Walking away from a mortgage, This cannot be good.

[UncleHoney]

Originally Posted by CCdaCE

I'm confused. If the bank lends you money for one home you can't afford, and now they lend you more money... how is that anyone's problem but the banks?

"You can't fix stupid."

Kiyosaki would've done a 1031 exchange!

-CC

I thought the same thing. But some of them have good credit and can afford two homes so they buy the second house and bail on the first one.

Not many would qualify for two mortgages so this would be limited to a small percentage of people. They must be willing to take a ding on their credit rating for a few years just to get lower payments and get rid of a white elephant. There may be a hidden flaw somewhere that will come back to haunt them later. Looks risky to me.

[Retire Soon]

Originally Posted by CCdaCE

I'm confused. If the bank lends you money for one home you can't afford, and now they lend you more money... how is that anyone's problem but the banks?

"You can't fix stupid."

Kiyosaki would've done a 1031 exchange!

-CC

The problem is that it eventually becomes everybody's problem. When the buyer moves into the new home, the one he vacates will soon become another foreclosure. When a homeowner in his old neighborhood applies for a home equity loan or refinances their existing mortgage, there may not be sufficient equity, due to excessive foreclosures driving down home prices. A case in point is San Diego County. Home prices there have dropped 13% in the past year. In the communities of Spring Valley and Chula Vista prices have dropped 30%, largely because of numerous foreclosures on properties with subprime loans. This situation is great if you're purchasing property, but not if you're refinancing a 1st, taking out a new 2nd or have your home on the market.

[CCdaCE]

Originally Posted by Retire Soon

The problem is that it eventually becomes everybody's problem. When the buyer moves into the new home, the one he vacates will soon become another foreclosure. When a homeowner in his old neighborhood applies for a home equity loan or refinances their existing mortgage, there may not be sufficient equity, due to excessive foreclosures driving down home prices. A case in point is San Diego County. Home prices there have dropped 13% in the past year. In the communities of Spring Valley and Chula Vista prices have dropped 30%, largely because of numerous foreclosures on properties with subprime loans. This situation is great if you're purchasing property, but not if you're refinancing a 1st, taking out a new 2nd or have your home on the market.

So, I should feel sorry for an owner in a "hugely appreciated area" that wants to use their house as an ATM?

If you're selling your house in the same area, what does it matter what it used to be worth? Just because potatoes were $5 a bag yesterday and you can only get $3 for a bag you wish to sell today... that's the risk you take when try to sell potatoes.

-CC

[Retire Soon]

I am just happy to have been able to sell my bag of potatoes in East San Diego County in July 2006.

[Texas Proud]

Just a curiousity question on this......

Will the people who said there was not a real estate bubble come out now and say you were wrong

or the ones who kept saying house prices were not going down concede?

Just curious if you will admit when you are wrong...

[newguy88]

Originally Posted by Retire Soon

I am just happy to have been able to sell my bag of potatoes in East San Diego County in July 2006.

Boy ain't that the truth! We sold ours out in NJ in May of 06 and today I saw a resale that sold for 150K less than what we got for the same model on my old street last week.

[clifp]

Originally Posted by TargaDave

To be fair most new business ventures involve equity investing, not loans, and the high risk factors are constantly factored in. If they are not, shame on the investors. The vast majority of entreprenuers have plenty of their own sweat, money and reputation in the game, and tend to hang in until the last gasp of air is taken, before walking away. Even with megacorps many careers are on the line with a new venture. Very different from a low downpayment no income check loan on a property you might have barely seen 8 weeks earlier provided by a lender who doesn't know you from Adam.

Exactly, in the 30 or so business ventures pitches I've seen my investment club, exactly two had any bank loans (not counting the credit card debt run up by the founders.) In every case the entrepeneur had lots of sweat equity, and often their own money, and including their house wrapped in the business.

There is no comparison to the no or 5% down folks with interest only loans.

[al_bundy]

Originally Posted by newguy888

Boy ain't that the truth! We sold ours out in NJ in May of 06 and today I saw a resale that sold for 150K less than what we got for the same model on my old street last week.

another 30% drop and homes in NJ will be affordable

[HFWR]

Originally Posted by al_bundy

another 30% drop and homes in NJ will be affordable

Assuming you'd want to move there...

God Bless

[honobob]

Originally Posted by Texas Proud

Just a curiousity question on this......

Will the people who said there was not a real estate bubble come out now and say you were wrong

or the ones who kept saying house prices were not going down concede?

Just curious if you will admit when you are wrong...

Hawaii market heats up for global investors - Pacific Business News (Honolulu):

Still no Bubble in Hawaii or San Francisco. Any slowdown from the credit crisis is quickly being picked up by foreign investors. As you read Realtors are learning to speak Canadian.

Now in Texas.......

Lucky if you invested in Diamond Head recently.

[armor99]

Originally Posted by samclem

Armor, I wouldn't have expected this from you. Why would you favor introducing the government into this issue? Hey, if a deadbeat finds somebody stupid enough to lend them money again, why is that the government's business? The lender made a bet (that they lendee would pay the loan back) and that bet did not pay off. Let the marketplace sort this out--nothing will force discipline into the system faster than a few lenders getting burned. Maybe they'll start screening applicants. And, when applicants learn that folks lenders are tightening up, they'll think longer before mailing back the keys.

And, just to extend the point--why should there be an arbitrary limit for how long a foreclosure or bankruptcy stays on a credit report? Credit reports are produced by private companies, they should be free to put whatever (valid) information they want on that report, and keep it there as long as they choose.

The problem starts when the government takes money from responsible taxpayers in order to bail out those who took a risk and lost.

Samclem: A wise man once told me.... that your friends are the ones who point out to you when you have made a mistake.... after re-reading what I posted, and thinking about what you said.... I must admit.... I was off... and you were correct. The only excuse I can give is that sometimes (even for me) passion can sometimes rule reason. The real problem here is of course the govt intervention in the first place. Adding MORE govt regulations (even with the best of intentions) will only make it worse. I guess the day after day witnessing of the responsible paying for the irresponsible, has left me somewhat bitter about it.
I need to focus on the more positive aspects of it. With the economy in a bit of a slowdown now, those that DO have a bit of money to spend have lots of bargains to find.

[Gumby]

While we're getting the government out of the housing finance market, why don't we go ahead and eliminate the mortgage interest deduction, which acts as a hidden government subsidy (cue anguished screams).

Seriously, many of the problems we are facing came from the practice of selling and securitizing mortgages. If you are the initial lender (or "originator" in the parlance) you have no incentive to have very strict underwriting guidelines and not much incentive to rigidly enforce the guidelines you do have, because you will immediately sell the loan to an investment bank who will put together a pool and issue RMBS's (residential mortgage backed securities). The investment bank doesn't have that much incentive to scrutinize the deals either, because the economic risk of default is being passed on to the RMBS investors. By contrast, in the days prior to widespread securitization, "Podunk Building & Loan" would keep that loan on its books until final payment. Under those conditions, Podunk had every incentive to set and maintain strict underwriting standards. The government could help to set the current system aright by passing laws to eliminate mortgage securitization, or at least to reign in some of the worst practices. Samclem is right that when the economic loss falls on the person who was sloppy, that person will clean up his act. However, the current separation of the origination process from the economic loss prevents this type of market driven self correction.

[Texas Proud]

Gumby...

The problem is that the trust were set up by the Merrill Lynch's of the world and told the investors they were 'good' loans..

I did MBS about a decade ago... and these were the ones that the housing authorities issued with tax exempt debt... the file on one loan was usually 1/2 to 1 inch thick with all the docs.. and there were very strict rules about being a first time home buyer, and income etc... but even with all that good review, the recession hit home prices and jobs hard in Texas and many defaulted... so yes, better underwriting would have 'helped', but maybe not as much as some would think... as some are saying, there are many who CAN pay planning on walking because of the big drop in their value... kind of a different play... If I win, I keep it, if I lose, YOU keep it..

[Gumby]

Forcing people to put 20% down has the very salutary effect of making it more difficult for them to walk away. The practice of allowing simultaneous second mortgages for amounts sometime exceeding 100% LTV, at debt to income ratios exceeding 50%, with adjustable rates, and to people with mediocre FICO scores and no documentation of income or assets virtually guarantees the results we are seeing now. As I once told a bank client who had made a similarly stupid loan many years ago "You deserve to lose your money".

[jazz4cash]

Originally Posted by Gumby

While we're getting the government out of the housing finance market, why don't we go ahead and eliminate the mortgage interest deduction, which acts as a hidden government subsidy (cue anguished screams).

Seriously, many of the problems we are facing came from the practice of selling and securitizing mortgages. If you are the initial lender (or "originator" in the parlance) you have no incentive to have very strict underwriting guidelines and not much incentive to rigidly enforce the guidelines you do have, because you will immediately sell the loan to an investment bank who will put together a pool and issue RMBS's (residential mortgage backed securities). The investment bank doesn't have that much incentive to scrutinize the deals either, because the economic risk of default is being passed on to the RMBS investors. By contrast, in the days prior to widespread securitization, "Podunk Building & Loan" would keep that loan on its books until final payment. Under those conditions, Podunk had every incentive to set and maintain strict underwriting standards. The government could help to set the current system aright by passing laws to eliminate mortgage securitization, or at least to reign in some of the worst practices. Samclem is right that when the economic loss falls on the person who was sloppy, that person will clean up his act. However, the current separation of the origination process from the economic loss prevents this type of market driven self correction.

OK, I'm have a real difficult time connecting your premise (mortage interest deduction) with paragragh two describing the securitization scam scheme process. They bundle the loans to reduce risk and then slice them up to increase yield, but somehow, magically the risk is isolated. So it was just a game of hot potato?

[jazz4cash]

Originally Posted by Retire Soon

The problem is that it eventually becomes everybody's problem.

Yes!

[Salaryman]

Originally Posted by Gumby

Forcing people to put 20% down has the very salutary effect of making it more difficult for them to walk away. The practice of allowing simultaneous second mortgages for amounts sometime exceeding 100% LTV, at debt to income ratios exceeding 50%, with adjustable rates, and to people with mediocre FICO scores and no documentation of income or assets virtually guarantees the results we are seeing now. As I once told a bank client who had made a similarly stupid loan many years ago "You deserve to lose your money".

Warren Buffett agrees with you:

Buffett: Bank woes are poetic justice | Reuters

[youbet]

Originally Posted by Gumby

While we're getting the government out of the housing finance market, why don't we go ahead and eliminate the mortgage interest deduction, which acts as a hidden government subsidy (cue anguished screams).

.

Excellent idea and I'm all for it. The folks who benefit from this government charity are undeserving.

[Texas Proud]