[DaCounselor]

I would be more inclined to call it stupidity as opposed to honor, Kelly. Our astute “investor” (characterizing a property that is negative cash flow from the get-go an “income” property is our first sign of who we are dealing with) throws down the morality card we have debated here for months. My advice to this person, having already acknowledged that they have made a bad business decision, is to start thinking long and hard about whether their priorities should rest with some over-reaching sense of obligation to their neighborhood as opposed to their own family.

Yes indeed, there is great “honor” in sinking increasing amounts of money into a bad investment while neglecting your childrens’ educational funds. That makes tremendous sense. Perhaps the children don’t even really need higher education, thus increasing the likelihood that they will perpetuate their parents’ fine investment decisions. Fantastic idea. After all, we don’t want to cause any problems for next door neighbor Bob’s refi or ruffle any feathers in the neighborhood.

This person’s circumstances are affected by the fact that the distressed property is, ahem, “income” property, which has certain legal implications relating to…walkability. Speaking more in generalities, then, I suggest that anyone who can walk with nothing but a damaged credit report must consider doing so if the alternative is financial ruin. Anyone who steers their own bus, family aboard, over the cliff when there is a way out is arguably an idiot.

And what of those, you ask, who do not face financial ruin but instead would like to shave a few hundred grand off their mortgage balance? I can hear the morality drumbeats grow louder on this one, but I’m not inclined to cast stones regarding someone’s business decision pursuant to a contract that if at all typical has provisions on point. Now will there be a macroeconomic effect of decisions to walk? Yes. Will I be affected in some way? Probably. But it’s certainly naive to believe that we have not been affected by the decisions of our fellow man/consumer/borrower/insured/etc over the span of time. This is no different.

[DaCounselor]

I would be more inclined to call it stupidity as opposed to honor, Kelly. Our astute “investor” (characterizing a property that is negative cash flow from the get-go an “income” property is our first sign of who we are dealing with) throws down the morality card we have debated here for months. My advice to this person, having already acknowledged that they have made a bad business decision, is to start thinking long and hard about whether their priorities should rest with some over-reaching sense of obligation to their neighborhood as opposed to their own family.

Yes indeed, there is great “honor” in sinking increasing amounts of money into a bad investment while neglecting your childrens’ educational funds. That makes tremendous sense. Perhaps the children don’t even really need higher education, thus increasing the likelihood that they will perpetuate their parents’ fine investment decisions. Fantastic idea. After all, we don’t want to cause any problems for next door neighbor Bob’s refi or ruffle any feathers in the neighborhood.

This person’s circumstances are affected by the fact that the distressed property is, ahem, “income” property, which has certain legal implications relating to…walkability. Speaking more in generalities, then, I suggest that anyone who can walk with nothing but a damaged credit report must consider doing so if the alternative is financial ruin. Anyone who steers their own bus, family aboard, over the cliff when there is a way out is arguably an idiot.

And what of those, you ask, who do not face financial ruin but instead would like to shave a few hundred grand off their mortgage balance? I can hear the morality drumbeats grow louder on this one, but I’m not inclined to cast stones regarding someone’s business decision pursuant to a contract that if at all typical has provisions on point. Now will there be a macroeconomic effect of decisions to walk? Yes. Will I be affected in some way? Probably. But it’s certainly naive to believe that we have not been affected by the decisions of our fellow man/consumer/borrower/insured/etc over the span of time. This is no different.

[DaCounselor]

I would be more inclined to call it stupidity as opposed to honor, Kelly. Our astute “investor” (characterizing a property that is negative cash flow from the get-go an “income” property is our first sign of who we are dealing with) throws down the morality card we have debated here for months. My advice to this person, having already acknowledged that they have made a bad business decision, is to start thinking long and hard about whether their priorities should rest with some over-reaching sense of obligation to their neighborhood as opposed to their own family.

Yes indeed, there is great “honor” in sinking increasing amounts of money into a bad investment while neglecting your childrens’ educational funds. That makes tremendous sense. Perhaps the children don’t even really need higher education, thus increasing the likelihood that they will perpetuate their parents’ fine investment decisions. Fantastic idea. After all, we don’t want to cause any problems for next door neighbor Bob’s refi or ruffle any feathers in the neighborhood.

This person’s circumstances are affected by the fact that the distressed property is, ahem, “income” property, which has certain legal implications relating to…walkability. Speaking more in generalities, then, I suggest that anyone who can walk with nothing but a damaged credit report must consider doing so if the alternative is financial ruin. Anyone who steers their own bus, family aboard, over the cliff when there is a way out is arguably an idiot.

And what of those, you ask, who do not face financial ruin but instead would like to shave a few hundred grand off their mortgage balance? I can hear the morality drumbeats grow louder on this one, but I’m not inclined to cast stones regarding someone’s business decision pursuant to a contract that if at all typical has provisions on point. Now will there be a macroeconomic effect of decisions to walk? Yes. Will I be affected in some way? Probably. But it’s certainly naive to believe that we have not been affected by the decisions of our fellow man/consumer/borrower/insured/etc over the span of time. This is no different.

[DaCounselor]

I would be more inclined to call it stupidity as opposed to honor, Kelly. Our astute “investor” (characterizing a property that is negative cash flow from the get-go an “income” property is our first sign of who we are dealing with) throws down the morality card we have debated here for months. My advice to this person, having already acknowledged that they have made a bad business decision, is to start thinking long and hard about whether their priorities should rest with some over-reaching sense of obligation to their neighborhood as opposed to their own family.

Yes indeed, there is great “honor” in sinking increasing amounts of money into a bad investment while neglecting your childrens’ educational funds. That makes tremendous sense. Perhaps the children don’t even really need higher education, thus increasing the likelihood that they will perpetuate their parents’ fine investment decisions. Fantastic idea. After all, we don’t want to cause any problems for next door neighbor Bob’s refi or ruffle any feathers in the neighborhood.

This person’s circumstances are affected by the fact that the distressed property is, ahem, “income” property, which has certain legal implications relating to…walkability. Speaking more in generalities, then, I suggest that anyone who can walk with nothing but a damaged credit report must consider doing so if the alternative is financial ruin. Anyone who steers their own bus, family aboard, over the cliff when there is a way out is arguably an idiot.

And what of those, you ask, who do not face financial ruin but instead would like to shave a few hundred grand off their mortgage balance? I can hear the morality drumbeats grow louder on this one, but I’m not inclined to cast stones regarding someone’s business decision pursuant to a contract that if at all typical has provisions on point. Now will there be a macroeconomic effect of decisions to walk? Yes. Will I be affected in some way? Probably. But it’s certainly naive to believe that we have not been affected by the decisions of our fellow man/consumer/borrower/insured/etc over the span of time. This is no different.

[DaCounselor]

“Massive easing does not necessarily stave off staggering job losses. It will be the loss of jobs and income that are the catalyst to bringing Southern California real estate to it’s knees.

Think outside the box every once in awhile…it just might save your ass someday.”
___________________________________

This thread was started with the premise that falling rates would be the catalyst for increasing inventory and presumably a continuing decrease in home values. As I indicated above, I disagree.

Now I’m hearing an entirely different premise based upon a prediction of staggering job losses and income. Entirely different scenario mentioned nowhere in the opening comment I responded to.

Thank you so much for the advice to “think outside the box.” My decisions with respect to real estate and the stock market have been disasterous over the past 25 years. If only someone had given me this sage advice long ago, perhaps I could have “saved my ass” from my current dilemma.

[DaCounselor]

“Massive easing does not necessarily stave off staggering job losses. It will be the loss of jobs and income that are the catalyst to bringing Southern California real estate to it’s knees.

Think outside the box every once in awhile…it just might save your ass someday.”
___________________________________

This thread was started with the premise that falling rates would be the catalyst for increasing inventory and presumably a continuing decrease in home values. As I indicated above, I disagree.

Now I’m hearing an entirely different premise based upon a prediction of staggering job losses and income. Entirely different scenario mentioned nowhere in the opening comment I responded to.

Thank you so much for the advice to “think outside the box.” My decisions with respect to real estate and the stock market have been disasterous over the past 25 years. If only someone had given me this sage advice long ago, perhaps I could have “saved my ass” from my current dilemma.

[DaCounselor]

“Massive easing does not necessarily stave off staggering job losses. It will be the loss of jobs and income that are the catalyst to bringing Southern California real estate to it’s knees.

Think outside the box every once in awhile…it just might save your ass someday.”
___________________________________

This thread was started with the premise that falling rates would be the catalyst for increasing inventory and presumably a continuing decrease in home values. As I indicated above, I disagree.

Now I’m hearing an entirely different premise based upon a prediction of staggering job losses and income. Entirely different scenario mentioned nowhere in the opening comment I responded to.

Thank you so much for the advice to “think outside the box.” My decisions with respect to real estate and the stock market have been disasterous over the past 25 years. If only someone had given me this sage advice long ago, perhaps I could have “saved my ass” from my current dilemma.

[DaCounselor]

“Massive easing does not necessarily stave off staggering job losses. It will be the loss of jobs and income that are the catalyst to bringing Southern California real estate to it’s knees.

Think outside the box every once in awhile…it just might save your ass someday.”
___________________________________

This thread was started with the premise that falling rates would be the catalyst for increasing inventory and presumably a continuing decrease in home values. As I indicated above, I disagree.

Now I’m hearing an entirely different premise based upon a prediction of staggering job losses and income. Entirely different scenario mentioned nowhere in the opening comment I responded to.

Thank you so much for the advice to “think outside the box.” My decisions with respect to real estate and the stock market have been disasterous over the past 25 years. If only someone had given me this sage advice long ago, perhaps I could have “saved my ass” from my current dilemma.

[DaCounselor]

“Massive easing does not necessarily stave off staggering job losses. It will be the loss of jobs and income that are the catalyst to bringing Southern California real estate to it’s knees.

Think outside the box every once in awhile…it just might save your ass someday.”
___________________________________

This thread was started with the premise that falling rates would be the catalyst for increasing inventory and presumably a continuing decrease in home values. As I indicated above, I disagree.

Now I’m hearing an entirely different premise based upon a prediction of staggering job losses and income. Entirely different scenario mentioned nowhere in the opening comment I responded to.

Thank you so much for the advice to “think outside the box.” My decisions with respect to real estate and the stock market have been disasterous over the past 25 years. If only someone had given me this sage advice long ago, perhaps I could have “saved my ass” from my current dilemma.

[DaCounselor]

I don’t think there is any doubt that the Fed’s massive easing and the concurrent nosedive of LIBOR is going to reduce what otherwise might have been a substantial increase in must-sell inventory due to ARM resets.

I’m not sure I get the correlation between lower rates and an emerging “rush-to-the-exits” mentality.

[DaCounselor]

I don’t think there is any doubt that the Fed’s massive easing and the concurrent nosedive of LIBOR is going to reduce what otherwise might have been a substantial increase in must-sell inventory due to ARM resets.

I’m not sure I get the correlation between lower rates and an emerging “rush-to-the-exits” mentality.

[DaCounselor]

I don’t think there is any doubt that the Fed’s massive easing and the concurrent nosedive of LIBOR is going to reduce what otherwise might have been a substantial increase in must-sell inventory due to ARM resets.

I’m not sure I get the correlation between lower rates and an emerging “rush-to-the-exits” mentality.

[DaCounselor]

I don’t think there is any doubt that the Fed’s massive easing and the concurrent nosedive of LIBOR is going to reduce what otherwise might have been a substantial increase in must-sell inventory due to ARM resets.

I’m not sure I get the correlation between lower rates and an emerging “rush-to-the-exits” mentality.

[DaCounselor]

I don’t think there is any doubt that the Fed’s massive easing and the concurrent nosedive of LIBOR is going to reduce what otherwise might have been a substantial increase in must-sell inventory due to ARM resets.

I’m not sure I get the correlation between lower rates and an emerging “rush-to-the-exits” mentality.

[DaCounselor]

Certainly, in the eyes of the law, it’s not fraud. I would not even casually refer to it as fraud. It’s a voluntary breach of contract with respect to the existing home loans, with built-in remedies for the lenders. That’s it as far as I can see.

[Author]

Posts