« First « Previous Comments 99 - 101 of 101 Search these comments
AHB,
I think you're getting your panties in a wad over what amounts to a very small number of people in the long run. I don't have any data but my contention is that the vast majority of folks who are walking away have little choice. They are financially unable to stay in their house without potentially damaging sacrifices and they have the emotional fortitude to walk away before the Sheriff kicks them out. Most people I've read about have some ridiculous emotional attachment to "their" house and they don't want to lose "their" house so will burn through their savings and rack up tons of credit card debt trying to make a mortgage payment they can't afford. They should have walked away before that point because now instead of just a foreclosure they're looking at a full-on bankruptcy.
I just don't think there are tons of these so-called "fat cats" of which you speak that are simply screwing the bank/govt. If so I'd love to see some actual data.
My panties are fine - I just find it disconcerting that you and people like you are feeding into this much maligned propaganda that it's cool to go out and get in over your head and then walk away, because, hey, it's the bank's lot, and fuck the banks. If this were the case, I would agree; I would buy twenty houses just to stick it to the banks. But, for the last time, it DOES NOT hurt the banks - they pass those debts onto you and me and the next generation, who will likely and rightfully revile this one for it's addiction to both consumer debt and government largess.
As for Fat Cats - there have been quite a few articles recently reporting on preemptive prime mortgage defaults out of self-interest rather than necessity - the fat cats I referred to. Do a Google search. I think Patrick.net even showcased an article or two in the recent past. It's not some phantom menace, and it will result in future tax burdens. On top of that, there are also plenty of people I know of personally who are stretching themselves thin to take advantage of FHA and other tax funded incentives for buying above their station who are one or two hiccups away from default in the coming years.
Here's some interesting news from the AP...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jYs8k4cz398yrVYLt3QxLvIURD9wD99OF1M02
"...the FHA became the main source of home loans to borrowers with poor credit and low down payments after the collapse of the subprime lending market."
"The FHA currently backs a 1/3 of new home loans, up from about 3% in 2006"
"Cutting out 25% of available mortgages would be a disaster, decimating the market and hurting millions of prospective homeowners."
« First « Previous Comments 99 - 101 of 101 Search these comments
So, every time I turn around, a friend or acquaintance of mine I know is signing a contract on a house, with price tags between 360K to 470K. Never mind how myopic it is to even be shopping for a house at this particular time, my assumption was that they all had 20% to put down; that they've lived beneath their means and diligently saved, as I have over the years, skipping out on finer dining, high-end organic leafy greens, exorbitant import car payments and world travel - or just inherited well. However, when pressed, it seems that they're ALL using FHA loans, with 3% down.
So, the question is - what gives? Is this not the folly it seems to be? Does it not make sense to wait for the market to cool back down to normal, have potentially lower property taxes, have more equity in your place, and have a lower overall monthly payment--all the benefits that go with the 20% down route...? Or am I missing something?