Buy before you foreclose

[jh]

That is not entirely true pedrocon. Read CA Civil Code 580d. If you refinance, and the lender pursues a non-judicial foreclosure (99.9% of lenders pursue non-judicial foreclosures), then the lender cannot sue you for a deficiency. It is still non-recourse. Of course, if you have two loans on the property, and you refinance them both, and the 2nd becomes a sold-out junior, then he can come after you for a deficiency. In other words, it would be a recouse loan in this situation.

[TheBreeze]

Now if you buy a house for $700000 and you can’t afford to make payments then it would be better for you to let the house go. Buy the same house for $425000 and then the bank will get their money (because you can now afford it) and you will get your house and everybody lives happily ever after.

Hmmm. How do you figure that everyone lives happily ever after? One party is going to take a $300,000 loss (most likely taxpayers). So no, everyone isn’t going to live happily ever after. Some scum bucket is going to suck $300K out of the wallets of unhappy taxpayers.

[TheBreeze]

Now if you buy a house for $700000 and you can’t afford to make payments then it would be better for you to let the house go. Buy the same house for $425000 and then the bank will get their money (because you can now afford it) and you will get your house and everybody lives happily ever after.

Hmmm. How do you figure that everyone lives happily ever after? One party is going to take a $300,000 loss (most likely taxpayers). So no, everyone isn’t going to live happily ever after. Some scum bucket is going to suck $300K out of the wallets of unhappy taxpayers.

[TheBreeze]

Now if you buy a house for $700000 and you can’t afford to make payments then it would be better for you to let the house go. Buy the same house for $425000 and then the bank will get their money (because you can now afford it) and you will get your house and everybody lives happily ever after.

Hmmm. How do you figure that everyone lives happily ever after? One party is going to take a $300,000 loss (most likely taxpayers). So no, everyone isn’t going to live happily ever after. Some scum bucket is going to suck $300K out of the wallets of unhappy taxpayers.

[TheBreeze]

Now if you buy a house for $700000 and you can’t afford to make payments then it would be better for you to let the house go. Buy the same house for $425000 and then the bank will get their money (because you can now afford it) and you will get your house and everybody lives happily ever after.

Hmmm. How do you figure that everyone lives happily ever after? One party is going to take a $300,000 loss (most likely taxpayers). So no, everyone isn’t going to live happily ever after. Some scum bucket is going to suck $300K out of the wallets of unhappy taxpayers.

[TheBreeze]

Now if you buy a house for $700000 and you can’t afford to make payments then it would be better for you to let the house go. Buy the same house for $425000 and then the bank will get their money (because you can now afford it) and you will get your house and everybody lives happily ever after.

Hmmm. How do you figure that everyone lives happily ever after? One party is going to take a $300,000 loss (most likely taxpayers). So no, everyone isn’t going to live happily ever after. Some scum bucket is going to suck $300K out of the wallets of unhappy taxpayers.

[pedrocon]

A home lender takes a risk every time they lend someone money. A loan without risk does not exist. When you buy real estate the house is collateral for the money the lender gives you to purchase the house. The lender holds the title and you pay the carrying costs (eg property tax yadayada). Therefore, if for ANY reason as a home owner you do not wish to live in the house you can simply leave and the lender gets the house for good. This is (was) considered to be a fair and equitable arrangement. Now about your comment, in a free market the bank would be in big trouble if they made to many risky loans ( or bought too many investments related to bad loans) then their market cap might plummet and they might even go bankrupt. But in America the government have socialized irresponsible investing by the wealthy eg Bear Stearns, S&L, Fannie and Freddie, so the tax payer will bail them out. The intent is to make sure the banks have the liquidity to lend money again. So the banks are bailed out in the long run. But if you are some poor sucker who made a bad investment the government won’t be sending you some extra money so you can pay your mortgage, your income isn’t going up, maybe you or your wife lost their job. Why should you be a slave to the bank when you made a bad investment. Especially, when the loan is a fair and equitable COLLATERIZED loan. Send the lender your keys and move on. Life is too short to play slave. Rent or look for another house its not the end of the world.

[pedrocon]

A home lender takes a risk every time they lend someone money. A loan without risk does not exist. When you buy real estate the house is collateral for the money the lender gives you to purchase the house. The lender holds the title and you pay the carrying costs (eg property tax yadayada). Therefore, if for ANY reason as a home owner you do not wish to live in the house you can simply leave and the lender gets the house for good. This is (was) considered to be a fair and equitable arrangement. Now about your comment, in a free market the bank would be in big trouble if they made to many risky loans ( or bought too many investments related to bad loans) then their market cap might plummet and they might even go bankrupt. But in America the government have socialized irresponsible investing by the wealthy eg Bear Stearns, S&L, Fannie and Freddie, so the tax payer will bail them out. The intent is to make sure the banks have the liquidity to lend money again. So the banks are bailed out in the long run. But if you are some poor sucker who made a bad investment the government won’t be sending you some extra money so you can pay your mortgage, your income isn’t going up, maybe you or your wife lost their job. Why should you be a slave to the bank when you made a bad investment. Especially, when the loan is a fair and equitable COLLATERIZED loan. Send the lender your keys and move on. Life is too short to play slave. Rent or look for another house its not the end of the world.

[pedrocon]

A home lender takes a risk every time they lend someone money. A loan without risk does not exist. When you buy real estate the house is collateral for the money the lender gives you to purchase the house. The lender holds the title and you pay the carrying costs (eg property tax yadayada). Therefore, if for ANY reason as a home owner you do not wish to live in the house you can simply leave and the lender gets the house for good. This is (was) considered to be a fair and equitable arrangement. Now about your comment, in a free market the bank would be in big trouble if they made to many risky loans ( or bought too many investments related to bad loans) then their market cap might plummet and they might even go bankrupt. But in America the government have socialized irresponsible investing by the wealthy eg Bear Stearns, S&L, Fannie and Freddie, so the tax payer will bail them out. The intent is to make sure the banks have the liquidity to lend money again. So the banks are bailed out in the long run. But if you are some poor sucker who made a bad investment the government won’t be sending you some extra money so you can pay your mortgage, your income isn’t going up, maybe you or your wife lost their job. Why should you be a slave to the bank when you made a bad investment. Especially, when the loan is a fair and equitable COLLATERIZED loan. Send the lender your keys and move on. Life is too short to play slave. Rent or look for another house its not the end of the world.

[pedrocon]

A home lender takes a risk every time they lend someone money. A loan without risk does not exist. When you buy real estate the house is collateral for the money the lender gives you to purchase the house. The lender holds the title and you pay the carrying costs (eg property tax yadayada). Therefore, if for ANY reason as a home owner you do not wish to live in the house you can simply leave and the lender gets the house for good. This is (was) considered to be a fair and equitable arrangement. Now about your comment, in a free market the bank would be in big trouble if they made to many risky loans ( or bought too many investments related to bad loans) then their market cap might plummet and they might even go bankrupt. But in America the government have socialized irresponsible investing by the wealthy eg Bear Stearns, S&L, Fannie and Freddie, so the tax payer will bail them out. The intent is to make sure the banks have the liquidity to lend money again. So the banks are bailed out in the long run. But if you are some poor sucker who made a bad investment the government won’t be sending you some extra money so you can pay your mortgage, your income isn’t going up, maybe you or your wife lost their job. Why should you be a slave to the bank when you made a bad investment. Especially, when the loan is a fair and equitable COLLATERIZED loan. Send the lender your keys and move on. Life is too short to play slave. Rent or look for another house its not the end of the world.

[pedrocon]

A home lender takes a risk every time they lend someone money. A loan without risk does not exist. When you buy real estate the house is collateral for the money the lender gives you to purchase the house. The lender holds the title and you pay the carrying costs (eg property tax yadayada). Therefore, if for ANY reason as a home owner you do not wish to live in the house you can simply leave and the lender gets the house for good. This is (was) considered to be a fair and equitable arrangement. Now about your comment, in a free market the bank would be in big trouble if they made to many risky loans ( or bought too many investments related to bad loans) then their market cap might plummet and they might even go bankrupt. But in America the government have socialized irresponsible investing by the wealthy eg Bear Stearns, S&L, Fannie and Freddie, so the tax payer will bail them out. The intent is to make sure the banks have the liquidity to lend money again. So the banks are bailed out in the long run. But if you are some poor sucker who made a bad investment the government won’t be sending you some extra money so you can pay your mortgage, your income isn’t going up, maybe you or your wife lost their job. Why should you be a slave to the bank when you made a bad investment. Especially, when the loan is a fair and equitable COLLATERIZED loan. Send the lender your keys and move on. Life is too short to play slave. Rent or look for another house its not the end of the world.

[ucodegen]

@pedrocon

If you take out a loan and use ‘tricks’ to prevent the lender from knowing about the other mortgage, you are guilty of fraud 18 USC 1014 — look it up.

penalty: fined not more than $1Mil, imprisoned not more than 30years.

If you enter into a new purchase while simultaneously intending to default on the old.. you may be guilty of conspiracy to commit fraud as well.

Now if you think that the ‘defaults’ will make it easier.. you are wrong. Watch what Fannie/Freddie are doing. The spread between Treasury rate and lending rate is increasing. This is known as risk premium. Because of people defaulting and pulling tricks like you support, the banks see increase risk in lending and will increase the risk premium put on all loans and mortgages. The result is that is really screws everyone.. no happily ever because mortgage rate will go sky high. Also, you need to remember where the bank is getting the money to lend.. it is from your pensions and savings. Remember: Banks operate with ‘other people’s money!’.

[ucodegen]

@pedrocon

If you take out a loan and use ‘tricks’ to prevent the lender from knowing about the other mortgage, you are guilty of fraud 18 USC 1014 — look it up.

penalty: fined not more than $1Mil, imprisoned not more than 30years.

If you enter into a new purchase while simultaneously intending to default on the old.. you may be guilty of conspiracy to commit fraud as well.

Now if you think that the ‘defaults’ will make it easier.. you are wrong. Watch what Fannie/Freddie are doing. The spread between Treasury rate and lending rate is increasing. This is known as risk premium. Because of people defaulting and pulling tricks like you support, the banks see increase risk in lending and will increase the risk premium put on all loans and mortgages. The result is that is really screws everyone.. no happily ever because mortgage rate will go sky high. Also, you need to remember where the bank is getting the money to lend.. it is from your pensions and savings. Remember: Banks operate with ‘other people’s money!’.

[ucodegen]

@pedrocon

If you take out a loan and use ‘tricks’ to prevent the lender from knowing about the other mortgage, you are guilty of fraud 18 USC 1014 — look it up.

penalty: fined not more than $1Mil, imprisoned not more than 30years.

If you enter into a new purchase while simultaneously intending to default on the old.. you may be guilty of conspiracy to commit fraud as well.

Now if you think that the ‘defaults’ will make it easier.. you are wrong. Watch what Fannie/Freddie are doing. The spread between Treasury rate and lending rate is increasing. This is known as risk premium. Because of people defaulting and pulling tricks like you support, the banks see increase risk in lending and will increase the risk premium put on all loans and mortgages. The result is that is really screws everyone.. no happily ever because mortgage rate will go sky high. Also, you need to remember where the bank is getting the money to lend.. it is from your pensions and savings. Remember: Banks operate with ‘other people’s money!’.

[ucodegen]

@pedrocon

If you take out a loan and use ‘tricks’ to prevent the lender from knowing about the other mortgage, you are guilty of fraud 18 USC 1014 — look it up.

penalty: fined not more than $1Mil, imprisoned not more than 30years.

If you enter into a new purchase while simultaneously intending to default on the old.. you may be guilty of conspiracy to commit fraud as well.

Now if you think that the ‘defaults’ will make it easier.. you are wrong. Watch what Fannie/Freddie are doing. The spread between Treasury rate and lending rate is increasing. This is known as risk premium. Because of people defaulting and pulling tricks like you support, the banks see increase risk in lending and will increase the risk premium put on all loans and mortgages. The result is that is really screws everyone.. no happily ever because mortgage rate will go sky high. Also, you need to remember where the bank is getting the money to lend.. it is from your pensions and savings. Remember: Banks operate with ‘other people’s money!’.

[Author]

Posts