Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
robson
ParticipantI 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
ParticipantI 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
ParticipantI 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
ParticipantI 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
ParticipantAccording 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
ParticipantAccording 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
ParticipantAccording 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
ParticipantAccording 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
ParticipantAccording 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
ParticipantNot 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
ParticipantNot 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
ParticipantNot 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
ParticipantNot 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
ParticipantNot 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. -
AuthorPosts
