patrick.net

 
  forgot password?   register

#housing #investing #politics more»
737,194 comments in 75,830 posts by 10,912 registered users, 3 online now: curious2, iwog, lostand confused

new post

Myth or not... Rich people pay in cash!

By thomas.wong1986   2011 Apr 6, 4:07pm   6,346 views   45 comments   watch (0)   quote      

Ex-King Martin loses Rocklin home to foreclosure
Published Tuesday, Apr. 05, 2011

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/04/05/3528243/ex-king-martin-loses-rocklin-home.html

A bank has repossessed a Rocklin home belonging to former Kings basketball star Kevin Martin after failure to reach an agreement with him on a short sale.

Martin, who will earn $11 million this year playing for the Houston Rockets, has been in default on his $1.5 million home loan since June, according to Foreclosures.com.

Aurora Loan Services took possession of the 5,000-square-foot home last week, property records show.

#housing

« First     « Previous     Comments 6-45 of 45     Last »

6   iwog   1557/1558 = 99% civil   2011 Apr 7, 12:50am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

dodgerfanjohn says

Then why did he offer to bring ANY money to a short sale?

He probably likes his house, but wanted to pay less for it.

That's the definition of strategic default. It sounds like he's making a financial decision.

The bank would turn down his offer if they thought they could sell it for more after the foreclosure, or perhaps one of the bank employees took it personal and decided to play hardball.

There's nothing strange going on here.

7   klarek     2011 Apr 7, 1:07am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

He probably likes his house, but wanted to pay less for it.

iwog says

There’s nothing strange going on here.

Just a deadbeat trying to score undue gains and renege on his purchase/loan agreement. Not strange, but shameful.

8   fatblond     2011 Apr 7, 1:56am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

klarek says

iwog says

He probably likes his house, but wanted to pay less for it.

iwog says

There’s nothing strange going on here.

Just a deadbeat trying to score undue gains and renege on his purchase/loan agreement. Not strange, but shameful.

That old chestnut. Every time I hear people spout off crap like that, all I hear is "Grrrrr arrgghh. I don't understand contracts, capitalism, or the California law, but I am moral so nyeh nyeh nyeh."

Ignorance is not a virtue.
You don't like the law? Get some people together, elect someone, change the law.

9   MarkInSF     2011 Apr 7, 2:04am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

klarek says

score undue gains

Not sure how walking on a underwater house classifies as a "gain". He lost whatever down payment he made, which was probably in the 100's of thousands of dollars.

10   klarek     2011 Apr 7, 2:26am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

fatblond says

That old chestnut. Every time I hear people spout off crap like that, all I hear is “Grrrrr arrgghh. I don’t understand contracts, capitalism, or the California law, but I am moral so nyeh nyeh nyeh.”

Ignorance is not a virtue.
You don’t like the law? Get some people together, elect someone, change the law.

Was I complaining about the law, or dumbshit deadbeats not wanting to pay back loans they can afford? Hmmmmmm.....

MarkInSF says

Not sure how walking on a underwater house classifies as a “gain”.

Somebody that gambles with other people's money expecting to keep the profits and dump the losses on the creditor = seeking undue gains.

11   iwog   1557/1558 = 99% civil   2011 Apr 7, 2:37am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

klarek says

Just a deadbeat trying to score undue gains and renege on his purchase/loan agreement. Not strange, but shameful.

I consider it a fraud victim reclaiming some of his losses from the perpetrator.

The bank paid thousands of shills to manipulate the market so he'd have to pay too much, and used other people's money to do it with.

I applaud his efforts. Fuck the bank.

12   klarek     2011 Apr 7, 2:58am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

I consider it a fraud victim reclaiming some of his losses from the perpetrator.

His loan wasn't made fraudulently and he isn't a victim. 0/2.

13   iwog   1557/1558 = 99% civil   2011 Apr 7, 3:10am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

klarek says

His loan wasn’t made fraudulently and he isn’t a victim. 0/2.

If I use 20 shills to bid up a piece of artwork at an auction, and they actually have no money to bid with, and you buy the painting for an inflated price, that's called fraud.

If a bank uses 20 shills to bid up a piece of real property, and they actually have no money to bid with, and you buy the house for an inflated price, that's also called fraud.

Instead of another sermon about what a contract is, or how a loan isn't fraudulent, how about you address what I write for once in your life?

14   MarkInSF     2011 Apr 7, 3:26am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

klarek says

Somebody that gambles with other people’s money expecting to keep the profits and dump the losses on the creditor = seeking undue gains.

You don't seem to understand how debt and equity investment work. A debt investor accepts a fixed interest rate, but does not get to participate in any capital gains, and their risk is much lower. The equity investor - in this case the home buyer, gets all of the potential capital gains, but has an interest expense to the debt investor, and takes much more risk of loss.

This story is a good example. Martin lost 100% of his investment. The lender took a modest loss, the amount of which to be determined after they sell the property.

It's capitalism 101.

If you want to claim Martin was "gambling", then the lender was also "gambling" - just with less risk, and less potential reward.

15   FortWayne   453/457 = 99% civil   2011 Apr 7, 3:53am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

iwog says

I consider it a fraud victim reclaiming some of his losses from the perpetrator.

The bank paid thousands of shills to manipulate the market so he’d have to pay too much, and used other people’s money to do it with.

I applaud his efforts. Fuck the bank.

no one put a gun to his/her head telling him/her to go into severe debt flipping houses back and forth. For a lot of these people dollar signs were clouding their judgement bit too much.

16   iwog   1557/1558 = 99% civil   2011 Apr 7, 4:20am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

ChrisLA says

no one put a gun to his/her head telling him/her to go into severe debt flipping houses back and forth. For a lot of these people dollar signs were clouding their judgement bit too much.

I'm not disputing that, however no one put a gun to the bank's head and told them to lend a huge amount of money in a non-recourse state either. There is risk on both sides as Mark has already pointed out.

The criminal act however is entirely on the side of the bank. The bank loaned people money who could not afford to pay it back, then funded it by telling people the debt was AAA rated.

17   EBGuy     2011 Apr 7, 4:21am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

He exercised his implied put option. Reports say his first loan was for $1,552,000 (80% of purchase price $1.94 million). The Placer County Recorders site appears to show two Deeds of Trust with American Home mortgage: 2007-0066941 (which was foreclosed) and 22007-0066942 (possibly a second?). Here is the house for those who are interested: 2582 ClubHouse Drive W, Rocklin, CA.

18   klarek     2011 Apr 7, 4:36am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

MarkInSF says

If you want to claim Martin was “gambling”, then the lender was also “gambling” - just with less risk, and less potential reward.

I don't disagree. They were both gambling, and both want to escape their losses. The difference is that one is a scumbag mortgage broker and the other one is a deadbeat piece of shit.

iwog says

The bank loaned people money who could not afford to pay it back, then funded it by telling people the debt was AAA rated.

Yet this guy can pay it back.

19   iwog   1557/1558 = 99% civil   2011 Apr 7, 4:48am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

klarek says

Yet this guy can pay it back.

Sure he could, or the bank could agree to the short sale or simply give him the house free of charge.

What's your point? That a borrower should make a financial decision contrary to his own best interest because of some misguided loyalty to the corporation that screwed him in the first place? Seriously?

To hell with that.

20   klarek     2011 Apr 7, 5:05am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

What’s your point? That a borrower should make a financial decision contrary to his own best interest because of some misguided loyalty to the corporation that screwed him in the first place?

The bad decision was made when he bought the place. Deciding after the face (when there's no profit) that it's finally time to make a financial decision in his own best interest is what makes him a deadbeat. That's my point.

21   iwog   1557/1558 = 99% civil   2011 Apr 7, 5:24am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

klarek says

The bad decision was made when he bought the place. Deciding after the face (when there’s no profit) that it’s finally time to make a financial decision in his own best interest is what makes him a deadbeat. That’s my point.

Deadbeat is just a meaningless label. I think his actions are honorable, and if more Americans did the same thing we'd be in much better shape.

22   thomas.wong1986     2011 Apr 7, 5:34am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

klarek says

Yet this guy can pay it back.

Correct Klareck.. thats the whole point. Millions in the bank and doesnt want to pay up.

23   klarek     2011 Apr 7, 5:35am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

iwog says

Deadbeat is just a meaningless label.
.........
The bank paid thousands of shills to manipulate the market
.....
Fuck the bank.
......
that’s called fraud
.......
the corporation that screwed him in the first place

Talks about meaningless labels.

I'm in no way defending the banks, but for you to portray people who intentionally renege on their loan repayment obligations as honorable or them as victims tells me you very much have a sociopathic, "fuck anybody over for a dollar" moral compass. Or maybe you can sympathize with a group of people that buy houses without any thought or consideration other than their misguided perception about how housing prices will still rise. Could that be it?

24   thomas.wong1986     2011 Apr 7, 5:37am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

iwog says

I consider it a fraud victim reclaiming some of his losses from the perpetrator.
The bank paid thousands of shills to manipulate the market so he’d have to pay too much, and used other people’s money to do it with.
I applaud his efforts. Fuck the bank.

So your saying realtors were paid by the banks to hype the market ?

Wow! thats really good one!

25   thomas.wong1986     2011 Apr 7, 5:45am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

iwog says

Deadbeat is just a meaningless label. I think his actions are honorable, and if more Americans did the same thing we’d be in much better shape.

That wouldnt work... many Americans (individuals, corporate entities, governments, non-profits, churchs, and other entities) doing business with bank would find their accounts empty. Paychacks to employees and payments to vendors (and collections on credit sales) breakdown. The economy would have come to stand still. We would have had a Great Depression!

No, dont bother talking about the FDIC, it doesnt cover every entity doing business with banks.

26   iwog   1557/1558 = 99% civil   2011 Apr 7, 5:46am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

klarek says

I’m in no way defending the banks, but for you to portray people who intentionally renege on their loan repayment obligations as honorable or them as victims tells me you very much have a sociopathic

How about American revolutionaries? Was George Washington a sociopath because he stole territory that rightfully belonged to Britain? How about those original Tea Party hooligans? Sociopaths all of them!

Rules are important in a civilization because they create a level playing field that people can rely on. Right now, corporations are exempt and regularly break the same rules that individuals are expected to abide by.

There is no conflict between paying back a debt to your best friend while defaulting on a bank for hundreds of thousands of dollars. I think it's sad that you can't see the difference.

27   iwog   1557/1558 = 99% civil   2011 Apr 7, 5:47am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

thomas.wong1986 says

So your saying realtors were paid by the banks to hype the market ?

Wow! thats really good one!

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. You should probably study up on what caused the real estate bubble and where the money came from.

28   thomas.wong1986     2011 Apr 7, 5:48am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

iwog says

Right now, corporations are exempt and regularly break the same rules that individuals are expected to abide by.

Lol! thats rich I must say. You do have evidence to that fact, "regulary break the same rules" ?

You of all people certainly understand what breach of contract is.

29   thomas.wong1986     2011 Apr 7, 5:50am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

caused the real estate bubble

Seen it over the past 10 years. Irrational Exhuberance by consumers !

30   klarek     2011 Apr 7, 6:01am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

How about American revolutionaries? Was George Washington a sociopath because he stole territory that rightfully belonged to Britain? How about those original Tea Party hooligans? Sociopaths all of them!

Now you're comparing a bunch of greedy bubble-buying dumbasses to George Washington and our founding fathers. You're deranged.

31   fatblond     2011 Apr 7, 6:26am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

klarek says

fatblond says

That old chestnut. Every time I hear people spout off crap like that, all I hear is “Grrrrr arrgghh. I don’t understand contracts, capitalism, or the California law, but I am moral so nyeh nyeh nyeh.”
Ignorance is not a virtue.

You don’t like the law? Get some people together, elect someone, change the law.

Was I complaining about the law, or dumbshit deadbeats not wanting to pay back loans they can afford? Hmmmmmm…..
MarkInSF says

Not sure how walking on a underwater house classifies as a “gain”.

Somebody that gambles with other people’s money expecting to keep the profits and dump the losses on the creditor = seeking undue gains.

Q.E.D.

32   Vicente     2011 Apr 7, 6:27am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

klarek says

Now you’re comparing a bunch of greedy bubble-buying dumbasses to George Washington and our founding fathers. You’re deranged.

The "Founding Fathers" were completely opposed to debtor's prison and all the other ways the King and his financiers maintained control of the peasants. Eternal indebtedness was a form of slavery.

Constitution for the United States of America, Article I Section 8....
"The Congress shall have the power....
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

Many chest-thumping "moralists" would benefit from remedial US history and civics. I don't find any backing for the idea they'd consider walking away any differently than I would. It's a business decision, morals are not involved. If letting a property default is in your best interests then that's what you should do. The banks are supposed to do proper risk management to account for losses in their down payments and fees.

33   klarek     2011 Apr 7, 6:41am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Vicente says

The “Founding Fathers” were completely opposed to debtor’s prison and all the other ways the King and his financiers maintained control of the peasants. Eternal indebtedness was a form of slavery. Constitution of the USA, Article I Section 8 says Congress should establish uniform bankruptcy laws. Many chest-thumping “moralists” would benefit from remedial US history and civics.

The founding fathers would not have taken out a loan to make a speculative leap into the housing bubble. Thank you for illustrating that distinction and Iwog's absurd portrayal of deadbeats to heroes. They weren't born with these loans attached to them, they sought them out of stupidity and/or greed.

fatblond says

Q.E.D.

Your problems are never your fault, and nothing you do has negative consequences. Keep believing that, victim.

34   Vicente     2011 Apr 7, 6:54am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

I love you guys who view the Founding Fathers as all invariably thrifty and debt-paying ramrods.

Thomas Jefferson for one lived and died deeply in debt. He always lived beyond his means, engaging in building projects and buying the best furniture and wine. The only reason he got to die in his own house was because his creditors respected who he was so much and let it slide. He was about $100K in the hole when he died which was a LOT of money in those days. Many things were auctioned off, but the mansion itself was considered an unsellable white elephant and decayed unoccupied for years.

Remove rose-colored glasses please.

35   MarkInSF     2011 Apr 7, 7:24am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

klarek says

I don’t disagree. They were both gambling, and both want to escape their losses. The difference is that one is a scumbag mortgage broker and the other one is a deadbeat piece of shit.

What? The mortgage broker isn't the lender. What are you talking about?

The lender was trying to make a profit, knew the risks, and lost money.

I have no idea if Martin was speculating to make a profit, but even if he was, he lost a few hundred grand down payment, make 3 years payments, and lost it all.

It's just business. They both lost money. I don't understand the moral outrage here.

36   MarkInSF     2011 Apr 7, 7:39am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

thomas.wong1986 says

Lol! thats rich I must say. You do have evidence to that fact, “regulary break the same rules” ?

You of all people certainly understand what breach of contract is.

e.g.:

Companies such as Macerich Co., Vornado Realty Trust and Simon Property Group Inc. have recently stopped making mortgage payments to put pressure on lenders to restructure debts. In many cases they have walked away, sending keys to properties whose values had fallen far below the mortgage amounts,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703447004575449803607666216.html

And there are tens of thousands of small cases like this that don't make the news because they're not big companies. The owners of these companies have millions in assets. But it's completely irrelevant, just like it's irrelevant in Martin's case. They all see that it's a big loosing deal for them, so they break the contract, and both parties face the consequences.

Or back in the downturn:

The forecast for the 2009 corporate default rate has risen to 12 percent to 14 percent, from a May forecast of 11 percent to 13 percent

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/28/us-restructuring-summit-bain-idUSTRE58R4QO20090928

You think the owners of these companies don't have millions?

37   fatblond     2011 Apr 7, 8:45am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

klarek says

Your problems are never your fault, and nothing you do has negative consequences. Keep believing that, victim.

Martin made a bad business decision and then a good business decision (Buying then selling/letting foreclose). The Bank made TWO bad business decisions (lending and then not cooperating).

It is interesting the persistence of your ignorance and willful misrepresentation of other people. Worse, you seem to feel this personally and in a visceral fashion.

Simply put, what would you have had Martin and the Bank done differently? Should the Bank not have lent? Should Martin not have borrowed? Should Martin have not let it go to foreclosure? Should the Bank have worked with Martin? Why? If your answer results in a "because" or its the "right thing to do" then you prove my point. Again.

38   American in Japan     2011 Apr 7, 6:18pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

@Vicente

Good point. While some like Benjamin Franklin were thrifty, there were others like Jefferson that really ended up in the red. At least we can thank them for their contributions...

39   klarek     2011 Apr 8, 2:41am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote    

fatblond says

Martin made a bad business decision and then a good business decision (Buying then selling/letting foreclose). The Bank made TWO bad business decisions (lending and then not cooperating).

That's total abdication of responsibility. Two wrongs don't make a right.

fatblond says

It is interesting the persistence of your ignorance and willful misrepresentation of other people. Worse, you seem to feel this personally and in a visceral fashion.

I dislike reckless and selfish behavior. I abhor those who do this while insisting it's not in any way their fault, or that they're trying to make up for it by engaging in the same selfish behavior.

fatblond says

Simply put, what would you have had Martin and the Bank done differently? Should the Bank not have lent? Should Martin not have borrowed? Should Martin have not let it go to foreclosure? Should the Bank have worked with Martin? Why? If your answer results in a “because” or its the “right thing to do” then you prove my point. Again.

It is within his means to continue paying for the house. His inability to score an immediate profit is the "problem". I am unsympathetic to that sort of plight. Your stupidity and greed might be rewarded today, but you are no more than a deadbeat p.o.s. for engaging in this type of behavior. Any ounce of dignity or shame and you'd at least be admitting to it.

40   MarkInSF     2011 Apr 8, 3:06am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

....Taubman, which estimates the mall is now worth only $52 million, gave it back to its mortgage holder...

Banking-industry officials and others have argued that homeowners have a moral obligation to pay their debts even when it seems to make good business sense to default. Individuals who walk away from their homes also face blemishes to their credit ratings and, in some states, creditors can sue them for the losses they suffer.

But in the business world, there is less of a stigma even though lenders, including individual investors, get stuck holding a depressed property in a down market. Indeed, investors are rewarding public companies for ditching profit-draining investments. Deutsche Bank AG's RREEF, which manages $56 billion in real-estate investments, now favors companies that jettison cash-draining properties with nonrecourse debt, loans that don't allow banks to hold landlords personally responsible if they default. The theory is that those companies fare better by diverting money to shareholders or more lucrative projects.

...Owners of commercial property have an easier time walking away than homeowners because commercial mortgages are typically nonrecourse....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703447004575449803607666216.html

41   fatblond     2011 Apr 8, 7:52am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

klarek says

fatblond says

Simply put, what would you have had Martin and the Bank done differently? Should the Bank not have lent? Should Martin not have borrowed? Should Martin have not let it go to foreclosure? Should the Bank have worked with Martin? Why? If your answer results in a “because” or its the “right thing to do” then you prove my point. Again.

It is within his means to continue paying for the house. His inability to score an immediate profit is the “problem”. I am unsympathetic to that sort of plight. Your stupidity and greed might be rewarded today, but you are no more than a deadbeat p.o.s. for engaging in this type of behavior. Any ounce of dignity or shame and you’d at least be admitting to it

It appears you did not answer the question, unless I am to assume you think Martin should just have continued to pay and the Bank did right by not working with him?

If that is the case, as I stated above, you appear to confirm that your justification for keeping Martin in the house is nothing more than a personal moral judgment as it is "the right thing to do." Your lack of "sympathy" for the "deadbeat p.o.s." and "two wrongs don't make a right" is irrelevant and loaded with moralistic value judgments devoid of a basis in law, capitalism, or Martin's contract with the Bank.

Martin has a contract which he is following in a manner protected by California law, and capitalism works to both punish the Bank for making a bad investment, as well as Martin, potentially, for walking because he is a "credit risk." Capitalism however also works by freeing up Martin's assets to be used for more fruitful endeavors which will stimulate the economy and not reward the Bank.

I am sorry you do not understand this.

klarek says

Any ounce of dignity or shame and you’d at least be admitting to it.

I live in reality, not Polyannaville. The world is hard enough without some misperceived expectation that people should be charitable with Banks because some people don't take the time to think and reason.

42   klarek     2011 Apr 8, 9:57am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

fatblond says

I live in reality, not Polyannaville. The world is hard enough without some misperceived expectation that people should be charitable with Banks because some people don’t take the time to think and reason.

Paying back money that was loaned to you is "charitable", and that I'm the one that can't think and reason?

43   thomas.wong1986     2011 Apr 8, 11:54am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

MarkInSF says

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703447004575449803607666216.html
And there are tens of thousands of small cases like this that don’t make the news because they’re not big companies. The owners of these companies have millions in assets. But it’s completely irrelevant, just like it’s irrelevant in Martin’s case. They all see that it’s a big loosing deal for them, so they break the contract, and both parties face the consequences.
Or back in the downturn:
The forecast for the 2009 corporate default rate has risen to 12 percent to 14 percent, from a May forecast of 11 percent to 13 percent
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/28/us-restructuring-summit-bain-idUSTRE58R4QO20090928
You think the owners of these companies don’t have millions?

Bankruptcy Chapter 11 - Reorganization and Chapter 13 Debt Adjustments are not what one would call "breaking the rules".

Debt restructuring isnt new has been common between customers and vendors for a long time.

breaking

44   MarkInSF     2011 Apr 8, 1:12pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

thomas.wong1986 says

Bankruptcy Chapter 11 - Reorganization and Chapter 13 Debt Adjustments are not what one would call “breaking the rules”.

Breaking the rules? What rule is Martin breaking? Defaulting isn't illegal.

The law just lays our the legal consequences for defaulting, and the rights of the creditor. Anyway, corporate bankruptcy most certainly is a borrower reneging on their contract.

I notice you completely ignored my post on large commercial real estate companies defaulting to get out or their contracts. Are they "breaking the rules?"

45   MarkInSF     2011 Apr 8, 5:11pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote    

Companies such as Macerich Co., Vornado Realty Trust and Simon Property Group Inc. have recently stopped making mortgage payments to put pressure on lenders to restructure debts.

In fact, if the CEO of Simon Property Group Inc. chose to continue making debt payments for a property that was obviously an unrecoverable loss, he would be in breach of his fiduciary duty to the shareholders.

I mean seriously, if you invest $100K in a company, you don't want them to act in your best interest within the law? You're going to tell the CEO of Simon Property Group to go ahead and piss away your investment on paying off a creditor, when there is a fully legal option not to?

« First     « Previous     Comments 6-45 of 45     Last »

users   about   suggestions   contact  
topics   random post   best comments   comment jail  
patrick's 40 proposals  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home