You cannot have it both ways

[NotCranky]

SDR I appreciate you desire to have changes that would produce stable market and enforce personal and institutional responsibility. If we could skip the gold rush mentality every decade by installing better checks and balances there would be no real big winners and losers and the economy wouldn’t convulse over something as basic as shelter. Smart people could still progress with Re investment. I also think commission structures could stabilize with the market to where people didn’t feel,appropriately in my opinion, like they were getting ripped off.
I think the editorial mish wrote explains a lot of it too. Poster claiming that abiding by a contract is just, are making good points.I certainly don’t think that invalidates what you are putting on the table.

[Ex-SD]

Morality has nothing to do with it.
Emotion should have nothing to do with it.
A contract is a contract.
The lender’s lawyers writes the contracts. The buyer must sign the lender’s contract or walk away from the deal. If the lender is in total control of the language in the contract and the buyer quits paying, the bank gets the property back which is exactly what their lawyer’s wrote in the contract.
Where’s the rub?

I’ve never been late on any bill in my 59 years. For the last 20 years, I have owned (free & clear) the homes that I have lived in so I am not exactly what you would call an advocate for deadbeats……………but, this is a pure & simple business deal and it’s incumbent on the bank to know the value and risks associated with properties where they are the mortgage holder.

[Ex-SD]

Morality has nothing to do with it.
Emotion should have nothing to do with it.
A contract is a contract.
The lender’s lawyers writes the contracts. The buyer must sign the lender’s contract or walk away from the deal. If the lender is in total control of the language in the contract and the buyer quits paying, the bank gets the property back which is exactly what their lawyer’s wrote in the contract.
Where’s the rub?

I’ve never been late on any bill in my 59 years. For the last 20 years, I have owned (free & clear) the homes that I have lived in so I am not exactly what you would call an advocate for deadbeats……………but, this is a pure & simple business deal and it’s incumbent on the bank to know the value and risks associated with properties where they are the mortgage holder.

[Ex-SD]

Morality has nothing to do with it.
Emotion should have nothing to do with it.
A contract is a contract.
The lender’s lawyers writes the contracts. The buyer must sign the lender’s contract or walk away from the deal. If the lender is in total control of the language in the contract and the buyer quits paying, the bank gets the property back which is exactly what their lawyer’s wrote in the contract.
Where’s the rub?

I’ve never been late on any bill in my 59 years. For the last 20 years, I have owned (free & clear) the homes that I have lived in so I am not exactly what you would call an advocate for deadbeats……………but, this is a pure & simple business deal and it’s incumbent on the bank to know the value and risks associated with properties where they are the mortgage holder.

[Ex-SD]

Morality has nothing to do with it.
Emotion should have nothing to do with it.
A contract is a contract.
The lender’s lawyers writes the contracts. The buyer must sign the lender’s contract or walk away from the deal. If the lender is in total control of the language in the contract and the buyer quits paying, the bank gets the property back which is exactly what their lawyer’s wrote in the contract.
Where’s the rub?

I’ve never been late on any bill in my 59 years. For the last 20 years, I have owned (free & clear) the homes that I have lived in so I am not exactly what you would call an advocate for deadbeats……………but, this is a pure & simple business deal and it’s incumbent on the bank to know the value and risks associated with properties where they are the mortgage holder.

[Ex-SD]

Morality has nothing to do with it.
Emotion should have nothing to do with it.
A contract is a contract.
The lender’s lawyers writes the contracts. The buyer must sign the lender’s contract or walk away from the deal. If the lender is in total control of the language in the contract and the buyer quits paying, the bank gets the property back which is exactly what their lawyer’s wrote in the contract.
Where’s the rub?

I’ve never been late on any bill in my 59 years. For the last 20 years, I have owned (free & clear) the homes that I have lived in so I am not exactly what you would call an advocate for deadbeats……………but, this is a pure & simple business deal and it’s incumbent on the bank to know the value and risks associated with properties where they are the mortgage holder.

[Navydoc]

This is all going to come down to can you afford the situation you are in? If you can, the moral high road is to ride out the depreciation long enough so values recover, and think of your home as an expense, not an investment. If you can’t afford it then you have to walk away. I can tell you, in the latter case, if you are a moral, responsible person you WILL experience some guilt from this decision. If you’re not, then hopefully there are few of you, and you won’t destroy our financial system.

Unfortunately, I think we have a large number of people in that latter category who cannot sell, cannot refinance, and to add insult to injury, can no longer afford their monthly payments. I feel a little bad for these people, but they disregarded the fundamentals and bet their financial future on never-ending depreciation. I think the root of the problem is in our country’s financial literacy, and how the fundamentals are not taught to the average person. I have a relative in 4S with a $1.5 million property who was wondering when I was going to buy a house like that. They looked at me funny when and I simply stated I couldn’t afford it on my physician’s salary, and I know I can document a much higher income than they can. They will learn the fundamentals the hard way, which is effective, and I find the retention tends to be much better.

I do believe SDR may have a point, and that eliminating non-recourse debt is the future, but with our current situation, making all the banks the bagholders is not the answer, as they cannot possibly absorb the numbers involved and survive. I have no idea how this is going to resolve itself, but a long hard recession seems like the best cure, and unfortunately, I think the taxpayers are going to have to absorb some of it. Remember the S&L’s? Why do you think it can’t happen again?

[Navydoc]

This is all going to come down to can you afford the situation you are in? If you can, the moral high road is to ride out the depreciation long enough so values recover, and think of your home as an expense, not an investment. If you can’t afford it then you have to walk away. I can tell you, in the latter case, if you are a moral, responsible person you WILL experience some guilt from this decision. If you’re not, then hopefully there are few of you, and you won’t destroy our financial system.

Unfortunately, I think we have a large number of people in that latter category who cannot sell, cannot refinance, and to add insult to injury, can no longer afford their monthly payments. I feel a little bad for these people, but they disregarded the fundamentals and bet their financial future on never-ending depreciation. I think the root of the problem is in our country’s financial literacy, and how the fundamentals are not taught to the average person. I have a relative in 4S with a $1.5 million property who was wondering when I was going to buy a house like that. They looked at me funny when and I simply stated I couldn’t afford it on my physician’s salary, and I know I can document a much higher income than they can. They will learn the fundamentals the hard way, which is effective, and I find the retention tends to be much better.

I do believe SDR may have a point, and that eliminating non-recourse debt is the future, but with our current situation, making all the banks the bagholders is not the answer, as they cannot possibly absorb the numbers involved and survive. I have no idea how this is going to resolve itself, but a long hard recession seems like the best cure, and unfortunately, I think the taxpayers are going to have to absorb some of it. Remember the S&L’s? Why do you think it can’t happen again?

[Navydoc]

This is all going to come down to can you afford the situation you are in? If you can, the moral high road is to ride out the depreciation long enough so values recover, and think of your home as an expense, not an investment. If you can’t afford it then you have to walk away. I can tell you, in the latter case, if you are a moral, responsible person you WILL experience some guilt from this decision. If you’re not, then hopefully there are few of you, and you won’t destroy our financial system.

Unfortunately, I think we have a large number of people in that latter category who cannot sell, cannot refinance, and to add insult to injury, can no longer afford their monthly payments. I feel a little bad for these people, but they disregarded the fundamentals and bet their financial future on never-ending depreciation. I think the root of the problem is in our country’s financial literacy, and how the fundamentals are not taught to the average person. I have a relative in 4S with a $1.5 million property who was wondering when I was going to buy a house like that. They looked at me funny when and I simply stated I couldn’t afford it on my physician’s salary, and I know I can document a much higher income than they can. They will learn the fundamentals the hard way, which is effective, and I find the retention tends to be much better.

I do believe SDR may have a point, and that eliminating non-recourse debt is the future, but with our current situation, making all the banks the bagholders is not the answer, as they cannot possibly absorb the numbers involved and survive. I have no idea how this is going to resolve itself, but a long hard recession seems like the best cure, and unfortunately, I think the taxpayers are going to have to absorb some of it. Remember the S&L’s? Why do you think it can’t happen again?

[Navydoc]

This is all going to come down to can you afford the situation you are in? If you can, the moral high road is to ride out the depreciation long enough so values recover, and think of your home as an expense, not an investment. If you can’t afford it then you have to walk away. I can tell you, in the latter case, if you are a moral, responsible person you WILL experience some guilt from this decision. If you’re not, then hopefully there are few of you, and you won’t destroy our financial system.

Unfortunately, I think we have a large number of people in that latter category who cannot sell, cannot refinance, and to add insult to injury, can no longer afford their monthly payments. I feel a little bad for these people, but they disregarded the fundamentals and bet their financial future on never-ending depreciation. I think the root of the problem is in our country’s financial literacy, and how the fundamentals are not taught to the average person. I have a relative in 4S with a $1.5 million property who was wondering when I was going to buy a house like that. They looked at me funny when and I simply stated I couldn’t afford it on my physician’s salary, and I know I can document a much higher income than they can. They will learn the fundamentals the hard way, which is effective, and I find the retention tends to be much better.

I do believe SDR may have a point, and that eliminating non-recourse debt is the future, but with our current situation, making all the banks the bagholders is not the answer, as they cannot possibly absorb the numbers involved and survive. I have no idea how this is going to resolve itself, but a long hard recession seems like the best cure, and unfortunately, I think the taxpayers are going to have to absorb some of it. Remember the S&L’s? Why do you think it can’t happen again?

[Navydoc]

This is all going to come down to can you afford the situation you are in? If you can, the moral high road is to ride out the depreciation long enough so values recover, and think of your home as an expense, not an investment. If you can’t afford it then you have to walk away. I can tell you, in the latter case, if you are a moral, responsible person you WILL experience some guilt from this decision. If you’re not, then hopefully there are few of you, and you won’t destroy our financial system.

Unfortunately, I think we have a large number of people in that latter category who cannot sell, cannot refinance, and to add insult to injury, can no longer afford their monthly payments. I feel a little bad for these people, but they disregarded the fundamentals and bet their financial future on never-ending depreciation. I think the root of the problem is in our country’s financial literacy, and how the fundamentals are not taught to the average person. I have a relative in 4S with a $1.5 million property who was wondering when I was going to buy a house like that. They looked at me funny when and I simply stated I couldn’t afford it on my physician’s salary, and I know I can document a much higher income than they can. They will learn the fundamentals the hard way, which is effective, and I find the retention tends to be much better.

I do believe SDR may have a point, and that eliminating non-recourse debt is the future, but with our current situation, making all the banks the bagholders is not the answer, as they cannot possibly absorb the numbers involved and survive. I have no idea how this is going to resolve itself, but a long hard recession seems like the best cure, and unfortunately, I think the taxpayers are going to have to absorb some of it. Remember the S&L’s? Why do you think it can’t happen again?

[patientlywaiting]

They do utilize tax and other business loopholes etc..

Ok, Chris, so rich executives use tax loopholes, violate the spirit of the law and "steal" from society.   That's better than abiding to the letter of a contract between two private parties? 

Executives deducts things such as corporate condos, beach houses, jet travel, hair cuts, jewelry, hotel suites, car for their wives, salaries for their children, etc… much of it not very business related.  They take family on seminars and conferences that amount to private holidays.  I've worked as an executive for many years and I've seen it all.  

How about setting up overseas companies to lower the net income of a US-based related company? 

There are things that are much worse than strickly fullfilling the terms of a contract with a mortgage company (which walking on a house is). 

I don't see the moral high-ground you are talking about here.   

 

[patientlywaiting]

They do utilize tax and other business loopholes etc..

Ok, Chris, so rich executives use tax loopholes, violate the spirit of the law and "steal" from society.   That's better than abiding to the letter of a contract between two private parties? 

Executives deducts things such as corporate condos, beach houses, jet travel, hair cuts, jewelry, hotel suites, car for their wives, salaries for their children, etc… much of it not very business related.  They take family on seminars and conferences that amount to private holidays.  I've worked as an executive for many years and I've seen it all.  

How about setting up overseas companies to lower the net income of a US-based related company? 

There are things that are much worse than strickly fullfilling the terms of a contract with a mortgage company (which walking on a house is). 

I don't see the moral high-ground you are talking about here.   

 

[patientlywaiting]

They do utilize tax and other business loopholes etc..

Ok, Chris, so rich executives use tax loopholes, violate the spirit of the law and "steal" from society.   That's better than abiding to the letter of a contract between two private parties? 

Executives deducts things such as corporate condos, beach houses, jet travel, hair cuts, jewelry, hotel suites, car for their wives, salaries for their children, etc… much of it not very business related.  They take family on seminars and conferences that amount to private holidays.  I've worked as an executive for many years and I've seen it all.  

How about setting up overseas companies to lower the net income of a US-based related company? 

There are things that are much worse than strickly fullfilling the terms of a contract with a mortgage company (which walking on a house is). 

I don't see the moral high-ground you are talking about here.   

 

[patientlywaiting]

They do utilize tax and other business loopholes etc..

Ok, Chris, so rich executives use tax loopholes, violate the spirit of the law and "steal" from society.   That's better than abiding to the letter of a contract between two private parties? 

Executives deducts things such as corporate condos, beach houses, jet travel, hair cuts, jewelry, hotel suites, car for their wives, salaries for their children, etc… much of it not very business related.  They take family on seminars and conferences that amount to private holidays.  I've worked as an executive for many years and I've seen it all.  

How about setting up overseas companies to lower the net income of a US-based related company? 

There are things that are much worse than strickly fullfilling the terms of a contract with a mortgage company (which walking on a house is). 

I don't see the moral high-ground you are talking about here.   

 

[Author]

Posts