Menu

Home › Forums › Housing › Intentional defaulting, not subprime mortgage is the problem

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 211 total)
1 2 3 … 6 7 8 … 13 14 15
  • Author
    Posts
  • July 23, 2009 at 4:22 PM #436668
    donaldduckmoore
    Participant

    [quote=werewolf34]You must be a realtor.

    Real estate is largely unregulated as compared to other asset classes. Real estate is an asset class whether you like it or not. The US put in licensing requirements and fiduciary responsibilities for financial advisors (brokers).
    Compare a series 7 exam with RE license ‘exam’ and you’ll get the point. Why should RE brokers get special treatment?

    In no other asset class, can you get 3/6% of the sale price while being so unethical / unaccountable. Real estate is top #3 when it comes to political donations. You think they do this b/c they care about politics? It’s how they keep the license to steal/misrepresent/defraud.

    If people (and banks) who bought crappy RE really get stuck holding the bag, then I wouldn’t care. But you and I know that is the taxpayer who gets to eat the loss. So starting cutting the speculative problem off at the start with the brokers and mortgage bankers.

    Better (liable/trained) brokers = less problems down the road.[/quote]

    First, I can assure you that I am 100% non-realtor and I am not at all related to the business. I think some realtors, like sales persons cheat. But that is not my point. Yes, real estate is largely unregulated, but what about car dealership, they are neither regulated, so what?! As a big-ticketed item buyer, you just have to be careful of what you are buying.

    You are exactly right that it is the taxpayers who are now holding the bag, we should not have allow irresponsible buyers to buy because with their careless decision, we are the one who is going to suck it up. This substantiates my point that the stupid buyers or flippers should not buy, or they should take what they deserve as a consequence.

    You tend to see that the problem stems from realtors, I feel that the regulatory agencies, lenders, realtors, and buyers should all share the responsibility. But because the first three have been debated, but the forth was never mentioned,therefore, I want to also draw attention to this group of the problem, and that is what I want to say.

    July 23, 2009 at 4:47 PM #435940
    jpinpb
    Participant

    [quote=XBoxBoy]
    If you want to cure the current problem, you need to allow the foreclosures to happen. If you want to keep this problem from happening in the future, you better make sure that banks only make loans to people that can/will pay them back.
    [/quote]

    Some banks are not suffering from any of this. Remember, the taxpayers are bailing them out. It’s a win-win for them. Give bad loan. If they make payments, bank wins. If they don’t make payments, government gives them money. Bank subsidy.

    They won’t care much if this problem happens again (and I can see it happening again, maybe in our lifetime). No one will have learned from this b/c no one suffered but the taxpayers.

    July 23, 2009 at 4:47 PM #436147
    jpinpb
    Participant

    [quote=XBoxBoy]
    If you want to cure the current problem, you need to allow the foreclosures to happen. If you want to keep this problem from happening in the future, you better make sure that banks only make loans to people that can/will pay them back.
    [/quote]

    Some banks are not suffering from any of this. Remember, the taxpayers are bailing them out. It’s a win-win for them. Give bad loan. If they make payments, bank wins. If they don’t make payments, government gives them money. Bank subsidy.

    They won’t care much if this problem happens again (and I can see it happening again, maybe in our lifetime). No one will have learned from this b/c no one suffered but the taxpayers.

    July 23, 2009 at 4:47 PM #436467
    jpinpb
    Participant

    [quote=XBoxBoy]
    If you want to cure the current problem, you need to allow the foreclosures to happen. If you want to keep this problem from happening in the future, you better make sure that banks only make loans to people that can/will pay them back.
    [/quote]

    Some banks are not suffering from any of this. Remember, the taxpayers are bailing them out. It’s a win-win for them. Give bad loan. If they make payments, bank wins. If they don’t make payments, government gives them money. Bank subsidy.

    They won’t care much if this problem happens again (and I can see it happening again, maybe in our lifetime). No one will have learned from this b/c no one suffered but the taxpayers.

    July 23, 2009 at 4:47 PM #436539
    jpinpb
    Participant

    [quote=XBoxBoy]
    If you want to cure the current problem, you need to allow the foreclosures to happen. If you want to keep this problem from happening in the future, you better make sure that banks only make loans to people that can/will pay them back.
    [/quote]

    Some banks are not suffering from any of this. Remember, the taxpayers are bailing them out. It’s a win-win for them. Give bad loan. If they make payments, bank wins. If they don’t make payments, government gives them money. Bank subsidy.

    They won’t care much if this problem happens again (and I can see it happening again, maybe in our lifetime). No one will have learned from this b/c no one suffered but the taxpayers.

    July 23, 2009 at 4:47 PM #436708
    jpinpb
    Participant

    [quote=XBoxBoy]
    If you want to cure the current problem, you need to allow the foreclosures to happen. If you want to keep this problem from happening in the future, you better make sure that banks only make loans to people that can/will pay them back.
    [/quote]

    Some banks are not suffering from any of this. Remember, the taxpayers are bailing them out. It’s a win-win for them. Give bad loan. If they make payments, bank wins. If they don’t make payments, government gives them money. Bank subsidy.

    They won’t care much if this problem happens again (and I can see it happening again, maybe in our lifetime). No one will have learned from this b/c no one suffered but the taxpayers.

    July 23, 2009 at 8:03 PM #435985
    toddt
    Participant

    [quote=werewolf34]Mortgages are non-recourse loans, period. In the interest rate, they’ve have priced (or forgot to price) the risk that people walk away. [/quote]

    State specific laws vary on recourse vs. non-recourse, and even CA is a recourse state when it comes to non-purchase money loans. That said, in CA, you rarely see judicial foreclosures (that allow for recourse) due to costs and the likely inability to collect on a judgement. But they do happen. Mainly when lots of assets are identifiable.

    But, that’s sort of irrelevant when we’re discussing what should be done not what is happening. And what should be done is the players at all levels being held accountable for the things they can control, including buyers.

    It’s not even a question of personal responsibility to me. You can’t teach that through policy – you either have it or you don’t from your upbringing. Too many buyers with lots of assets are walking away from homes and this is the one of the many areas we need to address so this problem doesn’t happen again. To say we shouldn’t try to address it is illogical to me.

    July 23, 2009 at 8:03 PM #436191
    toddt
    Participant

    [quote=werewolf34]Mortgages are non-recourse loans, period. In the interest rate, they’ve have priced (or forgot to price) the risk that people walk away. [/quote]

    State specific laws vary on recourse vs. non-recourse, and even CA is a recourse state when it comes to non-purchase money loans. That said, in CA, you rarely see judicial foreclosures (that allow for recourse) due to costs and the likely inability to collect on a judgement. But they do happen. Mainly when lots of assets are identifiable.

    But, that’s sort of irrelevant when we’re discussing what should be done not what is happening. And what should be done is the players at all levels being held accountable for the things they can control, including buyers.

    It’s not even a question of personal responsibility to me. You can’t teach that through policy – you either have it or you don’t from your upbringing. Too many buyers with lots of assets are walking away from homes and this is the one of the many areas we need to address so this problem doesn’t happen again. To say we shouldn’t try to address it is illogical to me.

    July 23, 2009 at 8:03 PM #436512
    toddt
    Participant

    [quote=werewolf34]Mortgages are non-recourse loans, period. In the interest rate, they’ve have priced (or forgot to price) the risk that people walk away. [/quote]

    State specific laws vary on recourse vs. non-recourse, and even CA is a recourse state when it comes to non-purchase money loans. That said, in CA, you rarely see judicial foreclosures (that allow for recourse) due to costs and the likely inability to collect on a judgement. But they do happen. Mainly when lots of assets are identifiable.

    But, that’s sort of irrelevant when we’re discussing what should be done not what is happening. And what should be done is the players at all levels being held accountable for the things they can control, including buyers.

    It’s not even a question of personal responsibility to me. You can’t teach that through policy – you either have it or you don’t from your upbringing. Too many buyers with lots of assets are walking away from homes and this is the one of the many areas we need to address so this problem doesn’t happen again. To say we shouldn’t try to address it is illogical to me.

    July 23, 2009 at 8:03 PM #436584
    toddt
    Participant

    [quote=werewolf34]Mortgages are non-recourse loans, period. In the interest rate, they’ve have priced (or forgot to price) the risk that people walk away. [/quote]

    State specific laws vary on recourse vs. non-recourse, and even CA is a recourse state when it comes to non-purchase money loans. That said, in CA, you rarely see judicial foreclosures (that allow for recourse) due to costs and the likely inability to collect on a judgement. But they do happen. Mainly when lots of assets are identifiable.

    But, that’s sort of irrelevant when we’re discussing what should be done not what is happening. And what should be done is the players at all levels being held accountable for the things they can control, including buyers.

    It’s not even a question of personal responsibility to me. You can’t teach that through policy – you either have it or you don’t from your upbringing. Too many buyers with lots of assets are walking away from homes and this is the one of the many areas we need to address so this problem doesn’t happen again. To say we shouldn’t try to address it is illogical to me.

    July 23, 2009 at 8:03 PM #436753
    toddt
    Participant

    [quote=werewolf34]Mortgages are non-recourse loans, period. In the interest rate, they’ve have priced (or forgot to price) the risk that people walk away. [/quote]

    State specific laws vary on recourse vs. non-recourse, and even CA is a recourse state when it comes to non-purchase money loans. That said, in CA, you rarely see judicial foreclosures (that allow for recourse) due to costs and the likely inability to collect on a judgement. But they do happen. Mainly when lots of assets are identifiable.

    But, that’s sort of irrelevant when we’re discussing what should be done not what is happening. And what should be done is the players at all levels being held accountable for the things they can control, including buyers.

    It’s not even a question of personal responsibility to me. You can’t teach that through policy – you either have it or you don’t from your upbringing. Too many buyers with lots of assets are walking away from homes and this is the one of the many areas we need to address so this problem doesn’t happen again. To say we shouldn’t try to address it is illogical to me.

    July 24, 2009 at 7:55 AM #436065
    Anonymous
    Guest

    People keep saying how the taxpayer gets screwed, but if banks repay the bailout money, haven’t they effectively absorbed the fullimpact of a default?

    I probably just don’t understand, but I would appreciate it if someone would enlighten me.

    July 24, 2009 at 7:55 AM #436271
    Anonymous
    Guest

    People keep saying how the taxpayer gets screwed, but if banks repay the bailout money, haven’t they effectively absorbed the fullimpact of a default?

    I probably just don’t understand, but I would appreciate it if someone would enlighten me.

    July 24, 2009 at 7:55 AM #436592
    Anonymous
    Guest

    People keep saying how the taxpayer gets screwed, but if banks repay the bailout money, haven’t they effectively absorbed the fullimpact of a default?

    I probably just don’t understand, but I would appreciate it if someone would enlighten me.

    July 24, 2009 at 7:55 AM #436665
    Anonymous
    Guest

    People keep saying how the taxpayer gets screwed, but if banks repay the bailout money, haven’t they effectively absorbed the fullimpact of a default?

    I probably just don’t understand, but I would appreciate it if someone would enlighten me.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 211 total)
1 2 3 … 6 7 8 … 13 14 15
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.