrealistic risks.

Banks that take improper risks face the possibility that they will go bankrupt, and that penalty should not be removed from the system.

In the exact same way, and for the exact same reason, borrowers who borrow unrealistically should face a consequence for their actions. One such consequence that the do face is a wrecked economy.

You see, when you walk away from a loan, the responsibility for that loan does not disappear into thin air. Someone bears responsibility for that loan, namely and ultimately your fellow members of society. As members of society, borrowers who walked away from loans should look in the mirror to find *one* source of the problems that the economy faces. And those who side up to populist emotion by painting banks as the only responsible party are no better than the race-baiting and class baiting poverty pimps and racers that we all know.

Time for a lot of conservatives to face the cold, hard fact: personal responsibility is an important building block of any society.

We don’t tolerate this one-sidedness when poverty pimps do it. Why do we tolerate it from ourselves and the “banks are evil” crowd?

Dunno.


30 posted on 06/02/2011 7:27:56 AM PDT by NYCslicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: NYCslicker

“So for the fifth post in a row,...you are defending the same point” I have only made TWO posts. This will be my third.

“Borrowers have no responsibility for borrowing.” “ Banks are evil.”

You don’t have a CLUE what my point is, at all.

“I tire of repeating myself.” GOOD. Don’t do it anymore.

“Individuals bear personal responsibility for borrowing, regardless of what inappropriate behavior does or does not occur at banks. The two facts are completely independent of each other.”

Let’s try that again.

“BANKS bear personal responsibility for LENDING, regardless of what inappropriate behavior does or does not occur by borrowers. The two facts are completely independent of each other.”

Got it? FED rent boy.


31 posted on 06/02/2011 11:21:14 AM PDT by TruthConquers (.Delendae sunt publicae scholae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: NYCslicker

“... but we still need to acknowledge the responsibility of the lender, regardless of whatever other parties may do proper or improper things, it does not absolve the lender from the responsibility of lending the money.”

“Lending is a choice.”

“Lending, by definition, obligates a party to something. Parties who lent who knew or should have known the borrower could not pay it back are just as much a problem as borrowers that took unrealistic risks.”

“Lenders that take improper risks face the possibility that they will go bankrupt, and that penalty should not be removed from the system.”

“Lenders who lent unrealistically should face a consequence for their actions. One such consequence that they do face is a wrecked economy because they failed to only just wreck themselves.”

“Someone bears responsibility for that loan, namely and ultimately the banks. As members of society, banks who walked away from losses and put them on the backs of taxpayers, should look in the mirror to find *one* source of the problems that the economy faces. “

“Time for a lot of Banks to face the cold, hard fact: responsibility is an important building block of any society. Banks need to take the losses they incurred, because THEY were the ones who took the risks, not the taxpayer.”


32 posted on 06/02/2011 11:34:58 AM PDT by TruthConquers (.Delendae sunt publicae scholae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: TruthConquers

Sorry, you can type all you want and it still won’t absolve the borrower of his/her obligation.

But keep wishing for that. Maybe if you wish hard enough you can make it true. . . .


33 posted on 06/02/2011 1:55:42 PM PDT by NYCslicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TruthConquers

So your definition of personal responsibility for borrowers defines you as a liberal.

Good luck with that.

Your argument isn’t even internally consistent with itself.

No further proof needed of its falsehood.


34 posted on 06/02/2011 1:58:34 PM PDT by NYCslicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TruthConquers

“You don’t have a CLUE what my point is, at all.”

No one does. The logic of your argument is clueless.


35 posted on 06/02/2011 2:00:56 PM PDT by NYCslicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: NYCslicker

A misqutoe, oh goody, what a liar you aze.

Just like the other FED rent boys, liar.


36 posted on 06/02/2011 2:27:45 PM PDT by TruthConquers (.Delendae sunt publicae scholae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: NYCslicker

“So your definition of personal responsibility for borrowers...”

YOU are a liar, again. How is that conservative?
Oh, I know, you aren’t.

You love the FASCIST FED, you love DEBT SLAVERY OF OTHERS.

THAT is not conservative, in fact, it is COMMIE LOVING.

Capitalism is NOT MAKING THE TAXPAYER PAY FOR THE GAMBLING DEBTS OF BANKS.

Fascist Commie lover.


37 posted on 06/02/2011 2:31:20 PM PDT by TruthConquers (.Delendae sunt publicae scholae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: NYCslicker

Nope, your only purpose here is to keep the sheeple unaware.

Not going to let you get away with it, FED rent boy.


38 posted on 06/02/2011 2:32:52 PM PDT by TruthConquers (.Delendae sunt publicae scholae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: TruthConquers

You:

” ‘So your definition of personal responsibility for borrowers...’

YOU are a liar, again. How is that conservative?
Oh, I know, you aren’t.

You love the FASCIST FED, you love DEBT SLAVERY OF OTHERS.

THAT is not conservative, in fact, it is COMMIE LOVING.

Capitalism is NOT MAKING THE TAXPAYER PAY FOR THE GAMBLING DEBTS OF BANKS.

Fascist Commie lover.”

Hmmm . . . interesting response.

I guess when you can’t put forth a coherent argument the only thing left for you is to resort to attacks and name-calling. Anyone reading this can tell the argument’s got the best of you.

Maybe you are someone who doesn’t know how to responsibly use debt and got in debt up to his @ss and now wants to blame others, including banks.

Who knows which it is, or both.

Pretty sad either way. Best of luck.

Maybe you should become a Dave Ramsey reader. He’s helped others. . .


39 posted on 06/02/2011 6:19:17 PM PDT by NYCslicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: NYCslicker

I guess when you can’t put forth a coherent argument the only thing left for you is to resort to attacks and name-calling. Anyone reading this can tell the argument’s got the best of you.

Maybe you are someone who makes money off of other peoples slavery and now wants to keep blaming borrowers so you can keep robbing, specially taxpayers. How much they paying you to shill? How’s it going, not enough suckers borrowing anymore, is there, eh?

How sad for you. Making a living off of making slaves of Americans.

how sad. :(


40 posted on 06/02/2011 7:25:46 PM PDT by TruthConquers (.Delendae sunt publicae scholae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: NYCslicker

“True enough, but we still need to acknowledge the responsibility of the borrower, regardless of whatever other parties may do proper or improper things, it does not absolve the borrower from the responsibility of borrowing the money.”

Exactly.


41 posted on 06/02/2011 7:33:29 PM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: TruthConquers

Good thing you have me to write your posts for you.

Otherwise you would have to form concepts on your own, and quite frankly that doesn’t seem to be your strong point.


42 posted on 06/02/2011 8:04:37 PM PDT by NYCslicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Why do you care who services your mortgage?

As long as they credit your payments correctly it doesn’t affect you.


43 posted on 06/02/2011 8:08:18 PM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane

Well, I agree, people DO care WHO services their mortgage.
Why do people like you think we shouldn’t care?

Some people KNOW that some banks are idiots. They wouldn’t trust them to have their mortgage EVER.

Why do people think others who don’t like it, should just shut up?

Why do you care that they do care?


44 posted on 06/02/2011 8:11:37 PM PDT by TruthConquers (.Delendae sunt publicae scholae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TruthConquers

If you get that emotional about where you send an envelope every month maybe you shouldn’t take out a loan.


45 posted on 06/02/2011 8:14:39 PM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane

lol

/agree


46 posted on 06/02/2011 8:16:25 PM PDT by NYCslicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: TruthConquers

If you set yourself up to borrow from an idiot what does that make you exactly?


47 posted on 06/02/2011 8:17:34 PM PDT by NYCslicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane

Then you must work for a bank, and never had a problem with one.

What will you do when you do have them steal you blind?

Are you for the rule of law or not?


48 posted on 06/02/2011 8:18:03 PM PDT by TruthConquers (.Delendae sunt publicae scholae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Daisyjane69

I just moved $200k out of an account there monday, maybe it was a good move.

Going to keep tabs on them, maybe i’ll move the rest out.


49 posted on 06/02/2011 8:20:06 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthConquers; ladyjane

Yes, ladyjane, don’t you understand?

If you don’t think banks are evil and blame them for everyone else’s problems, then you must be in on the evil conspiracy!

If you don’t see that banks are evil, then you *must* work for one.

Nothing else could possibly explain why you don’t hate them with a passion.

/sarcasm off


50 posted on 06/02/2011 8:21:56 PM PDT by NYCslicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson