Pages: 1 2

 

2010-07-12 07:29:59
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6525|Global Command
“They may be less susceptible to the shame and fear-mongering used by the government and the mortgage banking industry to keep underwater homeowners from acting in their financial best interest,” Mr. White said.
Whether it is their residence, a second home or a house bought as an investment, the rich have stopped paying the mortgage at a rate that greatly exceeds the rest of the population.

More than one in seven homeowners with loans in excess of a million dollars are seriously delinquent. "


So there you have it, the housing crisis in a nutshell.

The feds strong arm banks to giving loans to illegal aliens, which toxifies the whole market. The system crashes and shame and fear-mongering is about all the government has left to keep people in bad investments. The rich realize they have been suckered and about one in seven is saying " no thanks ".


I personally feel as though some sort of massive class action lawsuit should be filed. In my case, the bank told me to miss payments, which caused all my credit to convulse and contract, which made the situation unworkable. Not to mention that the fear-mongering has made the construction industry implode and many businesses are off 90%, including mine.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/busin … amp;src=me

Last edited by ATG (2010-07-12 07:30:12)

2010-07-12 09:24:46
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|5990|Truthistan
I saw this story on TV

They call it "strategic default" because the people have the money to pay the mortgage but choose to walk away from it anyway.
The people being interviewed on the TV basically stated that if its a strategic default then it ok and my reaction was wtf... So if you're negligent and get way over your head in debt or lose your job or were stupid and took out an exotic mortgage then that's worse than intentionally defaulting.
If that's true then we really do live in upside down land.
2010-07-12 09:29:26
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5354|London, England
The difference between you and them is that they can more than likely pay for their next house with cash rather than credit. You can not. Your credit score is important to you, theirs is not.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-07-12 10:13:12
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6525|Global Command
You make a valid point that would be more valid if owning a house was a good idea. As you have pointed out, it is not for most people even though it was sold as the American Dream.
Many put most of their working energy into paying for and fixing up a home. What do you say to the guy who just retired, had his 300k house that was now worth 100k almost paid off and who thought he had a decent nest egg in the value of his home? Tough luck?

This housing and credit bust is going to take decades to unfuck.
You may think you are isolated and safe and you may be, for now.
2010-07-12 10:15:31
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5354|London, England

ATG wrote:

You make a valid point that would be more valid if owning a house was a good idea. As you have pointed out, it is not for most people even though it was sold as the American Dream.
Many put most of their working energy into paying for and fixing up a home. What do you say to the guy who just retired, had his 300k house that was now worth 100k almost paid off and who thought he had a decent nest egg in the value of his home? Tough luck?

This housing and credit bust is going to take decades to unfuck.
You may think you are isolated and safe and you may be, for now.
Frankly, anyone who used their home as their primary investment for retirement was an idiot. It's hard to feel sympathy for people who put zero effort into planning ahead.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-07-12 10:32:18
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6663

That $300K house was over valued.  Just because it peaked at $300K doesn't mean it was ever really worth $300K.  At $100K, I still think it's overvalued.  My primary house has lost over 40% from peak, but I still think it's overvalued.  I want more corrections, so I can purchase more homes.  Realistic value is 3X-4x gross single income of the median income of the community.  Fuck this double earner household income gauge we've seen in the last decade or so.

As for the retiree, since it's mostly paid off, well, no worries.  He has his house.  No mortgage soon enough.  Thinking of your primary residence as investment is dumb.  That's what other properties are for.

But as for the rich dumping property, seems like most are second/investment homes.  Like the stock market, you win some, you lose some.  Buy at peak, you are screwed.  No longer worth the investment, well, dump it.  Just make sure you are in a State that the bank can't go after you for the balance.
2010-07-12 16:42:59
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6102|eXtreme to the maX
More than one in seven homeowners with loans in excess of a million dollars are seriously delinquent.
So were they necessarily rich or just given stupidly big loans?
The book I read on the subject quoted a fruit picker on $14k a year getting a loan of $750k.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2010-07-12 17:13:52
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6525|Global Command

Dilbert_X wrote:

More than one in seven homeowners with loans in excess of a million dollars are seriously delinquent.
So were they necessarily rich or just given stupidly big loans?
The book I read on the subject quoted a fruit picker on $14k a year getting a loan of $750k.
Both. The last half, about the fruit picker.

That was   a huge part of the bubble; illegal aliens being given loans and refi cash.
It was a free-for-all. You don't think La Raza activist real estate agents, appraisers and customers had something to do with california being the epicenter of the meltdown?


The rich defaulting? half were not really rich, half are smart enough not to get screwed like the average post 1996 homeowner did.


99% of those who bought post '96 are massively upside down.
2010-07-12 18:02:44
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6663

Wow, I must be part of that 1% who aren't even upside down, like most of my neighbors.  It was only after year 2000 that houses started appreciating beyond standard rates.  What about those who bought up?  Example.  Sold a $650K home to get a $750K home, with a principal balance of only $200K?  At this time, that house is worth at least $400K.  At present, principal down to $150K, but with a value of $400K+.  Yeah, massively upside down.  Most upscale buyers primary homes are move ups.

Last edited by Ilocano (2010-07-12 18:03:05)

2010-07-12 23:23:27
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6401|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

The difference between you and them is that they can more than likely pay for their next house with cash rather than credit. You can not. Your credit score is important to you, theirs is not.
...and possibly the worst thing about that is that credit scores are not really objective at all.

So much of our fate in the financial sector is dependent on ridiculous ratings that can be affected by things as arbitrary as having a common name.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-07-12 23:24:01)

2010-07-13 06:22:30
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5354|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

The difference between you and them is that they can more than likely pay for their next house with cash rather than credit. You can not. Your credit score is important to you, theirs is not.
...and possibly the worst thing about that is that credit scores are not really objective at all.

So much of our fate in the financial sector is dependent on ridiculous ratings that can be affected by things as arbitrary as having a common name.
It's not realistic for them to interview or keep track of millions of customers on their own. Credit scores are flawed and a shortcut, but it's easy to see why they are so widely used.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-07-13 06:39:20
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6102|eXtreme to the maX
So much of our fate in the financial sector is dependent on ridiculous ratings that can be affected by things as arbitrary as having a common name.
Why is the financial system in the US so dependent on these shitty ratings and 'analysis' companies?
Moodys, S+P etc, they're all rubbish, they lag the market by weeks or months - god knows how they reckon to comment on companies if they work slower than countries.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2010-07-13 06:42:35
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5354|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

So much of our fate in the financial sector is dependent on ridiculous ratings that can be affected by things as arbitrary as having a common name.
Why is the financial system in the US so dependent on these shitty ratings and 'analysis' companies?
Moodys, S+P etc, they're all rubbish, they lag the market by weeks or months - god knows how they reckon to comment on companies if they work slower than countries.
By centralizing analysis it saves Wall Street firms billions a year that they would have to spend on researching every trade they make.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-07-13 06:44:28
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6102|eXtreme to the maX
But then they might know what they are trading.
I've seen very little good analysis of anything over the years,
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2010-07-13 06:47:55
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5354|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

But then they might know what they are trading.
I've seen very little good analysis of anything over the years,
Which is why I said it's a good idea to bet against whatever wall street is currently pushing
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-07-13 06:53:21
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6401|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

The difference between you and them is that they can more than likely pay for their next house with cash rather than credit. You can not. Your credit score is important to you, theirs is not.
...and possibly the worst thing about that is that credit scores are not really objective at all.

So much of our fate in the financial sector is dependent on ridiculous ratings that can be affected by things as arbitrary as having a common name.
It's not realistic for them to interview or keep track of millions of customers on their own. Credit scores are flawed and a shortcut, but it's easy to see why they are so widely used.
They certainly don't cut any corners when protecting the accounts of the wealthy and famous.
2010-07-13 06:56:57
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5354|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


...and possibly the worst thing about that is that credit scores are not really objective at all.

So much of our fate in the financial sector is dependent on ridiculous ratings that can be affected by things as arbitrary as having a common name.
It's not realistic for them to interview or keep track of millions of customers on their own. Credit scores are flawed and a shortcut, but it's easy to see why they are so widely used.
They certainly don't cut any corners when protecting the accounts of the wealthy and famous.
Big accounts will always be protected for three reasons A) The wealthy will sue at the drop of a hat, B) it's a prestige thing and C) protecting an account with $10M in it is far more useful to them than protecting an account with $10k in it. They're a business and they are simply protecting their commissions.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-07-13 08:27:43
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6401|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


It's not realistic for them to interview or keep track of millions of customers on their own. Credit scores are flawed and a shortcut, but it's easy to see why they are so widely used.
They certainly don't cut any corners when protecting the accounts of the wealthy and famous.
Big accounts will always be protected for three reasons A) The wealthy will sue at the drop of a hat, B) it's a prestige thing and C) protecting an account with $10M in it is far more useful to them than protecting an account with $10k in it. They're a business and they are simply protecting their commissions.
Yep, while screwing the rest of us.
2010-07-13 08:38:47
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6712

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


They certainly don't cut any corners when protecting the accounts of the wealthy and famous.
Big accounts will always be protected for three reasons A) The wealthy will sue at the drop of a hat, B) it's a prestige thing and C) protecting an account with $10M in it is far more useful to them than protecting an account with $10k in it. They're a business and they are simply protecting their commissions.
Yep, while screwing the rest of us.
Still, a smarter business move.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2010-07-13 09:46:38
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5354|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


They certainly don't cut any corners when protecting the accounts of the wealthy and famous.
Big accounts will always be protected for three reasons A) The wealthy will sue at the drop of a hat, B) it's a prestige thing and C) protecting an account with $10M in it is far more useful to them than protecting an account with $10k in it. They're a business and they are simply protecting their commissions.
Yep, while screwing the rest of us.
So don't use banking services? Companies are supposed to cut their own throats protecting the little guy? How about this: don't be the little guy.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-07-13 11:27:39
Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6179|Ireland
So have you file bankruptcy ATG?  I have been kicking around the idea but haven't researched the laws.  It is not so much that I couldn't pay off my debt as that I frankly don't want to.  I have spent my life working my ass off and have nothing to show for it. The banks and the government have everything from my work. I have lived off my credit cards not making ends meet the last two years because I didn't adjust my lifestyle to my lowered pay ( at a company making 1-2 billion a quarter in PROFIT ).

I'm old and tired with no financial future and will work till I die just like my parents are. Maybe it is time to stop the housepayment, credit card payments, and car payment; take the money and put it in a mattress till they kick me out of the house.  Fuck the bankers.
2010-07-13 11:41:54
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6401|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Big accounts will always be protected for three reasons A) The wealthy will sue at the drop of a hat, B) it's a prestige thing and C) protecting an account with $10M in it is far more useful to them than protecting an account with $10k in it. They're a business and they are simply protecting their commissions.
Yep, while screwing the rest of us.
So don't use banking services? Companies are supposed to cut their own throats protecting the little guy? How about this: don't be the little guy.
You do realize nearly everything you do in life is now attached to your credit rating.  Anytime you apply for a loan, a lease for an apartment, or even apply for most jobs, your credit score plays a part.

So, unless you plan on living in the woods as a survivalist, not using banking services (or not depending on credit scores) isn't an option.

You still haven't explained how protecting big accounts legitimizes negligence with regard to everyone else.  There's nothing about this protection that justifies screwing people's scores for things that other people with a similar name do.

But that's beside the point really...  You just seem to have this pie-in-the-sky idea that anyone can be a big fish in a big pond with the right amount of effort put forth.

The truth of the matter is that most of us will remain the little guy.  Even if every single one of us tried our hardest, that would remain true, because of relative wealth.  Even if we all rose in wealth, it would take more wealth than before to stand out apart from the crowd.

So, if you want to defend screwing the little guy, be my guest, but in all honesty, you're just screwing yourself along with almost everyone else.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-07-13 11:58:59)

2010-07-13 11:43:49
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6401|North Carolina

Cybargs wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Big accounts will always be protected for three reasons A) The wealthy will sue at the drop of a hat, B) it's a prestige thing and C) protecting an account with $10M in it is far more useful to them than protecting an account with $10k in it. They're a business and they are simply protecting their commissions.
Yep, while screwing the rest of us.
Still, a smarter business move.
...only because it isn't illegal....  yet.  "Smarter" is often very unethical in the business world, but that's kind of the nature of capitalism in general (or human nature for that matter).
2010-07-13 12:35:43
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5354|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Yep, while screwing the rest of us.
So don't use banking services? Companies are supposed to cut their own throats protecting the little guy? How about this: don't be the little guy.
You do realize nearly everything you do in life is now attached to your credit rating.  Anytime you apply for a loan, a lease for an apartment, or even apply for most jobs, your credit score plays a part.

So, unless you plan on living in the woods as a survivalist, not using banking services (or not depending on credit scores) isn't an option.

You still haven't explained how protecting big accounts legitimizes negligence with regard to everyone else.  There's nothing about this protection that justifies screwing people's scores for things that other people with a similar name do.

But that's beside the point really...  You just seem to have this pie-in-the-sky idea that anyone can be a big fish in a big pond with the right amount of effort put forth.

The truth of the matter is that most of us will remain the little guy.  Even if every single one of us tried our hardest, that would remain true, because of relative wealth.  Even if we all rose in wealth, it would take more wealth than before to stand out apart from the crowd.

So, if you want to defend screwing the little guy, be my guest, but in all honesty, you're just screwing yourself along with almost everyone else.
The little guy is insured by FDIC.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-07-13 16:40:50
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6401|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


So don't use banking services? Companies are supposed to cut their own throats protecting the little guy? How about this: don't be the little guy.
You do realize nearly everything you do in life is now attached to your credit rating.  Anytime you apply for a loan, a lease for an apartment, or even apply for most jobs, your credit score plays a part.

So, unless you plan on living in the woods as a survivalist, not using banking services (or not depending on credit scores) isn't an option.

You still haven't explained how protecting big accounts legitimizes negligence with regard to everyone else.  There's nothing about this protection that justifies screwing people's scores for things that other people with a similar name do.

But that's beside the point really...  You just seem to have this pie-in-the-sky idea that anyone can be a big fish in a big pond with the right amount of effort put forth.

The truth of the matter is that most of us will remain the little guy.  Even if every single one of us tried our hardest, that would remain true, because of relative wealth.  Even if we all rose in wealth, it would take more wealth than before to stand out apart from the crowd.

So, if you want to defend screwing the little guy, be my guest, but in all honesty, you're just screwing yourself along with almost everyone else.
The little guy is insured by FDIC.
For now, yes...  Although, like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I'm not sure how much longer it will be around...  All of these institutions are hanging by a thread.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard