[urbanrealtor]

At a logistics level:
There is almost no legal way to remarket a property less than 180 days from first non-payment.
That is not true in shorts.
That alone is a tremendous public savings when multiplied over hundreds of thousands of distress sales.
That is true even if the eviction is “timely”.
So you are wrong there.

At a moral level:
The morality of this suggestion is not relevant.
But let’s judge just for fun.
No, the borrowers do not “deserve” to have their debts absolved.
And anyway, unpaid debts are settled (with derogatories), and not absolved (with no consequence).
However, neither do the banks “deserve” to be made whole through collections (or even have the right to try).
No real moral imperative either.

In sum, there is no moral or logistical benefit to the status quo. There is a large potential savings in changing the existing arrangement.

Your argument is invalid.

[urbanrealtor]

At a logistics level:
There is almost no legal way to remarket a property less than 180 days from first non-payment.
That is not true in shorts.
That alone is a tremendous public savings when multiplied over hundreds of thousands of distress sales.
That is true even if the eviction is “timely”.
So you are wrong there.

At a moral level:
The morality of this suggestion is not relevant.
But let’s judge just for fun.
No, the borrowers do not “deserve” to have their debts absolved.
And anyway, unpaid debts are settled (with derogatories), and not absolved (with no consequence).
However, neither do the banks “deserve” to be made whole through collections (or even have the right to try).
No real moral imperative either.

In sum, there is no moral or logistical benefit to the status quo. There is a large potential savings in changing the existing arrangement.

Your argument is invalid.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=flu][quote=UCGal]From the article:

But starting in the 2013-14 school year, it would prohibit districts and the California Board of Education from using textbooks or other instructional materials that reflect adversely on gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.

[/quote]

And here we go again on the gray of what “offensive” would mean.[/quote]

Well I went to school in CA and I think that learning things like how the Chinese built the railroads and had to fight for the right to vote (like blacks and women and mexicans and native americans) were hours and tax dollars well spent.

Maybe social studies and recent history is not as important to you.

I am glad you are not teaching our kids.

I agree that gray concepts of offensiveness are stupid but in practice, concepts of appropriate vs inappropriate speech in schools has not really presented too much of a problem.
Nobody finds banning epithets in the classroom particularly controversial.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=flu][quote=UCGal]From the article:

But starting in the 2013-14 school year, it would prohibit districts and the California Board of Education from using textbooks or other instructional materials that reflect adversely on gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.

[/quote]

And here we go again on the gray of what “offensive” would mean.[/quote]

Well I went to school in CA and I think that learning things like how the Chinese built the railroads and had to fight for the right to vote (like blacks and women and mexicans and native americans) were hours and tax dollars well spent.

Maybe social studies and recent history is not as important to you.

I am glad you are not teaching our kids.

I agree that gray concepts of offensiveness are stupid but in practice, concepts of appropriate vs inappropriate speech in schools has not really presented too much of a problem.
Nobody finds banning epithets in the classroom particularly controversial.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=flu][quote=UCGal]From the article:

But starting in the 2013-14 school year, it would prohibit districts and the California Board of Education from using textbooks or other instructional materials that reflect adversely on gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.

[/quote]

And here we go again on the gray of what “offensive” would mean.[/quote]

Well I went to school in CA and I think that learning things like how the Chinese built the railroads and had to fight for the right to vote (like blacks and women and mexicans and native americans) were hours and tax dollars well spent.

Maybe social studies and recent history is not as important to you.

I am glad you are not teaching our kids.

I agree that gray concepts of offensiveness are stupid but in practice, concepts of appropriate vs inappropriate speech in schools has not really presented too much of a problem.
Nobody finds banning epithets in the classroom particularly controversial.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=flu][quote=UCGal]From the article:

But starting in the 2013-14 school year, it would prohibit districts and the California Board of Education from using textbooks or other instructional materials that reflect adversely on gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.

[/quote]

And here we go again on the gray of what “offensive” would mean.[/quote]

Well I went to school in CA and I think that learning things like how the Chinese built the railroads and had to fight for the right to vote (like blacks and women and mexicans and native americans) were hours and tax dollars well spent.

Maybe social studies and recent history is not as important to you.

I am glad you are not teaching our kids.

I agree that gray concepts of offensiveness are stupid but in practice, concepts of appropriate vs inappropriate speech in schools has not really presented too much of a problem.
Nobody finds banning epithets in the classroom particularly controversial.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=flu][quote=UCGal]From the article:

But starting in the 2013-14 school year, it would prohibit districts and the California Board of Education from using textbooks or other instructional materials that reflect adversely on gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.

[/quote]

And here we go again on the gray of what “offensive” would mean.[/quote]

Well I went to school in CA and I think that learning things like how the Chinese built the railroads and had to fight for the right to vote (like blacks and women and mexicans and native americans) were hours and tax dollars well spent.

Maybe social studies and recent history is not as important to you.

I am glad you are not teaching our kids.

I agree that gray concepts of offensiveness are stupid but in practice, concepts of appropriate vs inappropriate speech in schools has not really presented too much of a problem.
Nobody finds banning epithets in the classroom particularly controversial.

[urbanrealtor]

As a kid growing up in the bay area, I already had some of that.
I think its good to know about the important civil rights struggles for any group in your area.
I would want my son (soon to be sons, plural) to know about that also.

[urbanrealtor]

As a kid growing up in the bay area, I already had some of that.
I think its good to know about the important civil rights struggles for any group in your area.
I would want my son (soon to be sons, plural) to know about that also.

[urbanrealtor]

As a kid growing up in the bay area, I already had some of that.
I think its good to know about the important civil rights struggles for any group in your area.
I would want my son (soon to be sons, plural) to know about that also.

[urbanrealtor]

As a kid growing up in the bay area, I already had some of that.
I think its good to know about the important civil rights struggles for any group in your area.
I would want my son (soon to be sons, plural) to know about that also.

[urbanrealtor]

As a kid growing up in the bay area, I already had some of that.
I think its good to know about the important civil rights struggles for any group in your area.
I would want my son (soon to be sons, plural) to know about that also.

[urbanrealtor]

First, this is speculation but it makes sense given the existing incentive structure.
On its face, it would seem really obvious that a bank would want a short sale rather than a foreclosure.
This is because a bank incurs significant additional outlays when it becomes a landlord:
-trash outs
-key change
-attorneys
-repairs
-deed recordings
-tenant negotiations (usually a few thousand just in cash-for-keys)
In a short sale, all they do is approve a number and collect a check. If there is a junior lien or liens, the senior lien holder will authorize some paltry pay out to them (like $5000 on an $80000 second)
Generally a senior lien holder’s net is substantially higher in a short sale as compared to a foreclosure.
The monkey wrench here is greed.
Many times seconds will insist upon an unrealistic number or on a payment outside of escrow (which is illegal) or that they maintain the right to follow after the closing.
First lien holders (who are, as a rule, more cooperative) will sometimes insist on a large unsecured promissory note upon close (which basically amounts to a mortgage without a house) or will require that they retain the right to follow for the additional funds after close.
Recourse-heloc lenders will often follow on any short seller.
Outside of California, lenders follow borrowers (or sell the rights to follow) on almost every loan. Usually, the only out is bankruptcy (since people losing their houses don’t generally keep large holdings to pay on bad debts). Banks will often (though not always) not follow foreclosed upon people because it is assumed that walk-aways have no money and short sellers already are more motivated to make a debt as whole as possible.
Some states give protection to foreclosees that do not exist for short sellers.
In these cases, there is an institutional incentive that favors foreclosure.
And make no mistake, those added costs to the banks come out of taxpayers’ pockets.
Making a more sweeping rule like the one was suggesting would simplify this incentive structure dramatically.
It would turn it into a binary system:
Either you short sell and get more (as a settlement) or foreclose and get less (as a salvage). For junior liens it would be a choice between little (in a short payout) and nothing (when the senior lien forecloses and wipes out the junior lien’s interest).

I suspect this would wipe out a lot of bad debt really, really fast (and without the benefit of squatters and stolen appliances).

And then I would get to work on Mideast peace and world hunger and the ozone layer…

[urbanrealtor]

First, this is speculation but it makes sense given the existing incentive structure.
On its face, it would seem really obvious that a bank would want a short sale rather than a foreclosure.
This is because a bank incurs significant additional outlays when it becomes a landlord:
-trash outs
-key change
-attorneys
-repairs
-deed recordings
-tenant negotiations (usually a few thousand just in cash-for-keys)
In a short sale, all they do is approve a number and collect a check. If there is a junior lien or liens, the senior lien holder will authorize some paltry pay out to them (like $5000 on an $80000 second)
Generally a senior lien holder’s net is substantially higher in a short sale as compared to a foreclosure.
The monkey wrench here is greed.
Many times seconds will insist upon an unrealistic number or on a payment outside of escrow (which is illegal) or that they maintain the right to follow after the closing.
First lien holders (who are, as a rule, more cooperative) will sometimes insist on a large unsecured promissory note upon close (which basically amounts to a mortgage without a house) or will require that they retain the right to follow for the additional funds after close.
Recourse-heloc lenders will often follow on any short seller.
Outside of California, lenders follow borrowers (or sell the rights to follow) on almost every loan. Usually, the only out is bankruptcy (since people losing their houses don’t generally keep large holdings to pay on bad debts). Banks will often (though not always) not follow foreclosed upon people because it is assumed that walk-aways have no money and short sellers already are more motivated to make a debt as whole as possible.
Some states give protection to foreclosees that do not exist for short sellers.
In these cases, there is an institutional incentive that favors foreclosure.
And make no mistake, those added costs to the banks come out of taxpayers’ pockets.
Making a more sweeping rule like the one was suggesting would simplify this incentive structure dramatically.
It would turn it into a binary system:
Either you short sell and get more (as a settlement) or foreclose and get less (as a salvage). For junior liens it would be a choice between little (in a short payout) and nothing (when the senior lien forecloses and wipes out the junior lien’s interest).

I suspect this would wipe out a lot of bad debt really, really fast (and without the benefit of squatters and stolen appliances).

And then I would get to work on Mideast peace and world hunger and the ozone layer…

[urbanrealtor]

First, this is speculation but it makes sense given the existing incentive structure.
On its face, it would seem really obvious that a bank would want a short sale rather than a foreclosure.
This is because a bank incurs significant additional outlays when it becomes a landlord:
-trash outs
-key change
-attorneys
-repairs
-deed recordings
-tenant negotiations (usually a few thousand just in cash-for-keys)
In a short sale, all they do is approve a number and collect a check. If there is a junior lien or liens, the senior lien holder will authorize some paltry pay out to them (like $5000 on an $80000 second)
Generally a senior lien holder’s net is substantially higher in a short sale as compared to a foreclosure.
The monkey wrench here is greed.
Many times seconds will insist upon an unrealistic number or on a payment outside of escrow (which is illegal) or that they maintain the right to follow after the closing.
First lien holders (who are, as a rule, more cooperative) will sometimes insist on a large unsecured promissory note upon close (which basically amounts to a mortgage without a house) or will require that they retain the right to follow for the additional funds after close.
Recourse-heloc lenders will often follow on any short seller.
Outside of California, lenders follow borrowers (or sell the rights to follow) on almost every loan. Usually, the only out is bankruptcy (since people losing their houses don’t generally keep large holdings to pay on bad debts). Banks will often (though not always) not follow foreclosed upon people because it is assumed that walk-aways have no money and short sellers already are more motivated to make a debt as whole as possible.
Some states give protection to foreclosees that do not exist for short sellers.
In these cases, there is an institutional incentive that favors foreclosure.
And make no mistake, those added costs to the banks come out of taxpayers’ pockets.
Making a more sweeping rule like the one was suggesting would simplify this incentive structure dramatically.
It would turn it into a binary system:
Either you short sell and get more (as a settlement) or foreclose and get less (as a salvage). For junior liens it would be a choice between little (in a short payout) and nothing (when the senior lien forecloses and wipes out the junior lien’s interest).

I suspect this would wipe out a lot of bad debt really, really fast (and without the benefit of squatters and stolen appliances).

And then I would get to work on Mideast peace and world hunger and the ozone layer…

[Author]

Posts