[donaldduckmoore]

I went to Minnesota, area around the Mayo clinic for job interview and my would-be boss really wanted me to buy a house there. That was back in 2004 where the housing bubble was still being inflated here in california. When I rode with the realtor, there were many houses for sale. I was thinking why SD was not like that. I think the answer is that CA is more attractive to people to buy houses than those in the mid-west. I cannot think of any other reasons.

[donaldduckmoore]

so what do they really want from a renter?

[donaldduckmoore]

so what do they really want from a renter?

[donaldduckmoore]

so what do they really want from a renter?

[donaldduckmoore]

so what do they really want from a renter?

[donaldduckmoore]

so what do they really want from a renter?

[donaldduckmoore]

[quote=jpinpb]I should not generalize and maybe that is the problem. Too many scenarious. From what I’m seeing, there are many NODs that have taken a year to foreclose. That means a year that people have not paid their mortgage, right? I pay my rent b/c my landlord is not likely to let me live there for free for a year.

So in the situation of year-free mortgage living, the only suffering is credit. Money that was to be used for mortgage is being used for whatever, bills, bank, etc. If and when the foreclosure happens, it hurts their credit. So I’m missing where the suffering is. They lived in a nice house and gambled that they would have equity built up and when it didn’t happen, they lived their for free for a year and now,{gasp} rent (oh the horror and suffering). Credit can be repaired in a few years.

Investors purchasing multiple properties and renting out have suffered how? They stopped paying their mortgage on their properties while still collecting rents. From what I’m seeing, banks seem to be foreclosing a little sooner on investors. Seems like about 6 to 8 months.

Maybe you can enlighten me on the suffering. I am sure I’m missing something.

Some banks did not make bad loans. Others were notorious for it. Countrywide got taken over by BA which had taxpayer help, right? And the guy from Countrywide made out like a bandit and from what I understand, started another company.

No. I believe suffering has been minimal.

Edit: I add, as I said before, relative to the loans that were made.[/quote]

Indeed, these people did not suffer at all. What is more important to point out is that most of these flippers were using zero downpayment to buy n number of houses, they rent them out, collecting rent, now they do not pay mortgage because they intent to foreclose, so that they are actually gaining money out of the whole situation. In addition, they could write down their income tax before they move out. It is a win-win situation to them. You are right, the only thing that they suffer is a minor credit dent that will recover 7 years later. What is the loss.

[donaldduckmoore]

[quote=jpinpb]I should not generalize and maybe that is the problem. Too many scenarious. From what I’m seeing, there are many NODs that have taken a year to foreclose. That means a year that people have not paid their mortgage, right? I pay my rent b/c my landlord is not likely to let me live there for free for a year.

So in the situation of year-free mortgage living, the only suffering is credit. Money that was to be used for mortgage is being used for whatever, bills, bank, etc. If and when the foreclosure happens, it hurts their credit. So I’m missing where the suffering is. They lived in a nice house and gambled that they would have equity built up and when it didn’t happen, they lived their for free for a year and now,{gasp} rent (oh the horror and suffering). Credit can be repaired in a few years.

Investors purchasing multiple properties and renting out have suffered how? They stopped paying their mortgage on their properties while still collecting rents. From what I’m seeing, banks seem to be foreclosing a little sooner on investors. Seems like about 6 to 8 months.

Maybe you can enlighten me on the suffering. I am sure I’m missing something.

Some banks did not make bad loans. Others were notorious for it. Countrywide got taken over by BA which had taxpayer help, right? And the guy from Countrywide made out like a bandit and from what I understand, started another company.

No. I believe suffering has been minimal.

Edit: I add, as I said before, relative to the loans that were made.[/quote]

Indeed, these people did not suffer at all. What is more important to point out is that most of these flippers were using zero downpayment to buy n number of houses, they rent them out, collecting rent, now they do not pay mortgage because they intent to foreclose, so that they are actually gaining money out of the whole situation. In addition, they could write down their income tax before they move out. It is a win-win situation to them. You are right, the only thing that they suffer is a minor credit dent that will recover 7 years later. What is the loss.

[donaldduckmoore]

[quote=jpinpb]I should not generalize and maybe that is the problem. Too many scenarious. From what I’m seeing, there are many NODs that have taken a year to foreclose. That means a year that people have not paid their mortgage, right? I pay my rent b/c my landlord is not likely to let me live there for free for a year.

So in the situation of year-free mortgage living, the only suffering is credit. Money that was to be used for mortgage is being used for whatever, bills, bank, etc. If and when the foreclosure happens, it hurts their credit. So I’m missing where the suffering is. They lived in a nice house and gambled that they would have equity built up and when it didn’t happen, they lived their for free for a year and now,{gasp} rent (oh the horror and suffering). Credit can be repaired in a few years.

Investors purchasing multiple properties and renting out have suffered how? They stopped paying their mortgage on their properties while still collecting rents. From what I’m seeing, banks seem to be foreclosing a little sooner on investors. Seems like about 6 to 8 months.

Maybe you can enlighten me on the suffering. I am sure I’m missing something.

Some banks did not make bad loans. Others were notorious for it. Countrywide got taken over by BA which had taxpayer help, right? And the guy from Countrywide made out like a bandit and from what I understand, started another company.

No. I believe suffering has been minimal.

Edit: I add, as I said before, relative to the loans that were made.[/quote]

Indeed, these people did not suffer at all. What is more important to point out is that most of these flippers were using zero downpayment to buy n number of houses, they rent them out, collecting rent, now they do not pay mortgage because they intent to foreclose, so that they are actually gaining money out of the whole situation. In addition, they could write down their income tax before they move out. It is a win-win situation to them. You are right, the only thing that they suffer is a minor credit dent that will recover 7 years later. What is the loss.

[donaldduckmoore]

[quote=jpinpb]I should not generalize and maybe that is the problem. Too many scenarious. From what I’m seeing, there are many NODs that have taken a year to foreclose. That means a year that people have not paid their mortgage, right? I pay my rent b/c my landlord is not likely to let me live there for free for a year.

So in the situation of year-free mortgage living, the only suffering is credit. Money that was to be used for mortgage is being used for whatever, bills, bank, etc. If and when the foreclosure happens, it hurts their credit. So I’m missing where the suffering is. They lived in a nice house and gambled that they would have equity built up and when it didn’t happen, they lived their for free for a year and now,{gasp} rent (oh the horror and suffering). Credit can be repaired in a few years.

Investors purchasing multiple properties and renting out have suffered how? They stopped paying their mortgage on their properties while still collecting rents. From what I’m seeing, banks seem to be foreclosing a little sooner on investors. Seems like about 6 to 8 months.

Maybe you can enlighten me on the suffering. I am sure I’m missing something.

Some banks did not make bad loans. Others were notorious for it. Countrywide got taken over by BA which had taxpayer help, right? And the guy from Countrywide made out like a bandit and from what I understand, started another company.

No. I believe suffering has been minimal.

Edit: I add, as I said before, relative to the loans that were made.[/quote]

Indeed, these people did not suffer at all. What is more important to point out is that most of these flippers were using zero downpayment to buy n number of houses, they rent them out, collecting rent, now they do not pay mortgage because they intent to foreclose, so that they are actually gaining money out of the whole situation. In addition, they could write down their income tax before they move out. It is a win-win situation to them. You are right, the only thing that they suffer is a minor credit dent that will recover 7 years later. What is the loss.

[donaldduckmoore]

[quote=jpinpb]I should not generalize and maybe that is the problem. Too many scenarious. From what I’m seeing, there are many NODs that have taken a year to foreclose. That means a year that people have not paid their mortgage, right? I pay my rent b/c my landlord is not likely to let me live there for free for a year.

So in the situation of year-free mortgage living, the only suffering is credit. Money that was to be used for mortgage is being used for whatever, bills, bank, etc. If and when the foreclosure happens, it hurts their credit. So I’m missing where the suffering is. They lived in a nice house and gambled that they would have equity built up and when it didn’t happen, they lived their for free for a year and now,{gasp} rent (oh the horror and suffering). Credit can be repaired in a few years.

Investors purchasing multiple properties and renting out have suffered how? They stopped paying their mortgage on their properties while still collecting rents. From what I’m seeing, banks seem to be foreclosing a little sooner on investors. Seems like about 6 to 8 months.

Maybe you can enlighten me on the suffering. I am sure I’m missing something.

Some banks did not make bad loans. Others were notorious for it. Countrywide got taken over by BA which had taxpayer help, right? And the guy from Countrywide made out like a bandit and from what I understand, started another company.

No. I believe suffering has been minimal.

Edit: I add, as I said before, relative to the loans that were made.[/quote]

Indeed, these people did not suffer at all. What is more important to point out is that most of these flippers were using zero downpayment to buy n number of houses, they rent them out, collecting rent, now they do not pay mortgage because they intent to foreclose, so that they are actually gaining money out of the whole situation. In addition, they could write down their income tax before they move out. It is a win-win situation to them. You are right, the only thing that they suffer is a minor credit dent that will recover 7 years later. What is the loss.

[donaldduckmoore]

toddt, that is exactly right. Now that the banking system appears to be stable a bit and hopefully lending will continue. The current administration will (hopefully) put more effort to regulate the financial system. The remaining root of the housing problem will be intentional default and I hope that the government will do more to suppress this behavior although it may not be politically popular.

[donaldduckmoore]

toddt, that is exactly right. Now that the banking system appears to be stable a bit and hopefully lending will continue. The current administration will (hopefully) put more effort to regulate the financial system. The remaining root of the housing problem will be intentional default and I hope that the government will do more to suppress this behavior although it may not be politically popular.

[donaldduckmoore]

toddt, that is exactly right. Now that the banking system appears to be stable a bit and hopefully lending will continue. The current administration will (hopefully) put more effort to regulate the financial system. The remaining root of the housing problem will be intentional default and I hope that the government will do more to suppress this behavior although it may not be politically popular.

[donaldduckmoore]

toddt, that is exactly right. Now that the banking system appears to be stable a bit and hopefully lending will continue. The current administration will (hopefully) put more effort to regulate the financial system. The remaining root of the housing problem will be intentional default and I hope that the government will do more to suppress this behavior although it may not be politically popular.

[Author]

Posts