Posted on 09/26/2010 7:41:50 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
honor?
there is no honor in paying a sucker price financing.
The housing prices were inflated based on a con game.
breaking the con game is just as honorable. If you find out someone sold you the golden gate bridge, you argument would require the their continue to recieve payments.
there is no honor for fools.
Now wait a minute - When I'm looking at buying or investing, I do research and homework. When a person is looking at buying a car, do they only listen to the car salesman??
When we were looking at buying a house in Texas, I researched our area for *two years* before we took the plunge. I still keep an eye on comps. (I know that, with $15,000 worth of home improvement, I could put my house on the market for $125,000 and probably get a buyer within 6 months. So I err on the side of caution and project a sale of $110,000 within 18 months and financially plan for the worst-case scenario.)
Americans appear to be eternal optimists and only plan for the best case situations. As a group, we need to take our lumps and learn that we need to cover our butts.
wrong. unless you have 100% cash then cash is king.
In some FL areas financing goes by percentage down. Banks will not touch a condo without 35-50% down.
HOA neighborhoods with high forclosures are toxic for buyers.
comps are meaningless in an era of unreported shortsales and forclosure cases that are intentially kept in limbo.
Of course FL’s rocket docket is a rubber stamp for banks. The NYT did not report the true horror of incompetence demonstrated by these beyond mandatory retirement judges.
It is truely justice denied. I wish a reporter showed up with a hidden cam in the public courtroom and video taped the judges steam rollering over defendants. Some countries are literally using hallways to aseembly line forclosures to summary judgment.
“breaking the con game is just as honorable. If you find out someone sold you the golden gate bridge, you argument would require the their continue to recieve payments.”
Oh, no. That “honor” argument wasn’t mine at all and I do not support it. I totally agree with you about suckers and the suckers market known as the mortgage industry.
“When a person is looking at buying a car, do they only listen to the car salesman??”
Um, yes, yes they do. As stupid as that may sound, they do. I know several car salesmen and even they are amazed at the “deals” people will take. Same with housing and mortgages.
As I have said more than once, this whole mess is everyone’s responsibility. Some may not be personally as they did the best they could for what was right, but on whole everyone is responsible. We voted for the creeps that let the laws and regulatory oversight be manipulated by politicians and by banks, brokers, and real estate agents. We let them. We weren’t affected at the time so we didn’t care. We care now, though, well, some of us anyway. There are still loads of sheeple out there still that still don’t have a clue. They voted for Obama thinking he would save them. Stupid kids.
My daughter graduated last summer and she frequently says that there should be a “Life 101” class taught at every highschool.
It depends on the state. In many states, the bank can pursue you for any deficiency after a foreclosure, so there is a real risk in "mailing the keys back" and just walking away. In those cases, a negotiated settlement is essential.
In some states, such as in Arizona and California, the banks have no recourse for a purchase money loan - their only option is to foreclose and they cannot pursue any deficiency. So in those cases, while their credit would be damaged for a few years, there is no hidden financial risk. With the current tax laws exempting debt forgiven as result of a foreclosure, in these states you can literally mail back the keys and walk away with no further liability.
Even in the case of recourse loans - non-purchase money loans such as a refinance with cash out - the bank has limited options in California. There is a 1-action rule here - the bank can pursue a judicial foreclosure or a non-judicial foreclosure (trustee sale). If they choose a trustee sale (the option selected in 99%+ of foreclosures), they cannot pursue a deficiency, even if the loan is a recourse loan. They rarely pursue judicial foreclosures unless the borrower has a lot of other assets because they are more expensive, take a long time, allow the borrower up to a year after the foreclosure to redeem the property (meaning the property cannot be sold during that time), and the borrower always has the opportunity to claim bankruptcy to eliminate any deficiency.
This is known as "buy and bail", and is becoming rather common in California, at least among those who have the financial means.
First, although buying with cash is preferred, it is not necessary. If the person had maintained his mortgage on his current home and had good credit, it would be relatively easy to get a loan for a 2nd home.
Second, depending upon the state, the bank may have no right to lien the 2nd home or any other asset. Here in CA, in the loan for the 1st home (the one he is defaulting) is a purchase money loan, the only option available to the bank is to foreclose and take the property back - they have no right to a deficiency judgment and cannot place a lien on any other assets.
oops
countries = COUNTIES
the FL Supreme Court instituted the rocket docket to save themselves and justice be hanged.
It's about doing business with people who are honorable.
Look, you can have a system that is not morality based if we want. You can say "I am out to screw you, and I understand you are out to screw me." There are a number of problems with it, one of them being that we have some people who are operating under the "dog eat dog" system while others retain their honor. When they are operating under different assumptions, then that creates inefficiencies. You want to force people with honor to adopt your morality in order to do business. Otherwise, they will lose their shirts.
Moreover, people with a Christian sense of morality don't want to have to think that way. It is immoral to lie, cheat and steal your way through life, even if the other side is going to try to do that to you.
Remember how Ben Franklin, I believe it was, said that our government presupposes a Christian, moral society. Well, our economic system presupposes a people who do not think like jackals.
Were we to switch to that type of system, then a number of things would happen. Credit and business transactions would decrease substantially, because many people would not want to take the risk of losing their money. The other thing that would happen is that the cost of transactions that did occur would rise substantially. Every transaction that is not paid with cash would have to be fully secured, and the terms would have to be carefully spelled out in a way that protects the person going out of pocket from the person incurring the debt. That has already happened to a great extent in commercial transactions, especially where the parties do not have a history of doing business together, but it will get even worse in those, and then extend to dealings that are often more informal today. That would not be progress, any more than reverting to barter would be.
We should retitle this thread, "Jackals or Men of Honor: Which system should we adopt?" I know where I stand, and I see where you stand. May no one I care about ever do business with you.
How about if you borrowed the money to buy the Golden Gate Bridge from a lender who didn't sell the bridge to you, and didn't care if you bought it or something else? When you find out the Bridge is not yours, is it your right to stop paying the lender?
People need to stop equating the banks with the person who sold them inflated homes in a bubble market.
Wow - now I understand why businesses are leaving California in droves.
fraud in the factum.
A fraud in the inception makes everyone a victim. Doubly so for a bank stupid enough to not follow proper procedure.
Your example also makes no sense given that banks always ask for what purpose is this money.
Greed is good.
pigs are slaughtered.
More like in the rectum.
I am using your example, not mine. You postulated a situation where someone bought the Golden Gate Bridge. That situation has nothing to do with the discussion. They wouldn't buy it from the lender.
Hopefully not a how-to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.