Skip to comments.Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich
Posted on 07/08/2010 10:25:14 PM PDT by Tempest
More than one in seven homeowners with loans in excess of a million dollars are seriously delinquent, according to data compiled for The New York Times by the real estate analytics firm CoreLogic.
By contrast, homeowners with less lavish housing are much more likely to keep writing checks to their lender. About one in 12 mortgages below the million-dollar mark is delinquent.
Though it is hard to prove, the CoreLogic data suggest that many of the well-to-do are purposely dumping their financially draining properties, just as they would any sour investment.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
For so long I've read how the rich create jobs. Instead of destroying jobs or shipping them over seas. How the rich are more deserving because htey work harder and are more responsible.
And worse off, there are still plenty of sheep that buy into that big steaming pile of crap.
Probably ‘Rat donors.
The old gray whore is lying again
You believe a study for the NY Times?
The last time I checked, all those foreclosures were due to middle to low income homeowners.
Just another “Evil rich people” article.
It’s misguided to stereotype a particular group—whether “rich” or “poor.” A lot of people did really dumb things in the years and decades leading up to the financial crisis, and practically every American benefited in some manner from the credit orgy, whether directly or indirectly.
You’d be surprised at how many of those rich fat cats living high on the hog are just barely getting by.
The silly noose-paper didn’t look at incomes at all; it looked at house prices. How many of these are the neuveau-poor, so to speak? Who overextended themselves when money was easy, and are now unemployed and broke or close to it?
The origin of this crisis started when the government forced banks to rewrite standard mortgage credit practices. People who weren’t credit worthy were put into homes they couldn’t afford. It all went down hill from there.
Plenty of blame to go around.
The study wasn’t done by the NY Times.
I also don’t understand why so many here defend the rich. The rich most the time support the DNC and they certainly don’t support social conservatism.
When they’re not looking to sell out America piece meal. They’re looking to regulations changed to favor them in the most selfish of manners.
Moral bankruptcy should not be the aspiration of the GOP
Bwhahaha.... Perhaps if they didn’t live beyond there means they wouldn’t “barely be getting by”.
Great testament to personal responsibility
UH...ever heard of the “Millionaire next door”...you know...the one who does NOT live in a million dollar home? Drives a used car? Lives modestly? I’ll bet that a lot of those in million dollar homes that are foreclosed on....were NOT really “rich.” They just leveraged themselves to look like they were.
“The rich” didn’t all get that way from an infinite lineage of old money. Some hustled their way from the bottom believing in the American dream of an honest return for an honest effort, skill, and/or talent. It is not fair to lump them all together. Also, not too many people have been hired by the poor, after all.
Please explain to me what you consider to be “Rich?”
Woah now, don't be bringing logic or common sense into this. This is the time for scapegoating, not thinking things through.
the article is prolly right
there are 7 rich guys with huge loans and one aint payin up
and there are 1200000 middle class home owners and 12k of em arnt payin up. Still 1 n 7 and 1 n 12 respectively.
sooooo the ole NYT just adjust the ole ratio and presents the numbers in a way that suites them.
sadly there are idiots that will allow the nyt to lead them to a preditermined conclusion.
Rich are people who have more than me who didn’t earn it.
The poor are people who have less than me, who didn’t earn that, either.
I’m the only person who have ever earned anything, ever, and the rich and poor are taking my share.
Hustle sounds about right for a high percentage.
Yeah I’m sure those folks aren’t the ones that default. It’s more the Orange county housewives crowd that so many here misguidedly defend.
Well there’s hustler hustling, then there is hustle that goes with bustle and being busy.
I got my first job from a homeless man washing rats in the Bowery. Paid a wooden nickle and hour, and I was happy to have it.
Woahhh the rich never overextend themselves and abandon investments when they go sour....
Such a conclusion would be too logical and we don’t want logic now do we.
You mean they were raising money by selling counterfeit Tupperware?!?
And crosses made from moon crystals to show their piety.
Huh. Who woulda guessed there was a demand on the street for clean rats?
Those were different times.
Personal responsibility is only for people that can’t afford it...
And yet your condition still hasn’t changed. My but life is so unfair...
refer to post #28
Now there is a finding for you:
1. People who borrow a lot of money for their house are more likely to have trouble paying it back.
2. People who borrow more modest amounts for their house are more likely to be able to pay the loan.
And this finding is suppose to be interesting? BTW, who says that someone with a bigger loan is rich?
The worse problem here is that this survey didn’t classify examples by income, but by size of mortgage. Easy money and ready job availability once meant it was possible to buy much more house than one could afford by older, more sensible standards. This could mean over-leveraged rather than filthy rich. As long as house prices were rising and money was easy, it was also easy to reason that, in a personal financial crisis, you’d just sell the house, make more economical arrangements for the future, and that would be that.
avoid living beyond your means and pray. Alot
are you referring to this article?
Good advice for everyone.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Most studies that try to assign cause/effect relationships correct the data for other factors. Because million dollar mortgages are a VERY small fraction of the mortgage marketplace (million dollar MORTGAGE, not house), the statistics are very susceptible to other strong correlations in the data. Where are the million dollar mortgages? Primarily in California. And the underemployment rate in CA is, what, 25%??? What percentage of mortgages in CA are upside down??? I would like to see the default rate when corrected for unemployment, market conditions, even PITI as a percentage of current income. If the ‘wealthy’ truly are abandoning their financial responsibilities, the fallout is what, the wealthy pay more taxes? If that is the case, seems like self preservation to me. I always thought the taxpayer money going for mortgage assistance was a slap to the face of those that followed the rules and bought within their means. If the wealthy are really opting for strategic defaults, I can;t say that I blame them... the message has been “you really need to pay your share so that people upside in their ill-advised mortgages can keep their homes.” When the policy rewards irresponsibility, what incentive is there to remain responsible???
So you assume that there aren’t more stringent qualifying standards when you get into the higher priced jumbo loan style homes?
I don’t know what percentage of people with +1.5 million dollar homes and investment properties are poor?
your graph only retells the same bs that the article dropped so warm n moist to the ground. Not the overall debt, or number of accounts.
Since there are more rich Democrats than there are rich Republicans, this could be true. However, it is in the NY Times, so it’s probably a fictional piece written by a soon to be unemployed socialist.
Even worse than that, they stopped paying their HOA dues long, long ago, but still have been coming and enjoying the facilities.
As the President of the HOA, I am SO FREAKING SICK of these people. THey are scumbag deadbeats who think they can get away with it. But they don't know me...I will get the money they owe us.
The New York Times ceased to be a credible source for factual information starting in 1896 when Adolph Ochs bought it from Henry Raymond. The Ochs family and in-laws (Orvil [sic] Dryfoos and the Sulzberger) have controlled it ever since.
A case can be made that Timesman Herbert Matthews was instrumental in the rise of Castro. Later Times reporters, such as David Halberstam and Harrison Salisbury, were part of the disinformation campaign that turned America against our troops in Vietnam.
The New York Times is a leftist organ and virtually anything appearing within its pages should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism, IMHO.
You’re openly trying to pull this into the present tense, which to all appearances is quite dishonest.
You’re president of a hated HOA — better duck, you’ll be accused of everything including raping infants.
Having read the article, it’s interesting how it starts off telling the tale of woe of these people in upscale homes, how they’re losing their homes, moving in with relatives, and then morphs into how they’re scamming the system, walking away when they can afford to pay and then says but most homeowners ARE paying their mortgages but the economy is bad because there are empty storefronts down the road, and then back to someone else’s sad story—this article is all over the map.
You can pick your agenda, any agenda, and there’s something for everyone in this article.
Gosh, are you really this easily manipulated??
The story, which I doubt is true because it states that it is hard to prove and then launches into class envy rheortic against the scum sucking evil rich people.
So, even IF this lousey report is even remotely true, it states that ONLY ONE IN TWELEVE are deliberately defaulting!!!!
So pray tell, WHO ARE THE OTHER eleven?????
Gads, people, this is going to get MUCH worse, this financial crisis has just barely begun.
Put on your thinking cap, for goodness sake!!
Well, isn’t socialism about equally spreading the misery? Sounds like Obummer is succeeding at something.