刚刚收到朋友寄来的下面的视频，说是非常开眼（an eye opener)。原标题是《让我们来做一桩交易：华盛顿式的交易》（Let's Make a Deal:Washington's Style)。
据说是2008年七月FDIC（Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation联邦储蓄保险公司）接管了印地麦克银行（IndyMac Bank)，FDIC于2009年三月，将其资产售予西一银行（OneWest Bank).而西一银行的主人,就是大名鼎鼎的高盛副总史蒂文芒琴，金融大鳄，亿万富豪乔治索罗斯和前财长约翰保尔森。所有的按揭贷款按照其价值的70%售出。HELOC（Home Equity Line of Credit房屋净值信用贷款)则按照其价值的58%售出。而FDIC则保证如有任何贷款人不还钱而终于法拍（foreclosure）或短售（short sale）其房产，FDIC将补偿（cover）其80%至95%的损失。但关键的一点是，当计算其损失时，不是根据其实际购买的价格，而是根据最初的贷款额。比方说，$478,000的欠款额，加上六个月未交的月供，总计$485,000，西一银行为此支付$478,000X70%总计$334,600。根据现在的市场价格，该房屋值$241,000。如果按此价格法拍卖出，根据FDIC的算法，原值的$485,000，减去市售的$241,000，西一银行的损失应当为$244,200。因此，FDIC将向西一银行支付$241,000的80%，等于$195,360。现在，将市售的$241,000加上FDIC向西一银行支付的$195,360，西一银行得$436,360。去掉当初支付的$334,600，西一银行净赚$101,760。哇，这是怎样一笔包赚不赔的好交易。由于FDIC的慷慨大方，西一银行几乎可以以任何价钱法拍出售该房而无需损失一分钱。
该视频受到FDIC的批驳，说他是不可取信的，因为在享受上述损失补贴前，西一银行必须首先“损失”达2.5亿元，并合符HAMP（Home Affordable Modification Program房屋可负担贷款修改计划）的有关规定（"OneWest must first take more than $2.5 billion in losses before it can make a loss-share claim on owned assets" and that "in order to be paid through loss share, OneWest must have adhered to HAMP."）.放下有关HAMP的规定不论，这一条款无疑是鼓励西一银行产生大量的损失从而满足2.5亿元的要求，以获得FDIC一次性的支付。从而导致更多的法拍和短售，并进一步导致房价的下跌和房市的萧条。
这种安排说明了为什么要寻求银行改变贷款条款如此困难。因为他们实际上希望你的房屋被法拍或短售。从中得益者，当然是那些银行大亨。而政府补贴他们的钱，当然是从纳税人的口袋中出了！读者诸公，去当银行家吧！如果您没有那个希望，就请想一想，升斗小民如何能从中分一杯羹呢？也许就是尽量想办法找到贷款或现金，以尽可能低的价格，去购买西一银行卖出的法拍和短售。不要指望银行家们会白送你房屋，但他们确实有动机尽快卖掉手中的法拍和短售，以实现FDIC所要求的2.5个亿的门槛。想一想，现在有些城市一幢独立屋只相当于一辆中档高级轿车的价钱，这可是您这一生只此一遇的投资机会哟！（disclaimer: I assume no liability or responsibility for the outcome of any real estate transaction, decision, or other action that you may enter into as a result of reading or listening this blog directly or indirectly. Please perform your own due diligence investigations before entering into any real estate transaction or other contractual relationship.）【阅读全文】
I am not an insider, my information and conclusion is solely based on the video. If what it says is true, it is indeed astonishing! I think, for many people, it is both a social and financial decision to go foreclosure. and now financial one is weighing out the social one. Thanks about it, if you are deeply underwater, even you have the means to pay, if you just walk away, you are better off than continue to pay your bill. Keep in mind that if you continue to pay, the bank will never modify your loan. I know people indeed buy a foreclosure house first at a discounted price, and then walk away from their existing residency. that is why so many people think the bail out is in sin.
I did not watch the video, but is your example really true? (do you mean the 80% of $244,000?) A couple of months ago, I was told that for now, foreclosure is still a social decision for some people, they are embarrassed to go into foreclosure, pretty soon, this social decision will become a financial decision for families who are under water, so banks will continue to lose money, and not to buy bank stocks. But your calculation below is astonishing.
