Bush Unveils Mortgage Relief

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: FiddleDD
who do you think is going to actually cash in on his proposal?

The people this proposal seems to address would be the people already making their house payments.
People with a good credit rating will probably have enough money to pay their bills already...

Well, if they are making their house payments, why do they need help?
They signed off on paying rates that adjust in a couple years. It's like 3 months of Comcast for $19.99, then it resets to $49.99. Should the government come in and pressure Comcast to freeze your cable rates at the introductory price forever? Who do you think will suffer if that happens? New subscribers, who will have to pay much more.

 

[FiddleDD]

I do NOT think the proposal is going to help anyone. But I do think something should be figured out because the people who went into those contracts are leaving empty houses all over the place affecting the innocent.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
LK

Tax money may not fund it directly, but find me your average tax-paying American who doesn't have money in various retirement funds who are going to see a reduction in their earnings due to plans like this. Either way, hard working middle Americans get shafted again.

Granted...but if you own a bunch of those shit loans that were going to default on you, I don't really see how you lost anything by agreeing to take 50 cents on the dollar. The yield on that investment wasn't ever really going to happen anyway was it? If anything, I would think this would actually be good for you. Doing nothing certainly wouldn't increase the value of those loans.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GrGr
This isn't so much to do with helping the people with loans, they wouldn't care if people defaulted unless them doing so didn't hit the precious banks (and overall economy) so hard.

ding ding ding!


The problem for the banks and the investors is that they've put themselves between a rock and a hard place. The banks can't have high percentages of their loans default, but the investors bought these securities on the promise that the yields would go up. What do they do but run to Unca Sam?

I'm not really following - I don't see how freezing the interest rate (i.e., a lower yield) on mortgages is any real help to banks or investors. I also don't see why they (banks etc) couldn't do the exact same thing themselves (unilaterally). Is a homeowner gonna complain that his mortgage interest isn't going up fast enough?

I also don't see how the President has the authority to mandate this? For that matter, I don't see how Congress does either. I don't see how the government can unilaterally change a third -party contract that is otherwise legal.

I also don't see how this amounts to the fed gov bailing anybody out? Now I could if the fed reserve was pumping out a lot of cheap money to banks, that would be tax dollars. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.

All I see is a rather narrow pool of borrowers who won't have their ARMs adjusted in '08 (and geez, for all we know the adjustment might be downward anyway).

What am I missing here?

Fern

Banks get less foreclosure, investors get subsidized on the yield spread.

Edit: NM. I see LK has answered this - no gov money. I do agree that, as someone put it, people's 401(k)s etc will not get the expected/hoped for returns. However, those were unrealistic anyway, and considering that such investors are as guilty as the over-purchasing home speculators I hardly see a problem.

If they are getting "subsidized" isn't it from the banks themselves?

(Subsidized meaning that the banks won't adjust the ARM upwards?).

We're not talking about the fed gov reimbursing the banks in any way, are we?

Fern

 

[Vic]

Yeah, LK is right, no federal money. Sorry, but I didn't get all the details all at once on this thing.
But, pay close attention, because t-bonds and mortgage-backed's just took a sh!t this morning, mostly on concerns of this "relief" plan.
What that means is that if you don't qualify for the plan (and most borrowers won't, as I already pointed out), it will be that much harder to refi out of your ARM and your new rate will be higher.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Topic: Bush Unveils Mortgage Relief
Topic Summary: Helps only scumbag investors bought these securities

Harsh, but fixed

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Topic: Bush Unveils Mortgage Relief
Topic Summary: Helps only scumbag investors bought these securities

Harsh, but fixed

These are held by many pension funds and university endowments, and individual investors with retirement savings in bonds. Also, your post doesn't make any sense, because it does not help them to have the government force a reduction in the interest they receive on their investment.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GrGr
This isn't so much to do with helping the people with loans, they wouldn't care if people defaulted unless them doing so didn't hit the precious banks (and overall economy) so hard.

ding ding ding!


The problem for the banks and the investors is that they've put themselves between a rock and a hard place. The banks can't have high percentages of their loans default, but the investors bought these securities on the promise that the yields would go up. What do they do but run to Unca Sam?

I'm not really following - I don't see how freezing the interest rate (i.e., a lower yield) on mortgages is any real help to banks or investors. I also don't see why they (banks etc) couldn't do the exact same thing themselves (unilaterally). Is a homeowner gonna complain that his mortgage interest isn't going up fast enough?

I also don't see how the President has the authority to mandate this? For that matter, I don't see how Congress does either. I don't see how the government can unilaterally change a third -party contract that is otherwise legal.

I also don't see how this amounts to the fed gov bailing anybody out? Now I could if the fed reserve was pumping out a lot of cheap money to banks, that would be tax dollars. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.

All I see is a rather narrow pool of borrowers who won't have their ARMs adjusted in '08 (and geez, for all we know the adjustment might be downward anyway).

What am I missing here?

Fern

Banks get less foreclosure, investors get subsidized on the yield spread.

Edit: NM. I see LK has answered this - no gov money. I do agree that, as someone put it, people's 401(k)s etc will not get the expected/hoped for returns. However, those were unrealistic anyway, and considering that such investors are as guilty as the over-purchasing home speculators I hardly see a problem.

If they are getting "subsidized" isn't it from the banks themselves?

(Subsidized meaning that the banks won't adjust the ARM upwards?).

We're not talking about the fed gov reimbursing the banks in any way, are we?

Fern

You are way off. Investors accept risk of default going in. What they shouldn't have to accept is an added risk of government coming in and rewriting mutually agreed on contracts.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Topic: Bush Unveils Mortgage Relief
Topic Summary: Helps only scumbag investors bought these securities

Harsh, but fixed

It is the entire system this measure seeks to protect.

If banks go down investors go down with them. If investors go down the faith in the system goes down. This embraces everything within the global western economic system. For example, the Saudis own a large part of Citigroup, what will they think, and do, if Citigroup goes down. And not only will American banks go down, British and German banks will go down too, triggering a recession as they go, possibly even a real depression.

The root of this measure is to protect the leveraged debt instruments, many of which the banks created out of crummy deadbeat loans and sold to investors, and pretend they still have some real value anywhere near their leveraged and inflated paper value.

These little crummy loans to deadbeats go so deep into the system. That is why they are such a headache. And that is why the Bush administration resorts to this totally perverted and desperate measure.

 

[Turkey22]

Honestly this is BS and a joke. Mortgage companies giving out loans to people who could never afford them and those people not looking at the loan and saying, oh you know what I'm probably not gonna be able to make the payment when the interest only runs out or the rate jumps, but no biggy I'll get the house anyways. These are stupid people doing stupid things and that moron we call a president decides to bail them out.

 

[PingSpike]

One thing I thought I noticed when reading about this the other day is they said the average ARM loan that this was talking about had a teaser rate of 7-9% and that they were going to reset to 10-12%? I assume these were some kind of shitty credit loans because that teaser rate is fucking crap if those figures are true. If that is the case, I guess I don't really feel like I got screwed for having good credit and getting a regular mortgage. I always thought these mortgages had like rates of 3% or something...at least thats what they're advertised on those dumb banner ads. ("1 million dollar mortgage for $247/mo!") I dunno.

And that list of restrictions Vic had...seems like it would rule almost everyone out. You can't have great credit, but you have to have not screwed up in the last 12 months. You can't have any skin in the game.

Anyway, everyone keeps saying on here that the investors are getting screwed...I don't get it. It seems to me that while what happened was that the investors bought a bunch of shit loans at a price that was to high for what they were actually worth based on risk. These loans were never worth that...they were never going to get that yield they expected. It just wasn't in the cards. Whether they were fooled or didn't scrutinize what they were buying, it doesn't matter. Their model was based on squeezing blood out of a turnip.

If the government went hands off...a bunch of these loans would have defaulted...probably like all of the ones covered by this. The government not meddling here wouldn't have caused the subprime borrowers to magically have made more money and afforded their loans. Now, the loans are frozen so the investors get pennies on the dollar instead. Given that the housing market is bad and most of these loans are probably on houses in declining markets this is the best they can expect to get. If they foreclosed what would they get? Some trashed dump thats worth less than the amount of money the BANK paid for it. Remember...these are loans with LESS THAN 3% equity...these people will mail the banks keys back. They have no skin in this game. The bank would lose more money right? Because it can't get rid of this house right now.

Basically, this seems like its saving a few subprime borrowers from bankruptcy (for awhile) and lets them rent their house for 5 years and send the cash to the investors. The investors expected more, but hey...I want a pony. After 5 years, maybe the housing market will have recovered the prices a bit. THEN they can foreclose, toss the bums out and sell the house to get out ok.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Topic: Bush Unveils Mortgage Relief
Topic Summary: Helps only scumbag investors bought these securities

Harsh, but fixed

It is the entire system this measure seeks to protect.

If banks go down investors go down with them. If investors go down the faith in the system goes down. This embraces everything within the global western economic system. For example, the Saudis own a large part of Citigroup, what will they think, and do, if Citigroup goes down. And not only will American banks go down, British and German banks will go down too, triggering a recession as they go, possibly even a real depression.

The root of this measure is to protect the leveraged debt instruments, many of which the banks created out of crummy deadbeat loans and sold to investors, and pretend they still have some real value anywhere near their leveraged and inflated paper value.

These little crummy loans to deadbeats go so deep into the system. That is why they are such a headache. And that is why the Bush administration resorts to this totally perverted and desperate measure.

Lets be clear, the "entire system" would survive with or without this. Sure, some banks would go under. Some investors would lose a lot of money. Some homeowners would lose houses. However, just like any bubble/bust, it will deflate and move on. It did so with the tech bubble and will do so with all future bubbles.

One way or another, we *will* return to rationality, whether it's this year or in 5 years, it will happen. We can delay the inevitable, in which case it will only build up and get worse, or we can take our licks and get done with it.

The fear of recession is nothing more than a by-product of Americans thinking that the government needs to hold their hands in any transaction. It's bullshit, complete and utter.

If anything, this undermines the entire system of securitization and contract law. If servicer/sellers can wholesalely change contracts, or large pools of mortgages, then they can do anything. It undermines the strength of a contract, the strength of securitization trusts, and the overall ABS system, which has enabled much cheaper borrowing and flow of funds.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: BoberFett
LK

Tax money may not fund it directly, but find me your average tax-paying American who doesn't have money in various retirement funds who are going to see a reduction in their earnings due to plans like this. Either way, hard working middle Americans get shafted again.

Granted...but if you own a bunch of those shit loans that were going to default on you, I don't really see how you lost anything by agreeing to take 50 cents on the dollar. The yield on that investment wasn't ever really going to happen anyway was it? If anything, I would think this would actually be good for you. Doing nothing certainly wouldn't increase the value of those loans.

Not all of the loans that will be repriced were going to default, yet, now, all of the loans repriced will have less spread to protect from defaults. It's a terrible plan.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GrGr
This isn't so much to do with helping the people with loans, they wouldn't care if people defaulted unless them doing so didn't hit the precious banks (and overall economy) so hard.

ding ding ding!


The problem for the banks and the investors is that they've put themselves between a rock and a hard place. The banks can't have high percentages of their loans default, but the investors bought these securities on the promise that the yields would go up. What do they do but run to Unca Sam?

I'm not really following - I don't see how freezing the interest rate (i.e., a lower yield) on mortgages is any real help to banks or investors. I also don't see why they (banks etc) couldn't do the exact same thing themselves (unilaterally). Is a homeowner gonna complain that his mortgage interest isn't going up fast enough?

I also don't see how the President has the authority to mandate this? For that matter, I don't see how Congress does either. I don't see how the government can unilaterally change a third -party contract that is otherwise legal.

I also don't see how this amounts to the fed gov bailing anybody out? Now I could if the fed reserve was pumping out a lot of cheap money to banks, that would be tax dollars. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.

All I see is a rather narrow pool of borrowers who won't have their ARMs adjusted in '08 (and geez, for all we know the adjustment might be downward anyway).

What am I missing here?

Fern

Banks get less foreclosure, investors get subsidized on the yield spread.

Edit: NM. I see LK has answered this - no gov money. I do agree that, as someone put it, people's 401(k)s etc will not get the expected/hoped for returns. However, those were unrealistic anyway, and considering that such investors are as guilty as the over-purchasing home speculators I hardly see a problem.

If they are getting "subsidized" isn't it from the banks themselves?

(Subsidized meaning that the banks won't adjust the ARM upwards?).

We're not talking about the fed gov reimbursing the banks in any way, are we?

Fern

You are way off. Investors accept risk of default going in. What they shouldn't have to accept is an added risk of government coming in and rewriting mutually agreed on contracts.

Oh, I don't think I'm way off at all.

I was the first one to recognize this was NOT a federal bailout in the sense that the fed was using our (tax) money to subsidize banks etc. Unlike almost every preceding post.

You'll also note that I expressed surprise (doubt really) that the fed gov can mandate this.

I still don't think that they can. I suspect (based on info I've seen at this point) that's it's more likely voluntary.

Seems to me the "added of risk" of modifying the mortgage is offset by the lessening of the risk of foreclosures (lower yeild for fewer foreclosures). Whether the tradeoff is benefical to the banks/investors can be estimated by calculations that I'm not interested in performing now. But given the small number of loans affected, I suspect the program's effect is immaterial to what their yield would otherwise be in the absense of the program.

ATM, seems like a tempest in a teapot to me (the program, that is).

Fern

 

[ayabe]

I am against this, artificially freezing rates is only going to prevent a speedy recovery of the housing market.

 

[Martin]

There's one thing that I find wrong with this whole discussion - that is that people are being labeled all sorts of nasty names for doing what was expected of them. It's an uncomfortable idea for some, but the large-scale reaction to a lot of policies can be predicted fairly well, and chief amongst them is the fact that when cheap money is offered, people will take it.

When central banks want to stimulate the economy, they lower interest rates, make money cheaper, and inevitably people take out more loans and do spent it - why does any expect the opposite thing to happen when banks offer cheap money (or houses, in this case)?

When you look at individual decisions, they do look irrational, stupid etc. But if you're blaming this on "stupid people", or "kids these days" or anything along these lines, you're really missing the point - what's happening is simple human nature and will happen again unless people learn from it.

 

[Arkaign]

Hmm, nothing like a band-aid for a gaping wound from a 30-06, eh?

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Topic: Bush Unveils Mortgage Relief
Topic Summary: Helps only scumbag investors bought these securities

Harsh, but fixed

It is the entire system this measure seeks to protect.

If banks go down investors go down with them. If investors go down the faith in the system goes down. This embraces everything within the global western economic system. For example, the Saudis own a large part of Citigroup, what will they think, and do, if Citigroup goes down. And not only will American banks go down, British and German banks will go down too, triggering a recession as they go, possibly even a real depression.

The root of this measure is to protect the leveraged debt instruments, many of which the banks created out of crummy deadbeat loans and sold to investors, and pretend they still have some real value anywhere near their leveraged and inflated paper value.

These little crummy loans to deadbeats go so deep into the system. That is why they are such a headache. And that is why the Bush administration resorts to this totally perverted and desperate measure.

Lets be clear, the "entire system" would survive with or without this. Sure, some banks would go under. Some investors would lose a lot of money. Some homeowners would lose houses. However, just like any bubble/bust, it will deflate and move on. It did so with the tech bubble and will do so with all future bubbles.

One way or another, we *will* return to rationality, whether it's this year or in 5 years, it will happen. We can delay the inevitable, in which case it will only build up and get worse, or we can take our licks and get done with it.

The fear of recession is nothing more than a by-product of Americans thinking that the government needs to hold their hands in any transaction. It's bullshit, complete and utter.

If anything, this undermines the entire system of securitization and contract law. If servicer/sellers can wholesalely change contracts, or large pools of mortgages, then they can do anything. It undermines the strength of a contract, the strength of securitization trusts, and the overall ABS system, which has enabled much cheaper borrowing and flow of funds.

I absolutely agree with you that this mess should get sorted now and that we should return to rationality. I think the question why this isn't happening is very interesting.

 

[Zedtom]

The mortgage lenders have only themselves to blame for taking high risk candidates and sneaking the small print in to the contracts. The one thing money lenders detest is having to dispose of foreclosed properties. They are in the money business and real estate is too bulky for them to have to manage.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Topic: Bush Unveils Mortgage Relief
Topic Summary: Helps only scumbag investors bought these securities

Harsh, but fixed

It is the entire system this measure seeks to protect.

If banks go down investors go down with them. If investors go down the faith in the system goes down. This embraces everything within the global western economic system. For example, the Saudis own a large part of Citigroup, what will they think, and do, if Citigroup goes down. And not only will American banks go down, British and German banks will go down too, triggering a recession as they go, possibly even a real depression.

The root of this measure is to protect the leveraged debt instruments, many of which the banks created out of crummy deadbeat loans and sold to investors, and pretend they still have some real value anywhere near their leveraged and inflated paper value.

These little crummy loans to deadbeats go so deep into the system. That is why they are such a headache. And that is why the Bush administration resorts to this totally perverted and desperate measure.

Lets be clear, the "entire system" would survive with or without this. Sure, some banks would go under. Some investors would lose a lot of money. Some homeowners would lose houses. However, just like any bubble/bust, it will deflate and move on. It did so with the tech bubble and will do so with all future bubbles.

One way or another, we *will* return to rationality, whether it's this year or in 5 years, it will happen. We can delay the inevitable, in which case it will only build up and get worse, or we can take our licks and get done with it.

The fear of recession is nothing more than a by-product of Americans thinking that the government needs to hold their hands in any transaction. It's bullshit, complete and utter.

If anything, this undermines the entire system of securitization and contract law. If servicer/sellers can wholesalely change contracts, or large pools of mortgages, then they can do anything. It undermines the strength of a contract, the strength of securitization trusts, and the overall ABS system, which has enabled much cheaper borrowing and flow of funds.

I absolutely agree with you that this mess should get sorted now and that we should return to rationality. I think the question why this isn't happening is very interesting.

It is happening, it just takes some time for it to work through the delinquency and default buckets. Prices are coming down and they will accelerate next year.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Zedtom
The mortgage lenders have only themselves to blame for taking high risk candidates and sneaking the small print in to the contracts. The one thing money lenders detest is having to dispose of foreclosed properties. They are in the money business and real estate is too bulky for them to have to manage.

Please... there is no "small print." Mortgage documents are strictly regulated by state and federal laws, which dictate everything from disclosures to verbage to fonts. Relevant/important information in mortgage documents is not only bolded and of larger font size, but there is also multiple documents to be signed to disclose that information.
For example, if a loan has an adjustable rate, that feature alone will mean roughly an additional 10 pages of documents and 5 additional signatures required, all of them with lots of large bold print saying "NOTICE!" "WARNING!" and "ADJUSTABLE RATE" etc.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GrGr
This isn't so much to do with helping the people with loans, they wouldn't care if people defaulted unless them doing so didn't hit the precious banks (and overall economy) so hard.

ding ding ding!


The problem for the banks and the investors is that they've put themselves between a rock and a hard place. The banks can't have high percentages of their loans default, but the investors bought these securities on the promise that the yields would go up. What do they do but run to Unca Sam?

I'm not really following - I don't see how freezing the interest rate (i.e., a lower yield) on mortgages is any real help to banks or investors. I also don't see why they (banks etc) couldn't do the exact same thing themselves (unilaterally). Is a homeowner gonna complain that his mortgage interest isn't going up fast enough?

I also don't see how the President has the authority to mandate this? For that matter, I don't see how Congress does either. I don't see how the government can unilaterally change a third -party contract that is otherwise legal.

I also don't see how this amounts to the fed gov bailing anybody out? Now I could if the fed reserve was pumping out a lot of cheap money to banks, that would be tax dollars. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.

All I see is a rather narrow pool of borrowers who won't have their ARMs adjusted in '08 (and geez, for all we know the adjustment might be downward anyway).

What am I missing here?

Fern

Banks get less foreclosure, investors get subsidized on the yield spread.

Edit: NM. I see LK has answered this - no gov money. I do agree that, as someone put it, people's 401(k)s etc will not get the expected/hoped for returns. However, those were unrealistic anyway, and considering that such investors are as guilty as the over-purchasing home speculators I hardly see a problem.

If they are getting "subsidized" isn't it from the banks themselves?

(Subsidized meaning that the banks won't adjust the ARM upwards?).

We're not talking about the fed gov reimbursing the banks in any way, are we?

Fern

You are way off. Investors accept risk of default going in. What they shouldn't have to accept is an added risk of government coming in and rewriting mutually agreed on contracts.

Oh, I don't think I'm way off at all.

I was the first one to recognize this was NOT a federal bailout in the sense that the fed was using our (tax) money to subsidize banks etc. Unlike almost every preceding post.

You'll also note that I expressed surprise (doubt really) that the fed gov can mandate this.

I still don't think that they can. I suspect (based on info I've seen at this point) that's it's more likely voluntary.

Seems to me the "added of risk" of modifying the mortgage is offset by the lessening of the risk of foreclosures (lower yeild for fewer foreclosures). Whether the tradeoff is benefical to the banks/investors can be estimated by calculations that I'm not interested in performing now. But given the small number of loans affected, I suspect the program's effect is immaterial to what their yield would otherwise be in the absense of the program.

ATM, seems like a tempest in a teapot to me (the program, that is).

Fern

That is like saying the credit rating of the federal government wouldn't be effected if it only defaulted on a small number of its loans, or your credit rating would not be impacted if you stopped paying a small number of your bills in full.
That's not how it works. Either mortgage contract terms are considered binding or they are considered subject to government review at a later date.
Once you introduce the possibility of federal government interfering in private contracts after the fact then that becomes a possibility for all loans that risk is going to be priced in the interest rate the investors will demand.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Zedtom
The mortgage lenders have only themselves to blame for taking high risk candidates and sneaking the small print in to the contracts. The one thing money lenders detest is having to dispose of foreclosed properties. They are in the money business and real estate is too bulky for them to have to manage.

Please... there is no "small print." Mortgage documents are strictly regulated by state and federal laws, which dictate everything from disclosures to verbage to fonts. Relevant/important information in mortgage documents is not only bolded and of larger font size, but there is also multiple documents to be signed to disclose that information.
For example, if a loan has an adjustable rate, that feature alone will mean roughly an additional 10 pages of documents and 5 additional signatures required, all of them with lots of large bold print saying "NOTICE!" "WARNING!" and "ADJUSTABLE RATE" etc.

Plus it's called Adjustable Rate Mortgage. There is certainly nothing small print about that, it's right in the name of the product. Everyone going in knows the rate will adjust or at least has no excuse for not knowing. It would be like me buying a bottle labeled "Water" and then saying I was tricked because there was water in the bottle.

 

[rpanic]

I don?t know if this has been posted already I didn?t see it.

Bush gave out the wrong number during his speech, He said to call 1-800-995-HOPE, he should have said 1-888-995-HOPE. If you call the number Bush gave all you get is a busy signal.

 

[Zedtom]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Zedtom
The mortgage lenders have only themselves to blame for taking high risk candidates and sneaking the small print in to the contracts. The one thing money lenders detest is having to dispose of foreclosed properties. They are in the money business and real estate is too bulky for them to have to manage.

Please... there is no "small print." Mortgage documents are strictly regulated by state and federal laws, which dictate everything from disclosures to verbage to fonts. Relevant/important information in mortgage documents is not only bolded and of larger font size, but there is also multiple documents to be signed to disclose that information.
For example, if a loan has an adjustable rate, that feature alone will mean roughly an additional 10 pages of documents and 5 additional signatures required, all of them with lots of large bold print saying "NOTICE!" "WARNING!" and "ADJUSTABLE RATE" etc.

Plus it's called Adjustable Rate Mortgage. There is certainly nothing small print about that, it's right in the name of the product. Everyone going in knows the rate will adjust or at least has no excuse for not knowing. It would be like me buying a bottle labeled "Water" and then saying I was tricked because there was water in the bottle.

I thank you for the clarification. My "small print" remark should really refer to "small explanation of the details". I think most people were unclear about the specifics and were just relieved that somebody was actually going to lend them the money.