redskins59 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I think this was primarily a bad behavior by banks, not homeowners. Nobody in his sane mind would buy a house, knowing full well that (s)he won't be able to pay it in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I think this was primarily a bad behavior by banks, not homeowners. Nobody in his sane mind would buy a house, knowing full well that (s)he won't be able to pay it in the future. again, the banks didnt hold a gun to the buyers heads. Gosh, this environment of zero personal responsibility is depressing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I think this was primarily a bad behavior by banks, not homeowners. Nobody in his sane mind would buy a house, knowing full well that (s)he won't be able to pay it in the future. I disagree. I think there were plenty who were hoping on just being able to make it a few years until their situation got "better". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 whats the big deal in restructuring people's loans so they can afford them? some of you guys are real holier than thou *******s that wanna see people crash and burn even if it hurts others in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 whats the big deal in restructuring people's loans so they can afford them? some of you guys are real holier than thou *******s that wanna see people crash and burn even if it hurts others in the process. If the option was change the 30 year to a 40 or 50 year, I wouldn't have a problem. But that doesn't appear to be an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 If the option was change the 30 year to a 40 or 50 year, I wouldn't have a problem. But that doesn't appear to be an option. i don't get it... you'd think that thats the fairest and best approach to solving this situation. don't see why we don't do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 whats the big deal in restructuring people's loans so they can afford them? some of you guys are real holier than thou *******s that wanna see people crash and burn even if it hurts others in the process. I dont think thats a fair statement. No one wants to see anyone crash and burn in this, but many of us also dont feel that we should A( have to pay for the poor decisions of others, and watch other's poor decisions be rewarded with perks while those that played by the rules and used rational thought continue with nothing extra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 i don't get it... you'd think that thats the fairest and best approach to solving this situation.don't see why we don't do that. Because I think for the banks, the biggest problem is the value of the property at this point. But I could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 i don't see how making it so someone is paying nearly all interest in a longer term loan is really a perk... its just allowing people to refinance to something more manageable now if we're talking about people with multiple residences thats another story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 i don't see how making it so someone is paying nearly all interest in a longer term loan is really a perk... its just allowing people to refinance to something more manageablenow if we're talking about people with multiple residences thats another story. Then would you also support a ruling where every homeowner can do the same regardless of individual loan or other economic status? Who will be compensating the banks for the loss of collateral values? What about the good banks who made good lending decisions to good buyers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_Edwards_Fan Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Because I think for the banks, the biggest problem is the value of the property at this point. But I could be wrong. Also, as a loan gets longer in term the risk of forecloseure is traditionally greater (which is why the 15 year is cheaper than the 30 year) making the loan riskier for the banks. They would not want to just extend the term (again, traditionally), making the loan more risky, when the interest rate they are charging is based on a short term. However, today, when so many loans are in trouble, i wonder if we have reached a point that some loans are MORE risky than they would be if extended to 50 yrs? I hope that someone has run the numbers on it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 lets take a quick look 11% interest rate on arm loan vs. 6% fixed 45 year... it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see which one is a safer bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Because I think for the banks, the biggest problem is the value of the property at this point. But I could be wrong.Bailouts also help with the value of the properties. If the banks have to foreclose on too many properties, it drives down the values.Then would you also support a ruling where every homeowner can do the same regardless of individual loan or other economic status?Every homeowner should be able to do this if they have 20% equity in their home right now. I'm re-financing to a lower fixed rate right now.Who will be compensating the banks for the loss of collateral values? What about the good banks who made good lending decisions to good buyers?Banks are already being compensated for their losses in defaults through TARP. The cost of the mortgage bailout is not cash paid directly to homeowners; it is money paid to banks to cover their losses.Good banks have already benefited greatly if they were betting against the housing market (if they managed to survive the hyper-competitive market of the boom). If they have a bunch of capital right now, they are probably cleaning up in this market right now while all the insolvent banks are reluctant to lend. I don't understand this obsession with the "good banks" or the people that made "good decisions." All of those people should be benefiting right now. I know that I am benefiting from the current climate, and I don't need to see everyone else suffer even more just to make things more "fair" than they already are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 lets take a quick look 11% interest rate on arm loan vs. 6% fixed 45 year... it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see which one is a safer bet. Had you gotten a fixed rate in 1993 you would have been a fool. Had you gotten a fixed rate in 1994 you would have been a fool. Had you gotten a fixed rate in 1995 you would have been a fool. Had you gotten a fixed rate in 1996 you would have been a fool. Had you gotten a fixed rate in 1997 you would have been a fool. Had you gotten a fixed rate in 1998 you would have been a fool. Had you gotten a fixed rate in 1999 you would have been a fool. Had you gotten a fixed rate in 2000 you would have been a fool. Had you gotten a fixed rate in 2001 you would have been a fool. Had you gotten a fixed rate in 2002 you would have been a fool. Had you gotten a fixed rate in 2003 you would have been a fool. Had you gotten a fixed rate in 2004 you would have been a fool. Your right you don't have to be a rocket scientist, you just have to know what everyone was doing for over a decade as interest rates plunged. People with no perspective and not in the game kill me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I got a 6.5% 30yr fixed in 1998. I still live there. I think it was a great idea. I have approx. 90k in equity still. Im a fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I got a 6.5% 30yr fixed in 1998.I still live there. I think it was a great idea. nope you are a fool. see the above post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 nope you are a fool. see the above post. Yeah because, in all actuality aince...oh 1990 he could have had better interest rates in an arm, and since rates continue to go down he would have never been in a jam. An arm isn't what's killing people today. The interest only arms and such are what are nailing people. I wouldn't recomment an arm today, I would recommend the 6.5 guy refi asap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins59 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 again, the banks didnt hold a gun to the buyers heads.Gosh, this environment of zero personal responsibility is depressing! It's for the banks to see whether individuals seeking to buy homes qualify for the loans or not. This means that when the mortgage rate shoots up in the future(as is the case in adjustible rate mortgages), these people are actually able to pay their loans. In other words, banks should have looked at what the payment was gonna be in the future, and see if these individuals would be able to pay their loans. If they can't, then banks shouldn't be providing these loans in the first place. This to me looks like the fault of banks. I can guarantee you that most people don't read all the paperwork. They really word things in a very complicated manner. Someone who isn't in the real estate business will have a hard time understanding everything in the papework. Also, many people have lost their jobs because of the recession. Unemployment rate is at 7.6% and will probably go higher. So many people are in trouble because of the current recession. It's obvious by now that this recession was caused by banks(and mortgage firms like Countrywide) and their bad lending practices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I got a 6.5% 30yr fixed in 1998.I still live there. I think it was a great idea. I have approx. 90k in equity still. Im a fool. I was making a point. It's not that you knew you were a fool, but in hindsight...arms would have saved you money Now the fact that you aren't refinancing ASAP makes you....well...move fast my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 ....It would've had it's own version of questionable spending.Agree......McCain even said as much during one debateIt went something like.....And people paying their mortgages will also receive a benefit, of increased property values Still is not nearly equal treatment......... Banks get a bailout for pushing the limits At Risk home owners get a bailout for pushing the limits The Fed looks like heros after pushing their BAD AGENDA after pushing their BAD AGENDA But The careful homeowner gets no direct help.....just higher taxes to pay for above Nice (sarc) Sometimes failure leads to success.....or gets subsidized Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins59 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I disagree. I think there were plenty who were hoping on just being able to make it a few years until their situation got "better". It's for the banks to ensure that people are able to pay their mortgages in the future. If they can't pay it, don't give them the loans, period. What these banks did was, they looked to see whether people would be able to pay loans at the "teaser" rate they provided. They didn't look long-term to see that people were able to pay their loans in the future. Blame goes to banks. The bottom line is, these banks should have looked at people's financial capabilities once the mortgage payment shot up. They just gave people loans based on "teaser" rate. Banks to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I got a 6.5% 30yr fixed in 1998.I still live there. I think it was a great idea. I have approx. 90k in equity still. Im a fool. Yes, you are a fool. If you had gotten a 5-year ARM then sold your house at a huge profit in 2003, then rented for a couple years while saving up your money, then bought your house back last year, you would probably have 200k equity in the house right now with a rate around 5%.Alternatively, if you had taken out a home equity loan and bought a whole bunch of stocks at the end of 2001, then sold all your stocks in 2007, you probably could have paid off your entire mortgage by now. Fool. Actually, you are probably in a very good position to refinance right now to a lower rate if you want to make the move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Yeah because, in all actuality aince...oh 1990 he could have had better interest rates in an arm, and since rates continue to go down he would have never been in a jam.An arm isn't what's killing people today. The interest only arms and such are what are nailing people. I wouldn't recomment an arm today, I would recommend the 6.5 guy refi asap. i bought my place at 23 and fully planned to stay in it for a long ass time. why on earth would i look for an ARM loan? some of us don't want to deal with the headaches of constantly shopping around to refi. for some of us we have better things to do with our lives and just want a home to live in. in that sense, some of us aren't fools. we just want simpler lives and pay a little more for that convenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 i bought my place at 23 and fully planned to stay in it for a long ass time. why on earth would i look for an ARM loan?some of us don't want to deal with the headaches of constantly shopping around to refi. for some of us we have better things to do with our lives and just want a home to live in. in that sense, some of us aren't fools. we just want simpler lives and pay a little more for that convenience. Thats not how an arm works. You wouldn't have had to refi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Thats not how an arm works.You wouldn't have had to refi. could your interests rates go up to 11%? yes. that was enough for me to go **** that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.