2 bodies found in burning foreclosed house

[bearishgurl]

Just perused the article provided by patb.

The fact that the son built up a “fortress” around the house ALREADY LOCATED in a prestigious gated community further buttresses my notion that the son felt his life was threatened in some way, perhaps by mafia-backed thugs who threatened him when he couldn’t pay all his casino debt.

I don’t believe the son built this fortress for a “5-day notice to vacate.”

BK filings and dismissals are a common tactic and “par for the course” when people are faced with foreclosure and want to buy a little time.

Also, after reading this, I NO LONGER FEEL their (hard-money or sub-prime) lender solicited these trustors door-to-door. I think the son had to have sought them out.

[GH]

yes it may not appeal to people but the
cramdown is the best outcome.[/quote]

In this instance YES, but keep in mind hundreds of thousands of other properties quietly foreclose and everyone moves on.

If property prices had again doubled, would ANY of these people be doing anything but rubbing it in our faces when we rent and wait?

[GH]

yes it may not appeal to people but the
cramdown is the best outcome.[/quote]

In this instance YES, but keep in mind hundreds of thousands of other properties quietly foreclose and everyone moves on.

If property prices had again doubled, would ANY of these people be doing anything but rubbing it in our faces when we rent and wait?

[GH]

yes it may not appeal to people but the
cramdown is the best outcome.[/quote]

In this instance YES, but keep in mind hundreds of thousands of other properties quietly foreclose and everyone moves on.

If property prices had again doubled, would ANY of these people be doing anything but rubbing it in our faces when we rent and wait?

[GH]

yes it may not appeal to people but the
cramdown is the best outcome.[/quote]

In this instance YES, but keep in mind hundreds of thousands of other properties quietly foreclose and everyone moves on.

If property prices had again doubled, would ANY of these people be doing anything but rubbing it in our faces when we rent and wait?

[GH]

yes it may not appeal to people but the
cramdown is the best outcome.[/quote]

In this instance YES, but keep in mind hundreds of thousands of other properties quietly foreclose and everyone moves on.

If property prices had again doubled, would ANY of these people be doing anything but rubbing it in our faces when we rent and wait?

[patb]

[quote=ucodegen][quote patb]
In a decent society, a bankruptcy judge would write the note down to the new value of 200K.
[/quote]
Why? It is a secured note. Someone fronted the 400K. If you want mortgage rates to go sky high, go ahead and do this. The people lending money will start demanding a higher interest rate to offset the risk of loss of capital. They will refuse to lend until they get this. Remember that the lenders only make about 72% over the life of the loan (not adjusting for inflation and assuming that they are the primary source of capital). If you are going to demand a 50% haircut from the lenders with the possibility of then getting 36% back for a total return of -14% over a 30 year period(about -0.5%/yr) vs their 72% for a 30 year (about 4%/yr). The result will be mortgage interest rates close to 8 or 9% because you are effectively taking a secured loan and making it unsecured… just like credit cards – whose balances can be written down.

I would LOVE to have all my ‘costs’ readjusted if the real price changes. Imagine that if a stock price goes down, I get some of my cash back because its real value is less!! NICE!!!

[quote patb]
yes it may not appeal to people but the
cramdown is the best outcome.
[/quote]
And what of moral hazard?[/quote]

UC

i hate to tell you this but for almost a 100 years Cramdown was part of law.

If there was cramdown, there would be serious
attention to making sure a deal has lots of equity

[patb]

[quote=ucodegen][quote patb]
In a decent society, a bankruptcy judge would write the note down to the new value of 200K.
[/quote]
Why? It is a secured note. Someone fronted the 400K. If you want mortgage rates to go sky high, go ahead and do this. The people lending money will start demanding a higher interest rate to offset the risk of loss of capital. They will refuse to lend until they get this. Remember that the lenders only make about 72% over the life of the loan (not adjusting for inflation and assuming that they are the primary source of capital). If you are going to demand a 50% haircut from the lenders with the possibility of then getting 36% back for a total return of -14% over a 30 year period(about -0.5%/yr) vs their 72% for a 30 year (about 4%/yr). The result will be mortgage interest rates close to 8 or 9% because you are effectively taking a secured loan and making it unsecured… just like credit cards – whose balances can be written down.

I would LOVE to have all my ‘costs’ readjusted if the real price changes. Imagine that if a stock price goes down, I get some of my cash back because its real value is less!! NICE!!!

[quote patb]
yes it may not appeal to people but the
cramdown is the best outcome.
[/quote]
And what of moral hazard?[/quote]

UC

i hate to tell you this but for almost a 100 years Cramdown was part of law.

If there was cramdown, there would be serious
attention to making sure a deal has lots of equity

[patb]

[quote=ucodegen][quote patb]
In a decent society, a bankruptcy judge would write the note down to the new value of 200K.
[/quote]
Why? It is a secured note. Someone fronted the 400K. If you want mortgage rates to go sky high, go ahead and do this. The people lending money will start demanding a higher interest rate to offset the risk of loss of capital. They will refuse to lend until they get this. Remember that the lenders only make about 72% over the life of the loan (not adjusting for inflation and assuming that they are the primary source of capital). If you are going to demand a 50% haircut from the lenders with the possibility of then getting 36% back for a total return of -14% over a 30 year period(about -0.5%/yr) vs their 72% for a 30 year (about 4%/yr). The result will be mortgage interest rates close to 8 or 9% because you are effectively taking a secured loan and making it unsecured… just like credit cards – whose balances can be written down.

I would LOVE to have all my ‘costs’ readjusted if the real price changes. Imagine that if a stock price goes down, I get some of my cash back because its real value is less!! NICE!!!

[quote patb]
yes it may not appeal to people but the
cramdown is the best outcome.
[/quote]
And what of moral hazard?[/quote]

UC

i hate to tell you this but for almost a 100 years Cramdown was part of law.

If there was cramdown, there would be serious
attention to making sure a deal has lots of equity

[patb]

[quote=ucodegen][quote patb]
In a decent society, a bankruptcy judge would write the note down to the new value of 200K.
[/quote]
Why? It is a secured note. Someone fronted the 400K. If you want mortgage rates to go sky high, go ahead and do this. The people lending money will start demanding a higher interest rate to offset the risk of loss of capital. They will refuse to lend until they get this. Remember that the lenders only make about 72% over the life of the loan (not adjusting for inflation and assuming that they are the primary source of capital). If you are going to demand a 50% haircut from the lenders with the possibility of then getting 36% back for a total return of -14% over a 30 year period(about -0.5%/yr) vs their 72% for a 30 year (about 4%/yr). The result will be mortgage interest rates close to 8 or 9% because you are effectively taking a secured loan and making it unsecured… just like credit cards – whose balances can be written down.

I would LOVE to have all my ‘costs’ readjusted if the real price changes. Imagine that if a stock price goes down, I get some of my cash back because its real value is less!! NICE!!!

[quote patb]
yes it may not appeal to people but the
cramdown is the best outcome.
[/quote]
And what of moral hazard?[/quote]

UC

i hate to tell you this but for almost a 100 years Cramdown was part of law.

If there was cramdown, there would be serious
attention to making sure a deal has lots of equity

[patb]

[quote=ucodegen][quote patb]
In a decent society, a bankruptcy judge would write the note down to the new value of 200K.
[/quote]
Why? It is a secured note. Someone fronted the 400K. If you want mortgage rates to go sky high, go ahead and do this. The people lending money will start demanding a higher interest rate to offset the risk of loss of capital. They will refuse to lend until they get this. Remember that the lenders only make about 72% over the life of the loan (not adjusting for inflation and assuming that they are the primary source of capital). If you are going to demand a 50% haircut from the lenders with the possibility of then getting 36% back for a total return of -14% over a 30 year period(about -0.5%/yr) vs their 72% for a 30 year (about 4%/yr). The result will be mortgage interest rates close to 8 or 9% because you are effectively taking a secured loan and making it unsecured… just like credit cards – whose balances can be written down.

I would LOVE to have all my ‘costs’ readjusted if the real price changes. Imagine that if a stock price goes down, I get some of my cash back because its real value is less!! NICE!!!

[quote patb]
yes it may not appeal to people but the
cramdown is the best outcome.
[/quote]
And what of moral hazard?[/quote]

UC

i hate to tell you this but for almost a 100 years Cramdown was part of law.

If there was cramdown, there would be serious
attention to making sure a deal has lots of equity

[ucodegen]

[quote patb]
i hate to tell you this but for almost a 100 years Cramdown was part of law.
[/quote]
I’d be curious as to where you get that ‘fact’. Part of the differentiation between secured and unsecured loans is that with secured loans, unless their is fraud.. the lender walks away from bk with the property and the borrower is free and clear of the loan.. whether or not the lender is ‘made whole'(only exemption that I know of on this is under homestead act). If it is unsecured, the lender can go after other assets, including garnishing bank accounts, tax returns and wages.

There are some variants in some states, like New Mexico, where if the lender is not made whole, they can go after other assets (recourse vs nonrecourse). Of course, this may be ‘stayed’ under bk.. where the lender on the secured loan only gets the property and no more, even though they were not made whole.

[ucodegen]

[quote patb]
i hate to tell you this but for almost a 100 years Cramdown was part of law.
[/quote]
I’d be curious as to where you get that ‘fact’. Part of the differentiation between secured and unsecured loans is that with secured loans, unless their is fraud.. the lender walks away from bk with the property and the borrower is free and clear of the loan.. whether or not the lender is ‘made whole'(only exemption that I know of on this is under homestead act). If it is unsecured, the lender can go after other assets, including garnishing bank accounts, tax returns and wages.

There are some variants in some states, like New Mexico, where if the lender is not made whole, they can go after other assets (recourse vs nonrecourse). Of course, this may be ‘stayed’ under bk.. where the lender on the secured loan only gets the property and no more, even though they were not made whole.

[ucodegen]

[quote patb]
i hate to tell you this but for almost a 100 years Cramdown was part of law.
[/quote]
I’d be curious as to where you get that ‘fact’. Part of the differentiation between secured and unsecured loans is that with secured loans, unless their is fraud.. the lender walks away from bk with the property and the borrower is free and clear of the loan.. whether or not the lender is ‘made whole'(only exemption that I know of on this is under homestead act). If it is unsecured, the lender can go after other assets, including garnishing bank accounts, tax returns and wages.

There are some variants in some states, like New Mexico, where if the lender is not made whole, they can go after other assets (recourse vs nonrecourse). Of course, this may be ‘stayed’ under bk.. where the lender on the secured loan only gets the property and no more, even though they were not made whole.

[ucodegen]

[quote patb]
i hate to tell you this but for almost a 100 years Cramdown was part of law.
[/quote]
I’d be curious as to where you get that ‘fact’. Part of the differentiation between secured and unsecured loans is that with secured loans, unless their is fraud.. the lender walks away from bk with the property and the borrower is free and clear of the loan.. whether or not the lender is ‘made whole'(only exemption that I know of on this is under homestead act). If it is unsecured, the lender can go after other assets, including garnishing bank accounts, tax returns and wages.

There are some variants in some states, like New Mexico, where if the lender is not made whole, they can go after other assets (recourse vs nonrecourse). Of course, this may be ‘stayed’ under bk.. where the lender on the secured loan only gets the property and no more, even though they were not made whole.

[Author]

Posts