Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-24-2010, 11:19 AM   #81
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,385
This person would be crazy not to default. California doesn't allow deficiency judgments, and there was a reason for that. To make it easier for buyers to pull the trigger on overpriced houses.

The lenders would sell your teeth for the gold, or your children into slavery. Just business.

It isn't your responsibility to be "nice" to them. Worldwide we are way past the handshake system.

Ha
__________________

__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 03-11-2010, 08:26 AM   #82
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Milton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,077
Related article: Mort Zuckerman, "America must help its homeowners", March 5, 2010 Financial Times, p.11.

Quote:
Roughly one in four mortgages today exceeds the house's value - approximately 10.7m homes. American Corelogic, the research provider, estimates an average deficiency per home of $70,700 or an aggregate of about $800bn. An additional 2.3m homes had less than 5 per cent equity. The remaining equity for many other homeowners is at historic lows. With declining prices beginning to hit the middle to higher ends of the housing market, we are looking at another foreclosure wave....

Sooner or later, the government may be forced to subsidise the mortgages of underwater homeowners. One solution might be to revive the Depression-era Home Owners' Loan Corporation. Such a body would buy mortgages that were close to or in default from banks and replace them with ones homeowners could afford. The banks would receive federal loans in exchange for shaky mortgages. This may be the only way to reduce mortgage principals to the value of the houses. It is estimated it would take more than $1,000bn to do this.
What a crazy system. If I were an American taxpayer with a paid-off mortgage (admittedly an oxymoron, but there must be one or two of them out there), I wouldn't be happy.
__________________

__________________
"To know what you prefer, instead of humbly saying Amen to what the world tells you you ought to prefer, is to have kept your soul alive". Robert Louis Stevenson, An Inland Voyage (1878)
Milton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2010, 08:30 AM   #83
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
MasterBlaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
California doesn't allow deficiency judgments, and there was a reason for that. To make it easier for buyers to pull the trigger on overpriced houses.
That's only true for the initial trust-deed used to purchase a house. For many properties there have been a raft of secondary refinancings to take money out from the housing ATM. Therefore a raft of deficiency judgements will be forthcoming in California.
__________________
MasterBlaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2010, 09:46 AM   #84
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster View Post
That's only true for the initial trust-deed used to purchase a house. For many properties there have been a raft of secondary refinancings to take money out from the housing ATM. Therefore a raft of deficiency judgements will be forthcoming in California.
That is why I said buyers. If a person had attachable assets, and lots of non-puchase money liens he would need to take that into consideration. Perhaps he would decide differently.
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2010, 03:08 PM   #85
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Milton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
California doesn't allow deficiency judgments, and there was a reason for that. To make it easier for buyers to pull the trigger on overpriced houses.
I would substitute: "To make it attractive for speculators to gamble on a real-estate bubble without incurring any personal risk". Heads they win, tails the bank loses.
__________________
"To know what you prefer, instead of humbly saying Amen to what the world tells you you ought to prefer, is to have kept your soul alive". Robert Louis Stevenson, An Inland Voyage (1878)
Milton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2010, 08:20 PM   #86
Full time employment: Posting here.
dixonge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ajijic
Posts: 848
Here is the ugly truth: Wall Street pooled mortgages, sold them to investors, then purchased Credit Default Swaps on them as a form of insurance. In the end, they make a MULTIPLE of profit from a failing or downgraded pool than they ever would from the interest alone. To put it another way, they are insured against default, not against a modification. Having all the homeowners continue to make their payments and stay in a 'current' status is not what the Mortgage Backed Securities aggregators want.

Given what I am reading in the links I provide below, I have a hard time feeling any sort of animosity for homeowners who walk away.

"However, as Goldman Sachs began to aggressively short the various “assets” of the U.S. housing bubble, instead of having AIG write-up CDS contracts as protection, Goldman had its housing shorts duping AIG to enter into these CDS contracts – for the specific purpose of making huge, windfall profits when those CDS contracts “blew up”. "

My Take on the Goldman Sachs / AIG Saga -- Seeking Alpha

Credit Default Swaps Defined and Explained « Livinglies’s Weblog

Yield Spread – Kickbacks R Us | Home Solution Counselors
__________________
dixonge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2010, 08:57 PM   #87
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by dixonge View Post
Here is the ugly truth: Wall Street pooled mortgages, sold them to investors, then purchased Credit Default Swaps on them as a form of insurance. In the end, they make a MULTIPLE of profit from a failing or downgraded pool than they ever would from the interest alone.
Except for the fact that a large chuck of "Wall Street" had to be bailed out because of their massive, unhedged, exposure to mortgage backed securities. I don't think Citi shareholders ($4 down from ~$55), or Lehman shareholders ($0), or Bear Stearn's shareholders ($10 down from $172), etc, etc are doing a jig of happiness over how well "Wall Street" manipulated the mortgage market.
__________________
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2010, 09:21 PM   #88
Full time employment: Posting here.
dixonge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ajijic
Posts: 848
Quote:
Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go View Post
Except for the fact that a large chuck of "Wall Street" had to be bailed out because of their massive, unhedged, exposure to mortgage backed securities. I don't think Citi shareholders ($4 down from ~$55), or Lehman shareholders ($0), or Bear Stearn's shareholders ($10 down from $172), etc, etc are doing a jig of happiness over how well "Wall Street" manipulated the mortgage market.
I won't pretend to understand all of this yet, but not all were 'unhedged'...

How Citi Blew Itself Up By Cleverly Avoiding AIG

Perhaps it would be more accurate to state that many large firms, *some* of which were major Wall Street players, stood to profit from defaulting pools of mortgages.
__________________

__________________
dixonge is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hussman Strategic Total Return lawman FIRE and Money 5 11-04-2008 05:28 PM
Strategic petroleum Reserve, has it been re-filled ? Lakewood90712 Other topics 13 10-22-2006 09:32 PM
Strategic Asset Allocation Olav23 FIRE and Money 15 07-30-2005 11:09 AM
Nords-Q on Strategic Role of Nuclear Subs haha Other topics 21 12-14-2004 04:25 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:47 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.