If you were "upside down" on your mortgage, would you walk away? (ethics, health care)

[pollyrobin]

Originally Posted by Nomander

If there was fraud, then sure (to an extent)... but those are case to case issues. However, even if someone was appraising higher than they should, the key issue of understanding here was simply the fact that prices were ridiculous. You didn't need a bank, financial expert, etc... to tell you that homes were far beyond reasonable value and were far exceeding the wage index of the areas.

I am not arrogant about it at all.

I did not say banks specifically knew, I did not say everyone knew. I said ANYONE who was PAYING ATTENTION to the details and looking at how fast they increased as well as it compared to the wage index would see these homes were far too high and it would be obvious they would have to come down so buying them at those prices would be irresponsible.

So every person out there trying to place this on the bank is simply trying to excuse the fact that they signed for the loan, they chose to pay for that price of the house, THEY are responsible. If you want to use arguments that it is the banks fault, then EACH INDIVIDUAL case will have to be argued as such, but you know what? Most of them aren't not an issue of the bank cheating, but simply an issue of the buyer paying far to much and the bank obliging them with a loan. If that is the banks fault over that of the buyer, then all sanity has left the building.

Are you saying banks don't pay attention:hamdLMAO

I wasn't calling you arrogant, thus the but I do think
it is an arrogant notion that homeowners with underwater
mortgages, are the ones that are suppose to take the "moral high ground"LMAO again

The sanity left the building when bankers acted in an
insane manner, a direct result of enormous greed. You
don't have to say banks knew. I'll say it - THEY KNEW It was a con that started,
WITH the APPRAISAL, which is the first thing required, before a loan can be granted to a borrower,
by a lender. Who picks the appraisal company the lender. Who paid for it - the borrower

In default, what the mortgagee gets back -
is the property. Very Lucky IMO.
They can spin rental properties as the new "it"
thing to do ... until once again,
(and they will try), to inflate another market,
EXPECTING a government bailout NOW that
they are truly too big to fail thanks to TARP.

The only thing an underwater mortgagor should do, IF they walk away IMAO
is sue the lender for damaging THEIR credit

[pollyrobin]

Originally Posted by jillz

I totally agree. The bolded part is what people are forgetting. If homes increased in value people would CERTAINLY and HAPPILY accept the increase. You must also accept the loss in value. You thought the house was worth what you paid, took out a mortgage on that price, and now you want to complain because it didn't work out in your favor? If one loses money in the stock market or Vegas you don't get to walk away from what you owe just because it wasn't supposed to work out that way.

No one "thought" what their house was worth...
they were told "IN WRITING", what it was worth,
by a BANK APPRAISAL.

So all those Washington D.C. congressional laws and
regulations enacted to protect the consumer in regards
to home purchase have been reduced to a "crap shoot"
Wow - talk about letting the bankers/lenders off the hook.

Are you trying to tell me when I loose money in Vegas,
and I walk away, I still owe the casino something Who knew
I just thought I just stopped going to that one, and
picked a better one, or just stopped gambling.

Maybe that's what the banks should have done back in
2002 - stop gambling with the housing market.
Oh, wait, they were just too greedy.
Lenders were like ****ty gamblers
at a casino - they didn't know when to quit.
Shockingly, the house covered their loses

[GAisGreat]

I never understand why Republicans defend corporations that walk away from their obligations...They call it a 'smart business decision', 'cutting their losses'...But will demonize a regular citazen who does something similar, walking away from mortgage, filing bankruptcy, etc., as something do-nothing, bottom-dweller, who deserves the rath of hell for being so irresponsible...????

Talk-radiots, donald trump fans, faux news watchers...any idea?

[BruSan]

I think a quick recap is needed here.

You bought a home that was valued at 200K and arranged mortgaging to make payments you could afford to make.

Now, however the house you bought has been devalued to 100K and because it's now worth half of what you agreed to buy it for, regardless if the payments remain the same, this devaluation seems justification enough to walk away.

I don't get it.

You buy a car for 60K and it's worth 50K the minute you drive it off the lot but you're still willing to make payments on the original 60K and drive the car for say 5 years while it devalues even further with no thought of you being upside down on the financing. Hell; you'll even continue making these payments long after the car ceases to be worth the remaining payment schedule but that seems normal for a lot of folks to just keep trading the stupid things in like paperback books you've read.

There's no thought of the thing having to appreciate or you walk on any of these disposable recreational items but your house is somehow different and subject to a different level of morality.

Where is the moral imperative to continue making payments on your car whereas it's ok to walk away from a house you are still able to maintain the payments you agreed to make? This seems bass-ackwards to me.

[pollyrobin]

Originally Posted by BruSan

I don't get it.

Where is the moral imperative to continue making payments on your car whereas it's ok to walk away from a house you are still able to maintain the payments you agreed to make? This seems bass-ackwards to me.

You get it There is no moral imperative to continue to
make payments on a car, or any other property/thing that
accelerates depreciation, IF it no longer serves your purpose.
That is why the lender gets to take possession of such
property. He is hoping by usury, he will have recouped
any loss, until you change your mind later down the road.
That really is the only risk the lender is taking. HE IS
BANKING on the fact you will pay, so you pay more
than what something is actually worth OVER THE LONG TERM That is what
it's all about. No moral authority there

You also get, that now, banks have publicly determined
homes do not appreciate - therefore, unless one is
desperate to pay outrageous interest over a long term,
there is no reason to continue to pay for the roof over your head on
something that has gone so far down in value.
Pay cash.....or rent. Good bye banks.
Say good bye to foul usury The gig is UP

My great grandfather's ideal is looking better and better
I'll go further... even Plato's got our back.
Now, all we have to do is get rid of the IRS and the Fed

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by pollyrobin

Are you saying banks don't pay attention:hamdLMAO

I wasn't calling you arrogant, thus the but I do think
it is an arrogant notion that homeowners with underwater
mortgages, are the ones that are suppose to take the "moral high ground"LMAO again

The sanity left the building when bankers acted in an
insane manner, a direct result of enormous greed. You
don't have to say banks knew. I'll say it - THEY KNEW It was a con that started,
WITH the APPRAISAL, which is the first thing required, before a loan can be granted to a borrower,
by a lender. Who picks the appraisal company the lender. Who paid for it - the borrower

In default, what the mortgagee gets back -
is the property. Very Lucky IMO.
They can spin rental properties as the new "it"
thing to do ... until once again,
(and they will try), to inflate another market,
EXPECTING a government bailout NOW that
they are truly too big to fail thanks to TARP.

The only thing an underwater mortgagor should do, IF they walk away IMAO
is sue the lender for damaging THEIR credit

I said case by case. If you have a case for fraud, this can be identified and shown through each case. Though how many of these loans people are walking out on are fraudulent?

All you are doing is using a speculation that because some institutions were acting fraudulently, then it is acceptable to assume all are and walk out on the loan.

Sorry, but all you are doing is grasping at straws to rationalize the walk out on responsibility.

In the cases to which we are specifically referring (homes which devalued and people walking out because they no longer have value), there is no justification unless it is shown such case by case.

Past that evidence, the buyer is simply running out on their responsibilities to which they took the risk of with the market and to which anyone who wasn't a greedy and stupid could see that the home values were far beyond reasonable. They took the risk because they thought they would get rich on the deal and while some did get rich of the deal, others eventually would lose out. This they knew, but they did it anyway.

Not only do I find it odd that you would excuse such irresponsible behavior, but you then have the audacity to suggest the buyer should be able to sue the lender for the effect it will have on the credit rating of the buyer. That is, you think the buyer should not only be able to run out on their responsibilities free, but then be seen as if they were never irresponsible in the first place.

It is a slap to the face of those who are responsible, who do weight the risks of their decisions and who do accept the consequence of such. People who are irresponsible should be banned ENTIRELY from the credit system as they have shown themselves to be incapable of handling the responsibilities of such. They have no business using credit as their word is not worth anything, their values are that of a criminal and their maturity that of a tantrum throwing child.

[60sfemi]

Originally Posted by BruSan

I think a quick recap is needed here.

You bought a home that was valued at 200K and arranged mortgaging to make payments you could afford to make.

Now, however the house you bought has been devalued to 100K and because it's now worth half of what you agreed to buy it for, regardless if the payments remain the same, this devaluation seems justification enough to walk away.

I don't get it.

You buy a car for 60K and it's worth 50K the minute you drive it off the lot but you're still willing to make payments on the original 60K and drive the car for say 5 years while it devalues even further with no thought of you being upside down on the financing. Hell; you'll even continue making these payments long after the car ceases to be worth the remaining payment schedule but that seems normal for a lot of folks to just keep trading the stupid things in like paperback books you've read.

There's no thought of the thing having to appreciate or you walk on any of these disposable recreational items but your house is somehow different and subject to a different level of morality.

Where is the moral imperative to continue making payments on your car whereas it's ok to walk away from a house you are still able to maintain the payments you agreed to make? This seems bass-ackwards to me.

the houseing market was considered by EVERY economist in the country and all the banks and wall street as the VERY SAFEST INVESTMENT that APPRECIATED in value over time, and MAINTAINED its value when you took good care of that home. It was considered to be retirement "money in the bank", anyone from the 50's housing boom through this new millenium understood that and took it for granted. It was NEVER on the same line as a car, that loses value the moment you took it off the lot, and could drive it into a tree within minutes of leaving said lot, or that would rust into a pile of scrap within years. A house was the common person's lifeline....it was the epitamy of the American Dream, and it was taken away from us, by thieves in the night in the form of wall stree speculators. Now do you get it?

[Nomander]

The criminal rationalization going on here is astounding.

Not only would I never even consider doing business with some posting their rationalization of the issue, but I would be constantly checking my pockets and watching my back in their presence.

Some of the reasoning going on here is the very thing I have seen petty criminals use to justify their theft. Despicable, people have become petty thugs these days.

No wonder we have corrupt business, corrupt politicians, and institutions. They are a reflection of the mentality of the people and they wonder why corporations and governments are sticking it to people left and right? It is because if they are the very people who are rationalizing this issue.

Disgusting.

[oz in SC]

Are you referring to the banksters,if so,I agree...

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by 60sfemi

the houseing market was considered by EVERY economist in the country and all the banks and wall street as the VERY SAFEST INVESTMENT that APPRECIATED in value over time, and MAINTAINED its value when you took good care of that home. It was considered to be retirement "money in the bank", anyone from the 50's housing boom through this new millenium understood that and took it for granted. It was NEVER on the same line as a car, that loses value the moment you took it off the lot, and could drive it into a tree within minutes of leaving said lot, or that would rust into a pile of scrap within years. A house was the common person's lifeline....it was the epitamy of the American Dream, and it was taken away from us, by thieves in the night in the form of wall stree speculators. Now do you get it?

They used to, but the housing market before such was not treated as such a fad volatile market.

What kind of idiot takes the claims of organizations and such as truth in the face of the evidence that showed the housing market was moving too fast, too high and becoming extremely volatile?

I mean, I saw homes in less than 1 year jump 2-3 times their value. There is NO reasonable grounds to claim that such a market would be safe! It defies all logic and it is why some of us were not rushing out to buy these over priced homes.

I knew it was the issue the moment their price jumps started to make the last 30 year average look as if it was a flat line. No, there is no justification for claiming one was "tricked" in this. This was pure greed driving stupidity on this issue.

People wanted to get rich off homes turning them into a fad market and they lost out. I call pure BS on the claim they were innocent and were mislead. Complete BS.