patrick.net

Serpentor says

Wait, I forgot, how much tax payers money was used to bail the banks out? Was it 800 billion? Oh what? It was more then that?

...one the topmost reason why banks are still sitting on rotting REO listing...and delaying the inevitable.

klarek says

No, it doesn’t. It sticks the bank with the loss and there’s nothing they could do about it. It didn’t encourage less-risky lending, look at the results by-state if you need further proof. Like I said, the foreclosures happened largely because of a financial problem unrelated to the house or loan, like disability, death, job loss, or a business venture gone bad.

There's nothing they could do about it? How about not lending money to people who couldn't afford the loan? It was their (the banks) money, they had complete control over it. State by state results prove the point that the borrowers were more careful because they knew they would be on the hook. It proves nothing regarding whether banks in states with non-recourse loans were more or less careful.

Further definitions (sorry no stupid analogies):

http://banking.about.com/od/loans/a/recourseloan.htm

http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/nonrecourse+loan

Every definition makes it clear that there is increased risk for the lender with a non-recourse loan. It doesn't take a 4th grader (yet, it apparently escapes the likes of Serpentor, Klarek and Mr.F) to realize that if there is increased risk, lenders should be more careful in making such loans.

ch_tah says

There’s nothing they could do about it? How about not lending money to people who couldn’t afford the loan?

That's a brilliant observation, I don't think anybody has thought of that.

Mr.Fantastic says

This thread is now my most favorite on Patrick. You have a guy (tatupu) who is willingly making himself look like a moron for our entertainment. This is great stuff.
Now he has ch_tah “I bought in 2008 because I thought it was the bottom”, and MarkInSF “Banks should lend to HELOC abusers, and short seller scum because that’s how they make money” defending him. You can’t make this stuff up.

Why do you lie? I bought in 2010. You did in fact make this stuff up.

klarek says

ch_tah says

There’s nothing they could do about it? How about not lending money to people who couldn’t afford the loan?

That’s a brilliant observation, I don’t think anybody has thought of that.

Well, you're the one who made the stupid comment there was nothing they could do.

It's amusing to me that you (Klarek, Serp and Mr. F) attack Tatupu as being stupid, retarded and illogical, yet with your continued inability to understand basic finance of being careful with your money when you have no recourse, your terribly inaccurate analogies and flat-out lies, you guys are the ones who look like idiots.

klarek says

MarkInSF says

I take it then you are in favor of getting rid of non-recourse loans for commercial real estate too? And what about corporate debt? Should owners of corporate bonds be able to come after the personal assets of owners / shareholders of the company?

Remove it all. If for no other reason than to end the constant pathetic excuse of “well the corporations do it, so you should too,” usually from the same anti-capitalist dumbasses who suddenly see the need to model personal financial behavior after the most unsavory of corporations.

klarek, I am afraid it is YOU that are revealing yourself as anti-capitalist here. A corporation is a founding cornerstone of capitalism, and it is meaningless if the shareholders are exposed to unlimited liability.

I did not in anyway suggest that people should model their behavior after the most unsavory corporations. I'm just as disgusted by you as somebody that took took out a massive HELOC during the bubble, spent it on vacations, and then walked or declared bankruptcy, but they are minority. I'm much more sympathetic to the majority that were not speculators or abusers of the breakdown in financial oversight, but just happened to buy at the wrong time.

Mr.Fantastic says

MarkInSF “Banks should lend to HELOC abusers, and short seller scum because that’s how they make money”

Would you at least have the decency to not put words in my mouth? I never said that.

Many people that are walking or getting short sales were not speculators, and they even bought homes that they COULD afford. They just happened to buy at the wrong time and found themselves deeply underwater years later.

ch_tah says

Mr.Fantastic says

This thread is now my most favorite on Patrick. You have a guy (tatupu) who is willingly making himself look like a moron for our entertainment. This is great stuff.

Now he has ch_tah “I bought in 2008 because I thought it was the bottom”, and MarkInSF “Banks should lend to HELOC abusers, and short seller scum because that’s how they make money” defending him. You can’t make this stuff up.

Why do you lie? I bought in 2010. You did in fact make this stuff up.

It's finally dawning on me that Mr. Fantastic is just a troll, and really has no interest discussing the topic in good faith.

MarkInSF says

klarek, I am afraid it is YOU that are revealing yourself as anti-capitalist here. A corporation is a founding cornerstone of capitalism, and it is meaningless if the shareholders are exposed to unlimited liability.

I did not in anyway suggest that people should model their behavior after the most unsavory corporations. I’m just as disgusted by you as somebody that took took out a massive HELOC during the bubble, spent it on vacations, and then walked or declared bankruptcy, but they are minority. I’m much more sympathetic to the majority that were not speculators or abusers of the breakdown in financial oversight, but just happened to buy at the wrong time.

I agree, and I don't think they're the same category. But neither is a victim in this case. The latter that didn't splurge on their equity still bought with little or no thought at all.

And there's nothing anti-capitalist about believing that people and corporations ought to live up to their fiscal obligations.

Mr.Fantastic says

You’re also painting people who bought homes between 2002-2007 as stupid sheep who can’t use a calculator. When someone makes $100,000, and takes a loan for $750,000, they know EXACTLY what they’re getting themselves into.

They probably spent more time picking out the furniture to fill their McMansion than they did looking at the market data to see if these prices were sustainable. For that reason alone they deserve zero sympathy.

klarek says

And there’s nothing anti-capitalist about believing that people and corporations ought to live up to their fiscal obligations.

If you have a non-recourse loan, and you give the home to your lender, you ARE living up your fiscal obligations. That is they whole point of a loan being non-recourse.

A corporation exists to make money for it's shareholders, and they are shielded from any liability beyond their investment. There is nothing un-ethical or illegal in the slightest if turns out the investment is not making money for them, and they stiff their bondholders.

Border's Books filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy last month Their lenders are likely not to get all their money back. Are you seriously suggesting the owners of Border's are acting unethically? Should the shareholders of Border's "live up to their fiscal obligations" and pay the lenders?

Mr.Fantastic says

klarek says

Mr.Fantastic says

You’re also painting people who bought homes between 2002-2007 as stupid sheep who can’t use a calculator. When someone makes $100,000, and takes a loan for $750,000, they know EXACTLY what they’re getting themselves into.

They probably spent more time picking out the furniture to fill their McMansion than they did looking at the market data to see if these prices were sustainable. For that reason alone they deserve zero sympathy.

That’s what I don’t get from people like MarkInSF, fatblonde, CL, and all the other defenders of people who buy stuff they can’t afford. Just because we’re talking about houses, it’s like their brains shut off, and people get all sympathetic for these credit abusers.
Would the story change if people like CL were buying Ferrari Modena’s and then fell behind on their payments? Would MarkInSF still be pushing his softy, estrogen laden, sympathy for these people who bought at the “wrong time”? I really do wonder.

What I don't get is why people continually try and have discussions or debates with people who so clearly ignores facts, reason, and compelling arguments out of what can only be described as an irrational need to argue that up is down and left is right.

You may be entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Mr.Fantastic says

Hey GENIUS, Border’s is a BUSINESS ENTERPRISE. Investors who financed Border’s knew this going in. They invested money KNOWING that Borders may not succeed as a business, and all the risk that came with.

Yeah, and if you give somebody a non-recourse mortgage, you invest money KNOWING that if home prices fall the borrower can give you back to property with no further obligation, and all the risks that come with that.

How about if I start a corporation, the corporation buys a home to rent for profit. If it turns out I'm taking a loss from the business enterprise, is it perfectly OK with you if the corporation just declares bankruptcy and I give the home back to the lender?

Mr.Fantastic says

Since when is John and Jane Smith buying their personal residence at 10x their yearly income a business venture? Your reasoning gets stupider every time you post.

Loaning the money to them IS a business venture.

Mr.Fantastic says

Okay, let’s discuss the facts then shall we?
1) You bought a home you couldn’t afford.
2) You are attempting to ditch out on your debt obligation because of your irresponsibility.
3) You believe you should own a home, even though your recent history says otherwise.
That about sum it up?

Awesome. Do you just have that as a macro? So whenever someone shows you to be wrong, you just pull it up?

Mr.Fantastic says

A primary residence is NOT an investment, it’s a disposable good, like a car, like a watch, like a candy bar.

Really? Do you know what disposable means? Do you plan on throwing your house in the trash at some point?

Mr.Fantastic says

tatupu70 says

Mr.Fantastic says

Since when is John and Jane Smith buying their personal residence at 10x their yearly income a business venture? Your reasoning gets stupider every time you post.

Loaning the money to them IS a business venture.

Here comes stupid. Okay genius, when you bought your over priced dump in St. Louis based on you and your wife’s dual income, did you put primary residence on your loan application or not?

Completely moot.

Mr.Fantastic says

tatupu70 says

Mr.Fantastic says

A primary residence is NOT an investment, it’s a disposable good, like a car, like a watch, like a candy bar.

Really? Do you know what disposable means? Do you plan on throwing your house in the trash at some point?

Lots of people do just that. Why do you think homes are sometimes abandoned or bulldozed? It all depends on how much a person is willing to spend to maintain a home. Some people will maintain a home for decades, and then try to sell it to someone else (not much unlike a used car). It’s up to the person involved to decide how long they want to keep it like any disposable good.

Well, I asked YOU. When do you plan on bulldozing your house? (or more accurately, your parent's house)

Mr.Fantastic says

tatupu70 says

Mr.Fantastic says

tatupu70 says

Mr.Fantastic says

Since when is John and Jane Smith buying their personal residence at 10x their yearly income a business venture? Your reasoning gets stupider every time you post.

Loaning the money to them IS a business venture.

Here comes stupid. Okay genius, when you bought your over priced dump in St. Louis based on you and your wife’s dual income, did you put primary residence on your loan application or not?

Completely moot.

Exactly, because you know, and I know, you didn’t take out your over sized loan as an investment property which has different terms, and is actually taxed differently. You bought your over priced albatross as a primary residence. That’s why you won’t address the point because it sinks your point completely.

The problem is you can't keep on topic. You feel an overwhelming need to troll the board. I think it's some sort of personality disorder. In any event, the point is that a mortgage isn't a business to the family that owns it, but it most certainly IS a business endeavor for the bank that is loaning the money.

Mr.Fantastic says

tatupu70 says

Mr.Fantastic says

tatupu70 says

Mr.Fantastic says

A primary residence is NOT an investment, it’s a disposable good, like a car, like a watch, like a candy bar.

Really? Do you know what disposable means? Do you plan on throwing your house in the trash at some point?

Lots of people do just that. Why do you think homes are sometimes abandoned or bulldozed? It all depends on how much a person is willing to spend to maintain a home. Some people will maintain a home for decades, and then try to sell it to someone else (not much unlike a used car). It’s up to the person involved to decide how long they want to keep it like any disposable good.

Well, I asked YOU. When do you plan on bulldozing your house? (or more accurately, your parent’s house)

Let’s not get personal. I respect your right to privacy, respect mine. Stick to the topic.

That is the topic. When are you going to dispose of your house. You said it was a disposable good, so I'm just wondering when you plan on arranging the bulldozer?

Mr.Fantastic says

Exactly my point. You can’t compare an inflated mortgage abuser to the Border’s Corporation. It’s two different things.
I also agree it’s a business transaction for the bank, but how does that help your point, or Mark’s point, at all?

As usual you completely missed the point. The situation is exactly the same to the bank. Giving a loan to Borders or giving a non recourse loan for a primary residence.

Mr.Fantastic says

tatupu70 says

As usual you completely missed the point. The situation is exactly the same to the bank. Giving a loan to Borders or giving a non recourse loan for a primary residence.

No it’s not. Border’s is a business enterprise. John and Jane Smith are a couple buying a home. Two different situations.

Yes, every situation is different. But from the bank's point of view, concerning the loan, they are really the same.

Mr.Fantastic says

tatupu70 says

That is the topic. When are you going to dispose of your house. You said it was a disposable good, so I’m just wondering when you plan on arranging the bulldozer?

I’ll answer that when you tell me when are you going to put your wife on a diet? Trust me she needs it.

Good one. So is your house a disposable good or not? And if so, when are you disposing of it?

shrekgrinch says

Whats our bank you do have money in?

what is this?? Doublespeak? Or are you one egg short of a 12 inch quiche??

Mr.Fantastic says

It’s not an investment genius! When you sign a document for a loan, you state whether the property is your primary residence or not. The rates and loan requirements are completely different between someone buying a primary residence and someone buying an INVESTMENT property.

Obviously they are not completely the same, but your statement that they are "The bank looks at them totally different" is false. In the non-recourse nature of the loan, they are exactly the same. And from a legal and ethical stand point, defaulting on the loan and giving the property to the lender is exactly the same in each situation.

klarek says

. About as logical as drinking cyanide to teach your body to repel it”.

Given evolutionary forces and enough bodies, bodies would eventually repel it you ignorant bowelstructure....

Mr.Fantastic says

No it’s not. The bank looks at them totally different. Seriously, go into a bank, and try to get a loan for a business venture, and then go and try to get one for a primary residence.

I'm sorry that your idea for a business was so bad that the bank laughed you out of the office, but that really isn't relevant to the discussion.

People who have done their homework and have a good business plan can and do get loans. The bank evaluates the business to see if they think it will make money and be able to pay back the loan, just as it looks at the credit history of someone applying for a home mortgage to see if they will be able to afford to make the monthly payments.

Still waiting on the date for the bulldozer....

Mr.Fantastic says

tatupu70 says

Mr.Fantastic says

Since when is John and Jane Smith buying their personal residence at 10x their yearly income a business venture? Your reasoning gets stupider every time you post.

Loaning the money to them IS a business venture.

Here comes tatupu the jester. Okay genius, when you bought your over priced dump in St. Louis based on you and your wife’s dual income, did you put primary residence on your loan application or not?

Here comes Fantastic, the court dickhead, desperately trying to change the subject after having the 'business venture' argument thrust up his ass with a size 16 army boot....

Mr.Fantastic says

Seriously, spend your time thinking about your own life, instead of mine.

There are lots of good ideas out there. Keep trying--maybe next time you'll come up with something worth funding and you can move out of your parent's basement....

Mr.Fantastic says

See the difference is you know the stuff I’m saying is true because the evidence is out there for anyone to see because you’re simply too open about your personal life on Patrick.net.
Not very smart to leave personal information about your wife so blatantly in the open.

lol. All I've said on Pat.net is that I'm married. The rest is pure speculation on your part. You probably did a google search on tatupu and think you've done great detective work. Well done.

I know you Irvine types are tough, but I'm not too worried.

Bzzzzt! Time out. Too many personal insults.

In fact, any personal insults are too many and I will delete them.

Getting back to the main thread, which is an interesting one. Any other cases of walkaways buying a home after the 5 years of "credit prison"? I wonder how much it is actually happening. I just don't know for the case of the US, but out here it doesn't happen.

American in Japan says

Any other cases of walkaways buying a home after the 5 years of “foreclosure prison”?

I know somebody that bought, did at least TWO equity extractions, short sold in 2007, and bought again late in 2009 (a foreclosure). He's pretty much your quintessential deadbeat shithead that wouldn't hesitate to take out another large chunk of equity if he weren't underwater again.

The equity extractions should still be recourse. Can the banks garnish his salary?

American in Japan says

The equity extractions should still be recourse. Can the banks garnish his salary?

I guess he got the banks to agree to let it go. He bought close enough to the peak that it wasn't a huge amount (like $30k a pop), and probably paid them so much in closing costs for each dip that it wasn't a total loss for them. Needless to say, he lived to fight and purchase another day. Yay America.

The housing peak was 2007. Then some early folks started to walk away in 2008.
So this year is the year those folks could “buy a home again”.
Has this been done before, I wonder?

5-7-10 years later or more, your financial history does not just disappear. Its pretty much there for your life time and even more. Welcome to the information revolution.

Best that can be said. is a hacker destroys all records and all the back up tapes/disks.
Not a chance that will happen.

thomas.wong1986 says

The housing peak was 2007. Then some early folks started to walk away in 2008.

So this year is the year those folks could “buy a home again”.

Has this been done before, I wonder?
5-7-10 years later or more, your financial history does not just disappear. Its pretty much there for your life time and even more. Welcome to the information revolution.
Best that can be said. is a hacker destroys all records and all the back up tapes/disks.

Not a chance that will happen.

Banks are not going to lend. Maybe Obama will.