DUH!!..69% Say Those Struggling With Mortgage Should Sell, Buy Cheaper Home

[saveliberty]

You have no clue how the secondary market really works. Where do you think all the money came from to loan to these people?

Your pocket! All that money you invested in your 401k? It's in all those houses, genius.

No I didnt fund a single loan. Real estate loans are a big part of the financial market, true. But they are not 100% of the market. And most loans are performing.

And yet here you are, saying they should stop performing.

Real estate loans have never been 100 percent of the market, but look what happened four years ago when a fraction of them started defaulting.

Global credit crisis.

Japan already had its own crisis. Europe was headed for one due to socialist policy.

 

[UpAndAbout]

Oh Lordy, again, someone with absolutely no knowledge of the current situation in the housing market. Most of the homes that people can no longer afford because of one or both of the homeowners losing their jobs, cannot be sold for what is owed against them. So they will not be buying another home, they will be trying to find something cheap to rent.

The number of people going from homeowners to renters in this market is a sad reflection on who pays the price for the greed of the very wealthy.

Couldn't agree more. Those Kerrys are sure greedy, Kennedys too, darn them anyway. Why don't you contact one of the above and see if they will give you some of their money.

 

[g5000]

Repeating stupid remarks only makes you look more stupid.

You have no clue how the secondary market really works. Where do you think all the money came from to loan to these people?

Your pocket! All that money you invested in your 401k? It's in all those houses, genius.

Are you this stupid on weekdays, or does it spill over into the weekends?

Your 401(k) investment is NOT in your pocket. That would be your regular savings. Those are protected by FDIC insurance. Unless you just keep it in your pocket.

Jesus. It's a shame I have explain even the simplest concepts.

How did that money get into your 401k account?

It was transferred by you into that account. You earned it. You put it there. So it is your money. It is from your pocket.

And that money is then invested in derivatives of all stripes and flavors, along with stocks and some venture capital.

If your fund manager is ripped off by being sold tranches of toxic CDOs, then YOU are ripped off. That money is never coming back to you.

Christ, no wonder people are clueless that they are the ones being robbed.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Good point...so you loose loose for your investment in a home. Sorry, that that's how it works. They gambled on their future...and lost. Nothing utopian about it.

You gamble on the market staying at its level or going up
You gamble on staying healthy long enough to pay back your loan
You gamble on your income being steady.
You gamble when you sign on the dotted line that everything will work out and you, and you come out a winner.

Buying a home was a not a serious gamble if one bought in a good area until the bottom fell out. You didn't have something like this happen to you so you seem rather flippant about your fellow Americans plight.
As long as number one is fine no one else's situation seems to matter. Okay.

Any mortgage is a gamble. I knew that when i signed on the loan papers.

If this is your situation i am very sorry for you and hope you find a way thought it. But you gambled that the bottom would not fall out of the market...and it did.

Stop pretending you're a home owner. Home owners understand things that you obviously do not.

 

[OtaniKitano]

thursday, march 22, 2012

while most americans agree now is not the best time to sell a home, they feel stronger than ever that those struggling to pay their mortgage should sell their home and buy a cheaper one rather than receive help from the government.
69% say those struggling with mortgage should sell, buy cheaper home - rasmussen reports™

almost 70% think logically that duh.. If you are living in a home you can't afford..
Sell it!!!!!

you can not sell it if no one is willing to buy it, genius

Oh big type. That mus tbe correct then.
There is a market price for every property. Price it right and it will sell.

LOL! In too many cases this would mean selling it for less than is owed on the mortgage, and then being stuck with the balance AND looking for a new place to live which would mean a new mortgage payment (not likely) or rent. So "big type" is correct.

 

[The Rabbi]

You have no clue how the secondary market really works. Where do you think all the money came from to loan to these people?

Your pocket! All that money you invested in your 401k? It's in all those houses, genius.

No I didnt fund a single loan. Real estate loans are a big part of the financial market, true. But they are not 100% of the market. And most loans are performing.

And yet here you are, saying they should stop performing.

Real estate loans have never been 100 percent of the market, but look what happened four years ago when a fraction of them started defaulting.

Global credit crisis.

No. I didnt say they should stop performing. If people are paying then they should continue to pay. If they are not paying then the loan isn't worth much anyway. If they are underwater why is it anyone's problem except the borrower? Virtually all FhA loans are underwater the day the loan closes. No one care because they aren't going to sell right then. So the only issue is homeowners under water who want/need to sell now. And that is a very tiny part of the market.
You're not very good at this,a re you?

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

you can not sell it if no one is willing to buy it, genius

Oh big type. That mus tbe correct then.
There is a market price for every property. Price it right and it will sell.

LOL! In too many cases this would mean selling it for less than is owed on the mortgage, and then being stuck with the balance AND looking for a new place to live which would mean a new mortgage payment (not likely) or rent. So "big type" is correct.

LOL @ his "price it right" well sure, a crack house in downtown Chicago would sell for $1, if someone put it on the market for that, but who's going to do that, and how would that help anyone ?

 

[OtaniKitano]

Oh Lordy, again, someone with absolutely no knowledge of the current situation in the housing market. Most of the homes that people can no longer afford because of one or both of the homeowners losing their jobs, cannot be sold for what is owed against them. So they will not be buying another home, they will be trying to find something cheap to rent.

The number of people going from homeowners to renters in this market is a sad reflection on who pays the price for the greed of the very wealthy.

Couldn't agree more. Those Kerrys are sure greedy, Kennedys too, darn them anyway. Why don't you contact one of the above and see if they will give you some of their money.

Honey, it wasn't the Kerrys or the Kennedys or even the Boehners, McCains or Cantors. It was the Gramms, the Rubins, the Blankfeins, Pandits and Dimons. Pick up a newspaper once in awhile, OK?

 

[The Rabbi]

you can not sell it if no one is willing to buy it, genius

Oh big type. That mus tbe correct then.
There is a market price for every property. Price it right and it will sell.

LOL! In too many cases this would mean selling it for less than is owed on the mortgage, and then being stuck with the balance AND looking for a new place to live which would mean a new mortgage payment (not likely) or rent. So "big type" is correct.

In some states the bank must eat the deficiency.
In others the banks can agree to a short sale and take less on their loan.
In others the homeowner can simply bankrupt on the deficiency.
The former homeowner typically rents something nicer for less money than he was paying anyway.
There is no place here for another gov't bailout program.

Big type and garish colors conceal weak muzzy-headed thinking.

 

[g5000]

You go to work and earn money. You set aside some of that money you worked your ass off for into a 401k.

Your 401k manager takes your money and invests it into a CDO tranche. He has been given an unlimited supply of hookers and blow by a Wall Street firm, and box seats at the baseball stadium by a Wall Street firm. That is so he is in a haze when he agrees to buy these "bonds" from his pals at Goldman Sachs.

That money from your 401k manager is used to make loans to home buyers. Your manager expects to make back his investment, plus interest.

Then we come back to you. And there you are, insisting that the people who took out these loans who are now underwater should just toss the keys on their homes and default.

Brilliant!

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

In most if not all states, the bank who loaned you the money is on the hook for the 15K, so that's a false argument. Even if you have to file for bankruptcy, are we lucky to have such provisions in the law to protect borrowers who made bad choices? Bankruptcy is not the end of the world, it's a chance at a fresh start. Lastly, rather than getting a loan to buy a new home, how about renting one? One that you can afford?

Wrong, if a home is foreclosed on, then resold for less than the amount owed than the original debtor still owes the difference, same as when a vehicle is repossessed.

Not in California, of that I am sure. You'll have to research the laws in your own state. If if you're on the hook, that's what bankruptcy is for. Either way, not my problem.

Actually, there ARE circumstances in CA where the borrower can be on the hook for the difference between amount mortgaged and what the house sold for, depending on what type of contract they have with the lender.

California Foreclosure Law

 

[g5000]

No I didnt fund a single loan. Real estate loans are a big part of the financial market, true. But they are not 100% of the market. And most loans are performing.

And yet here you are, saying they should stop performing.

Real estate loans have never been 100 percent of the market, but look what happened four years ago when a fraction of them started defaulting.

Global credit crisis.

Japan already had its own crisis. Europe was headed for one due to socialist policy.

No. Europe suffered the exact same real estate meltdown we did. Ireland, Iceland, Spain, Portugal, England, Germany. Same exact real estate bubble, same exact meltdown.

At the exact same time.


The current credit crisis in Europe was created from the same template. Just different borrowers underneath. In the 2007-2009 meltdown, it was homebuyers all over the industrialized world. In the current crisis, it is sovereigns.

The derivatives involved, the investors involved, the financial firms stoking the fires and perpetrating the frauds; all the same players.

 

[eflatminor]

Wrong, if a home is foreclosed on, then resold for less than the amount owed than the original debtor still owes the difference, same as when a vehicle is repossessed.

Not in California, of that I am sure. You'll have to research the laws in your own state. If if you're on the hook, that's what bankruptcy is for. Either way, not my problem.

Actually, there ARE circumstances in CA where the borrower can be on the hook for the difference between amount mortgaged and what the house sold for, depending on what type of contract they have with the lender.

California Foreclosure Law

Contracts vary of course. But let's say I'm 100% wrong and all states leave the borrower on the hook. That's what bankruptcy is for and more importantly, it's not my responsibility to bail out their bad investment decisions.

 

[OtaniKitano]

Oh big type. That mus tbe correct then.
There is a market price for every property. Price it right and it will sell.

LOL! In too many cases this would mean selling it for less than is owed on the mortgage, and then being stuck with the balance AND looking for a new place to live which would mean a new mortgage payment (not likely) or rent. So "big type" is correct.

In some states the bank must eat the deficiency.
In others the banks can agree to a short sale and take less on their loan.
In others the homeowner can simply bankrupt on the deficiency.
The former homeowner typically rents something nicer for less money than he was paying anyway.
There is no place here for another gov't bailout program.

"In some states...In others...." That's comforting but the last 4 years haven't born your solutions out very well, now has it? Oh, so someone can sell their house and then file bankruptcy on the deficiency. Your logic is what is fuzzy.

 

[OtaniKitano]

Not in California, of that I am sure. You'll have to research the laws in your own state. If if you're on the hook, that's what bankruptcy is for. Either way, not my problem.

Actually, there ARE circumstances in CA where the borrower can be on the hook for the difference between amount mortgaged and what the house sold for, depending on what type of contract they have with the lender.

California Foreclosure Law

Contracts vary of course. But let's say I'm 100% wrong and all states leave the borrower on the hook. That's what bankruptcy is for and more importantly, it's not my responsibility to bail out their bad investment decisions.

Who do you think pays for someone's bankruptcy? The taxpayer/consumer, that's who. And that's you, too.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

thursday, march 22, 2012

while most americans agree now is not the best time to sell a home, they feel stronger than ever that those struggling to pay their mortgage should sell their home and buy a cheaper one rather than receive help from the government.
69% say those struggling with mortgage should sell, buy cheaper home - rasmussen reports™

almost 70% think logically that duh.. If you are living in a home you can't afford..
Sell it!!!!!

you can not sell it if no one is willing to buy it, genius

Oh big type. That mus tbe correct then.
There is a market price for every property. Price it right and it will sell.

Earth to Rabbi - you can't sell a house for less than you owe on the loan without the mortgagee's permission. Its called a short sale.

Even if the bank allows a short sale - if they refuse to write off the rest of the money you owe them, it becomes impossible for you to secure credit for another mortgage even if its for a smaller house you can afford.

REALITY

it bites

 

[The Rabbi]

you can not sell it if no one is willing to buy it, genius

Oh big type. That mus tbe correct then.
There is a market price for every property. Price it right and it will sell.

Earth to Rabbi - you can't sell a house for less than you owe on the loan without the mortgagee's permission. Its called a short sale.

yeah that's one solution.
You can bring cash to teh table. You can agree to a short sale. You can bankrupt.
Which part of any of that calls for a new gov't handout?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

But home values have devalued to the point where if we'd need to sell the house in a timely manner, we'd definitely have to sell the house at the loss of the down payment.

Bad investment on your part. Should have bought less of a home and/or but more on a down payment...or rented. Next time, you'll know better. Either way, it's not my or another taxpayer's problem.

The deflation in home values was caused by irresponsible financial institutions.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Not in California, of that I am sure. You'll have to research the laws in your own state. If if you're on the hook, that's what bankruptcy is for. Either way, not my problem.

Actually, there ARE circumstances in CA where the borrower can be on the hook for the difference between amount mortgaged and what the house sold for, depending on what type of contract they have with the lender.

California Foreclosure Law

Contracts vary of course. But let's say I'm 100% wrong and all states leave the borrower on the hook. That's what bankruptcy is for and more importantly, it's not my responsibility to bail out their bad investment decisions.

I will ask again.

Let's assume Bank of America has 10,000 customers declare bankruptcy at an average loss of $50K each. That is a loss of $500M. Now let's be generous and assume they sell every single home at 80% of loan value or $400M . That is STILL a loss of $100M and that's just for Bank of America.

Do you REALLY think that Bank of America is just going to write that off as a loss and move on? Hell no, for one thing it's doubtful that they could absorb that loss. They are of course going to go to daddy government and get a bailout. So, the banks get bailed out and the individual gets to rent something they "can afford?" And please don't come back with " bailouts won't happen again" because that just isn't realistic.

That sure sounds like the American way to me. Not

If the government can't help the people, then why bother having a government? Now , I'm not for paying off everyone's mortgages, nope. BUT there has to be a way the government can level off payments or allow people to make partial payments or SOMETHING to make sure that people who really are trying don't lose a home they've bought in good faith and are making an effort to keep it.

Deadbeats and other assorted riff raff who just want a handout? I don't give a shit about them.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Oh big type. That mus tbe correct then.
There is a market price for every property. Price it right and it will sell.

Earth to Rabbi - you can't sell a house for less than you owe on the loan without the mortgagee's permission. Its called a short sale.

yeah that's one solution.
You can bring cash to teh table. You can agree to a short sale. You can bankrupt.
Which part of any of that calls for a new gov't handout?

? The BANK has to agree to the short sale.