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.
Foreclosures, not all foreclosures fault of Bush administration, evil mortgage lenders, sub prime loans, dishonest buyers, dishonest debtors, mortgage brokers
CJ, it's not fair. It's not fair for you, or me, who is also a play-by-the-rules kind of guy whose tax dollars will go toward this mess (and other messes to the tune of 3 trillion, but anyways.. another topic). But it's also not fair to many honest home buyers who live in places like San Bernardino, CA. That area of the country is one of the highest in foreclosures right now, and it's also where I grew up. I left in '96, but I visit often. In the midst of the madness circa 2004, I used to wonder who the h*ll can afford these prices. How can a modest three bedroom in SB be selling for $400,000? How can a house in the hood in SB (most of SB is hood btw) be selling for $300,000. People in this town don't make this kind of money. Well, now I know. Banks were lending way more money than they should have because Wall Street was hungry for mortage backed "product". I think a lot of home buyers were taken advantage of due to the greed that started at the top. If you want to buy a house, but the only houses available in your community are WAY out of your price range, you start to wonder if maybe you could make a income to debt ratio of 70 % work. (You can't, but hope springs eternal in the USA, rgiht?) If a mortgage broker or a banker is telling you to go for it, that makes it that much easier.
I'm not making excuses; I'm just saying it's understandable. It's hard to own up to the fact that you can't and will NEVER be able to afford a house. That's the reality many first-time home buyers were facing in SB back in 2000-2006. It was created by the bankers, but hey, the bankers had a solution too.. it's called a no-doc loan. You in?
Look, I grew up in an area of the northeast where prop taxes are sky high and home values are inflated. I made the choice to move to a nicer part of the country because I wasn't able to keep my head above water for my family w/the money I was making. It was a choice I made. If I stayed, I could've been in major debt by now. If that's the choice people want to make, that's fine, but its still not excusable in my book.
Let home values come back down to historicals and the choice to stay will be a little easier...
The Mpls Tribune claims people who owe more on their house than what it is worth are being advised by financial advisers to quit making house payments completely, but stay current on credit card and car payments.
Since MN has a lenient law that allows people to stay 6 months in their house after the foreclosure auction, they are being advised to take advantage of that "free benefit"
You raise a good point and Jim Kramer is the first person I think of. Could someone advising that way in a professional capacity be open to lawsuits by the lenders holding the mortgage?
Location: central, between Pepe's Tacos and Roberto's
2,086 posts, read 6,848,281 times
Reputation: 958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Hoffman
You raise a good point and Jim Kramer is the first person I think of. Could someone advising that way in a professional capacity be open to lawsuits by the lenders holding the mortgage?
That's a great question. Common sense would dictate that they would, but unfortunately common sense doesn't seem to be used much these days with regards to the market. I will say that at this point the banks probably have too much on their plate to consider such a move. Not only that , but how would the lenders know, and how could they prove it in court? Regarding Cramer, I don't think that they would have any recourse against him because he is an entertainer, a TV personality, and many disclaimers about his advice roll after the show.
That's a great question. Common sense would dictate that they would, but unfortunately common sense doesn't seem to be used much these days with regards to the market. I will say that at this point the banks probably have too much on their plate to consider such a move. Not only that , but how would the lenders know, and how could they prove it in court? Regarding Cramer, I don't think that they would have any recourse against him because he is an entertainer, a TV personality, and many disclaimers about his advice roll after the show.
The defense is that it is good advice.
Torturous interference with a contract? Never fly unless specific.
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.
