I am posting this section of the New York Times article to ask you this question...
Assume for a moment that you as a consumer took out a mortgage and agreed to the interest rate and any penalties for early repayment of that loan. Then a few months later you won the lottery or had some other financial stroke of luck and wanted to repay the loan. Would the banks even listen if you told them you didn't want to pay what you had agreed to under the initial terms of the contract?
I for one say hell no they wouldn't. In fact it is my opinion they would not only denied you any reduction in what you had already agreed to pay but they would hit you with a rash of new fee's you were never told existed. So why should we even consider that which they would never give us? Haven't we have already given them enough?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/business...&emc=rss&src=igNew York Times
Showdown Seen Between Banks and Regulators By STEPHEN LABATON and EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: April 10, 2009
…Some of the healthier banks want to pay back their bailout loans to avoid executive pay and other restrictions that come with the money. But the banks are balking at the hefty premium they agreed to pay when they took the money.
Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, and two other executives of large banks raised the issue with Mr. Obama and the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, at a meeting two weeks ago.
“This is a source of considerable consternation,” said Camden R. Fine, who attended the White House meeting as president of the Independent Community Bankers, a trade group of 5,000 mostly smaller institutions, many of which are complaining about the repayment requirements…
:mad: :wtf: :mad: