BSR it is a huge difference. The home still sits with the lender. The lender slowly loses money. Instead of the home getting put on the market (which is what SHOULD happen) it sits and gets rented. There is no bill to taxpayers if the home gets repo’d. This policy only delays the inevitable by holding inventory off the market.
It is far healthier for banks and investors to take a bath now and get it all overwith then for them to drag it out over the long haul.
What is the difference between letting them rent verses just rewriting the loan? In either case you are most likely violating the original agreement when the debt became securitized.
Let me ask you this… How is the debt bubble completely cured? It is now the lender who owns an overvalued property? So when the lender goes under what do you suppose will happen to the home? I really see no logic to the argument at all.
BSR finally what has the original homeowner learned from all this? That it is okay to buy an overpriced asset because he will get his *ss saved and it will convert to a rental for him? Has that homeowner learned anything or suffered any hardship other then a ding on his credit?
Where is the d*mned personal responsibility?
Seriously you have to be kidding if you think that sort of solution should even be considered.
