Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'm going to agree and disagree with what you wrote. I'm one of those that because of job may end up in trouble. I'm lucky in the sense of having bought in '95, so my house is still worth more than I paid, even with re-fi. Fixed mortgage, under 5% interest rate. Of course if I lose my job, likely, that won't matter.Zander, I suspect that we are going to see some deflation for the next few years as the economy continues to collapse. If my guess is right (and it is a guess as there are too many variables to know anything with certainty in this modern world of ours), those housing prices will fall a lot lower. I have an adopted son (one of many) who bought a condo with his new wife right after they were married. Like most property in San Diego, it has fallen tremendously in value and is worth about half of what he owes. He is paying $3000 a month on the mortgage, yet he could buy another similar condo and only pay 1500 a month.
Now, tell me with a straight face that you would tell him to continue paying that $3000 a month for the next twenty years when for the same money he could buy a full sized house. It is a business decision just like any other. He had no way of knowing that housing values would tank so seriously in San Diego. I tried to warn him before he bought, but that is water over the dam, now.
Fact remains that if treated like any other business decision, he should walk away. The bank took a risk in financing the loan. It was a business decision for them, too. they have made fifty thousand in interest, so up to now it has been very lucrative to them. It is time for them to take some of the loss, too.
A lot of other people feel the same way I do. It is not a question of morals or ethics, but just business. IF the banks were stupid enough to put too much of their money in real estate, then they did not diversify enough. Shame on them.
I have to disagree with you.
To walk away only because it makes "business" sense is dishonest. Sometimes people do not have a choice. They bought a home expecting their income to last and then through no fault of their own, they lose their income and they have no choice. But, if the reasoning is that... well, they can get a better deal on the other side of the tracks, is dishonest and immoral in my humble opinion.
The value of my house has plummeted. I could do better if I walked away from this one and bought at the bottom of the market, but that would be wrong. I borrowed the money for this house and I agreed to pay it back with interest. I took a risk just as the bank did and right now, it appears that I lost. That does not mean that the bank should take the loss for my decision.
Immie
Of course, I could declare bankruptcy, but unlikely to do so. I'll sell and probably come out slightly ahead in these times.
Now if I'd bought when this same home was selling for over twice I'd pay for? Should that warrant me walking away? Numbers: I bought in '95, $130k. In 2004 was valued at $380k. Does that make sense? It didn't to me. Since I had 3 kids and my elderly parents living with me, I wasn't about to sell and uproot all.
But what if I had? The same unit it now selling for @$200k. Lots of folks bought when it was much higher. Should they be able 'to walk away?' Regardless of circumstances of employment?
Yeah!! Those people were forced to sign mortgage papers!! Evil dirty corporations.....
Zander, I suspect that we are going to see some deflation for the next few years as the economy continues to collapse. If my guess is right (and it is a guess as there are too many variables to know anything with certainty in this modern world of ours), those housing prices will fall a lot lower. I have an adopted son (one of many) who bought a condo with his new wife right after they were married. Like most property in San Diego, it has fallen tremendously in value and is worth about half of what he owes. He is paying $3000 a month on the mortgage, yet he could buy another similar condo and only pay 1500 a month.
Now, tell me with a straight face that you would tell him to continue paying that $3000 a month for the next twenty years when for the same money he could buy a full sized house. It is a business decision just like any other. He had no way of knowing that housing values would tank so seriously in San Diego. I tried to warn him before he bought, but that is water over the dam, now.
Fact remains that if treated like any other business decision, he should walk away. The bank took a risk in financing the loan. It was a business decision for them, too. they have made fifty thousand in interest, so up to now it has been very lucrative to them. It is time for them to take some of the loss, too.
A lot of other people feel the same way I do. It is not a question of morals or ethics, but just business. IF the banks were stupid enough to put too much of their money in real estate, then they did not diversify enough. Shame on them.
He should do what he thinks is right. He can walk away, we have non-recourse loans in California. But to blame the bank is just silly.
I would say that while it's lamentable that someone loses their home because of job loss, don't think there should be a government bailout on keeping it. Whether because of cost of mortgage or inability to sell at 'need price'. Indeed, if I can't get what I owe, I'll pay back the balance or file bankruptcy.I'm going to agree and disagree with what you wrote. I'm one of those that because of job may end up in trouble. I'm lucky in the sense of having bought in '95, so my house is still worth more than I paid, even with re-fi. Fixed mortgage, under 5% interest rate. Of course if I lose my job, likely, that won't matter.I have to disagree with you.
To walk away only because it makes "business" sense is dishonest. Sometimes people do not have a choice. They bought a home expecting their income to last and then through no fault of their own, they lose their income and they have no choice. But, if the reasoning is that... well, they can get a better deal on the other side of the tracks, is dishonest and immoral in my humble opinion.
The value of my house has plummeted. I could do better if I walked away from this one and bought at the bottom of the market, but that would be wrong. I borrowed the money for this house and I agreed to pay it back with interest. I took a risk just as the bank did and right now, it appears that I lost. That does not mean that the bank should take the loss for my decision.
Immie
Of course, I could declare bankruptcy, but unlikely to do so. I'll sell and probably come out slightly ahead in these times.
Now if I'd bought when this same home was selling for over twice I'd pay for? Should that warrant me walking away? Numbers: I bought in '95, $130k. In 2004 was valued at $380k. Does that make sense? It didn't to me. Since I had 3 kids and my elderly parents living with me, I wasn't about to sell and uproot all.
But what if I had? The same unit it now selling for @$200k. Lots of folks bought when it was much higher. Should they be able 'to walk away?' Regardless of circumstances of employment?
I'm not sure where you disagree with me.
For one thing, I said that sometimes people don't have a choice. They lose their income and there is nothing that they can do about it.
On the other hand, walking away simply because I can find a much better deal now that the market has collapsed is wrong.
Where do you disagree with me.
Immie
I would say that while it's lamentable that someone loses their home because of job loss, don't think there should be a government bailout on keeping it. Whether because of cost of mortgage or inability to sell at 'need price'. Indeed, if I can't get what I owe, I'll pay back the balance or file bankruptcy.I'm going to agree and disagree with what you wrote. I'm one of those that because of job may end up in trouble. I'm lucky in the sense of having bought in '95, so my house is still worth more than I paid, even with re-fi. Fixed mortgage, under 5% interest rate. Of course if I lose my job, likely, that won't matter.
Of course, I could declare bankruptcy, but unlikely to do so. I'll sell and probably come out slightly ahead in these times.
Now if I'd bought when this same home was selling for over twice I'd pay for? Should that warrant me walking away? Numbers: I bought in '95, $130k. In 2004 was valued at $380k. Does that make sense? It didn't to me. Since I had 3 kids and my elderly parents living with me, I wasn't about to sell and uproot all.
But what if I had? The same unit it now selling for @$200k. Lots of folks bought when it was much higher. Should they be able 'to walk away?' Regardless of circumstances of employment?
I'm not sure where you disagree with me.
For one thing, I said that sometimes people don't have a choice. They lose their income and there is nothing that they can do about it.
On the other hand, walking away simply because I can find a much better deal now that the market has collapsed is wrong.
Where do you disagree with me.
Immie
I would say that while it's lamentable that someone loses their home because of job loss, don't think there should be a government bailout on keeping it. Whether because of cost of mortgage or inability to sell at 'need price'. Indeed, if I can't get what I owe, I'll pay back the balance or file bankruptcy.I'm not sure where you disagree with me.
For one thing, I said that sometimes people don't have a choice. They lose their income and there is nothing that they can do about it.
On the other hand, walking away simply because I can find a much better deal now that the market has collapsed is wrong.
Where do you disagree with me.
Immie
Sorry, maybe I am paying too much attention to the game, but I don't understand where we disagree.
For one thing, when I said that some people lose their home because of loss of income, I am not saying they should up and leave it. What I mean is that the banks will foreclose on them and then they lose the home. I am not saying they should just dump it in the bank's lap.
Immie
I would say that while it's lamentable that someone loses their home because of job loss, don't think there should be a government bailout on keeping it. Whether because of cost of mortgage or inability to sell at 'need price'. Indeed, if I can't get what I owe, I'll pay back the balance or file bankruptcy.
Sorry, maybe I am paying too much attention to the game, but I don't understand where we disagree.
For one thing, when I said that some people lose their home because of loss of income, I am not saying they should up and leave it. What I mean is that the banks will foreclose on them and then they lose the home. I am not saying they should just dump it in the bank's lap.
Immie
Whew, not often, but seems we're taking past each other. You are probably correct in that we agree. I don't think the government should be bailing out those who lose jobs or that paid too much for their homes. As for the later, if they try to 'walk away' the penalties should be so severe as to make it impossible for their future of home ownership.
Sorry, maybe I am paying too much attention to the game, but I don't understand where we disagree.
For one thing, when I said that some people lose their home because of loss of income, I am not saying they should up and leave it. What I mean is that the banks will foreclose on them and then they lose the home. I am not saying they should just dump it in the bank's lap.
Immie
Whew, not often, but seems we're taking past each other. You are probably correct in that we agree. I don't think the government should be bailing out those who lose jobs or that paid too much for their homes. As for the later, if they try to 'walk away' the penalties should be so severe as to make it impossible for their future of home ownership.
I don't think we disagree at all.
Immie
Truth is, I think we are and will be in tough times for a long time, Obama or not. Way too many paid way too much for their housing. Now they need to step back and say, "We're in this for the long haul, we'll not be 'moving up' until the grandkids are raised." Not happening. They are attempting to walk away, hoping to buy into the lower market.
Whew, not often, but seems we're taking past each other. You are probably correct in that we agree. I don't think the government should be bailing out those who lose jobs or that paid too much for their homes. As for the later, if they try to 'walk away' the penalties should be so severe as to make it impossible for their future of home ownership.
I don't think we disagree at all.
Immie
I'll trust you!
Indeed, some of them are also dealing with job lose and subsequent double calamity. Yes, my heart goes out to them and if food, shelter, medicine is needed, should be there. But profit? No. Protection against loss? No.
I don't think we disagree at all.
Immie
I'll trust you!
Indeed, some of them are also dealing with job lose and subsequent double calamity. Yes, my heart goes out to them and if food, shelter, medicine is needed, should be there. But profit? No. Protection against loss? No.
Like I said, I don't think we disagree, but I keep hoping that developer will come knocking on my door. I think my street would be a prime location for a condo.
Immie
I'll trust you!
Indeed, some of them are also dealing with job lose and subsequent double calamity. Yes, my heart goes out to them and if food, shelter, medicine is needed, should be there. But profit? No. Protection against loss? No.
Like I said, I don't think we disagree, but I keep hoping that developer will come knocking on my door. I think my street would be a prime location for a condo.
Immie
I wish you well and hope that developer comes knocking. Thankfully I'm living in an area where there wasn't 'too much' change. As my previous post illuminated, that's a relative thing. However, I'll probably be able to sell and see a profit, modest as it may be.
So big deal, people who have no regard for personal property rights are scum.People who can afford their mortgage and understood fully the terms of the loan but who are now walking away from it because it's a bad investment are scum. Lots of these people doing this were speculators who helped create the housing crises in the first place.Millions of people are now being advised to just walk away. Quit paying your mortgage and when they come to evict you five or six months later, just walk away. At least that way you get five or six months of rent free living. It will be another 20 years before those houses see their former valuation.
Zander, I suspect that we are going to see some deflation for the next few years as the economy continues to collapse. If my guess is right (and it is a guess as there are too many variables to know anything with certainty in this modern world of ours), those housing prices will fall a lot lower. I have an adopted son (one of many) who bought a condo with his new wife right after they were married. Like most property in San Diego, it has fallen tremendously in value and is worth about half of what he owes. He is paying $3000 a month on the mortgage, yet he could buy another similar condo and only pay 1500 a month.
Now, tell me with a straight face that you would tell him to continue paying that $3000 a month for the next twenty years when for the same money he could buy a full sized house. It is a business decision just like any other. He had no way of knowing that housing values would tank so seriously in San Diego. I tried to warn him before he bought, but that is water over the dam, now.
Fact remains that if treated like any other business decision, he should walk away. The bank took a risk in financing the loan. It was a business decision for them, too. they have made fifty thousand in interest, so up to now it has been very lucrative to them. It is time for them to take some of the loss, too.
A lot of other people feel the same way I do. It is not a question of morals or ethics, but just business. IF the banks were stupid enough to put too much of their money in real estate, then they did not diversify enough. Shame on them.
He should do what he thinks is right. He can walk away, we have non-recourse loans in California. But to blame the bank is just silly.
So the answer to making a stupid business decision is to dump it on the rest of us? That's what they are doing. What happened to doing the right thing?
A contract is a contract and is a legal document and as such is a legal document that is negotiable. If the bottom falls out on property valuation, then the contract under law is negotiable. That is a reality.I guess it's ok for a man's word to be no good any more - like his signature on a loan. That's one of the biggest problems in America today - nobody's word means anything any more.
Bye the way, the bank refuses to modify the contract.
With that in mind, I favor his walking away. What do you think?
Personally since the bank is being so insensitive I have told him to fuck the bank. He is considering it. Personally, I would throw a brick through the window of the bank but he won't.
Bye the way, the bank refuses to modify the contract.
With that in mind, I favor his walking away. What do you think?
Personally since the bank is being so insensitive I have told him to fuck the bank. He is considering it. Personally, I would throw a brick through the window of the bank but he won't.
Millions of people are now being advised to just walk away. Quit paying your mortgage and when they come to evict you five or six months later, just walk away. At least that way you get five or six months of rent free living. It will be another 20 years before those houses see their former valuation.
