Keeping a jaundiced eye on the corporate media.
Jul 3rd, 2008 at 6:17 am by Susie
It should not be news to anyone that a bank would sweeten the mortgage pot for someone who already has a lot of money invested with them. This is one of those “seemingly similar but actually not a relevant fucking thing in common” artificial stories in which the Washington Post specializes.
No, this is not the same as Chris Dodd’s mortgage. Not even close. But then, there’s nothing worse than a WashPo “journalist” who believes he has a “scoop.”
You are a Working Class Warrior, also known as a blue-collar Democrat. You believe that the little guy is getting screwed by conservative greed-mongers and corporate criminals, and you’re not going to take it anymore.
Take the quiz at www.FightConservatives.com
Add new tag Barack Obama Democratic Drinking Liberally John McCain Media Philadelphia political coverage polls primary race
Online Casino
Bad Behavior has blocked 8217 access attempts in the last 7 days.
seemingly similar but actually not a relevant fucking thing in common
Oh really? If this gang had an “R” behind their names, they’d have alot in common, right? Evil, money grabbing, shafting the average Joe, a break on your mortgage Senator, in return for special treatment, blah blah blah……..
Sure, those with the signifigant assets get better rate treatment then those who don’t. But don’t those people in the political arena realize that this kinda treatment can become a liability to them? Did they not learn from the Whitewater days? Apparently not. To be sure, it can looked at as a hit piece, but you would be better served looking at the big player in this story, & that’s Obama, &, like it or not, the purpose of the piece is spot on, in that he’s just like all the rest of the Washington inside-the-Beltway crowd. Nothing new here, move along……………..
it’s funny that his loan, which was slightly below average, is getting such play, what was his rate, like 5.6% or something?
doesn’t sound that “favorable” to me.
plus, there is an “average” because some loans are above it, some are below.
everybody gets a hook up in their life, whether it is free beer, a cheaper bike mechanic, an extra order of fries, a better hotel room, a seat upgrade on an airline, etc.
the better networked you are, the more you improve your lifestyle.
If you are rich and connected, you get better hook ups.
The effort to denigrate the democratic nominee is funny coming from people that are/were rabid HRC supporters–I seem to remember a cattle deal that had an unbelievable rate of return.
in the grand scheme of things .25% on a mortgage when the broker has discretion anyway just doesn’t rise to the level of scandal.
It’s the way the world works.
1) We know to a high degree, because of documents that were found, that Dodd got two FoA deals from CFC that saved him $2000 and $700 per year respectively. The Obama family’s NT deal might have saved them a similar amount, but there have been no docs found to this point saying “Give such-and-such.”
2) We’re not sure what the standard deal was. However, the info in the article does suggest that there could have been a special deal, and that it could easily have been of about the same magnitude as Dodd’s deal. The average rate quoted is for ordinary jumbos (below $650K), a less risky class of loan for the bank than a super jumbo, so an average of base rates for a loan twice as large would have been higher than 5.9whatever. It would indeed be nice to know whether the range around that average enclosed the rate the Obamas got, however.
Also, though it is pointed out in the article that the Obamas have brought trust business to NT that is a multiple of the size of the loan, that business, mostly due to book royalties, was not well-established in 2005 when the loan was signed (a lock was agreed in Jan., and the final contract signed in June). I wonder whether a stuffy rich folks’ banker like NT might not be more inclined to insist on points or a higher rate in the case of a borrower that is experiencing a sudden increase in wealth, but still borrowing a large per cent of assets. Again, an effect of higher risk.
Taking all that into account, the guess in the article of a .3 percent break maybe isn’t so bad, though you won’t catch me taking off for the horizon with the news. Just another piece of data, neither trivial nor critical in my estimation.
Btw, it’s useful to consider the effect over the life of the loan. A $300/mo break on a 30-yr mortgage saves a borrower $108,000, which even a wealthy person might notice.
Within 3 months of when Obama got his “special deal” my son got a no down payment mortgage at 5.25%. Obama’s mortgage rate was well within the high/low of the normal market at the time. The story should have made this clear and didn’t.