Viral Nature of Walking Away

[kev374]

While I don’t think there is anything wrong with strategically defaulting I do think the person who defaults should not be able to buy another home for a VERY long time. Unfortunately it looks like these defaulters can get another home under government programs within 2 yrs.

[zk]

[quote=sreeb]
I view staying, forcing foreclosure, and stalling the process while not paying as a clear ethical problem.
[/quote]

What about staying and just waiting until the bank takes your house? Not stalling the bank, but just waiting for the overwhelmed bank to finally get around to taking their house back.

I have a friend in Murietta who is about 300k upside down on his house. He is considering a strategic default and asked my opinion. I told him I thought he should stop making payments and wait for the bank to take his house back. His wife thinks that is wrong. I think it’s a business decision.

I’m curious what your distinction is between giving the bank the house back right away and waiting for them to take it.

Thanks in advance for your opinion.

[zk]

[quote=sreeb]
I view staying, forcing foreclosure, and stalling the process while not paying as a clear ethical problem.
[/quote]

What about staying and just waiting until the bank takes your house? Not stalling the bank, but just waiting for the overwhelmed bank to finally get around to taking their house back.

I have a friend in Murietta who is about 300k upside down on his house. He is considering a strategic default and asked my opinion. I told him I thought he should stop making payments and wait for the bank to take his house back. His wife thinks that is wrong. I think it’s a business decision.

I’m curious what your distinction is between giving the bank the house back right away and waiting for them to take it.

Thanks in advance for your opinion.

[zk]

[quote=sreeb]
I view staying, forcing foreclosure, and stalling the process while not paying as a clear ethical problem.
[/quote]

What about staying and just waiting until the bank takes your house? Not stalling the bank, but just waiting for the overwhelmed bank to finally get around to taking their house back.

I have a friend in Murietta who is about 300k upside down on his house. He is considering a strategic default and asked my opinion. I told him I thought he should stop making payments and wait for the bank to take his house back. His wife thinks that is wrong. I think it’s a business decision.

I’m curious what your distinction is between giving the bank the house back right away and waiting for them to take it.

Thanks in advance for your opinion.

[zk]

[quote=sreeb]
I view staying, forcing foreclosure, and stalling the process while not paying as a clear ethical problem.
[/quote]

What about staying and just waiting until the bank takes your house? Not stalling the bank, but just waiting for the overwhelmed bank to finally get around to taking their house back.

I have a friend in Murietta who is about 300k upside down on his house. He is considering a strategic default and asked my opinion. I told him I thought he should stop making payments and wait for the bank to take his house back. His wife thinks that is wrong. I think it’s a business decision.

I’m curious what your distinction is between giving the bank the house back right away and waiting for them to take it.

Thanks in advance for your opinion.

[zk]

[quote=sreeb]
I view staying, forcing foreclosure, and stalling the process while not paying as a clear ethical problem.
[/quote]

What about staying and just waiting until the bank takes your house? Not stalling the bank, but just waiting for the overwhelmed bank to finally get around to taking their house back.

I have a friend in Murietta who is about 300k upside down on his house. He is considering a strategic default and asked my opinion. I told him I thought he should stop making payments and wait for the bank to take his house back. His wife thinks that is wrong. I think it’s a business decision.

I’m curious what your distinction is between giving the bank the house back right away and waiting for them to take it.

Thanks in advance for your opinion.

[davelj]

If it’s a “business decision” to walk away, then it must also be a “business decision” for taxpayers to try to keep these people paying.

After all, 60% of all mortgages are ultimately owned by the US Taxpayers (because we own Fannie and Freddie now). Assuming that strategic defaults are somewhat evenly distributed among the various mortgage owners (Fannie/Freddie, banks, insurance companies, etc.) then we as taxpayers are going to fund 60% of the losses associated with strategic defaults.

So, while you’re rooting for the strategic defaulters to make their “business decision” – which is perfectly o.k. – just remember that you’re on the hook for somewhere around 60% of the costs associated with that decision.

People are gonna do what they’re gonna do. But don’t forget who’s paying for it.

[davelj]

If it’s a “business decision” to walk away, then it must also be a “business decision” for taxpayers to try to keep these people paying.

After all, 60% of all mortgages are ultimately owned by the US Taxpayers (because we own Fannie and Freddie now). Assuming that strategic defaults are somewhat evenly distributed among the various mortgage owners (Fannie/Freddie, banks, insurance companies, etc.) then we as taxpayers are going to fund 60% of the losses associated with strategic defaults.

So, while you’re rooting for the strategic defaulters to make their “business decision” – which is perfectly o.k. – just remember that you’re on the hook for somewhere around 60% of the costs associated with that decision.

People are gonna do what they’re gonna do. But don’t forget who’s paying for it.

[davelj]

If it’s a “business decision” to walk away, then it must also be a “business decision” for taxpayers to try to keep these people paying.

After all, 60% of all mortgages are ultimately owned by the US Taxpayers (because we own Fannie and Freddie now). Assuming that strategic defaults are somewhat evenly distributed among the various mortgage owners (Fannie/Freddie, banks, insurance companies, etc.) then we as taxpayers are going to fund 60% of the losses associated with strategic defaults.

So, while you’re rooting for the strategic defaulters to make their “business decision” – which is perfectly o.k. – just remember that you’re on the hook for somewhere around 60% of the costs associated with that decision.

People are gonna do what they’re gonna do. But don’t forget who’s paying for it.

[davelj]

If it’s a “business decision” to walk away, then it must also be a “business decision” for taxpayers to try to keep these people paying.

After all, 60% of all mortgages are ultimately owned by the US Taxpayers (because we own Fannie and Freddie now). Assuming that strategic defaults are somewhat evenly distributed among the various mortgage owners (Fannie/Freddie, banks, insurance companies, etc.) then we as taxpayers are going to fund 60% of the losses associated with strategic defaults.

So, while you’re rooting for the strategic defaulters to make their “business decision” – which is perfectly o.k. – just remember that you’re on the hook for somewhere around 60% of the costs associated with that decision.

People are gonna do what they’re gonna do. But don’t forget who’s paying for it.

[davelj]

If it’s a “business decision” to walk away, then it must also be a “business decision” for taxpayers to try to keep these people paying.

After all, 60% of all mortgages are ultimately owned by the US Taxpayers (because we own Fannie and Freddie now). Assuming that strategic defaults are somewhat evenly distributed among the various mortgage owners (Fannie/Freddie, banks, insurance companies, etc.) then we as taxpayers are going to fund 60% of the losses associated with strategic defaults.

So, while you’re rooting for the strategic defaulters to make their “business decision” – which is perfectly o.k. – just remember that you’re on the hook for somewhere around 60% of the costs associated with that decision.

People are gonna do what they’re gonna do. But don’t forget who’s paying for it.

[bubba99]

Does anyone believe that when Morgan Stanley strategically defaulted on millions of dollars of commercial property in S.F. it was a moral issue?

Morality had nothing to do with it. Purely Business.

If it is a moral issue, there is no difference between a strategic default and a “necessary” one. Would you have both burned at the stake, or just the “strategic defaulter”. How about we reopen debtors prisons and throw all of the defaulters in – both individuals and business’s

[bubba99]

Does anyone believe that when Morgan Stanley strategically defaulted on millions of dollars of commercial property in S.F. it was a moral issue?

Morality had nothing to do with it. Purely Business.

If it is a moral issue, there is no difference between a strategic default and a “necessary” one. Would you have both burned at the stake, or just the “strategic defaulter”. How about we reopen debtors prisons and throw all of the defaulters in – both individuals and business’s

[bubba99]

Does anyone believe that when Morgan Stanley strategically defaulted on millions of dollars of commercial property in S.F. it was a moral issue?

Morality had nothing to do with it. Purely Business.

If it is a moral issue, there is no difference between a strategic default and a “necessary” one. Would you have both burned at the stake, or just the “strategic defaulter”. How about we reopen debtors prisons and throw all of the defaulters in – both individuals and business’s

[bubba99]

Does anyone believe that when Morgan Stanley strategically defaulted on millions of dollars of commercial property in S.F. it was a moral issue?

Morality had nothing to do with it. Purely Business.

If it is a moral issue, there is no difference between a strategic default and a “necessary” one. Would you have both burned at the stake, or just the “strategic defaulter”. How about we reopen debtors prisons and throw all of the defaulters in – both individuals and business’s

[Author]

Posts