Posted on 05/08/2011 10:12:53 PM PDT by george76
Our property taxes keep going up and our roads are the sh*ts, our water, sewer and electrical are going up. Gas is going up and the state wants to raise taxes. The HOPE AND CHANGE just gets better and better.
Zillow is to appraising what Roni Deutch is to tax consulting.
I stand corrected. My original post was correct for all loans that were not for the financing of a principal residence. The Relief act is only in effect for a principal residence from 2006 to 2012. After that, it’s null and void.
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=179414,00.html
I should of said 200 grand in equity. I still have the house though. It’s almost paid for. I’m not sure how selling short would affect credit rating. Make sure he or she looks into it with a professional before taking any action.
“Most people are unaware of this little jewel.”
Except that if the person can show they were broke when they defaulted they do not pay any taxes on that income. Basically, every qualifies.
Zillow is not an appraiser. It is pretty solid for a quickie overview of prices. It works off of completed sales in an area to give approximates of home values. Of course it does not take into account specifics of that particular home, but in a cookie cutter neighborhood, it is fairly accurate. Actual appraisers are nothing to write home about. Prior to the meltdown, they were over inflating to satisfy lenders and now they are way undervaluing to cover their a$$.
I'm just being snarky this morning. I'll go to zillow when I'm reviewing loan mod cases, just to see if they're in the ballpark.
Having done accounting work for homebuilders for 20+ years, I'm well aware of the games played in obtaining appraisals.
This is true. But we must go back to the original sin if we want to find the true culprit. The culprit is not the homeowners making a business decision to walk from a bad investment. Let's start with S&P and Moodys, the ratings companies that said the consolidated mortgage packages sold to investors were good. They were getting a commission off the sales. They were motivated to rate them as good so they could put money in their pocket. The homeowners are just making sure their money stays in their pocket.
“Let’s start with S&P and Moodys, the ratings companies that said the consolidated mortgage packages sold to investors were good. They were getting a commission off the sales.”
####
Whoa!
The racist Communists via Fannie Mae certainly did enough damage on their own, however that appears to be a structural problem with the foundation of our markets.
Call me naive, but is this not a FUNDAMENTAL compromise, and conflict of interest at the heart of our financial system?
So what?
If they can make their monthly payments then they have no reason to default. Unless they are deadbeats.
Are you really saying that this is news to you?
Sue me, I’m not a financial pro.
IF these ratings companies have such a conflict of interest, then why are their ratings and opinions so valued by the financial press, media, banks and other finanical institutions.
Maybe its “news” to them as well, because professionals whose business it is to assess risk were also caught up in this.
Why do people of African ancestry vote 98% of the time for candidates fielded by the Party of Slavery™?
Folks always ask me, “How will bankruptcy affect my credit?”
My answer is always: “The same way that dragging your SUV out of a rocky ravine will affect the paint job. Now, would you like the truck out of the ravine, or not?”
Dude you need to move to the rust belt, hire a minority front man for the face of the company, promise hundreds of “green jobs” and the Dems will stuff your pockets with money.
“Why do people of African ancestry vote 98% of the time for candidates fielded by the Party of Slavery™?”
###
Because they are ignorant, or racialists, or both.
The comparison is not valid with people who are supposed to be financial professionals, and whose living depends on accurate, unbiased information.
If it is such a joke that it is “news” to an outsider like me, let alone the pros, that these ratings are so tainted by impropriety, then why are they given any attention at all?
If this is a well-known fact even among the casual investor as you imply, then these companies would be be ridiculed, or at best simply ignored.
No, thanks. This is a personal project at over 2 miles from the grid, over 300 sun days per year at over 9,000 feet, 110 mph wind load and 30-40 below zero in the winter. I won’t even take the tax credits from Uncle Samantha. I’ll build for wind, too.
http://www.otherpower.com/turbineplans.shtml
It’s going to be fun to watch the NIMBY-commie hags lose.
I’m not sure how it got to be that way, but in the last couple of years, it’s become obvious that the ratings agencies weren’t doing their homework and took the word of whoever submitted bonds for rating that “These securities have no chance of default”, issued the “AAA”, and collected their fees.
I have no idea why anyone would take them seriously any more.
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.