You cannot have it both ways

[Navydoc]

“LOL! Do you think Countrywide, Wamu, Citi, Fannie, and Freddi are going to be able to survive now without some type of government bailout?”

No, I absolutely don’t believe they will survive, a point I made in the earlier post. Whether it’s ridiculous or not, it doesn’t change the fact that the banks were doing irresponsible lending to stay competitive. I completely agree with you that they were lemmings running off the cliff, but a lender would not have kept their doors open if they weren’t generating the kind of returns (false) that their competitors were.

[NotCranky]

“I have more of a beef with the lenders than the borrowers. This is an underwriting problem more than a morality issue.”

I am right there with you and those saying such things. This topic,which went in interesting directions, got started by a guy blaming everyone but himself for being faced with an uncomfortable financial dilema. I think compared to the lenders the fault of any buyers is small…I dislike hearing someone say they are a victim and not part of the problem.
I just got off the phone with a man in a similar situation. He said he knew what he was getting into…that’s all it takes. I don’t think he would stay there for free as part of his exit strategy or take the cabinets and plumbing with him because he was suffered some wrong.
We have had more responsible posters come in here and explain the same dilema, they didn’t stir up a hornets nest because they accepted part of the blame.Most of those who posted tried to help them.

[NotCranky]

“I have more of a beef with the lenders than the borrowers. This is an underwriting problem more than a morality issue.”

I am right there with you and those saying such things. This topic,which went in interesting directions, got started by a guy blaming everyone but himself for being faced with an uncomfortable financial dilema. I think compared to the lenders the fault of any buyers is small…I dislike hearing someone say they are a victim and not part of the problem.
I just got off the phone with a man in a similar situation. He said he knew what he was getting into…that’s all it takes. I don’t think he would stay there for free as part of his exit strategy or take the cabinets and plumbing with him because he was suffered some wrong.
We have had more responsible posters come in here and explain the same dilema, they didn’t stir up a hornets nest because they accepted part of the blame.Most of those who posted tried to help them.

[NotCranky]

“I have more of a beef with the lenders than the borrowers. This is an underwriting problem more than a morality issue.”

I am right there with you and those saying such things. This topic,which went in interesting directions, got started by a guy blaming everyone but himself for being faced with an uncomfortable financial dilema. I think compared to the lenders the fault of any buyers is small…I dislike hearing someone say they are a victim and not part of the problem.
I just got off the phone with a man in a similar situation. He said he knew what he was getting into…that’s all it takes. I don’t think he would stay there for free as part of his exit strategy or take the cabinets and plumbing with him because he was suffered some wrong.
We have had more responsible posters come in here and explain the same dilema, they didn’t stir up a hornets nest because they accepted part of the blame.Most of those who posted tried to help them.

[NotCranky]

“I have more of a beef with the lenders than the borrowers. This is an underwriting problem more than a morality issue.”

I am right there with you and those saying such things. This topic,which went in interesting directions, got started by a guy blaming everyone but himself for being faced with an uncomfortable financial dilema. I think compared to the lenders the fault of any buyers is small…I dislike hearing someone say they are a victim and not part of the problem.
I just got off the phone with a man in a similar situation. He said he knew what he was getting into…that’s all it takes. I don’t think he would stay there for free as part of his exit strategy or take the cabinets and plumbing with him because he was suffered some wrong.
We have had more responsible posters come in here and explain the same dilema, they didn’t stir up a hornets nest because they accepted part of the blame.Most of those who posted tried to help them.

[NotCranky]

“I have more of a beef with the lenders than the borrowers. This is an underwriting problem more than a morality issue.”

I am right there with you and those saying such things. This topic,which went in interesting directions, got started by a guy blaming everyone but himself for being faced with an uncomfortable financial dilema. I think compared to the lenders the fault of any buyers is small…I dislike hearing someone say they are a victim and not part of the problem.
I just got off the phone with a man in a similar situation. He said he knew what he was getting into…that’s all it takes. I don’t think he would stay there for free as part of his exit strategy or take the cabinets and plumbing with him because he was suffered some wrong.
We have had more responsible posters come in here and explain the same dilema, they didn’t stir up a hornets nest because they accepted part of the blame.Most of those who posted tried to help them.

[sandiego]

You are all missing the point; even if you kept your nose clean and only made loans to people with 800 credit scores with 20% down, the underlying value of the assets that you lent on have been severely affected by your competitors.

As a bank, you may think that the $400,000 that you lent on a $500,000 home is still safe until Countrywide forforecloses (because they lent 125% of the appraised value) on the house next door and puts it back on the market for $350,000. In fact, as the lender, you may be required by the loan provisions that your Loan to Value doesn’t exceed 90%. By law, you may have to go back and tell the homeowner that they need to put another $85,000 down payment to get the loan in conformance.

[sandiego]

You are all missing the point; even if you kept your nose clean and only made loans to people with 800 credit scores with 20% down, the underlying value of the assets that you lent on have been severely affected by your competitors.

As a bank, you may think that the $400,000 that you lent on a $500,000 home is still safe until Countrywide forforecloses (because they lent 125% of the appraised value) on the house next door and puts it back on the market for $350,000. In fact, as the lender, you may be required by the loan provisions that your Loan to Value doesn’t exceed 90%. By law, you may have to go back and tell the homeowner that they need to put another $85,000 down payment to get the loan in conformance.

[sandiego]

You are all missing the point; even if you kept your nose clean and only made loans to people with 800 credit scores with 20% down, the underlying value of the assets that you lent on have been severely affected by your competitors.

As a bank, you may think that the $400,000 that you lent on a $500,000 home is still safe until Countrywide forforecloses (because they lent 125% of the appraised value) on the house next door and puts it back on the market for $350,000. In fact, as the lender, you may be required by the loan provisions that your Loan to Value doesn’t exceed 90%. By law, you may have to go back and tell the homeowner that they need to put another $85,000 down payment to get the loan in conformance.

[sandiego]

You are all missing the point; even if you kept your nose clean and only made loans to people with 800 credit scores with 20% down, the underlying value of the assets that you lent on have been severely affected by your competitors.

As a bank, you may think that the $400,000 that you lent on a $500,000 home is still safe until Countrywide forforecloses (because they lent 125% of the appraised value) on the house next door and puts it back on the market for $350,000. In fact, as the lender, you may be required by the loan provisions that your Loan to Value doesn’t exceed 90%. By law, you may have to go back and tell the homeowner that they need to put another $85,000 down payment to get the loan in conformance.

[sandiego]

You are all missing the point; even if you kept your nose clean and only made loans to people with 800 credit scores with 20% down, the underlying value of the assets that you lent on have been severely affected by your competitors.

As a bank, you may think that the $400,000 that you lent on a $500,000 home is still safe until Countrywide forforecloses (because they lent 125% of the appraised value) on the house next door and puts it back on the market for $350,000. In fact, as the lender, you may be required by the loan provisions that your Loan to Value doesn’t exceed 90%. By law, you may have to go back and tell the homeowner that they need to put another $85,000 down payment to get the loan in conformance.

[Anonymous]

I think this is an interesting thread and felt I could contribute. Sorry it got so long.

I RESPECTFULLY have to disagree with anyone who tries to paint a homeowner who lives up to the mortgage contract that they signed as immoral. Immoral would be trying to weasel out of the loan payments while trying to keep the house because someone noticed that an i was not dotted properly by a secretary when setting up the contract. One who takes advantage of a contract that explicitly says, the money borrower can forfeit the house in lieu of repayment is in my opinion 100% living up to their agreement if they walk away and leave the keys. Absolutely nothing even remotely immoral about it.

Think of it this way – the value of the house has no bearing on anything after the document is signed. The contract says Joe will pay X dollars for X months and in the end Joe will own this house. (this is true if the house is then worth $1 million or $1). If Joe doesn’t pay, Joe loses the house, no matter what the value is. This is the agreement!

Imagine a world for one minute where for whatever reason, Joe’s home was being foreclosed upon and it was worth more than he owed. (just to illustrate a point – I know it couldn’t happen) You think the bank would refund the difference to Joe? No way, they’d live up their agreement and happily take Joe’s house instead of the money. Would there be anything immoral about it? No. The money renter (Joe) and money loaner (bank) agreed to this in the contract. It goes both ways.

Bottom line = there’s nothing wrong with a man’s handshake saying that he’ll live up to an agreement. If more people on this planet lived that way, it’d be a better place. I think it’s wrong to interpret that handshake to mean he’ll live up to something more.

That said, absolutely nothing wrong with helping a friend in need, if you have the means to do it. I have several friends who own several properties – I hope they all weather this storm OK. If I had the capacity to help any of them without jeopardizing my own financial future, I’d do it in a second. If they lose it all and end up renting a crappy apartment in a crappy part of town, they’ll still be my friends. I’ll feel for their families who have to live that way, but life will go on. These are very bright people who will probably come back with a roar in some other bull market. In many ways I envy the risks my friends took a few years ago. I just was not in a position to do so or I probably would have too. And had they timed things better, they might all be retired now – nothing immoral about that either…

The folks I feel for are those who were truly taken advantage of in one way or another. Either because they were too stupid to know better or they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I feel bad about starving kids in Africa too, unfortunately anything I do (and I do what I can) is just a drop in the bucket…

I’ve learned a lot from many of the threads on this board and make these comments in only the most respectful manner.

[Anonymous]

I think this is an interesting thread and felt I could contribute. Sorry it got so long.

I RESPECTFULLY have to disagree with anyone who tries to paint a homeowner who lives up to the mortgage contract that they signed as immoral. Immoral would be trying to weasel out of the loan payments while trying to keep the house because someone noticed that an i was not dotted properly by a secretary when setting up the contract. One who takes advantage of a contract that explicitly says, the money borrower can forfeit the house in lieu of repayment is in my opinion 100% living up to their agreement if they walk away and leave the keys. Absolutely nothing even remotely immoral about it.

Think of it this way – the value of the house has no bearing on anything after the document is signed. The contract says Joe will pay X dollars for X months and in the end Joe will own this house. (this is true if the house is then worth $1 million or $1). If Joe doesn’t pay, Joe loses the house, no matter what the value is. This is the agreement!

Imagine a world for one minute where for whatever reason, Joe’s home was being foreclosed upon and it was worth more than he owed. (just to illustrate a point – I know it couldn’t happen) You think the bank would refund the difference to Joe? No way, they’d live up their agreement and happily take Joe’s house instead of the money. Would there be anything immoral about it? No. The money renter (Joe) and money loaner (bank) agreed to this in the contract. It goes both ways.

Bottom line = there’s nothing wrong with a man’s handshake saying that he’ll live up to an agreement. If more people on this planet lived that way, it’d be a better place. I think it’s wrong to interpret that handshake to mean he’ll live up to something more.

That said, absolutely nothing wrong with helping a friend in need, if you have the means to do it. I have several friends who own several properties – I hope they all weather this storm OK. If I had the capacity to help any of them without jeopardizing my own financial future, I’d do it in a second. If they lose it all and end up renting a crappy apartment in a crappy part of town, they’ll still be my friends. I’ll feel for their families who have to live that way, but life will go on. These are very bright people who will probably come back with a roar in some other bull market. In many ways I envy the risks my friends took a few years ago. I just was not in a position to do so or I probably would have too. And had they timed things better, they might all be retired now – nothing immoral about that either…

The folks I feel for are those who were truly taken advantage of in one way or another. Either because they were too stupid to know better or they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I feel bad about starving kids in Africa too, unfortunately anything I do (and I do what I can) is just a drop in the bucket…

I’ve learned a lot from many of the threads on this board and make these comments in only the most respectful manner.

[Anonymous]

I think this is an interesting thread and felt I could contribute. Sorry it got so long.

I RESPECTFULLY have to disagree with anyone who tries to paint a homeowner who lives up to the mortgage contract that they signed as immoral. Immoral would be trying to weasel out of the loan payments while trying to keep the house because someone noticed that an i was not dotted properly by a secretary when setting up the contract. One who takes advantage of a contract that explicitly says, the money borrower can forfeit the house in lieu of repayment is in my opinion 100% living up to their agreement if they walk away and leave the keys. Absolutely nothing even remotely immoral about it.

Think of it this way – the value of the house has no bearing on anything after the document is signed. The contract says Joe will pay X dollars for X months and in the end Joe will own this house. (this is true if the house is then worth $1 million or $1). If Joe doesn’t pay, Joe loses the house, no matter what the value is. This is the agreement!

Imagine a world for one minute where for whatever reason, Joe’s home was being foreclosed upon and it was worth more than he owed. (just to illustrate a point – I know it couldn’t happen) You think the bank would refund the difference to Joe? No way, they’d live up their agreement and happily take Joe’s house instead of the money. Would there be anything immoral about it? No. The money renter (Joe) and money loaner (bank) agreed to this in the contract. It goes both ways.

Bottom line = there’s nothing wrong with a man’s handshake saying that he’ll live up to an agreement. If more people on this planet lived that way, it’d be a better place. I think it’s wrong to interpret that handshake to mean he’ll live up to something more.

That said, absolutely nothing wrong with helping a friend in need, if you have the means to do it. I have several friends who own several properties – I hope they all weather this storm OK. If I had the capacity to help any of them without jeopardizing my own financial future, I’d do it in a second. If they lose it all and end up renting a crappy apartment in a crappy part of town, they’ll still be my friends. I’ll feel for their families who have to live that way, but life will go on. These are very bright people who will probably come back with a roar in some other bull market. In many ways I envy the risks my friends took a few years ago. I just was not in a position to do so or I probably would have too. And had they timed things better, they might all be retired now – nothing immoral about that either…

The folks I feel for are those who were truly taken advantage of in one way or another. Either because they were too stupid to know better or they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I feel bad about starving kids in Africa too, unfortunately anything I do (and I do what I can) is just a drop in the bucket…

I’ve learned a lot from many of the threads on this board and make these comments in only the most respectful manner.

[Anonymous]

I think this is an interesting thread and felt I could contribute. Sorry it got so long.

I RESPECTFULLY have to disagree with anyone who tries to paint a homeowner who lives up to the mortgage contract that they signed as immoral. Immoral would be trying to weasel out of the loan payments while trying to keep the house because someone noticed that an i was not dotted properly by a secretary when setting up the contract. One who takes advantage of a contract that explicitly says, the money borrower can forfeit the house in lieu of repayment is in my opinion 100% living up to their agreement if they walk away and leave the keys. Absolutely nothing even remotely immoral about it.

Think of it this way – the value of the house has no bearing on anything after the document is signed. The contract says Joe will pay X dollars for X months and in the end Joe will own this house. (this is true if the house is then worth $1 million or $1). If Joe doesn’t pay, Joe loses the house, no matter what the value is. This is the agreement!

Imagine a world for one minute where for whatever reason, Joe’s home was being foreclosed upon and it was worth more than he owed. (just to illustrate a point – I know it couldn’t happen) You think the bank would refund the difference to Joe? No way, they’d live up their agreement and happily take Joe’s house instead of the money. Would there be anything immoral about it? No. The money renter (Joe) and money loaner (bank) agreed to this in the contract. It goes both ways.

Bottom line = there’s nothing wrong with a man’s handshake saying that he’ll live up to an agreement. If more people on this planet lived that way, it’d be a better place. I think it’s wrong to interpret that handshake to mean he’ll live up to something more.

That said, absolutely nothing wrong with helping a friend in need, if you have the means to do it. I have several friends who own several properties – I hope they all weather this storm OK. If I had the capacity to help any of them without jeopardizing my own financial future, I’d do it in a second. If they lose it all and end up renting a crappy apartment in a crappy part of town, they’ll still be my friends. I’ll feel for their families who have to live that way, but life will go on. These are very bright people who will probably come back with a roar in some other bull market. In many ways I envy the risks my friends took a few years ago. I just was not in a position to do so or I probably would have too. And had they timed things better, they might all be retired now – nothing immoral about that either…

The folks I feel for are those who were truly taken advantage of in one way or another. Either because they were too stupid to know better or they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I feel bad about starving kids in Africa too, unfortunately anything I do (and I do what I can) is just a drop in the bucket…

I’ve learned a lot from many of the threads on this board and make these comments in only the most respectful manner.

[Author]

Posts