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.
Originally Posted by plf86000 The business folds and the bank takes possession of the assets of the company. They get back pennies on the dollar.
Exactly when did buying a house become a business? When that happened is when we had our bubble. People used to buy homes to live in not to use it as an ATM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinm
Why should the bank always "win"? Sometimes the little guy gets a shot.
Who says the bank wins? We were "winning" because a bank was forking over a half-million dollars for a home. That wasn't our money. It was their money. We are not entitled to these loans. This sense of American Entitlement is truly sickening.
I said in an earlier post that the lenders should be able to go back to issuing 1099's for the write off unless there is a bankruptcy. That would stop a lot of the walk aways
While that would stop walk aways on short sales, it would increase bankruptcies and foreclosures.
Selling short makes sense if there is a bonafide hardship since the cost of the foreclosure is so high for the banks. They tell me that in Florida the average cost of foreclosure is 50-60K. If the seller files bankruptcy, the lender still must foreclose to take possession of the property here in Florida. This is massive repercussions for HOA since they are not getting paid and if they file the foreclosure, it's costly too. The longer the house sits uncared for, the more it drags down a neighborhood. Selling short lets the lender take money in a more timely manner that can be lent out again too. It also lets the community recover faster.
If one goes to bankruptcy, often the debt is discharged but the lender takes years to foreclose and take possession. Sometimes the owner just sits rent free for few years and does not pay taxes, HOA and insurance nor do they maintain the property. That is not in the lenders best interest either.
The tax credit to first time home buyers has helped move the inventory. Extending it to all buyers will not help move inventory. If one must sell a house to buy a house (which is the case most times for those not buying their first home) you are just switching inventory out where the first time buyer credit serverd to reduce inventory significantly. Once the inventory is cleared out, prices will rise again.
Exactly when did buying a house become a business? When that happened is when we had our bubble. People used to buy homes to live in not to use it as an ATM.
Who says the bank wins? We were "winning" because a bank was forking over a half-million dollars for a home. That wasn't our money. It was their money. We are not entitled to these loans. This sense of American Entitlement is truly sickening.
My point about "winning" is that that a real estate transaction is a business deal. Multiple parties were involved and ALL got paid by the borrorwer. The seller got 100% their money as well as the real estate agent, the title company, the attorneys, and the broker. The borrower now stuck with a house that is worth 60% of what they paid for it. They are on the losing end by 40%.
My point about "winning" is that that a real estate transaction is a business deal. Multiple parties were involved and ALL got paid by the borrorwer. The seller got 100% their money as well as the real estate agent, the title company, the attorneys, and the broker. The borrower now stuck with a house that is worth 60% of what they paid for it. They are on the losing end by 40%.
--"stuck with a house that is worth 60% of what they paid for it"--
and those same house buyers would be posting today bragging how their house jumped in value and be " cashing in the equity" via home equity loans if the bubble hadn't burst.
I never heard of a homeowner sharing with the lender the rise in equity of their houses, yet they expect the lender to absorb all the loss in equity of their house.
South Florida homeowners walking away from underwater mortgages - Real Estate News - MiamiHerald.com (http://www.miamiherald.com/251/story/1298873.html - broken link)
I am aghast at how the govt. is letting these people get away with this irresponsibility. And this dude is still going out, applying for credit cards, and SHOPPING. Not to mention living for free in his condo and paying off his debt with money that should be going toward his mortgage! I especially love how he credits Michael Moore for convincing him to walk away. ARGH!
I cannot imagine the mess we are in for if more and more people do this.
Its the same thing big corporations are doing on the tax payer dime. Why can't the small individual man do it too? It's no different.
--"stuck with a house that is worth 60% of what they paid for it"--
I never heard of a homeowner sharing with the lender the rise in equity of their houses, yet they expect the lender to absorb all the loss in equity of their house.
And when enough of them do, government intervention becomes necessary because the FDIC fund is not adequate to cover deposits which would cause absolute panic in the streets and ......chaos. This is the consequence of " let them fall".
Sounds like there may be a few people posting on similar threads who are excited at the prospect of "living off the land", in the hills with their guns.
Its the same thing big corporations are doing on the tax payer dime. Why can't the small individual man do it too? It's no different.
Big corporations employ the masses. Big corporations pay head taxes, in most states. Big corporations buy stuff from other big corporations, middlemen and local businesses.
Most big corporations subsidize the cost of employee health care insurance. Big corporations tend to offer 401K matching programs. Big corporations pay people when they are sick and/or to rest , i.e. vacation time.
Individuals who can afford to do so, employ illegals to do what they prefer not to do.
--"stuck with a house that is worth 60% of what they paid for it"--
and those same house buyers would be posting today bragging how their house jumped in value and be " cashing in the equity" via home equity loans if the bubble hadn't burst.
I never heard of a homeowner sharing with the lender the rise in equity of their houses, yet they expect the lender to absorb all the loss in equity of their house.
Sorry, can't have it both ways....
Both parties sharing both the downside and upside - what a concept. Nah, makes too much sense....nevermind.
Rewind this 4 years and if this were the case, we'd be reading a bunch of posts from homeowners where the bank decided to call in the loan because of appreciation. Afterall, it's the bank's money and they own the home - the homeowner is really just 'renting.'
And when enough of them do, government intervention becomes necessary because the FDIC fund is not adequate today to cover deposits which would cause absolute panic in the streets and ......chaos. This is the consequence of " let them fall".
Sounds like there may be a few people posting on similar threads who are excited at the prospect of "living off the land", in the hills with their guns.
FDIC is expected to propose the bulk of the banking industry prepay three years' worth of fees to replenish the fund that insures trillions of dollars of customers' deposits.
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.
