You cannot have it both ways

[SD Realtor]

I was compelled to post this based on sandiegos dilema of walking out on the loan.

Many people are in that same boat and while I have some sympathy for those that have incurred hardship due to job loss or injury or other events that have made it impossible for them to pay for the loans they have. For others I do not. To me walking away from a loan is simply playing the system.

I think it is safe to say that the INTENT of letting homeowners walk away was to protect homeowners who really suffer some life event and lose the home because of it. Would we all agree with that? I think this was also established well before people confused a home with an investment vehicle or an asset.

It is very simple now… basically the vast majority of people do not view homes as homes anymore. They treat them as assets and behave in the same way that they behave when a stock they own goes up or down. Now the biggest difference is that essentially anyone who does not pay cash for the home is basically buying on margin right? So the thing is, when you buy on margin and you get that margin call, you gotta pay brother. So now we have alot of people who are essentially getting the margin call and they are going to walk away without paying.

So who is at “fault” here? Well my base instinct is to blame the buyer. They bought on margin and somehow the definition of home ownership was translated to an asset and they now choose to treat it as such. Of course the lenders have responsibility because they were the ultimate enablers. They are the house and they make the rules and have been burned by honest and dishonest people alike

What has to change? Well I believe there should be no more distinction between recourse and non recourse money. If people are simply not going to comprehend that home ownership is a different vehicle then an investment then ultimate responsibility must be incurred in a default unless it can be a well proven hardship. Speculative market bubbles can be avoided if there is substantial RISK and RESPONSIBILITY associated with entering that market.

sandiego I am not bashing you or others in your boat. People have to do what they have to do for their own financial well being.

[patientlywaiting]

People have to do what they have to do for their own financial well being.

You said it perfectly well right there. 

But I don't understand your responsibility argument.  A contract is a contract.  If the contract has a "walk" clause, why not exercise it?   It's just like a stock option or an employment contract.   Is it "responsible" for the CEO of Citibank to leave with a golden parchute after causing such loses for the shareholders?   

Da Counselor had a clean, crisp view of the whole situation.  If you can, and it's spelled out in the contract, then it's perfectly fine. 

 

[patientlywaiting]

People have to do what they have to do for their own financial well being.

You said it perfectly well right there. 

But I don't understand your responsibility argument.  A contract is a contract.  If the contract has a "walk" clause, why not exercise it?   It's just like a stock option or an employment contract.   Is it "responsible" for the CEO of Citibank to leave with a golden parchute after causing such loses for the shareholders?   

Da Counselor had a clean, crisp view of the whole situation.  If you can, and it's spelled out in the contract, then it's perfectly fine. 

 

[patientlywaiting]

People have to do what they have to do for their own financial well being.

You said it perfectly well right there. 

But I don't understand your responsibility argument.  A contract is a contract.  If the contract has a "walk" clause, why not exercise it?   It's just like a stock option or an employment contract.   Is it "responsible" for the CEO of Citibank to leave with a golden parchute after causing such loses for the shareholders?   

Da Counselor had a clean, crisp view of the whole situation.  If you can, and it's spelled out in the contract, then it's perfectly fine. 

 

[patientlywaiting]

People have to do what they have to do for their own financial well being.

You said it perfectly well right there. 

But I don't understand your responsibility argument.  A contract is a contract.  If the contract has a "walk" clause, why not exercise it?   It's just like a stock option or an employment contract.   Is it "responsible" for the CEO of Citibank to leave with a golden parchute after causing such loses for the shareholders?   

Da Counselor had a clean, crisp view of the whole situation.  If you can, and it's spelled out in the contract, then it's perfectly fine. 

 

[patientlywaiting]

People have to do what they have to do for their own financial well being.

You said it perfectly well right there. 

But I don't understand your responsibility argument.  A contract is a contract.  If the contract has a "walk" clause, why not exercise it?   It's just like a stock option or an employment contract.   Is it "responsible" for the CEO of Citibank to leave with a golden parchute after causing such loses for the shareholders?   

Da Counselor had a clean, crisp view of the whole situation.  If you can, and it's spelled out in the contract, then it's perfectly fine. 

 

[patientlywaiting]

Another thing, the foreclosure (walk) clause of a mortgage is to protect the lender. But there are certain unintended consequences to everything.

The lenders were stupid to lend too much. They just need to take their licks and not make the same mistakes again.

[patientlywaiting]

Another thing, the foreclosure (walk) clause of a mortgage is to protect the lender. But there are certain unintended consequences to everything.

The lenders were stupid to lend too much. They just need to take their licks and not make the same mistakes again.

[patientlywaiting]

Another thing, the foreclosure (walk) clause of a mortgage is to protect the lender. But there are certain unintended consequences to everything.

The lenders were stupid to lend too much. They just need to take their licks and not make the same mistakes again.

[patientlywaiting]

Another thing, the foreclosure (walk) clause of a mortgage is to protect the lender. But there are certain unintended consequences to everything.

The lenders were stupid to lend too much. They just need to take their licks and not make the same mistakes again.

[patientlywaiting]

Another thing, the foreclosure (walk) clause of a mortgage is to protect the lender. But there are certain unintended consequences to everything.

The lenders were stupid to lend too much. They just need to take their licks and not make the same mistakes again.

[Ash Housewares]

SD it would be interesting to put your solution to the test and look at other countries where mortgage debt is recourse. Does anyone know of examples? I know New Zealand has a nice bubble going, and mortgages there are recourse.

[Ash Housewares]

SD it would be interesting to put your solution to the test and look at other countries where mortgage debt is recourse. Does anyone know of examples? I know New Zealand has a nice bubble going, and mortgages there are recourse.

[Ash Housewares]

SD it would be interesting to put your solution to the test and look at other countries where mortgage debt is recourse. Does anyone know of examples? I know New Zealand has a nice bubble going, and mortgages there are recourse.

[Ash Housewares]

SD it would be interesting to put your solution to the test and look at other countries where mortgage debt is recourse. Does anyone know of examples? I know New Zealand has a nice bubble going, and mortgages there are recourse.

[Author]

Posts