Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-27-2011, 11:42 AM
 
Location: Ono Island, Orange Beach, AL
10,744 posts, read 13,386,955 times
Reputation: 7183

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cappygirl View Post
Why should they be left holding the bag while the banks get bail outs?
The banks represent many, many, many depositors, mortgagees and other customers. Millions and millions. Were the banks not bailed out, our economy would not have been in a recession, it would have been a depressions and our economic predicament today would pale in contrast. So, I must disagree with the proposition that if banks get bailed out, so should the homeowner. That argument simply is not logical for millions of reasons. Many banks, in fact, have not been bailed out. Assuming you live in Georgia, you will know that our bank failure rate is at the top of the nation's bank failure rate. That certainly helps no one. And strategic defaults simply perpetuate the banking / financial industry problem. Yes, there were many failed practices in the financial world that should not have been the norm, or accepted at all. I don't think you'll get an argument there. However, two wrongs do not ever make a right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-27-2011, 11:53 AM
 
4,862 posts, read 7,963,487 times
Reputation: 5768
People may think at the moment they can get away with walking away but at some point the financial community and/or the Government will go after people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 11:57 AM
 
Location: Ono Island, Orange Beach, AL
10,744 posts, read 13,386,955 times
Reputation: 7183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caltovegas View Post
People may think at the moment they can get away with walking away but at some point the financial community and/or the Government will go after people.
I certainly hope so. I have great sympathy for folks who can no longer make ends meet, whether it be due to job loss, health issues or other such extenuating circumstances. But those that simply chose not to pay??? Different discussion altogether.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 12:10 PM
 
1,709 posts, read 3,425,818 times
Reputation: 1343
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnsleyPark View Post
I seriously doubt that Warren Buffett would intentionally breach his contractual commitments to get out of an investment. And yes, the financial institutions and subsequent tertiary market participants are taking the risk on their "investment" that there will be defaults; however, massive intentional strategic defaults is not a risk that is baked into the investment decision.
If true, then the analysts should all be fired. How much you want to be its part of the equation now? Who cares how they have modeled it. So the number cruncher only gets a $500k bonus vs $650k he got last year. Its so disheartening, I know. I mean, how will they survive?

If you think Warren Buffet et al haven't broken a contract or two in the course of their business careers...........well, I guess I can't help you.

And tertiary market participants? I think I follow you here, but just whom are you referring to? I'm not sure they are rbms bond buyers (any in volume of significance)...if you're indeed talking about smaller financial institutions scattered about the country (the way I'm reading that).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 12:42 PM
 
Location: Ono Island, Orange Beach, AL
10,744 posts, read 13,386,955 times
Reputation: 7183
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATL Golfer View Post
If true, then the analysts should all be fired. How much you want to be its part of the equation now? Who cares how they have modeled it. So the number cruncher only gets a $500k bonus vs $650k he got last year. Its so disheartening, I know. I mean, how will they survive?

If you think Warren Buffet et al haven't broken a contract or two in the course of their business careers...........well, I guess I can't help you.

And tertiary market participants? I think I follow you here, but just whom are you referring to? I'm not sure they are rbms bond buyers (any in volume of significance)...if you're indeed talking about smaller financial institutions scattered about the country (the way I'm reading that).
Contracts form the basis for our entire commercial economy. Without some great certainty that contracts will be honored, then the entire system gets undermined. Not sure I'm following your first paragraph.

Tertiary participants in any financial market are those entities and individuals who purchase after the primary customer facing entity and its underwriting sponsor has or have closed the initial transactions. They may be traders, they may be hedge funds, they may be individuals in whose retirement accounts mortgage backed securities have landed. Not to mention the ripple effect on other investment vehicles that the very large real estate market can produce.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 12:56 PM
 
1,709 posts, read 3,425,818 times
Reputation: 1343
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnsleyPark View Post
Contracts form the basis for our entire commercial economy. Without some great certainty that contracts will be honored, then the entire system gets undermined. Not sure I'm following your first paragraph.
All contracts contemplate being broken. There are remedies and recourse in the event one is broken. Too bad if one party was too stupid to sufficiently cover their bases. If banks didn't want their contract to be broken, they should not have made the terms of said contract so financially stupid. But there was money to made.

The fact of the matter is, banks didn't care that there were defaults on paper they sold. The risk was no longer theirs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 01:18 PM
 
Location: Ono Island, Orange Beach, AL
10,744 posts, read 13,386,955 times
Reputation: 7183
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATL Golfer View Post
All contracts contemplate being broken. There are remedies and recourse in the event one is broken. Too bad if one party was too stupid to sufficiently cover their bases. If banks didn't want their contract to be broken, they should not have made the terms of said contract so financially stupid. But there was money to made.

The fact of the matter is, banks didn't care that there were defaults on paper they sold. The risk was no longer theirs.
So, if you were to enter into a contract, paid someone to perform, but then they decided to keep your money and not perform. Would this at all upset you? Or, would you say, well, my contract contemplated it would be broken. No, in all due respect, contracts do not contemplate they will be broken. Do they contain certain remedies for breach? Of course - indemnities, liability limitations, damages exclusions, etc. But, no one enters into a contract contemplating it will be broken. Why would anyone do so? And, please, enlighten us on tems of the contracts that are "financially stupid"? Perhaps it wasn't so smart to have loaned the money in the first place, and maybe that is what you are refering to. But, nonetheless, that does not excuse the subsequent breach.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 01:31 PM
 
1,709 posts, read 3,425,818 times
Reputation: 1343
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnsleyPark View Post
So, if you were to enter into a contract, paid someone to perform, but then they decided to keep your money and not perform. Would this at all upset you? Or, would you say, well, my contract contemplated it would be broken. No, in all due respect, contracts do not contemplate they will be broken. Do they contain certain remedies for breach? Of course - indemnities, liability limitations, damages exclusions, etc. But, no one enters into a contract contemplating it will be broken. Why would anyone do so? And, please, enlighten us on tems of the contracts that are "financially stupid"? Perhaps it wasn't so smart to have loaned the money in the first place, and maybe that is what you are refering to. But, nonetheless, that does not excuse the subsequent breach.
I have recourse to sue the person in your scenario. Its not like I walk away, pouting and hanging my head. Am I going to pay a paintrt 100% before job is done? No, I'm going to enter all contracts with caution and with my due diligence thoroughly vetted...ultimately making a sound decision. The only decision big banks made were to make more and more money until it blew up. But who cares when it did, they already made their money and they weren't holding the majority of the crap when it did.

It is financially stupid to lend someone 100% of value. Why in the hell would you not leave yourself, as lender, any equity in the game in the event of default? Sounds pretty moronic to me. But what do I know. Yes, that is what I was referring to. Banks were making big bets, taking in large bonuses all at the expense of, well, us. Screw them. Maybe if they get so screwed this go around they will reconsider trying that model again. Wishful thinking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 01:35 PM
 
Location: Ono Island, Orange Beach, AL
10,744 posts, read 13,386,955 times
Reputation: 7183
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATL Golfer View Post
It is financially stupid to lend someone 100% of value.
It is equally, if not more, financially unwise to borrow to pay for something you can barely afford. Good heavens. I simply do not understand why people fail to be personally responsible for their own poor decisions, and elect, instead, to blame it on someone else. No wonder we are in the mess we are in economically and societally. Personal responsibility - guess it was just a fad of the Greatest Generation and is now passez.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 03:33 PM
 
2,685 posts, read 6,047,654 times
Reputation: 952
Are sure you. I have seen that mentioned on several blog sites but I've also seen articles referring to a 6 year window in Ga. I know the bank was looking for the previous owner of our place years after they walked away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cappygirl View Post
The lender has to file for the deficiency judgment within 30 days after the foreclosure sale and follow certain statutory procedures, otherwise the deficiency claim is barred. Very few bother.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:40 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top