Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
zk
Participant[quote=davelj]
My point is that if there were absolutely no moral component to the idea of paying lenders back, despite the availability of options that allow borrowers to avoid payment, there would be precious little lending that would take place.
[/quote]I’m not sure how you figure that.
First of all, most loans are paid back regardless of any moral component. They’re paid back because the consequences of not paying outweigh the consequences of paying. I’d say precious few loans are made where the lender is counting on the moral standards of the borrower. Lenders know that a certain percentage of borrowers won’t repay them, and that that percentage of borrowers changes as things such as the credit scores of the borrowers and the type of collateral put up change. They charge interest accordingly.
What changed over the last 7 years
wasn’t moral standards, it was lending standards. If you have adequate lending standards, there will be plenty of loans made and enough of them will be paid back that we won’t end up in a mess like the one we’re in.Participant60 minutes kept talking about whether it’s amoral or whether it should bother your conscience to walk away when you can afford to pay, but only briefly touched on what, to me, is the most important point in this debate. When you sign a contract to borrow money on a house, you’re not saying, “I’ll pay you as long as I can afford it.” You’re saying, “I’ll make payments on the loan or I’ll give you the house back.” When you strategically default, you are fulfilling your part of the contract (as long as you don’t stay in the house when they come to get it).
60 minutes bias is usually quite obvious. In this case, I think they’ve been more subtle, making it look like they’re slanting it one way when, in actuality, they’re slanting it the other.
Participant60 minutes kept talking about whether it’s amoral or whether it should bother your conscience to walk away when you can afford to pay, but only briefly touched on what, to me, is the most important point in this debate. When you sign a contract to borrow money on a house, you’re not saying, “I’ll pay you as long as I can afford it.” You’re saying, “I’ll make payments on the loan or I’ll give you the house back.” When you strategically default, you are fulfilling your part of the contract (as long as you don’t stay in the house when they come to get it).
60 minutes bias is usually quite obvious. In this case, I think they’ve been more subtle, making it look like they’re slanting it one way when, in actuality, they’re slanting it the other.
Participant60 minutes kept talking about whether it’s amoral or whether it should bother your conscience to walk away when you can afford to pay, but only briefly touched on what, to me, is the most important point in this debate. When you sign a contract to borrow money on a house, you’re not saying, “I’ll pay you as long as I can afford it.” You’re saying, “I’ll make payments on the loan or I’ll give you the house back.” When you strategically default, you are fulfilling your part of the contract (as long as you don’t stay in the house when they come to get it).
60 minutes bias is usually quite obvious. In this case, I think they’ve been more subtle, making it look like they’re slanting it one way when, in actuality, they’re slanting it the other.
Participant60 minutes kept talking about whether it’s amoral or whether it should bother your conscience to walk away when you can afford to pay, but only briefly touched on what, to me, is the most important point in this debate. When you sign a contract to borrow money on a house, you’re not saying, “I’ll pay you as long as I can afford it.” You’re saying, “I’ll make payments on the loan or I’ll give you the house back.” When you strategically default, you are fulfilling your part of the contract (as long as you don’t stay in the house when they come to get it).
60 minutes bias is usually quite obvious. In this case, I think they’ve been more subtle, making it look like they’re slanting it one way when, in actuality, they’re slanting it the other.
Participant60 minutes kept talking about whether it’s amoral or whether it should bother your conscience to walk away when you can afford to pay, but only briefly touched on what, to me, is the most important point in this debate. When you sign a contract to borrow money on a house, you’re not saying, “I’ll pay you as long as I can afford it.” You’re saying, “I’ll make payments on the loan or I’ll give you the house back.” When you strategically default, you are fulfilling your part of the contract (as long as you don’t stay in the house when they come to get it).
60 minutes bias is usually quite obvious. In this case, I think they’ve been more subtle, making it look like they’re slanting it one way when, in actuality, they’re slanting it the other.
ParticipantBody surfing at night during red tide is quite fun. You’re right there when the wave breaks and lights up. Surrounded by it.
ParticipantBody surfing at night during red tide is quite fun. You’re right there when the wave breaks and lights up. Surrounded by it.
ParticipantBody surfing at night during red tide is quite fun. You’re right there when the wave breaks and lights up. Surrounded by it.
ParticipantBody surfing at night during red tide is quite fun. You’re right there when the wave breaks and lights up. Surrounded by it.
ParticipantBody surfing at night during red tide is quite fun. You’re right there when the wave breaks and lights up. Surrounded by it.
ParticipantYou’re not going to find anything in CV at 2001 prices. Not now, not ever. Carmel Valley single family homes, at best (lowest), are at late 2003 levels. Which are a solid 50% higher than 2001 prices. While real values in CV have a slight chance of dropping 50% at some point, nominal prices will never approach 2001 levels.
I think that a lot of buyer demand has been moved earlier by the fed gov’t handouts, which will make it relatively hard for sellers to find buyers for a while now that they’ve ended. You’ve now got the state handout, which may help things for a while, but apparently the money for that won’t last long.
I’d give prices a twenty percent chance of coming down 10%. Odds are they won’t drop even that much, if they drop at all.
ParticipantYou’re not going to find anything in CV at 2001 prices. Not now, not ever. Carmel Valley single family homes, at best (lowest), are at late 2003 levels. Which are a solid 50% higher than 2001 prices. While real values in CV have a slight chance of dropping 50% at some point, nominal prices will never approach 2001 levels.
I think that a lot of buyer demand has been moved earlier by the fed gov’t handouts, which will make it relatively hard for sellers to find buyers for a while now that they’ve ended. You’ve now got the state handout, which may help things for a while, but apparently the money for that won’t last long.
I’d give prices a twenty percent chance of coming down 10%. Odds are they won’t drop even that much, if they drop at all.
ParticipantYou’re not going to find anything in CV at 2001 prices. Not now, not ever. Carmel Valley single family homes, at best (lowest), are at late 2003 levels. Which are a solid 50% higher than 2001 prices. While real values in CV have a slight chance of dropping 50% at some point, nominal prices will never approach 2001 levels.
I think that a lot of buyer demand has been moved earlier by the fed gov’t handouts, which will make it relatively hard for sellers to find buyers for a while now that they’ve ended. You’ve now got the state handout, which may help things for a while, but apparently the money for that won’t last long.
I’d give prices a twenty percent chance of coming down 10%. Odds are they won’t drop even that much, if they drop at all.
-
AuthorPosts
