Advanced Search
Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili (Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.

This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.

Homeowners who 'strategically default' on loans a growing problem - Democratic Underground

Source: Los angeles times A study shows that people who abruptly and intentionally abandon their mortgages often have high credit scores, in stark contrast with most financially distressed borrowers. By Kenneth R.

Harney September 20, 2009 Reporting from Washington - Who is more likely to walk away from a house and a mortgage -- a person with super-prime credit scores or someone with lower scores? Research using a massive sample of 24 million individual credit files has found that homeowners with high scores when they apply for a loan are 50% more likely to "strategically default" -- abruptly and intentionally pull the plug and abandon the mortgage -- compared with lower-scoring borrowers.

Interesting tidbit, thanks.

Just curious. How do you determine that somebody defaulted strategically, rather than somebody with previously stellar credit has now joined the ranks of the nouveau pauvre?

And they decide that the bill that won't pay is the mortgage... As opposed to the groceries, car, medical... That makes it "strategic"? Whatever.

But they don't want to owe $600K on a $400K house, so they default. They lose the house, but also dump a $600K obligation, so they come out ahead.

The money they save could pay for several years of rent while they wait out the downturn. It's not fair to the rest of us who are trying to meet our mortgages, since it adds to the downward pressure on the market.

But there it is.

They will work two and three jobs to keep their home.

That's why I never believed that the working poor were puposely abandoning their mortgages and didn't need help.

But they are the ones who get screwed really bad;

First by the predatory lending and next by the system that denies them help when they need it.

I worked for a credit union at a major Fed health agency and believe me I know this first hand: the credit union's greatest number of loan defaults came for the very top echelon of managers who ran the Fed agency.

Many of them were wealthy enough to get a good lawyer to take them through bankruptcy or other financial outs like huge tax claims for phoney side businesses.

Yet the credit union was hard on middle and low income members who even agreed to sign up to have their loan payments paid directly from their pay checks.

This is the system all over the US.

If you are wealthy and a cheat, you have no problem maintaining your credit score and getting away with loan defaults.

For the working poor, failure to pay for any reason brings down your credit score, and you can never get out of the hole.

For many in this foreclosure mess it has left them with poor credit scores so that they can't even get a decent place to rent eventhough they can afford the rent.

If you owe $10 million and can't pay, the bank is in trouble.

And he did the same thing.

He let his home go into foreclosure.

He is a VP in the mortgage department so he knows the in and outs.

They are still living in their foreclosed home.

They try and get away with everything they can.

They even would not pay their water bill because the turn off for the water was under their driveway and the water company could not turn it off.

They paid right away after they brought their jackhammers out.

Read up a little.

Because they see it as an investment gone bad. This is the end result of a culture that's spent 20 years training people to view home ownership as a financial investment, for the purpose of investment, vs home ownership for the purpose of shelter.

To check for patterns.

For example, that article said that strategic defaulters always paid on time and suddenly stopped, while other defaulters would struggle to make payments over time until they give up. You can look at other bank records to get a clearer picture of the circumstances and intent.

How many times have regular working folks found themselves holding the bag full of shit and been told not to take it personally - that it's a "business decision"? I don't blame people for making their own personal "business decisions" when they find themselves so upside down on their mortgages that they'd be fools to keep throwing money at the very banks that falsely inflated the home prices in the first place. If you could save yourself a hundred thousand or so by buying a cheaper house that's just as nice as the one you're being gouged on - and can only do it while your credit is still in good standing what reason would stand in your way?

In return.

Doesn't mean that we should not be able to figure out which side of the bread holds the butter. If they can strategically decide to pull the plug on our economy, get us to bail them out for the supposed purpose that then they will help us with loans, then decide it would be better to put the money elsewhere, why can't we be devious also?

.... if I were in that position, all I'd ask myself is "what would a banker do in my position?".

The answer is abundantly clear, I'd mail in the keys. The bankers created this mess, fuck them.

With the glut of foreclosures going on, of course people who wanted to get out of 2-3 mortgages had plenty of opportunity to engage in "jingle mail" and walk away.

They could go rent a house or an apt.

Easily and save a crapload of money and in a few years after they've started to rebuild their credit, buy another house and this time not be saddled with 2nd and 3rd mortgages.

I would be surprised if this *wasn't* happening!

Esp. given the glut of McMansions and people consuming and buying more stuff than they need or can afford.

Bet plenty of these families still have a nice car or SUV (or multiple) and still vacation and buy the best clothes and go out to eat a lot, etc. Ayn Rand was right, you know?

Ie, those with the most credit lines have the best "credit". It is those folks who are living beyond their means - not the working poor that the rabid-right blames for taking out inappropriate mortgages.

In favor of "$12/hr being the new good wage" jobs. http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/04/news/economy/green_jobs...

Experience along with social media, marketing and database knowledge.

College degree required, post graduate preferred.

Pay? $12/hour. This in the suburbs of Philadelphia. Rude awakening time comes when these Masters of the Universe are rehiring once the economy rebounds and their employees bolt. I look forward to that time.

After all the student loans they are making nothing. Sad is what it is.

N/t

Never understood this.

If these same folks applied the same false sense of economics, they'd walk away from their car loans as soon as the ink on the contract was dry.

Difference is, real estate will at some point appreciate again.

That car? 99.999% of the time never will.

Home mortgages are often non-recourse loans, meaning the bank can't come after you personally, but can only take back the asset.

Not so with auto loans;

Although they can take back the asset, they can also send the debt collectors after you.

Personally speaking, in Florida, the lender can seek a Deficiency Judgment.

It acts like any other sort of civil suit judgment, including the ones obtained by an auto loan lender or credit card company.

If they wanted to, should you ever buy another piece of property in Florida, they could certify it in the county you buy that property in and it attaches to the new property for years and years.

Statute 55.10 if you'd like to look it up. Secondly, it's not apples and oranges.

Both are assets. The mentality of walking away from one loan because it's "underwater" but not the other shows the stupidity, especially considering the auto will almost surely NEVER appreciate again, the real estate will at some point.

Where I live, our market has depreciated by over 60%.

Normal non-"bubble" property appreciation rates were about 3% per year.

A resident of this area who bought at the peak will be waiting 20 years for their home to reach its purchase price again. A 20 year investment with a 0% return is generally considered a bad deal.

Both are assets, but statistically one gets paid off, and within 5 years.

30 years is another matter. Also, there are matters of scale;

An auto loan is obviously much smaller, the "foreclosure" process much quicker and neater, the lender has already built depreciation into the lending model, and the secondary market is speedy enough to make it worthwhile to repossess.

Stop paying on a car, they will come get it within a month or two.

Stop paying on a house, and all kinds of systems kick in to try to make you keep paying something, anything, while they work it out.

Consider why. You are correct, FL is one of a handful of recourse states.

But many states are non-recourse for purchase loans.

Those states tend to lead walk-aways, unsurprisingly.

Http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... Still, my interest rates better not go up because of others' actions...

Educational level.

Maybe if they controlled the study for number of mortgages held at once, it'd be interesting.

Many seem to assume these are all people living beyond their means, somehow undeserving of whatever they're scraping off the belly of the beast here. Not so.

Why assume it? And why so many here are siding with the banks, through some misplaced loyalty (which reminds me of the poor who vote GOP), is beyond me. It's a very simple equation.

The banks loan you money.

You put your house up for collateral.

If you stop paying, the bank can come get the house. Both sides are responsible for the contract they sign.

The bank, just like the debtor, was assuming real estate would always increase in value.

It didn't. If the banks have to take a few lumps, so be it.

Many of the same people who learned how to play the real estate money game when the market was up are looking to play it when it is down.

My step brother has done this, and he is exactly as described: sold a house for $700k, bought a bigger one for $900, had it reappraised, took money out to make more improvements.

Now he owes $1.6 million on a house NO ONE HAS EVER PAID that kind of money for.

He could afford his payments, but he is choosing not to pay, because he owes more than the thing is worth, so he's walking away. He seems really angry that his god (the real estate boom) is dead.

They might well be able to pay their mortgage and their other debts.

They simply choose not to. I don't think DUers should be applauding those people, do you?

Some people abuse the system, sure, but that's true of everything.

For people whose home value has dropped to 50% of their original purchase price, it can be pretty tempting to walk away.

Yeah, they could plan to stay in the house for the next 25-30 years, but they can't possibly sell it any time in the next 5 years, maybe even far longer, and not have to bring tens or even hundreds of thousands to closing. I know a couple who would have to bring $140K to closing if they sold their house at its current market value, and these people aren't speculators or folks who lived beyond their means.

The property values in their area are absolutely in the toilet, and people who still live there are stuck, stuck, stuck.

The job market where they are sucks, too, so they can't leave for a city that has more jobs.

And we're not talking about their other debts here, only the mortgage. If you have the money to pay a mortgage that has recently doubled for a home that's lost half its value (and you believe it's not coming back for 5-10 years), OR could use that money for your children in some manner, would that choice be acceptable to you? How about if you could just barely make the payment on the house, if you stopped doing anything with your family but eat beans and rice.

Would you do it? What misplaced loyalty.

Where exactly do you see the banks, who are half the equation here, enduring any hardship in response to the housing bubble they apparently could not foresee? You apparently want to broad-brush everyone who is walking away from their mortgage with your vision of a smug investor who is balking.

Ignorant and arrogant.

Agreeing to a long-term contract like a mortgage is a moral contract as well, and if we all have ethics of convenience, society itself starts to come apart. The argument that many of the downtrodden make is that the lender is obviously just an evil corporation, so they had it coming to them. I remember posting with disgust when Mike Gravel was asked about defaulting on credit cards with an answer that he wishes he could have stuck them with even more debt.

There were VERY few posters on this board who saw anything wrong with this, and that was a very depressing display.

Many people reveled in besting the evil corporations, and that was just plain nauseating. Society is held together by people being beholden to their word, and NOT just when it's convenient. Defaulting on contracts should only be done as a last resort, not as a welching of convenience when the deal isn't as advantageous anymore.

That this needs to be pointed out to people as much as it does is deplorable. Once, when I made a business gamble and wound up with major credit card debt, friends counseled me to declare bankruptcy.

I was aghast; most of them knew that I wasn't in dire straights, but just that it would be advantageous for me to keep our house and wipe away some inconvenient obligations.

Some of those friendships haven't been the same since then;

I saw the people in a different light.

Yes, it took me a few years to pay off the cards, and yes, I had to work harder at various jobs I didn't much care for, but I put whole paychecks into the bank, delayed having kids a bit, and did the right thing.

This shouldn't be the mark of an exemplary person, this should SIMPLY BE WHAT IS EXPECTED OF AN HONORABLE MEMBER OF SOCIETY.

This is basic coexistence. Sadly, that kind of raving falls on deaf ears, just as railing against using pirated software, music and movies does.

How would you quantify the moral obligation of the bank? In other words, if the agreement was, loan me money, here's my house as collateral, what's the moral dilemma of not returning the money and letting the bank have the house?

The deal was "loan me the money to buy this house, and you hold the ability to foreclose and take the house if I default".

It wasn't "loan me the money, and if I feel like paying it off, I might." Walking away makes it harder for everyone else in the future;

Our actions have repercussions. Banks don't generally want to be owning the houses.

That wasn't their intent, and they were counting on you to pay on a regular basis until the loan matured.

Default is default.

Why is never discussed.

You are reading much into a contract that is not there. If banks don't want to be owning houses, they should not loan money based upon the premise they will take the house if the money is not paid, because it *will* happen, because that is the deal they are striking. They will try to only loan to people who won't do that, it's true.

But their model for identifying those people failed, not their contract, nor the people they loaned to.

When you say "screw the public, we are only here to make the stockholders rich" you are giving carte blanche to everyone else to do likewise to you when the chance offers.

Just because many corporations are evil doesn't mean we can be reckless with our personal obligations.

This leads quickly to a scofflaw society where the only real law is successful perpetration. I fully agree that this attitude from corporations begets such behavior, but that doesn't make it "right" or "constructive" or "fair", it just makes it understandable. Sadly, many people LIKE feeling wronged;

It gives them free rein to do as they damned well please, since the world's been so mean to them. Your point is well taken and very accurate, but when one force in society decides to flaunt the law and thumb their noses at the rest of us (be they human or corporation), the morally just response shouldn't be to feel loosed of the obligation to be decent, it should be to hold the miscreants' feet to the fire. Nice avatar.

I wonder what Walt would say...

Since they are not persons. It's an investment.

That is how it is sold, and that is what it is.

The mortgage is a contract, and exercising it's provisions is a legal right.

The bank's security for the investment is the house itself, that is what you owe to them if you no longer want to pay, and that is what they get, and you have every moral and legal right to do exactly that, walk away.

If the banks do not like that, they should do a better job of valuing the security they accept for their loans.

They have it coming, and I hope they get plenty of it.

Corporations, business entities, and governments of all kinds intentionally breach contracts where it makes economic sense to do so, where the costs of performance are greater than the costs of breaching and performing a different contract.

From an ecomomic standpoint, scarce societal resources are more efficiently allocated that way. Law professors call it the "efficient breach." And it happens all the time.

If the Bigger banks had scores of people working from them, recruited from the top universities, all of theese great young minds putting together analytical computer programs to figure out the status of the banks' economic activities, then shouldn't the banks be taking the bigger hits? When you read that the computer models created to analyze the economics happenings NEVER took into account the notion that there might be a bubble and that it might burst, then you realize how irresponsible the banking system really was.

Similar to the ones justified that way by corporations.

I'd cheer on the people who are pulling this maneuver if it weren't for my general disgust at corporations and individuals who play the game this way and of course my fear that somehow I'll end up paying for it. What makes it usefully to me is that it's another nail in the coffin for the simple minded thinking that credit reports and credit scoring models are the best determinant of credit worthiness.

The people who get behind and still try to pay no matter what are at great risk of throwing away a lot of money.

If the house gets taken back, they're out everything, including those payments they could barely afford. People who walk away when they know they can't pay are simply smart enough to know when to cut their losses.

It's probably why they had good credit to start.

Though they COULD afford to pay for the house they contracted to pay for?

They're essentially making the same business decision.

Do you continue to pay a mortgage on a house that is worth a lot less than the mortgage? Not defending people who do this, but from a financial standpoint, the decision is the same regardless of whether you're broke or have a million dollars in the bank.

It's a simple matter of whether the money is being wasted or not.

My husband and I have been pretty destitute for the past 2 years.

Have quit paying everything except the mortgage.

We have just managed to make enough house notes to hold on to the house but are likely to wind up losing it at some point, anyway.

I think often we would be better off if we had dumped it and rented something cheaper but he is determined to try to hold on to it.

So, in deference to him, I just keep going along with it.

Are the culprits who over valued these properties in the first place.

I'm taking what is perhaps my last shot at selling a rental property just to get out from under the loan.

It's my understanding the buyer is paying cash.

If the deal falls through for whatever reason, I'll see if the bank will take it back.

If not, I'll have to cut my losses.

Simple as that.

I'm decidedly unappreciative and unsympathetic.

Wouldn't need the credit.

Mortgagee for whats called a "deficiency judgment" which is the same the difference in what you owed the bank (including fees and interest allowed in the mortgage) and the price they get for the home at the sheriff's sale /court house steps.

They USUALLY don't do this but they can.

The deficiency judgment is just like any other judgment and can result in the seizure of other real property, assets, bank accounts and garnishment of wages.

Most can get away with it but I know banks are going after those with other identifiable assets when they try to do this.

Given that fact, most creditors will NOT go after the ex-homeowner, why spend $2,000-$10,000 to get a Judgment that only forces the ex-homeowner to file Bankruptcy? Remember the Federal Exemptions in Bankruptcy (Effective is ALL states UNLESS the Debtor opts for the State Exemption of the state their reside in): 522(d)(1) Real property, including mobile homes and co-ops, or burial plots up to $20,200.

Unused portion of homestead, up to $10,125, may be used for other property. Personal Property: 522(d)(2) - Motor vehicle up to $3,225. 522(d)(3) - Animals, crops, clothing, appliances and furnishings, books, household goods, and musical instruments up to $525 per item, and up to $10,775 total. 522(d)(4) - Jewelry up to $1,350. 522(d)(5) - $1,075 of any property, and unused portion of homestead up to $10,125. 522(d)(9) - Health aids. 522(d)(11)(B) - Wrongful death recovery for person you depended upon. 522(d)(11)(D) - Personal injury recovery up to $20,200 except for pain and suffering or for pecuniary loss. 522(d)(11)(E) - Lost earnings payments. Pensions: 522(b)(3)(C) - Tax exempt retirement accounts;

IRAs and Roth IRAs up to $1,095,000 per person. Public Benefits: 522(d)(10)(A) - Public assistance, Social Security, Veteran’s benefits, Unemployment Compensation. 522(d)(11)(A) - Crime victim’s compensation Tools of Trade: 522(d)(6) - Implements, books and tools of trade, up to $2,025. Alimony and Child Support: 522(d)(10)(D) - Alimony and child support needed for support Insurance: 522(d)(7) - Unmatured life insurance policy except credit insurance. 522(d)(8) - Life insurance policy with loan value up to $10,775. 522(d)(10)( C ) - Disability, unemployment or illness benefits 522(d)(11)( C ) - Life insurance payments for a person you depended on, which you need for support http://www.thebankruptcysite.org/exemptions/federal.htm... If the debtor can put himself or herself under the above (and it is NOT that hard) any and all other debts (With certain exemptions such as student loans, debts do to Criminal activities, Taxes etc). Note: Remember the above are based on RESALE value of the items being protected NOT what you paid for it.

Thus if you own a Car it is NOT what you paid for it or what you would pay for it today but what you can sell it for today.

I.e. paid $20,000 for the car, on a dealer lot for sale at $10,000 but if you traded it in you would get $3,225 for it, then the car is 100% covered under the Federal Exemption.

Worse if its trade in value was $5000 but had a $2000 more to pay off the Vehicle, then again it is below the federal exemption (Which is based on Equity value of the car, its trade in value LESS any lien still on the car).

Deficiency judgments in the past.

However, this thread is about people who (at least some of them)have incomes, assets, maybe even other property but are simply making a "business decision" to walk away from an underwater mortgage.

Those people are not what is commonly known as judgment proof.

The BK court may, in evaluating the income of the debtor, find that they do have the income to pay most/part/all of their unsecured debt.

Remember, some of these people could make the payment, but rather choose to no longer as the present value of the asset is less than the debt associated with that asset. However, bankruptcy is/can be very complex and vary from state to state.

And I am certainly no expert in it.

Anyone who is thinking about this please seek legal counsel and don't say down the road when your ex mortgage holder sells the BMW you bought with the money you saved from not paying your mortgage that someone on DU said it was OK. PS - true story - 64 year old mom gives paid off house (worth about 150k) to son for medicaid planning purposes - meaning she still lives there and thinks of it as hers.

4 years later, son (who could pay the mortgage) decides he does not want to pay 400k for his house anymore as he could buy the same model down the street for 265k so he does not.

Just before he stops making the payments he buys the 265k house with a big down payment.

400k house mortgage holder knows about his new house AND his "owning" his moms house.

Foreclose on the 400k house, sells for 235k at court house, they DO GET a deficiency judgment against him, have the sheriff tag the MOMS HOUSE - remember, in his name for Medicaid planning purposes- and they schedule it for sale 4 months later.

Mom comes to me 3 days before sale.

I cant help her. Mom, now almost 70, is evicted from her home 2 months later by new owners.

How the #@&^* did he end up with a 400k mortgage on it?

Doeesn't make sense.

Or are you talking about 3 different houses here?

Was not more clear.

By title he "owned" the 150k house that mom lived in, he was paying the mort.

On his first house that had a mort of 400k but was worth 265k.

He went out and purchased the third house (265k) and let his 400k house go into foreclosure.

He made a "business decision" to stop making payments for the house he was underwater on.

Good advice if you are judgment proof or live in CA where all purchase money 1st mortgages are non-recourse.

He was not in CA so the bank did a records search and found "moms" house sitting there free and clear.

They ended up with it in the end. Sad story and one which I try to tell my clients about when they walk in and say they hear they can put their kids names on everything so it doesn't go to the government when they need nursing home care.

(Not even going to start with my objections to that as a matter of public policy btw.) You would be amazed at what problems come up between seniors and their adult children.

Lots of outright theft of funds and unintended consequences of "coffee shop estate planning".

Are they considered assets? How are they handled under medicaid?

They have yet to make an appearance, they WILL sue anybody.

Although I am not sure the law in most states would give them the first party rights required to secure a judgment.

You as a financial institution can sell a deficiency judgment to a third party, I don't think many states would allow you to sell the deficiency balance in itself with any sort of first party rights the same way you could sell a delinquent credit card balance for instance.

$12 an hour would be a FANTASTIC paying job.

$6 an $7 an hour is more the norm in today's job market. And for $6 an hour..

They want a college degree, shift work, total loyalty and they treat you like a step child. This is the hell that the senile ignorant Ronald Raygun unleashed on us. If everyone in America refused to pay their credit cards it would bring these greedy bastards to their knees.

I think your numbers above are outdated.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

The post I replied to said in part "$6 an $7 an hour is more the norm in today's job market.

And for $6 an hour..

They want a college degree, shift work, total loyalty and they treat you like a step child." Even though the economy is bad and jobs are scarce, I don't think farm labor and restaurant employers are asking for college degrees (yet?). I get his/her point though - and I keep trying to remind myself not to point out inaccuracies in peoples posts but it is an occupational hazard and, in reality, makes for better debate against RWers.

They tend to jump on these types of mistakes and it can discredit the underlying point trying to be made. Sorry about the dupe post - replied to wrong post 1st time.

The post I replied to said in part "$6 an $7 an hour is more the norm in today's job market.

And for $6 an hour..

They want a college degree, shift work, total loyalty and they treat you like a step child." Even though the economy is bad and jobs are scarce, I don't think farm labor and restaurant employers are asking for college degrees (yet?). I get his/her point though - and I keep trying to remind myself not to point out inaccuracies in peoples posts but it is an occupational hazard and, in reality, makes for better debate against RWers.

They tend to jump on these types of mistakes and it can discredit the underlying point trying to be made.

Into economic survivalism.

I have been told that "I may be called for a second interview," or "may be put on the short list," or "my name will be given to HR" for $9 or $10/hr jobs.

I feel grateful to not have kids to support, or a mortgage.

If these people have weighed all their options, and have decided that this is what they have to do to avoid a bloodbath, I don't have too much problem with it...

In America. We are reaching a boiling point.

I really don't know how much longer people can endure what is happening without some spontaneous eruption of revolt.

The supreme court is about to declare corporate personhood and once that happens, say goodbye to any last shred of democracy remaining.

We struggled and struggled to make all of our payments.

When I lost my job, I contacted my bank and let them know that I would be going back into training for 18 months at a 40% pay reduction and that I would need assistance to continue to make my payments.

They said that they could not do anything for me because I had never missed a payment. We sat down and did the math.

A bankruptcy and a foreclosure later we have savings and actual security for once.

Yes, I was irresponsible with money prior to losing my job.

No I did not have a cushion to fall on when shit hit the fan.

I didn't feel gleeful about doing what I did, but I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that my strategic default was the best possible decision for my family. I had excellent credit and all it got me was a chronic yearning for over-time to pay the interest on my irresponsibility.

Starting over is prudent sometimes.

Now I work 40 hours a week in a union job and the stress is gone.

It adds nothing to your family finaces.

If you are underwater, then you are paying more for less.

Bottom line, its a stupid thing to do.

From writing the loan to handling delinquency.

So why shouldn't homeowners develop strategies to fuck the banks?

Free market, right, conservo-idiots?

Survival of he-who-fucks-his-neighbor-most-efficiently.

Interest rates (even now, ARMs are going up, even though real interest rates are close to zero with the huge influx of federal money), and in general, do anything they want to to anyone they want to. Get a little bit of their own treatment?

Crybabies. Glad I haven't needed a bank for over 30 years for anything....

For example, someone lives in a 2,000 square foot home for which they paid $300,000 3 years ago.

Now, with the glut of foreclosures on the market, they can buy a nearly identical 2,000 square foot home for $150,000 a few miles away from their current residence.

In order to qualify for another mortgage, people were representing to lenders that they were going to rent out their current residence.

They would then buy the new home, move in, and let the $300,000 home go into foreclosure.

They had just slashed their mortgage by 50% without giving up anything in terms of standard of living.

Of course, there's the matter of that pesky foreclosure on your credit, but if you won't need another loan for a few years it's not that big of a deal. Lenders have recently changed their underwriting guidelines to combat this phenomenon.

Now you have to have 25% - 30% equity in your current home in order to buy another home that is only a short distance away.

It's called the "Buy & Bail" underwriting guideline.

Thanks

These nice educated "business minded" ripoff cons- "they had just slashed their mortgage by 50% without giving up anything in terms of standard of living" -- and people with so few resources who attempted to resolve their difficulties in good faith and still ended up on the street or living out of their cars. I resent the Hell out of the former class category and how they significantly helped create this effing fiasco.

It's not JUST about the contemptible predatory lenders and the overblown demographic myths of who was at "prey". Old DU thread (Consumer Finance Study). http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

So they walk away.

Two can play the game and the market doesn't like it. the banks and wall street concocted this nightmare and some folks figured out how to walk away from their mortgages.

Make it right? not really but none of this should have happened in the first place if people played fair but they don't.

Who can just walk away and still own or rent another nice home or otherwise give up very little of their lifestyle-- it is US who pay.

WE bail out the banks, WE pay the higher interest rates, WE see small business getting credit choked off.

18% calculatedly willing to stiff the rest of us indirectly with their tab is not a trivial percentage.

Not these individuals that are making sound business decisions in the face of a failed investment.

Congress can't fix that.

People thought that homes were infinite money machines.

They can now pay the price for that assumption, just like I would if I bought a stock that goes belly up.

It's more of the socialized losses/privatized profits way of thinking we've had recently, just on a more individual scale.

It is indeed a good idea to not buy at the top of a bubble ("Buy low, sell high") and it is indeed Congress that is fucking us. It is, for the record, not a good idea to loan money on inflated notional valuations at the top of a bubble either, and the banks earned a fucking just as much as any borrower.

... for the decision to backstop the banks.

It's not the homeowners fault.

First. Oh banky no like it.

Tough shitola. Oh and the outcome is the same-their credit will be trashed and they will no longer live in the house.

It's not like they really got away with anything-just smart enough to find someplace else to live first.

And we know the banks hate it when that happens.

It's better to put every dime you don't have into a house you will never be able to afford and have no money and be homeless.

Just to please Fox Business channel?

I don't think so.




Omgili Home About FAQ Plugins Usenet