- This topic has 25 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 3 months ago by
Eugene.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 16, 2007 at 10:28 PM #11235December 17, 2007 at 8:12 AM #118887
kev374
ParticipantBut the couple had borrowed heavily against their house, in part to pay for a risky real estate venture, leaving them with loan payments that eat up more than two-thirds of their net income
So these guys are speculators?
Feel sorry that they lost their home but had they not used their home like an ATM they would’ve been able to cover their losses. Their situation is their own fault.December 17, 2007 at 8:12 AM #119018kev374
ParticipantBut the couple had borrowed heavily against their house, in part to pay for a risky real estate venture, leaving them with loan payments that eat up more than two-thirds of their net income
So these guys are speculators?
Feel sorry that they lost their home but had they not used their home like an ATM they would’ve been able to cover their losses. Their situation is their own fault.December 17, 2007 at 8:12 AM #119052kev374
ParticipantBut the couple had borrowed heavily against their house, in part to pay for a risky real estate venture, leaving them with loan payments that eat up more than two-thirds of their net income
So these guys are speculators?
Feel sorry that they lost their home but had they not used their home like an ATM they would’ve been able to cover their losses. Their situation is their own fault.December 17, 2007 at 8:12 AM #119094kev374
ParticipantBut the couple had borrowed heavily against their house, in part to pay for a risky real estate venture, leaving them with loan payments that eat up more than two-thirds of their net income
So these guys are speculators?
Feel sorry that they lost their home but had they not used their home like an ATM they would’ve been able to cover their losses. Their situation is their own fault.December 17, 2007 at 8:12 AM #119113kev374
ParticipantBut the couple had borrowed heavily against their house, in part to pay for a risky real estate venture, leaving them with loan payments that eat up more than two-thirds of their net income
So these guys are speculators?
Feel sorry that they lost their home but had they not used their home like an ATM they would’ve been able to cover their losses. Their situation is their own fault.December 17, 2007 at 9:44 AM #119178taz
ParticipantI appreciate that greater risk often leads to greater rewards, but I for one couldn’t sleep at night if I were carrying 1.2 million in mortgage debt on a $145k salary. To do so, they obviously must be using interest only loans…
December 17, 2007 at 9:44 AM #119160taz
ParticipantI appreciate that greater risk often leads to greater rewards, but I for one couldn’t sleep at night if I were carrying 1.2 million in mortgage debt on a $145k salary. To do so, they obviously must be using interest only loans…
December 17, 2007 at 9:44 AM #119117taz
ParticipantI appreciate that greater risk often leads to greater rewards, but I for one couldn’t sleep at night if I were carrying 1.2 million in mortgage debt on a $145k salary. To do so, they obviously must be using interest only loans…
December 17, 2007 at 9:44 AM #118951taz
ParticipantI appreciate that greater risk often leads to greater rewards, but I for one couldn’t sleep at night if I were carrying 1.2 million in mortgage debt on a $145k salary. To do so, they obviously must be using interest only loans…
December 17, 2007 at 9:44 AM #119082taz
ParticipantI appreciate that greater risk often leads to greater rewards, but I for one couldn’t sleep at night if I were carrying 1.2 million in mortgage debt on a $145k salary. To do so, they obviously must be using interest only loans…
December 17, 2007 at 10:10 AM #119129NotCranky
Participant1. After 2003 incident, didn’t policy limits change to account for current costs? Companies are insuring for only 150-170 SF, which is builders cost for hundred not 1 home.
Many insurers still under-insure to keep rates low and competetive. They are willing to deal with the issue on a case by case basis when there is a big loss. Not that they make it easy all the time.As stated in the article they put the customer in a bind between wanting the house back quickly and fighting for the rest of the money . Most losses are small so the question doesn’t come up. In place of actual coverage, most offer or automatically put a rider increasing the limits of coverage but the terms for recouping this money are different.
December 17, 2007 at 10:10 AM #118996NotCranky
Participant1. After 2003 incident, didn’t policy limits change to account for current costs? Companies are insuring for only 150-170 SF, which is builders cost for hundred not 1 home.
Many insurers still under-insure to keep rates low and competetive. They are willing to deal with the issue on a case by case basis when there is a big loss. Not that they make it easy all the time.As stated in the article they put the customer in a bind between wanting the house back quickly and fighting for the rest of the money . Most losses are small so the question doesn’t come up. In place of actual coverage, most offer or automatically put a rider increasing the limits of coverage but the terms for recouping this money are different.
December 17, 2007 at 10:10 AM #119162NotCranky
Participant1. After 2003 incident, didn’t policy limits change to account for current costs? Companies are insuring for only 150-170 SF, which is builders cost for hundred not 1 home.
Many insurers still under-insure to keep rates low and competetive. They are willing to deal with the issue on a case by case basis when there is a big loss. Not that they make it easy all the time.As stated in the article they put the customer in a bind between wanting the house back quickly and fighting for the rest of the money . Most losses are small so the question doesn’t come up. In place of actual coverage, most offer or automatically put a rider increasing the limits of coverage but the terms for recouping this money are different.
December 17, 2007 at 10:10 AM #119204NotCranky
Participant1. After 2003 incident, didn’t policy limits change to account for current costs? Companies are insuring for only 150-170 SF, which is builders cost for hundred not 1 home.
Many insurers still under-insure to keep rates low and competetive. They are willing to deal with the issue on a case by case basis when there is a big loss. Not that they make it easy all the time.As stated in the article they put the customer in a bind between wanting the house back quickly and fighting for the rest of the money . Most losses are small so the question doesn’t come up. In place of actual coverage, most offer or automatically put a rider increasing the limits of coverage but the terms for recouping this money are different.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.