Yet another stupid debtor and retirement account raider!

[ladelfina]

CA and armor, fine.. people who steal are equally bad. I think we know what generally happens when a random thug steals a modest sum vs. when a white-collar criminal steals a large one. Perhaps that conditions me.

You may think that "the accountability" of small-time debtors is passed on to the taxpayers, but the only bail-out I have seen so far is for big financial firms with extraordinarily-highly-compensated employees.

There was just a story in the Boston Globe of a woman who shot herself as her house was being foreclosed upon and they were to be out the next day. I'm not trying to make hay over that or curry sympathy that is unlikely to be forthcoming anyway.. but the interesting thing about the story is that the husband had petitioned for bankruptcy 3 or 4 times and had been rejected each time. So all that protection that you think "lucky" debtors have extended to them may not really be there in practice.

 

[Westernskies]

Much less of a viable option than it used to be, thanks to the idiotic "reform" the rethuglicans pushed through a few years ago. Hopefully this will get rolled back next year.

Absolutely- let's make it easier for these folks to offload their debts on society. After all, it's not their fault they made poor financial choices. Those damn rethuglicans made them take those sub-prime loans. Those damn rethuglicans schemed this whole mess up in cahoots with Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, big banking, and the mortgage industry. It is all just a rethuglican conspiracy, as usual. (which begs the question- if they are so incompetent, just exactly how did they pull off this elaborate scheme?) It is only right to expect that hardworking American taxpayers who are responsible enough and/ or have the moral fiber to honor a mortgage commitment shoulder the burden of paying for those who can't or won't take responsibility for their personal finances. And we damn sure need to make it easier for those people to just walk away from their financial crashes. I mean, heck , those poor downtrodden folks were counting on making a killing in the real estate boom- it isn't fair to expect them to honor their contracts when the market declines- after all, this what hope and change is all about- everyone gets a trophy just for participating!... even in their personal finances! No losers, everyone gets to win! We need more government intervention to make it easier to fail, and we need it now!

On a related note, I wonder what the government is going to do about my personal portfolio. My 401K balance and property values have dropped because of the economic decline, largely fueled by the mortgage crisis. Shouldn't someone bail me out? I deserve a huge tax break, a fat stimulus check, a big wheel of cheese, something! I want my finances fixed, too- and soon, this is affecting my expected outcome of ER. I am entitled, damn, it!

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Before this slides off into the soapbox, anyone see the recent photos of the little girl "Newt" from the movie "Aliens"?

 

[rs0460a]

Absolutely- let's make it easier for these folks to offload their debts on society. After all, it's not their fault they made poor financial choices. Those damn rethuglicans made them take those sub-prime loans. Those damn rethuglicans schemed this whole mess up in cahoots with Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, big banking, and the mortgage industry. It is all just a rethuglican conspiracy, as usual. (which begs the question- if they are so incompetent, just exactly how did they pull off this elaborate scheme?) It is only right to expect that hardworking American taxpayers who are responsible enough and/ or have the moral fiber to honor a mortgage commitment shoulder the burden of paying for those who can't or won't take responsibility for their personal finances. And we damn sure need to make it easier for those people to just walk away from their financial crashes. I mean, heck , those poor downtrodden folks were counting on making a killing in the real estate boom- it isn't fair to expect them to honor their contracts when the market declines- after all, this what hope and change is all about- everyone gets a trophy just for participating!... even in their personal finances! No losers, everyone gets to win! We need more government intervention to make it easier to fail, and we need it now!

On a related note, I wonder what the government is going to do about my personal portfolio. My 401K balance and property values have dropped because of the economic decline, largely fueled by the mortgage crisis. Shouldn't someone bail me out? I deserve a huge tax break, a fat stimulus check, a big wheel of cheese, something! I want my finances fixed, too- and soon, this is affecting my expected outcome of ER. I am entitled, damn, it!

Well said...

- Ron

 

[Westernskies]

CFB: Is that waffle frozen or homemade?

 

[Marquette]

but Wyoming, in a perfect system, they wouldn't be offloading their debts on society.

In a perfect market, someone would choose to apply for credit. Based on a risk profile, the bank would choose to charge an appropriate interest level to be compensated for their risk. If the person has to choose to walk away from that debt, then the bank has already received enough compensation to cover that risk (in aggregate from the entire risk pool).

You as an investor could choose which bank you invested in based on how sound you thought their lending practices were. Banks that were riskier in lending should generate a greater return to you because you're helping them gamble. Likewise, you choose to lose money if the bank loses money.

If a bank took too many risks, then they would fold. That's the only fair outcome. The business folds, the CEO is out, the employees are out, etc. They chose to work where they worked and some of them chose to direct the company to take on outsized risks.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I that waffle frozen or homemade?

Homemade. The dogs get the frozen ones.

 

[Westernskies]

Homemade. The dogs get the frozen ones.

Do you thaw them first, or just let them "melt in their mouth" ?

And is her hair on FIRE?

 

[rs0460a]

but Wyoming, in a perfect system, they wouldn't be offloading their debts on society.

In a perfect market, someone would choose to apply for credit. Based on a risk profile, the bank would choose to charge an appropriate interest level to be compensated for their risk. If the person has to choose to walk away from that debt, then the bank has already received enough compensation to cover that risk (in aggregate from the entire risk pool).

My last three homes, I/DW built/bought, we put down 20%, 20%, 50% of the purchase price (respectively).

I had enough "skin in the game" to keep me from walking away from my commitment (even if the house would fall in value).

Today (or at least in the last few years) it was too easy to buy real estate "without commitment". Was it all the buyer's fault? Of course not. However, others in the financial (funding) market looked at it as a quick way to make a buck.

So who's fault is it? As one that "played by the rules" (and had a "traditional" down payment) why should I now pay for others? I guess we bought within that "perfect system" you speak of (so, where is it?)

- Ron

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Do you thaw them first, or just let them "melt in their mouth" ?

And is her hair on FIRE?

They like them frozen. Very popular when its 100 degrees out.

On fire? Girl dog is white one on the left, boy dog is brown one on the right. He's just colored that way.

 

[ladelfina]

Here's an interesting case, taken from comments on the Freakonomics Financial Literacy link I just put in another thread:

A bank sales rep recently tried to persuade my mother to get a higher loan than she actually needed. “The surplus”, he said, “you can put in a savings account (in the same bank) and earn interest on it”. Get a loan from the bank and “save” a part of it in the same bank!!!

Now, in all objectivity, how is this not in some ways classifiable as attempted robbery?
If there were a con man going around trying to get old ladies to invest in marmot cheese futures, he could be arrested for fraud. Why is it not fraud just because the gangster is wearing a suit and tie and sitting behind a laminate desk with a little sign that says "bank VP"?

Is it just because the [-]client[/-] victim signs some papers that accede to being defrauded and robbed? The marmot cheese guy could draw up some nice papers, too.

 

[CitricAcid]

To ladelfina, about the debtors burdens being passed onto the taxpayers, again I say that it is nothing that has happened, or is being suggested by you or the lady in the article, but that it is this type of behavior that will get somebody elected who will walk in and forgive debts. This conspiracy theory may be contrived and exaggerated but exists in lesser forms (see what Congress passed regarding Fannie and Freddie? UGH).

They are selling a product. It may not be the most money-efficient product, and may not be best for the client. Do you prosecute infomercials? They are trying to swindle old ladies' money. How irresponsible! I told you I do not distinguish between different methods of stealing. That means a CEO that steals or misleads the public should be prosecuted as well! I am not letting them off the hook, I just dislike the general unilateral sentiment against the big, bad bankers and toward the poor debtors.

LifeAlert is preying on the elderly. They are selling life insurance (LifeAlert) and scaring them into buying products. How can you define predatory lending or predatory advertising at all? Does it exist in any form at all except for false advertising? I don't think so (save for some exceptions, like calling 24 hours a day)

 

[brewer12345]

Do you persecture infomercials?

Give her time and she will eventually get to them, once she is done with the jihad against lenders.

 

[Westernskies]

On fire?

Not the dogs, the alien...

 

[Westernskies]

invest in marmot cheese futures...The

I am heavily invested in marmot extract futures .

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Not the dogs, the alien...

Ah, sorry I lost my own train of misdirection on my way to posting a nazi kayak.

Ya know, I really didnt notice that until you mentioned it. Its possible. Maybe even highly recommended.

They mostly come at night. Mostly...

 

[Marquette]

So who's fault is it? As one that "played by the rules" (and had a "traditional" down payment) why should I now pay for others? I guess we bought within that "perfect system" you speak of (so, where is it?)

- Ron

See, it's not a perfect system if the losses are being socialized. I explicitly said that you shouldn't pay for others.

My wife and I put 7% down on our house. We compensated the bank for a higher degree of risk in the form of a monthly PMI payment. Once we owned more than 20% of our house, we stopped paying PMI. Presumably, the machinery was comfortable enough at this point with breaking even in a short sale that our risk level was lowered and thus our costs were lowered.

 

[A854321]

I contrast QVC woman with the spendtrift mom that is posted about on this board. The mom moved to India so she could live on her SS. India. Her son is complaining about wanting to change gramma's will so mom doesn't get ahold of it- but his mom has moved to India. If you've ever been to India, you can imagine this is a rather bold and courageous move to a very foreign environment. I cannot possibly imagie my SoCal, Gelson's loveing mother moving to India to stay financially solvent. Can you imagine QVC woman moving to India to try to stay within her means?

QVC woman had significant medical problems, with a complex hospitalization. Even with fabulous insurance, she knew she would get bills for co-pays and some excluded items or services. Despite that, she just racked up $19000 on her credit card sitting in bed, smoking, watching QVC.

I'm quite struck by the difference between the two.

 

[Hamlet]

Honestly, the bankruptcy bill was a solution in search of a problem.

For the most part, people declared bankruptcy after a major illness, a job loss, or a divorce. The system that was in place worked fine for 40 or so years. It had major consequences for the people declaring bankruptcy. There was occassional abuse, but nothing like the proponents of the bill implied.

The bill was basically written by credit card companies with the idea that they would be able to completely drop any pretense of judging credit worthiness. They could just loan money at 30% to anyone who asked, and they could have the government collect in bankruptcy court.

Obviously, this won't really work. The credit card companies and the government won't be able to get any more blood from the stone. It will help create a very dangerous class of people with nothing to lose.

Bankruptcy serves an important purpose. It's a safety valve for people who've made disasterous financial mistakes. Removing it creates an incentive to turn to crime, either to get the money or to do violence to their creditors or themselves.

Be careful what you wish for.

Absolutely- let's make it easier for these folks to offload their debts on society. After all, it's not their fault they made poor financial choices. Those damn rethuglicans made them take those sub-prime loans. Those damn rethuglicans schemed this whole mess up in cahoots with Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, big banking, and the mortgage industry. It is all just a rethuglican conspiracy, as usual. (which begs the question- if they are so incompetent, just exactly how did they pull off this elaborate scheme?) It is only right to expect that hardworking American taxpayers who are responsible enough and/ or have the moral fiber to honor a mortgage commitment shoulder the burden of paying for those who can't or won't take responsibility for their personal finances. And we damn sure need to make it easier for those people to just walk away from their financial crashes. I mean, heck , those poor downtrodden folks were counting on making a killing in the real estate boom- it isn't fair to expect them to honor their contracts when the market declines- after all, this what hope and change is all about- everyone gets a trophy just for participating!... even in their personal finances! No losers, everyone gets to win! We need more government intervention to make it easier to fail, and we need it now!

On a related note, I wonder what the government is going to do about my personal portfolio. My 401K balance and property values have dropped because of the economic decline, largely fueled by the mortgage crisis. Shouldn't someone bail me out? I deserve a huge tax break, a fat stimulus check, a big wheel of cheese, something! I want my finances fixed, too- and soon, this is affecting my expected outcome of ER. I am entitled, damn, it!

 

[barbarus]

I'm still curious about the "inappropriate e-mail messages" that got Smokey canned.

In such situations, one immediately thinks of the carnal, but she doesn't seem the type.

Anyone care to speculate? Food obviously looms large in her life. Maybe she broke some company rule about discussing chow on line.

 

[brewer12345]

Honestly, the bankruptcy bill was a solution in search of a problem.

For the most part, people declared bankruptcy after a major illness, a job loss, or a divorce. The system that was in place worked fine for 40 or so years. It had major consequences for the people declaring bankruptcy. There was occassional abuse, but nothing like the proponents of the bill implied.

The bill was basically written by credit card companies with the idea that they would be able to completely drop any pretense of judging credit worthiness. They could just loan money at 30% to anyone who asked, and they could have the government collect in bankruptcy court.

Obviously, this won't really work. The credit card companies and the government won't be able to get any more blood from the stone. It will help create a very dangerous class of people with nothing to lose.

Bankruptcy serves an important purpose. It's a safety valve for people who've made disasterous financial mistakes. Removing it creates an incentive to turn to crime, either to get the money or to do violence to their creditors or themselves.

Be careful what you wish for.

A nice summary that expresses my feelings concisely. Thanks.

 

[Westernskies]

See, it's not a perfect system if the losses are being socialized. I explicitly said that you shouldn't pay for others.

My wife and I put 7% down on our house. We compensated the bank for a higher degree of risk in the form of a monthly PMI payment. Once we owned more than 20% of our house, we stopped paying PMI. Presumably, the machinery was comfortable enough at this point with breaking even in a short sale that our risk level was lowered and thus our costs were lowered.

My situation pretty much mirrors yours. Obviously we are both idiots, we could have started at the top of the property ladder, with nothing down, or even gotten a nice rebate at closing. With no equity, we wouldn't be affected by the current downturn in the market, we could have just walked away and left the financial mess for someone else to clean up. Our reward would have far outweighed the risk, especially if we stripped the house and sold all the assets on Craigslist or the scrapyard prior to foreclosure.

Unfortunately, I wasn't raised that way. What is your excuse?

 

[Westernskies]

I'm still curious about the "inappropriate e-mail messages" that got Smokey canned.

In such situations, one immediately thinks of the carnal, but she doesn't seem the type.

Anyone care to speculate? Food obviously looms large in her life. Maybe she broke some company rule about discussing chow on line.

I bet there was a marmot involved....

 

[armor99]

Now, in all objectivity, how is this not in some ways classifiable as attempted robbery?

With all due objectivity.... it is not attempted robbery because there was no threat of force or violence used by the banker. Before I go any further.... I hate slimey people like that. If it were up to me, they should be fired immediately. But... there are no laws in our society against being a jerk, just like there are no laws that will prevent you from doing something stupid if you want to. There is a word for people that need to be protected from others at all times, because they do not know any better. They are called "children". Now if you want to make the claim of some sort of mental retardation, then I can accept that. That legally defines these people as unfit to take care of themselves... and then they truly do need assistance from the govt. I support that sort of thing. A person with real mental problems cannot just "figure it out". But to make the claim that all of these folks are able to take care of themselves... eating, bathing, driving, raising their own children, voting, and the hundreds of other things that adults need to do, but are just financially "retarded", is a bit far fetched to me. You just cannot "have your cake, and eat it too". You are either capable of navigating your way through life, or you are not. This is not to be mean spirited, or vindictive, or even spiteful of anyone. It is just factual. If you want to be an adult, then you surrender your "child" card that says you need to be "taken care of" because you did not "know any better". It is hard to be an adult... lots of responsibilities, and chores to do, and lots of dangers and hardships will await you too. Some bad things will no doubt happen to you through no fault of your own, and it will be horribly "unfair". But I for one embrace the challenges of life, and of living. And would have no desire to live in a world that was so sanitized for my "protection", that the challenge of living was completely removed.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I bet there was a marmot involved....

Stuffed with waffles. Riding a dog.