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.
The current situation is rife with people who did the right thing but at the wrong time. And it was out of their own circumstances at the time they made these decisions, to refinance, buy or sell a home. They did it out of needs and not as investments like you did. When it is for investments, you have the luxury of timing. When it is for life's needs, timing is not an issue. Like I said, get off your high horse. You are not part of the mainstream here, so stop criticizing those who are and have not been as fortunate as you.
The current situation is rife with people who did the right thing but at the wrong time. And it was out of their own circumstances at the time they made these decisions, to refinance, buy or sell a home. They did it out of needs and not as investments like you did. When it is for investments, you have the luxury of timing. When it is for life's needs, timing is not an issue. Like I said, get off your high horse. You are not part of the mainstream here, so stop criticizing those who are and have not been as fortunate as you.
Actually I didn't buy any of them as investments originally.
And no one NEEDED to buy a home as the market peaked. Most bought due to loose credit standards that allowed them to buy more home than they should. Notice I said allowed, not forced.
Actually I didn't buy any of them as investments originally.
And no one NEEDED to buy a home as the market peaked. Most bought due to loose credit standards that allowed them to buy more home than they should. Notice I said allowed, not forced.
In another thread you stated you worked in the mortgage industry for 7 years. When was that? Were you selling mortgages (is there any other way to be in the Mortgage industry?) in 2007? That was right before the crunch. Being an industry "expert", can you really say that you would not treat your own home as an investment?
In another thread you stated you worked in the mortgage industry for 7 years. When was that? Were you selling mortgages (is there any other way to be in the Mortgage industry?) in 2007? That was right before the crunch. Being an industry "expert", can you really say that you would not treat your own home as an investment?
I left that industry in 1997. I spent the majority of my time in it as a processor/underwriter. This was when there were actual standards to buy a home, long before any of the current mess was even on the radar.
I consider my current home a very, very long term investment as I expect to own it for about 40 years. That said, I didn't buy this home as an investment, but rather because I had the cash to build it and it was where I wanted to be in this world.
Most people have no desire to move around like nomads. I've done my share of that, having lived in six geographic areas spread out among four states. I live here because I want to, I looked for my place in the world for years before finding it and building the home of my dreams. I can make alterations to it at will. I don't need to worry about my landlord deciding they won't allow dogs any longer. If I decide I don't like the blue flowers planted out front I can rip them up and plant pink ones instead.
I own a business, so have no reason to move anywhere.
And I'm happy having the security of owning my home, not having to worry about a landlord deciding they aren't going to renew my lease because they are moving their brother-in-law's cousin in.
LOL Where is this free choice you speak of. This IS a country of NOMADS, chained by their volatile employment lack of stability and forced to move often. 9 years on average, hardly what I call homesteading. Why do you think the perils of home loanership are so front and center?
I wasn't underwater on my mortgage, I certainly did not intend on living less than a decade on the house I bought and... WHAM! 2 years and had to move for the job. If I had been saddled with a median home price that wasn't moving in the market I would have been stuck like my chump peers who cannot afford to pay for housing twice and can't unload the anchor several states away. I had bought a little 110K property that moved within 3 months and I could absorb its mortgage payments while renting. So it worked out for me.
But do you really think I would have gotten in the house in the first place if I knew I would have been vacating the property in two years?!? Because that's why this topic exists, not because people don't want to live like nomads. This country is full of nomads. Look at any suburban community in anywhere USA. Nobody is local. Hell, the whole central FL is made up of people who aren't from anywhere. Anchoring to some house doesn't make sense in this economy. The labor market has imposed some homesteading-incompatible expectations of relocation on the prole, one would be a real fool to ever utter the idea that one wishes to homestead in a house long enough to recoup the transaction costs of selling and buying, if one is of working age with young children. Simply unrealistic in the jobs of this day and age.
The only fence against that risk is doing what I did and undershoot your housing options to the point where relocation won't price you out of having a roof on the new location. But nobody would have done what I did since my house came at a discount because it was in a bad school districit. People don't buy houses, they buy school districts. So they're either forced to rent in the good school district, or buy in the good school district. Or homeschool. Most will opt out of that since it takes them two incomes to even break even on their lifestyle expectations. We can demonize them all you want for wanting to live like their boomer parents in an increasingly wage deflated environment, but that's the America that pays taxes. They rather starve than go without the house in the cul-de-sac and the 2 year old Nissan Armada. You may be the king of frugality but one can't simply discount the majority. They're here to stay and policy is made due to their behavior, not mine and certainly not yours.
LOL Where is this free choice you speak of. This IS a country of NOMADS, chained by their volatile employment lack of stability and forced to move often. 9 years on average, hardly what I call homesteading. Why do you think the perils of home loanership are so front and center?
I wasn't underwater on my mortgage, I certainly did not intend on living less than a decade on the house I bought and... WHAM! 2 years and had to move for the job. If I had been saddled with a median home price that wasn't moving in the market I would have been stuck like my chump peers who cannot afford to pay for housing twice and can't unload the anchor several states away. I had bought a little 110K property that moved within 3 months and I could absorb its mortgage payments while renting. So it worked out for me.
But do you really think I would have gotten in the house in the first place if I knew I would have been vacating the property in two years?!? Because that's why this topic exists, not because people don't want to live like nomads. This country is full of nomads. Look at any suburban community in anywhere USA. Nobody is local. Hell, the whole central FL is made up of people who aren't from anywhere. Anchoring to some house doesn't make sense in this economy. The labor market has imposed some homesteading-incompatible expectations of relocation on the prole, one would be a real fool to ever utter the idea that one wishes to homestead in a house long enough to recoup the transaction costs of selling and buying, if one is of working age with young children. Simply unrealistic in the jobs of this day and age.
The only fence against that risk is doing what I did and undershoot your housing options to the point where relocation won't price you out of having a roof on the new location. But nobody would have done what I did since my house came at a discount because it was in a bad school districit. People don't buy houses, they buy school districts. So they're either forced to rent in the good school district, or buy in the good school district. Or homeschool. Most will opt out of that since it takes them two incomes to even break even on their lifestyle expectations. We can demonize them all you want for wanting to live like their boomer parents in an increasingly wage deflated environment, but that's the America that pays taxes. They rather starve than go without the house in the cul-de-sac and the 2 year old Nissan Armada. You may be the king of frugality but one can't simply discount the majority. They're here to stay and policy is made due to their behavior, not mine and certainly not yours.
Like I said, I own a business. I'm not going anywhere.
I do live in a cul de sac (not by design, just ended up being the best lot for our home) but I don't drive an SUV--or a luxury car for that matter.
And maybe if people were more frugal and understood the difference between a need and a want, they wouldn't be in the situation they're in.
I saw a photo in the news yesterday of a family sitting in the half packed living room of the house they were losing due to foreclosure. I couldn't help but notice the 50" flat screen behind them. I have an eight year old 32" tube style TV in my living room and it will stay there until it can't be repaired for less than the cost of a new set.
I don't buy things on credit except my home. Actually I bought my car on credit--0% loan after I had negotiated the price based on a cash deal.
I live frugally, I cook healthy meals at home instead of picking up fast food on the way home from work. I have a "war garden" and don't have a cleaning service. I can afford to live differently, I choose not to in order to save for my future so I can cover my arse in case of emergency.
Like I said, I own a business. I'm not going anywhere.
I do live in a cul de sac (not by design, just ended up being the best lot for our home) but I don't drive an SUV--or a luxury car for that matter.
And maybe if people were more frugal and understood the difference between a need and a want, they wouldn't be in the situation they're in.
I saw a photo in the news yesterday of a family sitting in the half packed living room of the house they were losing due to foreclosure. I couldn't help but notice the 50" flat screen behind them. I have an eight year old 32" tube style TV in my living room and it will stay there until it can't be repaired for less than the cost of a new set.
I don't buy things on credit except my home. Actually I bought my car on credit--0% loan after I had negotiated the price based on a cash deal.
I live frugally, I cook healthy meals at home instead of picking up fast food on the way home from work. I have a "war garden" and don't have a cleaning service. I can afford to live differently, I choose not to in order to save for my future so I can cover my arse in case of emergency.
This thread is about peoples thoughts and experiences as pertains to strategic mortgage default.
It's not a thread for you to stroke your own ego. Nobody cares if you eat cold rice every meal, sit in the dark and a have a million dollars in the bank.
Why don't you create your own thread for that sort of thing.
This thread is about peoples thoughts and experiences as pertains to strategic mortgage default.
It's not a thread for you to stroke your own ego. Nobody cares if you eat cold rice every meal, sit in the dark and a have a million dollars in the bank.
Why don't you create you own thread for that sort of thing.
My point is that I live within my means and don't walk away from my obligations. Maybe it's something you should consider doing yourself.
You know, one thing I hate about the way banks do the interest is how it's all front loaded on the loan. I paid for 5 years and barely made a dent in the principal. It was all going to interest.
Wouldn't it be more fair to the homeowner if they divided the interest up equally among the payments, so that the homeowner could build equity faster?
Imagine how few people would have negative equity if they did such a thing.
This is how they weigh their risk with people like you who don't end up paying. It's just smart business for them.
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.
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.
