Report shows strategic defaults increasing

[Arraya]

[quote=AN]How’s loan mods and/or principle reductions causing the loan to become recourse any different than refinancing causes the loan to become recourse?[/quote]

It’s not, that’s the point. It’s a high risk move given market dynamics. The risk far outweighs the reward.

[briansd1]

[quote=jpinpb]
Bill – indirectly you are being bailed out. Because of the fact the banks got money from the government (taxpayers) they are not foreclosing on you as soon as they normally would. Had they not gotten a bail out, you would have been on the streets a lot sooner. Hence, their bail out becomes your bail out indirectly in the the form of the ability to live there for free for an indefinite period of time. [/quote]

I don’t begrudge Bill getting indirectly bailed out. We should be angry at the bank more than Bill since the banks go direct bailouts.

The banks could do anything with that bailout money, including pay multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses.

We live in an electronic age where the mortgages get sold over and over again; and the paperwork gets lost in cyberspace.

I believe that had the banks collapsed en masse, overnight, people have have been laid off, and computer systems shut off.

The paperwork would have been lost. And foreclosures would have been delayed for years. The banks cannot foreclose if they cannot produce the paperwork to prove that they are owed money.

[briansd1]

[quote=jpinpb]
Bill – indirectly you are being bailed out. Because of the fact the banks got money from the government (taxpayers) they are not foreclosing on you as soon as they normally would. Had they not gotten a bail out, you would have been on the streets a lot sooner. Hence, their bail out becomes your bail out indirectly in the the form of the ability to live there for free for an indefinite period of time. [/quote]

I don’t begrudge Bill getting indirectly bailed out. We should be angry at the bank more than Bill since the banks go direct bailouts.

The banks could do anything with that bailout money, including pay multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses.

We live in an electronic age where the mortgages get sold over and over again; and the paperwork gets lost in cyberspace.

I believe that had the banks collapsed en masse, overnight, people have have been laid off, and computer systems shut off.

The paperwork would have been lost. And foreclosures would have been delayed for years. The banks cannot foreclose if they cannot produce the paperwork to prove that they are owed money.

[briansd1]

[quote=jpinpb]
Bill – indirectly you are being bailed out. Because of the fact the banks got money from the government (taxpayers) they are not foreclosing on you as soon as they normally would. Had they not gotten a bail out, you would have been on the streets a lot sooner. Hence, their bail out becomes your bail out indirectly in the the form of the ability to live there for free for an indefinite period of time. [/quote]

I don’t begrudge Bill getting indirectly bailed out. We should be angry at the bank more than Bill since the banks go direct bailouts.

The banks could do anything with that bailout money, including pay multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses.

We live in an electronic age where the mortgages get sold over and over again; and the paperwork gets lost in cyberspace.

I believe that had the banks collapsed en masse, overnight, people have have been laid off, and computer systems shut off.

The paperwork would have been lost. And foreclosures would have been delayed for years. The banks cannot foreclose if they cannot produce the paperwork to prove that they are owed money.

[briansd1]

[quote=jpinpb]
Bill – indirectly you are being bailed out. Because of the fact the banks got money from the government (taxpayers) they are not foreclosing on you as soon as they normally would. Had they not gotten a bail out, you would have been on the streets a lot sooner. Hence, their bail out becomes your bail out indirectly in the the form of the ability to live there for free for an indefinite period of time. [/quote]

I don’t begrudge Bill getting indirectly bailed out. We should be angry at the bank more than Bill since the banks go direct bailouts.

The banks could do anything with that bailout money, including pay multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses.

We live in an electronic age where the mortgages get sold over and over again; and the paperwork gets lost in cyberspace.

I believe that had the banks collapsed en masse, overnight, people have have been laid off, and computer systems shut off.

The paperwork would have been lost. And foreclosures would have been delayed for years. The banks cannot foreclose if they cannot produce the paperwork to prove that they are owed money.

[briansd1]

[quote=jpinpb]
Bill – indirectly you are being bailed out. Because of the fact the banks got money from the government (taxpayers) they are not foreclosing on you as soon as they normally would. Had they not gotten a bail out, you would have been on the streets a lot sooner. Hence, their bail out becomes your bail out indirectly in the the form of the ability to live there for free for an indefinite period of time. [/quote]

I don’t begrudge Bill getting indirectly bailed out. We should be angry at the bank more than Bill since the banks go direct bailouts.

The banks could do anything with that bailout money, including pay multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses.

We live in an electronic age where the mortgages get sold over and over again; and the paperwork gets lost in cyberspace.

I believe that had the banks collapsed en masse, overnight, people have have been laid off, and computer systems shut off.

The paperwork would have been lost. And foreclosures would have been delayed for years. The banks cannot foreclose if they cannot produce the paperwork to prove that they are owed money.

[Arraya]

[quote=jpinpb]

Bill – indirectly you are being bailed out. Because of the fact the banks got money from the government (taxpayers) they are not foreclosing on you as soon as they normally would. Had they not gotten a bail out, you would have been on the streets a lot sooner. Hence, their bail out becomes your bail out indirectly in the the form of the ability to live there for free for an indefinite period of time.

Yes, you are following the contract, but the bank’s bailout thereby becomes your bailout b/c of their inaction. Their inaction is b/c they are in no hurry since we gave them a shitload of money for their pain and stupidity and greed.
[/quote]

First of all, if no bailout had been made, you have no idea that amount of mess that would be made or the amount of time Bill could have stayed in that home.

We know foreclosures would have been much greater and home prices would have fallen much more spurring even more defaults and a deflationary spiral.

For all you know he could have stayed in the home for 4 years. you just can’t make that claim with any certainty.

Second, we all know if Bill moved out or the other 7 million people for that matter, the amount of money allocated to the banks would not be different. So you can’t say he is indirectly being bailed out only that he is personally benefiting from a screwed up situation that would have been equally as costly if his actions have changed. Put another way, Bills living in the home for free is not driving bailouts. So why should anybody care if he does it, unless you are jealous.

[Arraya]

[quote=jpinpb]

Bill – indirectly you are being bailed out. Because of the fact the banks got money from the government (taxpayers) they are not foreclosing on you as soon as they normally would. Had they not gotten a bail out, you would have been on the streets a lot sooner. Hence, their bail out becomes your bail out indirectly in the the form of the ability to live there for free for an indefinite period of time.

Yes, you are following the contract, but the bank’s bailout thereby becomes your bailout b/c of their inaction. Their inaction is b/c they are in no hurry since we gave them a shitload of money for their pain and stupidity and greed.
[/quote]

First of all, if no bailout had been made, you have no idea that amount of mess that would be made or the amount of time Bill could have stayed in that home.

We know foreclosures would have been much greater and home prices would have fallen much more spurring even more defaults and a deflationary spiral.

For all you know he could have stayed in the home for 4 years. you just can’t make that claim with any certainty.

Second, we all know if Bill moved out or the other 7 million people for that matter, the amount of money allocated to the banks would not be different. So you can’t say he is indirectly being bailed out only that he is personally benefiting from a screwed up situation that would have been equally as costly if his actions have changed. Put another way, Bills living in the home for free is not driving bailouts. So why should anybody care if he does it, unless you are jealous.

[Arraya]

[quote=jpinpb]

Bill – indirectly you are being bailed out. Because of the fact the banks got money from the government (taxpayers) they are not foreclosing on you as soon as they normally would. Had they not gotten a bail out, you would have been on the streets a lot sooner. Hence, their bail out becomes your bail out indirectly in the the form of the ability to live there for free for an indefinite period of time.

Yes, you are following the contract, but the bank’s bailout thereby becomes your bailout b/c of their inaction. Their inaction is b/c they are in no hurry since we gave them a shitload of money for their pain and stupidity and greed.
[/quote]

First of all, if no bailout had been made, you have no idea that amount of mess that would be made or the amount of time Bill could have stayed in that home.

We know foreclosures would have been much greater and home prices would have fallen much more spurring even more defaults and a deflationary spiral.

For all you know he could have stayed in the home for 4 years. you just can’t make that claim with any certainty.

Second, we all know if Bill moved out or the other 7 million people for that matter, the amount of money allocated to the banks would not be different. So you can’t say he is indirectly being bailed out only that he is personally benefiting from a screwed up situation that would have been equally as costly if his actions have changed. Put another way, Bills living in the home for free is not driving bailouts. So why should anybody care if he does it, unless you are jealous.

[Arraya]

[quote=jpinpb]

Bill – indirectly you are being bailed out. Because of the fact the banks got money from the government (taxpayers) they are not foreclosing on you as soon as they normally would. Had they not gotten a bail out, you would have been on the streets a lot sooner. Hence, their bail out becomes your bail out indirectly in the the form of the ability to live there for free for an indefinite period of time.

Yes, you are following the contract, but the bank’s bailout thereby becomes your bailout b/c of their inaction. Their inaction is b/c they are in no hurry since we gave them a shitload of money for their pain and stupidity and greed.
[/quote]

First of all, if no bailout had been made, you have no idea that amount of mess that would be made or the amount of time Bill could have stayed in that home.

We know foreclosures would have been much greater and home prices would have fallen much more spurring even more defaults and a deflationary spiral.

For all you know he could have stayed in the home for 4 years. you just can’t make that claim with any certainty.

Second, we all know if Bill moved out or the other 7 million people for that matter, the amount of money allocated to the banks would not be different. So you can’t say he is indirectly being bailed out only that he is personally benefiting from a screwed up situation that would have been equally as costly if his actions have changed. Put another way, Bills living in the home for free is not driving bailouts. So why should anybody care if he does it, unless you are jealous.

[Arraya]

[quote=jpinpb]

Bill – indirectly you are being bailed out. Because of the fact the banks got money from the government (taxpayers) they are not foreclosing on you as soon as they normally would. Had they not gotten a bail out, you would have been on the streets a lot sooner. Hence, their bail out becomes your bail out indirectly in the the form of the ability to live there for free for an indefinite period of time.

Yes, you are following the contract, but the bank’s bailout thereby becomes your bailout b/c of their inaction. Their inaction is b/c they are in no hurry since we gave them a shitload of money for their pain and stupidity and greed.
[/quote]

First of all, if no bailout had been made, you have no idea that amount of mess that would be made or the amount of time Bill could have stayed in that home.

We know foreclosures would have been much greater and home prices would have fallen much more spurring even more defaults and a deflationary spiral.

For all you know he could have stayed in the home for 4 years. you just can’t make that claim with any certainty.

Second, we all know if Bill moved out or the other 7 million people for that matter, the amount of money allocated to the banks would not be different. So you can’t say he is indirectly being bailed out only that he is personally benefiting from a screwed up situation that would have been equally as costly if his actions have changed. Put another way, Bills living in the home for free is not driving bailouts. So why should anybody care if he does it, unless you are jealous.

[jpinpb]

Jealous? No. Resentful that my tax dollars go towards supporting the greed and stupidity of others, bankers or whoever contributed to this mess, yes.

I think if the banks were not being subsidized, they would want to act quickly to remove any non performing loans and start to generate income. I think in a free market, most businesses would want to act immediately to get revenues. I know that in today’s times that just sounds like crazy talk.

Clearly from all the multiple offers I keep hearing about, there are people wanting to buy these homes from the banks. If we are hearing about it, I’m sure the banks are also. They know there are people out there ready and waiting to buy their nonperforming asset. Why are they not selling? Well, why should they? They are being compensated to do nothing. The joke’s on us.

[jpinpb]

Jealous? No. Resentful that my tax dollars go towards supporting the greed and stupidity of others, bankers or whoever contributed to this mess, yes.

I think if the banks were not being subsidized, they would want to act quickly to remove any non performing loans and start to generate income. I think in a free market, most businesses would want to act immediately to get revenues. I know that in today’s times that just sounds like crazy talk.

Clearly from all the multiple offers I keep hearing about, there are people wanting to buy these homes from the banks. If we are hearing about it, I’m sure the banks are also. They know there are people out there ready and waiting to buy their nonperforming asset. Why are they not selling? Well, why should they? They are being compensated to do nothing. The joke’s on us.

[jpinpb]

Jealous? No. Resentful that my tax dollars go towards supporting the greed and stupidity of others, bankers or whoever contributed to this mess, yes.

I think if the banks were not being subsidized, they would want to act quickly to remove any non performing loans and start to generate income. I think in a free market, most businesses would want to act immediately to get revenues. I know that in today’s times that just sounds like crazy talk.

Clearly from all the multiple offers I keep hearing about, there are people wanting to buy these homes from the banks. If we are hearing about it, I’m sure the banks are also. They know there are people out there ready and waiting to buy their nonperforming asset. Why are they not selling? Well, why should they? They are being compensated to do nothing. The joke’s on us.

[jpinpb]

Jealous? No. Resentful that my tax dollars go towards supporting the greed and stupidity of others, bankers or whoever contributed to this mess, yes.

I think if the banks were not being subsidized, they would want to act quickly to remove any non performing loans and start to generate income. I think in a free market, most businesses would want to act immediately to get revenues. I know that in today’s times that just sounds like crazy talk.

Clearly from all the multiple offers I keep hearing about, there are people wanting to buy these homes from the banks. If we are hearing about it, I’m sure the banks are also. They know there are people out there ready and waiting to buy their nonperforming asset. Why are they not selling? Well, why should they? They are being compensated to do nothing. The joke’s on us.

[Author]

Posts