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.
I wanted to focus on this little paragraph where once again, the person writing for the news article is an idiot who doesn't know what they are writing about or their editors didn't proofread the article about mis-statements:
A woman in the Wall Street Journal article said she was able to pay off her mortgage loan in a short sale, but the lender later came after her for the unpaid balance on a second mortgage. She ended up settling the $21,600 balance for $4,000.
WTF? Anyone reading this article can see clearly that this woman didn't pay off her ALL of her mortgage debt. How can this news writer (maybe news blogger these days) write that a woman was able to pay off her mortgage loan in one sentence but than says she didn't pay off her second mortgage in the next sentence.
There are lots of people who can "pay off their first mortgage loan"....but neglect to pay off their 2nd mortgages and home equity loans. The majority of people wouldn't even need help if they would have put 20% down. They wouldn't need 2nd mortgages.
It's just poor journalism. Where did these people who write these article go to school?
I wanted to focus on this little paragraph where once again, the person writing for the news article is an idiot who doesn't know what they are writing about or their editors didn't proofread the article about mis-statements:
A woman in the Wall Street Journal article said she was able to pay off her mortgage loan in a short sale, but the lender later came after her for the unpaid balance on a second mortgage. She ended up settling the $21,600 balance for $4,000.
WTF? Anyone reading this article can see clearly that this woman didn't pay off her ALL of her mortgage debt. How can this news writer (maybe news blogger these days) write that a woman was able to pay off her mortgage loan in one sentence but than says she didn't pay off her second mortgage in the next sentence.
There are lots of people who can "pay off their first mortgage loan"....but neglect to pay off their 2nd mortgages and home equity loans. The majority of people wouldn't even need help if they would have put 20% down. They wouldn't need 2nd mortgages.
It's just poor journalism. Where did these people who write these article go to school?
The writer was clearly referring to her having paid off her first mortgage. She said mortgage loan not loans. This is not poor journalism, or a misstatement.
The writer was clearly referring to her having paid off her first mortgage. She said mortgage loan not loans. This is not poor journalism, or a misstatement.
Still misleading statement any way you cut it.
Correct way to state it would have been, "woman paid off her first mortgage loan but still had a balance on the second mortgage loan"
Details, details. So many writers, people in general (accidently or purposely) forget to leave out important details.
It's like these homeowners who cry for help because they are underwater in their mortgages. Well, why won't the homeowners clearly state what type of downpayment they actually put down and whether or not they actually paid into the principal each month.
I just hate it when people leave details out.
It's just like Lehman Brothers public statement saying in 2007 they put down "2.2 Billion " equity " downpayment for a 22 billion dollar Archstone commercial property purchase. But "equity" means fake/phathom money that is clearly intended to mislead the common public. Only educated people can read into these statements. Unfortunately there are so many uneducated people in the America who do not understand fancy words.
Correct way to state it would have been, "woman paid off her first mortgage loan but still had a balance on the second mortgage loan"
Details, details. So many writers, people in general (accidently or purposely) forget to leave out important details.
It's like these homeowners who cry for help because they are underwater in their mortgages. Well, why won't the homeowners clearly state what type of downpayment they actually put down and whether or not they actually paid into the principal each month.
I just hate it when people leave details out.
It's just like Lehman Brothers public statement saying in 2007 they put down "2.2 Billion " equity " downpayment for a 22 billion dollar Archstone commercial property purchase. But "equity" means fake/phathom money that is clearly intended to mislead the common public. Only educated people can read into these statements. Unfortunately there are so many uneducated people in the America who do not understand fancy words.
This was mentioned in the article(that she paid a reduced amount for a second mortgage), in the next sentence. There's nothing misleading or convoluted in the article. Anybody reading the article will have a clear picture of what happened, that she paid of her first mortage paid an amount determined by the bank for the second mortgage. Also the writer said it was a short sale, if she paid off all the securing debt on her house it wouldn't be a short sale. And the whole article was about short sales, and the author stated the women was completing a short sale. So the reader can't figure out that the women in the example owes more on her house than its worth and the bank will take the hit when the author explained what a short sale was, said the women was attempting a short sale and then said exactly how much she was forgiven for, and thats the journalists fault? I don't agree.
I wanted to focus on this little paragraph where once again, the person writing for the news article is an idiot who doesn't know what they are writing about or their editors didn't proofread the article about mis-statements:
A woman in the Wall Street Journal article said she was able to pay off her mortgage loan in a short sale, but the lender later came after her for the unpaid balance on a second mortgage. She ended up settling the $21,600 balance for $4,000.
WTF? Anyone reading this article can see clearly that this woman didn't pay off her ALL of her mortgage debt. How can this news writer (maybe news blogger these days) write that a woman was able to pay off her mortgage loan in one sentence but than says she didn't pay off her second mortgage in the next sentence.
There are lots of people who can "pay off their first mortgage loan"....but neglect to pay off their 2nd mortgages and home equity loans. The majority of people wouldn't even need help if they would have put 20% down. They wouldn't need 2nd mortgages.
It's just poor journalism. Where did these people who write these article go to school?
Very poor reporting. My first question is, was it the same creditor for both loans ? The article makes it appear that they were -- but if the second loan is truly junior subordinated debt, then wouldn't that be wiped out first ? Maybe not if the creditor for both those loans is the same, they would have the option of forgiving some of the first mortgage without waiving the second. Some discussion of this and the whole issue of creditor seniority would have been interesting and appropriate. Instead, they wrote something that is so incoherent as to be worthless.
It's just not this one article. It's the thousands of and thousands of articles and news media reports on housing in general that are misleading.
In the old days, if the news reported a story, 95% of people would tend to believe it. In these days, thank god we have internet blog sites to "correct" what the news media reports. If enough people build up a grass roots movement against a news story, than the news media looks bad (they don't want that).
What I want is fair and balance reporting. Tell it from both sides.
Just don't report these sad sob stories how these poor homeowners are underwater on their mortgages and also lost their jobs. Than write about how the big bad banks won't lend a helping hand to those in needs.
Why don't they add these are probably the same homeowner who put very little money down, probably did at minimal interest only loans.
If the reporting was accurate and tells the entire story, than maybe we would start feeling sorry for these homeowners in trouble.
I just find it hard to believe that this lady was able to settle one mortgage and not the other; I don't think so. Normally when a title search is performed during a short sale all liens would be noted; including active bankruptcy cases that may be suppressing certain liens while investigated. Technically during a short sale this would not have happened; I think the author or blogger misrepresented the facts.
p.s. In a short sale there's no such thing as a payoff ; it's called settlement (less than what it's owed)
I hear ya! I absolutely hate articles like this because it makes my job so much haderr. Real estate is how I make my living...but in many cases I'm dealing with clients who read articles like this. It's unfortunate that a journalist who writes poorly/twists facts has more credibility than I do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aneftp
I found this article about potential pitfalls with short sales.
I wanted to focus on this little paragraph where once again, the person writing for the news article is an idiot who doesn't know what they are writing about or their editors didn't proofread the article about mis-statements:
A woman in the Wall Street Journal article said she was able to pay off her mortgage loan in a short sale, but the lender later came after her for the unpaid balance on a second mortgage. She ended up settling the $21,600 balance for $4,000.
WTF? Anyone reading this article can see clearly that this woman didn't pay off her ALL of her mortgage debt. How can this news writer (maybe news blogger these days) write that a woman was able to pay off her mortgage loan in one sentence but than says she didn't pay off her second mortgage in the next sentence.
There are lots of people who can "pay off their first mortgage loan"....but neglect to pay off their 2nd mortgages and home equity loans. The majority of people wouldn't even need help if they would have put 20% down. They wouldn't need 2nd mortgages.
It's just poor journalism. Where did these people who write these article go to school?
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.
