Report shows strategic defaults increasing

[jpinpb]

If someone (individual or company) is responsible for their decisions and it turns out to be a bad decision, then that person should not benefit from the bad decision at the expense of others who did not make the bad decision.

It is, in effect, rewarding someone making the bad decision and punishing someone who didn’t make the bad decision.

It is so backwards, I can’t even begin to explain it to you if you don’t see how clearly obviously wrong that is.

[briansd1]

[quote=jpinpb]

Then tell me again why we’ve had to bail them out.[/quote]

Because 401k accounts and pensions funds own the banks shares and the assets the banks created.

France and Germany are having to bailout Greece because the French and German banks own the Greek debts.

It’s better to bailout Greece and make them pay back the debts over time, than to let them default and only get 50c now.

It’s all interconnected.

[briansd1]

[quote=jpinpb]

Then tell me again why we’ve had to bail them out.[/quote]

Because 401k accounts and pensions funds own the banks shares and the assets the banks created.

France and Germany are having to bailout Greece because the French and German banks own the Greek debts.

It’s better to bailout Greece and make them pay back the debts over time, than to let them default and only get 50c now.

It’s all interconnected.

[briansd1]

[quote=jpinpb]

Then tell me again why we’ve had to bail them out.[/quote]

Because 401k accounts and pensions funds own the banks shares and the assets the banks created.

France and Germany are having to bailout Greece because the French and German banks own the Greek debts.

It’s better to bailout Greece and make them pay back the debts over time, than to let them default and only get 50c now.

It’s all interconnected.

[briansd1]

[quote=jpinpb]

Then tell me again why we’ve had to bail them out.[/quote]

Because 401k accounts and pensions funds own the banks shares and the assets the banks created.

France and Germany are having to bailout Greece because the French and German banks own the Greek debts.

It’s better to bailout Greece and make them pay back the debts over time, than to let them default and only get 50c now.

It’s all interconnected.

[briansd1]

[quote=jpinpb]

Then tell me again why we’ve had to bail them out.[/quote]

Because 401k accounts and pensions funds own the banks shares and the assets the banks created.

France and Germany are having to bailout Greece because the French and German banks own the Greek debts.

It’s better to bailout Greece and make them pay back the debts over time, than to let them default and only get 50c now.

It’s all interconnected.

[jpinpb]

[quote=briansd1]
It’s better to bailout Greece and make them pay back the debts over time, than to let them default and only get 50c now.
[/quote]

I’m going to break this down in a very small example.

Say I loan 500k to two people (A & B) so they can each buy a condo. I don’t bother to check their incomes. One of them (B) stops paying.

Do I take a little loss on that one, maybe foreclose and sell the house to someone else for less, like say 300k and then get monthly payments from someone qualified? I lose 200k. But I make sure to check people’s income from now on, b/c ouch that 200k loss hurt. Owner A sees what happens and thinks twice about not paying.

Instead of that happening, I go to taxpayers who bail me out for greater than 200k b/c otherwise I’ll never lend again. I let the owner B live for free for an indefinite period of time b/c who cares. No loss to me. In the interim, owner A sees what’s happening and wants a piece of it. Owner A stops paying and wants to live for free also

Now I have two loans, A & B, both not paying. I’ve multiplied my losses and nonperforming assets. I’ve in effect doubled my losses. Well, doubled the losses to the taxpayers.

Which is cheaper, again? Maybe I need to go back to school to learn my math.

As a result of the generosity of the government now in the future, I know the taxpayers will give me money for my bad in not checking who I lend to. Well, since I suffered no loss, what have I learned? In fact, I somehow through the magic of accounting even have a profit and gave myself a bonus.

Sorry, brian. I do not have anything against you at all, in fact, appreciate your posts. But we do disagree on this issue.

[jpinpb]

[quote=briansd1]
It’s better to bailout Greece and make them pay back the debts over time, than to let them default and only get 50c now.
[/quote]

I’m going to break this down in a very small example.

Say I loan 500k to two people (A & B) so they can each buy a condo. I don’t bother to check their incomes. One of them (B) stops paying.

Do I take a little loss on that one, maybe foreclose and sell the house to someone else for less, like say 300k and then get monthly payments from someone qualified? I lose 200k. But I make sure to check people’s income from now on, b/c ouch that 200k loss hurt. Owner A sees what happens and thinks twice about not paying.

Instead of that happening, I go to taxpayers who bail me out for greater than 200k b/c otherwise I’ll never lend again. I let the owner B live for free for an indefinite period of time b/c who cares. No loss to me. In the interim, owner A sees what’s happening and wants a piece of it. Owner A stops paying and wants to live for free also

Now I have two loans, A & B, both not paying. I’ve multiplied my losses and nonperforming assets. I’ve in effect doubled my losses. Well, doubled the losses to the taxpayers.

Which is cheaper, again? Maybe I need to go back to school to learn my math.

As a result of the generosity of the government now in the future, I know the taxpayers will give me money for my bad in not checking who I lend to. Well, since I suffered no loss, what have I learned? In fact, I somehow through the magic of accounting even have a profit and gave myself a bonus.

Sorry, brian. I do not have anything against you at all, in fact, appreciate your posts. But we do disagree on this issue.

[jpinpb]

[quote=briansd1]
It’s better to bailout Greece and make them pay back the debts over time, than to let them default and only get 50c now.
[/quote]

I’m going to break this down in a very small example.

Say I loan 500k to two people (A & B) so they can each buy a condo. I don’t bother to check their incomes. One of them (B) stops paying.

Do I take a little loss on that one, maybe foreclose and sell the house to someone else for less, like say 300k and then get monthly payments from someone qualified? I lose 200k. But I make sure to check people’s income from now on, b/c ouch that 200k loss hurt. Owner A sees what happens and thinks twice about not paying.

Instead of that happening, I go to taxpayers who bail me out for greater than 200k b/c otherwise I’ll never lend again. I let the owner B live for free for an indefinite period of time b/c who cares. No loss to me. In the interim, owner A sees what’s happening and wants a piece of it. Owner A stops paying and wants to live for free also

Now I have two loans, A & B, both not paying. I’ve multiplied my losses and nonperforming assets. I’ve in effect doubled my losses. Well, doubled the losses to the taxpayers.

Which is cheaper, again? Maybe I need to go back to school to learn my math.

As a result of the generosity of the government now in the future, I know the taxpayers will give me money for my bad in not checking who I lend to. Well, since I suffered no loss, what have I learned? In fact, I somehow through the magic of accounting even have a profit and gave myself a bonus.

Sorry, brian. I do not have anything against you at all, in fact, appreciate your posts. But we do disagree on this issue.

[jpinpb]

[quote=briansd1]
It’s better to bailout Greece and make them pay back the debts over time, than to let them default and only get 50c now.
[/quote]

I’m going to break this down in a very small example.

Say I loan 500k to two people (A & B) so they can each buy a condo. I don’t bother to check their incomes. One of them (B) stops paying.

Do I take a little loss on that one, maybe foreclose and sell the house to someone else for less, like say 300k and then get monthly payments from someone qualified? I lose 200k. But I make sure to check people’s income from now on, b/c ouch that 200k loss hurt. Owner A sees what happens and thinks twice about not paying.

Instead of that happening, I go to taxpayers who bail me out for greater than 200k b/c otherwise I’ll never lend again. I let the owner B live for free for an indefinite period of time b/c who cares. No loss to me. In the interim, owner A sees what’s happening and wants a piece of it. Owner A stops paying and wants to live for free also

Now I have two loans, A & B, both not paying. I’ve multiplied my losses and nonperforming assets. I’ve in effect doubled my losses. Well, doubled the losses to the taxpayers.

Which is cheaper, again? Maybe I need to go back to school to learn my math.

As a result of the generosity of the government now in the future, I know the taxpayers will give me money for my bad in not checking who I lend to. Well, since I suffered no loss, what have I learned? In fact, I somehow through the magic of accounting even have a profit and gave myself a bonus.

Sorry, brian. I do not have anything against you at all, in fact, appreciate your posts. But we do disagree on this issue.

[jpinpb]

[quote=briansd1]
It’s better to bailout Greece and make them pay back the debts over time, than to let them default and only get 50c now.
[/quote]

I’m going to break this down in a very small example.

Say I loan 500k to two people (A & B) so they can each buy a condo. I don’t bother to check their incomes. One of them (B) stops paying.

Do I take a little loss on that one, maybe foreclose and sell the house to someone else for less, like say 300k and then get monthly payments from someone qualified? I lose 200k. But I make sure to check people’s income from now on, b/c ouch that 200k loss hurt. Owner A sees what happens and thinks twice about not paying.

Instead of that happening, I go to taxpayers who bail me out for greater than 200k b/c otherwise I’ll never lend again. I let the owner B live for free for an indefinite period of time b/c who cares. No loss to me. In the interim, owner A sees what’s happening and wants a piece of it. Owner A stops paying and wants to live for free also

Now I have two loans, A & B, both not paying. I’ve multiplied my losses and nonperforming assets. I’ve in effect doubled my losses. Well, doubled the losses to the taxpayers.

Which is cheaper, again? Maybe I need to go back to school to learn my math.

As a result of the generosity of the government now in the future, I know the taxpayers will give me money for my bad in not checking who I lend to. Well, since I suffered no loss, what have I learned? In fact, I somehow through the magic of accounting even have a profit and gave myself a bonus.

Sorry, brian. I do not have anything against you at all, in fact, appreciate your posts. But we do disagree on this issue.

[jpinpb]

Again, then, we are rewarding the banks for failing the 401k and pension funds. If the houses are the banks’ assets, then they have a duty and obligation to the pension funds to see that the asset performs. I.e. when they don’t get a monthly payment, foreclose and sell it to someone who will pay.

Rhetorical question: What’s to stop them from doing this again now that they see they suffer no reprecussions, get rewarded and they have us over a barrel?

And please don’t come back w/new regulation when we can’t/don’t even enforce the existing ones.

Ugggh. I’m so frustrated and disgusted.

[jpinpb]

Again, then, we are rewarding the banks for failing the 401k and pension funds. If the houses are the banks’ assets, then they have a duty and obligation to the pension funds to see that the asset performs. I.e. when they don’t get a monthly payment, foreclose and sell it to someone who will pay.

Rhetorical question: What’s to stop them from doing this again now that they see they suffer no reprecussions, get rewarded and they have us over a barrel?

And please don’t come back w/new regulation when we can’t/don’t even enforce the existing ones.

Ugggh. I’m so frustrated and disgusted.

[jpinpb]

Again, then, we are rewarding the banks for failing the 401k and pension funds. If the houses are the banks’ assets, then they have a duty and obligation to the pension funds to see that the asset performs. I.e. when they don’t get a monthly payment, foreclose and sell it to someone who will pay.

Rhetorical question: What’s to stop them from doing this again now that they see they suffer no reprecussions, get rewarded and they have us over a barrel?

And please don’t come back w/new regulation when we can’t/don’t even enforce the existing ones.

Ugggh. I’m so frustrated and disgusted.

[jpinpb]

Again, then, we are rewarding the banks for failing the 401k and pension funds. If the houses are the banks’ assets, then they have a duty and obligation to the pension funds to see that the asset performs. I.e. when they don’t get a monthly payment, foreclose and sell it to someone who will pay.

Rhetorical question: What’s to stop them from doing this again now that they see they suffer no reprecussions, get rewarded and they have us over a barrel?

And please don’t come back w/new regulation when we can’t/don’t even enforce the existing ones.

Ugggh. I’m so frustrated and disgusted.

[Author]

Posts