http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/aug/30/us-homes-borrowers-foreclosures _________________________________________________________ 20k come from all over to flordia to have their homes. My heart and compassion go out to those people. However, I know there is % who are at fault, for bite'n off more than they could chew. Yet the biggest scumbags are the Banks, BAC, CITI< and the rest of the idiots who allowed the NO DOC loans, no Income verification Loans to go through..they pushed their agenda to loan as much as they could to collect their Interest, with out any regard to what would a happen after the music stop'd. I can't stand Mulit National banks. My trading account, my personal account, my business account is not with any Multi-national. Im with a local bank in Texas. The bank never jump'd on the band wagon and never took on the risky loans. They may have decided to forgo such based on "Risk" and greed not wanting to loose money, they may have thought about the moral implication of lending 5X what the client earns...who knows. All I know, I'm very happy I never worked in the Trading Departments, or any department at BAC, CITI, etc. I would be embarssed to carry that corporate culture around with me. Scumbags.
why are the banks at fault? if you had an income of 5k / month and i told you i would give you a loan that you had to repay at 6k / month, am i the bad guy for you to take it? i might be dumb because i know you can't repay it, but im not in the wrong.
I will remember that logic in the future. So if i loan a friend say $5k to buy a used car, and he doesnt try to repay me for 6 months or longer and I take the car, I have to remember that I am the bad guy...that I am the scumbag for loaning him money and then not letting him keep the car for not paying. I mean...thats the same logic right?
People for some reason get very emotional regarding home loans/foreclosures. You have to remember that home loans are nothing more than a business transaction. The borrower gets a home that they cannot afford to pay cash for. In return they have to repay the principal with the specified interest. If the borrower cannot or will not pay, the bank gets the "secured" asset. I can't think of any reason why someone should keep a home that they stopped paying on.
Right here says it all. Yrena Cruz, a Wal-Mart worker from Miami, says she and her boyfriend were sucked into an unrealistic mortgage by a low "teaser" rate which subsequently changed to an impossible amount â and the housing crash made it unfeasible to refinance. She said: "I'm worried sick. I can't wait to get this finished with. My house was worth $400,000. Now, it's probably half that."
I don't think the issue here is: bad guy - good guy. The banks could renegotiate any loan at different terms, still make money and let people keep their house. The issue is, some financial inst. has to eat the loss when they closed out the loan to rewrite a new one. The orginator sold the loan, whoever bought it has to eat the loss, no one knows how to undo the package.
People are so dumb, sometimes all you can do is shrug your shoulders. The house was never her's to begin with. She still owes money on it. So who cares if it is worth $400,000 or $400,001 or $100,004 or $410,000. The house doesn't belong to her, it just so happens that she lives there; that's all. Now, if this wmt employee; owns the house outright.... then that's another story.
banks taking stupid risks dont deserve the reward when it goes bad. traders should get this intuitively.