[robson]

I might be looking at this wrong, but can someone help me understand the following logic, “I also wonder whether they are considering a 1st trust deed and a 2nd or 3rd loan as separate loans. Thus the first can be ok while the 2nd is underwater increasing the % of loans underwater.”

Say someone buys a $400,000 home. they get a mortgage for $320,000 and a second for $80,000. The home is now worth $380,000. If they were counting these as separate loans and separate houses, they would conclude that 50% of homes are underwater when in fact 100% of homes were underwater. This miscounting would reduce the percent, not increase it.

[robson]

I might be looking at this wrong, but can someone help me understand the following logic, “I also wonder whether they are considering a 1st trust deed and a 2nd or 3rd loan as separate loans. Thus the first can be ok while the 2nd is underwater increasing the % of loans underwater.”

Say someone buys a $400,000 home. they get a mortgage for $320,000 and a second for $80,000. The home is now worth $380,000. If they were counting these as separate loans and separate houses, they would conclude that 50% of homes are underwater when in fact 100% of homes were underwater. This miscounting would reduce the percent, not increase it.

[robson]

I might be looking at this wrong, but can someone help me understand the following logic, “I also wonder whether they are considering a 1st trust deed and a 2nd or 3rd loan as separate loans. Thus the first can be ok while the 2nd is underwater increasing the % of loans underwater.”

Say someone buys a $400,000 home. they get a mortgage for $320,000 and a second for $80,000. The home is now worth $380,000. If they were counting these as separate loans and separate houses, they would conclude that 50% of homes are underwater when in fact 100% of homes were underwater. This miscounting would reduce the percent, not increase it.

[robson]

I might be looking at this wrong, but can someone help me understand the following logic, “I also wonder whether they are considering a 1st trust deed and a 2nd or 3rd loan as separate loans. Thus the first can be ok while the 2nd is underwater increasing the % of loans underwater.”

Say someone buys a $400,000 home. they get a mortgage for $320,000 and a second for $80,000. The home is now worth $380,000. If they were counting these as separate loans and separate houses, they would conclude that 50% of homes are underwater when in fact 100% of homes were underwater. This miscounting would reduce the percent, not increase it.

[robson]

I might be looking at this wrong, but can someone help me understand the following logic, “I also wonder whether they are considering a 1st trust deed and a 2nd or 3rd loan as separate loans. Thus the first can be ok while the 2nd is underwater increasing the % of loans underwater.”

Say someone buys a $400,000 home. they get a mortgage for $320,000 and a second for $80,000. The home is now worth $380,000. If they were counting these as separate loans and separate houses, they would conclude that 50% of homes are underwater when in fact 100% of homes were underwater. This miscounting would reduce the percent, not increase it.

[robson]

According to the census bureau http://factfinder.census.gov
there were 51,234,170 owner-occupied homes with a mortgage vs. 23,852,315 without a mortgage. About 75M owner occupied homes. However, there are 126M total homes. 8.8M homes underwater represents 10% of what exactly? Total owner occupied homes is the closest. A little more clarity in the article would be great, but it definitely doesn’t seem to mean 10% of mortgaged properties. 8.8/51 is more like 16%

[robson]

According to the census bureau http://factfinder.census.gov
there were 51,234,170 owner-occupied homes with a mortgage vs. 23,852,315 without a mortgage. About 75M owner occupied homes. However, there are 126M total homes. 8.8M homes underwater represents 10% of what exactly? Total owner occupied homes is the closest. A little more clarity in the article would be great, but it definitely doesn’t seem to mean 10% of mortgaged properties. 8.8/51 is more like 16%

[robson]

According to the census bureau http://factfinder.census.gov
there were 51,234,170 owner-occupied homes with a mortgage vs. 23,852,315 without a mortgage. About 75M owner occupied homes. However, there are 126M total homes. 8.8M homes underwater represents 10% of what exactly? Total owner occupied homes is the closest. A little more clarity in the article would be great, but it definitely doesn’t seem to mean 10% of mortgaged properties. 8.8/51 is more like 16%

[robson]

According to the census bureau http://factfinder.census.gov
there were 51,234,170 owner-occupied homes with a mortgage vs. 23,852,315 without a mortgage. About 75M owner occupied homes. However, there are 126M total homes. 8.8M homes underwater represents 10% of what exactly? Total owner occupied homes is the closest. A little more clarity in the article would be great, but it definitely doesn’t seem to mean 10% of mortgaged properties. 8.8/51 is more like 16%

[robson]

According to the census bureau http://factfinder.census.gov
there were 51,234,170 owner-occupied homes with a mortgage vs. 23,852,315 without a mortgage. About 75M owner occupied homes. However, there are 126M total homes. 8.8M homes underwater represents 10% of what exactly? Total owner occupied homes is the closest. A little more clarity in the article would be great, but it definitely doesn’t seem to mean 10% of mortgaged properties. 8.8/51 is more like 16%

[robson]

Not a lawyer either, but studied a little law in school. Pretty sure the only difference being a public figure or not makes in a libel case is that if you are a public official, you have to prove some factual statement was not only false, but that the publisher knew it was false and published it anyway.
Public figure or not, I don’t think you can win a libel case unless you prove a statement was false. Opinions cannot be proven false.
If anyone has extra info on this topic I’d love to hear it.

[robson]

Not a lawyer either, but studied a little law in school. Pretty sure the only difference being a public figure or not makes in a libel case is that if you are a public official, you have to prove some factual statement was not only false, but that the publisher knew it was false and published it anyway.
Public figure or not, I don’t think you can win a libel case unless you prove a statement was false. Opinions cannot be proven false.
If anyone has extra info on this topic I’d love to hear it.

[robson]

Not a lawyer either, but studied a little law in school. Pretty sure the only difference being a public figure or not makes in a libel case is that if you are a public official, you have to prove some factual statement was not only false, but that the publisher knew it was false and published it anyway.
Public figure or not, I don’t think you can win a libel case unless you prove a statement was false. Opinions cannot be proven false.
If anyone has extra info on this topic I’d love to hear it.

[robson]

Not a lawyer either, but studied a little law in school. Pretty sure the only difference being a public figure or not makes in a libel case is that if you are a public official, you have to prove some factual statement was not only false, but that the publisher knew it was false and published it anyway.
Public figure or not, I don’t think you can win a libel case unless you prove a statement was false. Opinions cannot be proven false.
If anyone has extra info on this topic I’d love to hear it.

[robson]

Not a lawyer either, but studied a little law in school. Pretty sure the only difference being a public figure or not makes in a libel case is that if you are a public official, you have to prove some factual statement was not only false, but that the publisher knew it was false and published it anyway.
Public figure or not, I don’t think you can win a libel case unless you prove a statement was false. Opinions cannot be proven false.
If anyone has extra info on this topic I’d love to hear it.

[Author]

Posts