patrick.net

I wouldn't be suprised to find that whole site go 'member read only' soon. They turned down my member application, too. Apparently they didn't want me accusing Jeff of being an immoral bloodsucker for trying to figure out how to make the bank pay for his 'failed' investments while he keeps his 'successful' investments.

The man is scum.

Also... what is meant by a 'pine box' exit strategy? Is that where you engineer a suicide to look accidental so your insurance coughs up enough for your family to buy themselves out of the mortgage debt you screwed them with?

If so, it's just another way to run up renters' life insurance rates. Flippers ruin things even in death.

SFBB,

Well let 'em take their little circle jerk "private".

Gosh, I've always wanted to be a member of an investment club where the tactics are so under-handed and beneath contempt they can't be repeated in public? WTF?

CNN survey on taxpayer-funded subprime bailout:

http://money.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/31468.html

Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out subprime borrowers with bad loans?

Definitely: 2%
No way: 89%
On a case-by-case basis: 9%

18357 votes

SFBB,

I didn't read it directly but I took it to mean "til death do us part" and that he was stuck with these cash flow negs. until he was quite dead. Sounds like yer typical "clod kicker" now dudn't it?

In reality, people have all kinds of complex emotional and psychological needs which can be exploited and manipulated.

Exactly. This is why life is fun. :)

I call this the dichotomy of emotion. One must seek to be as detached as possible from emotion (i.e. being rational), yet one must also seek to exploit and manipulate the emotion of others.

Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out subprime borrowers with bad loans?

Ask "Should borrowers affected in subprime mortgage schemes be assisted using public funds?" and you may get very different results.

Peter P,

I'd still vote no. Should punative damages in cases where predatory lending is proved be steep? I vote yes!

DinOR,

It disturbs me that the majority of them have no problem trying to figure out ways for him to rob the bank! "Hide your assets, then force them to accept a short sale!"

At least a few of them recommended "Sell them, and sell enough other stuff to cover the losses. Bingo, you're done!"

I am just saying that "Should taxpayer dollars be used..." automatically creates a NO bias.

Even though public money = taxpayer money, people associates the former to free money and the later to my money.

@SFBubbleBuyer

It disturbs me that the majority of them have no problem trying to figure out ways for him to rob the bank! “Hide your assets, then force them to accept a short sale!”

The person who propose such scheme may be culpable of conspiracy to commit fraud.

Again, I am not a lawyer.

Jon, I got a little long winded but I was basically saying just what you concluded. A renter is just a paying customer, and I never looked at them as anything else. This is a sick society with people always trying to feel better than someone else to the point they look down their noses at someone's living arrangement.

I am just saying that “Should taxpayer dollars be used…” automatically creates a NO bias.

If the poll were phrased, "Should the subprime borrowers with bad loans be bailed out?" I still think the answer would be "no" for most people. Poll participants are not THAT stupid - where do they think the bailout money comes from - Google?

Poll writing and analysis is clearly a vague, mystic art, and you can write questions to bias answers pretty easily, it seems.

SFBubble, would you please give us your definition of predatory lending? What is a normal premium a subprime borrower should pay verses crossing the line and being predatory?

KT, I loved that quote from a renter where they said, "at least we're not running to the government for a bail out!"

I should note that Joe has yet to make a statement on whether or not he has stopped beating his wife.

I should note that Joe has yet to make a statement on whether or not he has stopped beating his wife.

Huh? Do you want to incite yet more sophistry?

Hide your ass-ets! Shave your head! Move to Bolivia!

Just the kind of crowd I know "I'D" like to be hanging out... with...?

I just want to take a minute here to showcase JUST HOW DESPERATE these friggin' bastards must be to actually seek out complicated legal advice (for free of course) from anonymous people on the internet.

How different is this clown from CS? Bouncing investment ideas around is one thing, openly soliciting ways to circumvent RESPA is another. Just look how brazen this crap is? Can you imagine this post?

"Well guys, it looks like the SEC is really serious about that insider stuff. Has anyone here placed restricted shares in like a niece's account or anything like that? I opened up several accounts under various names at different brokerages across a few states so I'm pretty sure it won't get back to me but have any of you guys had this hassle w/ Reg. 144? TIA for your reply!"

Ha ha, just between me and a zillion readers can someone tell me if the crime I committed can be traced back? Good one DinOR.

Malcom,

Predatory lending is a lot like smut. I can't define it (but I know it when I see it).

Isn't that the most incredible collection of scumbags ever assembled or WHAT! Jeez, I swear they're like pedophiles. They just seem to be able to find one another?

Yup, one of those fuzzy concepts. A lot of people don't know but a broker can charge any interest rate a borrower is willing to pay. In CA usuary doesn't apply to brokers.

In my circles certain people are known as predatory, but that is a moral judgment not a legal definition. There are some hard money lenders who lend with the hope of owning the property, they are what we consider predatory, but they operate perfectly legally.

Good old gambler's dilema!

I'll say up front I'm *not familiar w/RESPA, at all. I have my hands full with an ever changing securities regulatory environment.

AG "The Great" himself has said that had homes continued to appreciate 10% this year all of the subprime/predatory lending issue would have simply gone away.

So.... it was a "good" deal as long as the Home ATM (TM) was hitting on all 8 cylinders and now... it's a "bad" deal? For me, it's all about disclosure. If you're complaining b/c you can't get out from under a PPP BUT I have a document with YOUR signature on it...!?

Btw, I've had several people I thought were pretty smart tell me they can't re-fi until_____. I usually leave it at that.

Jon, I think I've read on some of the links that some polls are leaning 85% to not bailing anyone out. I remember feeling pleasantly relieved reading it.

PITI, give us a little more info. First how much more is it to buy than rent with a typical 30 year fixed mortgage? If you don't know just share the approx price of the house, and what comprable rents are.

Also, if you anticipate that the values will drop further what is the rush?

I support a limited bailout too: Free patrick.net logo mug. :)

The most common ’suckers’ in internet scams are young males, in my experience.

Studies show that people who fall for the Nigerian scams tend to be older men who are educated professionals - like professors.

Very strange.

I define 'predatory lending' as something you can prove to be fraudulent in a court of law. And obviously, if you can prove fraud in a court of law, you can try and recoup your damages from the fraudsters. This would be best done in a class action suit method to spread the payout to the victims to try and minimize the 'these guys get paid, but the rest don't because the fraudster is now bankrupt.' (And hopefully in jail.)

I support NO tax bailout in ANY form to FBs or FLs. But I'm all for siezing every last asset of anybody who engaged in fraud. Including the FBs. If they committed fraud on their apps, they deserve less than nothing. Lose the house AND get fined. Wage garnishment! WHEE! Don't grumble, you know they'd just sink it into AMWAY or whatever the next 'get rich quick' scheme is.

PITI or RENT,

You might find the NY Times rent vs. buy calculator helpful:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/business/2007_BUYRENT_GRAPHIC.html?ex=1177732800&en=130ba5207ce7376e&ei=5070

Of course much of this decision is very personal in that there is a financial calculation for renting vs. buying, but there's also personal utility. For you, it sounds like staying put in one place, particularly in the same school district is very important. This makes buying earlier than the numbers would tell you to perhaps more worthwhile in your case.

The numbers you supply roughly make sense if you buy and stay put for at least 5-7 years. On a gestalt level, those rental prices vs sale prices are much more favorable towards buying than they are here in the Bay Area.

Jon, even the smallest things suck me into long discussions here just because I love the angles. Your suspicion of the 85% made me think of the Muslim polls saying 75% of Muslims don't believe in attacking civilians. The press was trying to spin that as a good thing, let alone explaining the 25%. Holy crap!

PITI, my only support for a decision to buy would have to be based on your certainty of staying put for the 10-15 years you are talking about. I live in California, so I am very suspicious of people saying they would stay put for 5 years, but hey it's California.

Anyway, your numbers have some overlap, so buying is not so easily shot down as a good option in this situation. My caution here is that why not try to time it a little better? People on the buying side are so quick to throw in an extra $10,000 in purchase price but don't realize how much it can suck if you are trying to get out from under a negative 10K equity. It seems to me it is roughly a push now, I'd like to see you weigh the freedoms that come with renting a place, verses basically what the tax break will be with a gain in equity through owning. I'm leaning to continue renting until you really see a deal, I know it's tough because it is a pretty close call.

Remember on average you need to have an increase of 10% in the value of the house just to be able to walk away from it.

Jon,

Yep. We already have the safety nets for these people. I don't see why they should get anything more than that.

SF Bubble,
I agree, proveable fraud is a legitimate civil tort to charge in court. Fraud is its own area so I try to caution people about emotional terms like predatory lending. It is really being hyped up, and blurrs the real issue. Like you said, we want to punish fraud.

The problem becomes circular because in contract law normally the written contract takes precidence over verbal promises, and oral contracts don't hold up with property transactions so what exactly would the fraud be? The fraud would have to be something in the contract that is not delivered, or is illegal in some way. I try to stretch to sympathize with ignorant people who don't understand loan documents but somewhere we have to draw the line and say to people, you are responsible for your side of a contract.

1800/mo verses 200K purchase price would be a true push. Remember taxes and maint.

"let alone explaining the 25%"

I remember in one of the Philippine elections Marcos got 4% of the vote. Nothing remarkable there (other than that he was dead). So... you can always count on at least a certain segment of society to do unpredictable things.

What we "should" be doing (as evidenced by the "warm and fuzzy" poll posted above) is to recruit mainstream home owners toward our way of thinking. If you're none to excited about your home dropping in value how do you feel about propping up someone else that never really could afford their's to begin with?

Bubble bloggers: 1 :) F@cked Borrowers: 0 :(

Hey, I'm one of them, and I'm on your side.

If 200K sounds extremely low, keep in mind that just a few years ago that's what a house that rents for that much would have sold for.