I meant individual home ownership is generally a flat investment, not broad real estate investing. Yes, there are real estate moguls such as Donald Trump, Magic Johnson, etc that made a fortune. Of course, there have been plenty that lost their ass too trying to be Donald Trump.
Originally Posted by The PHA
Vwls isn't trying to be the next Donald Trump and 99% of the people buying a house aren't either. They just need a roof over their head for the next 30 years or so, and in that case in this buyers market it makes all the sense in the world to try to buy.
If you followed the rental market you would know that like she said rents are sky high because of morons like yourself who think renting is the way to go and that if they buy a house they are going to lose a bunch of money because they are so skeered.
It is basically impossible to lose money on a house over the long term buying right with the interest rates and prices. And that is what Vwls would be buying it for the long term, where she will get every penny she puts into in right back over time. Last I checked she wasn't trying to be a real estate investor, just have a home to live in which is one of the basic necessities in life.
Please dont compare apples to oranges. I clearly said 10+ years
I disagree. On a $150,000 home you are saying someone needs no less then $45,000 cash on hand between the down payment and house payments for one year? Thats simply absurd. I take your point, trust me I know what you are saying. You are stretching your point and exaggerating to where no one would buy a house ever except the top 2%.
I had an arugment with a co-worker and made this exact same argument this morning, albeit a little watered down. This is America god damnit. If you sign (and notarize!!!!!!!!) a contract then you should know what you are agreeing to. Nearly everyone who has been foreclosed on as of late is in the position that they put themselves in! People need to take accountability for their actions. If it sounds too good to be true, its because it FUCKING IS!
Wrong. Nothing else to add........
Read the aticle I posted and tell me how great home ownership is for a lot of people with no money down.
Vwls isn't trying to be the next Donald Trump and 99% of the people buying a house aren't either. They just need a roof over their head for the next 30 years or so, and in that case in this buyers market it makes all the sense in the world to try to buy.
If you followed the rental market you would know that like she said rents are sky high because of morons like yourself who think renting is the way to go and that if they buy a house they are going to lose a bunch of money because they are so skeered.
It is basically impossible to lose money on a house over the long term buying right with the interest rates and prices. And that is what Vwls would be buying it for the long term, where she will get every penny she puts into in right back over time. Last I checked she wasn't trying to be a real estate investor, just have a home to live in which is one of the basic necessities in life.
I choose to rent a townhome because I don't want to screw with home ownership, and I have plenty for a down payment on a $200,000 house. I don't want to worry about a yard, taxes, insurance premiums and most of all having to try to sell it if I have to against a wave of foreclusures. I have no intention of, as you put it, living in the same house for 30 years.
Obviously its a buyers market, because of the plethora of houses being dumped on the market every day due to foreclosures of people that took the bait of "no money down". Generally these people take these loans because they have no money, they are gambling that they can live paycheck to paycheck, then they get laid off and wondered WTF happened.
I don't know Vwls situation, so I will talk in generalities. If you don't not have 12 months of payments saved up and every month you are counting pennies, you are not living the american dream of home ownership. You are simply living outside your means and you get what you deserve when the Sheriff knocks on your door with an eviction notice and your credit gets fucked up.
75% of the recent forclosures, people got what they deserved because they never should have been in a house to begin with. And you are correct about rents being higher than they have been. But overpaying $200 on a $1400 rent is much more optimal than not being able to afford $2,500 on a monthly nut on a mortgage. Here is a word that you might want to look up: Downsizing.
There is nothing horrible about a family of 4 going from a 3,000 square foot house to a 1,600 square foot house/apartment. In many cases they never should have been in the 3000 square foot house to begin with.
Here you go expert:
Home prices are unlikely to recover before 2020 and mortgage defaults will persist for years, says a survey of bank risk managers out Friday.
The survey conducted by the Professional Risk Managers’ International Association for FICO, found that 49 percent of respondents do not expect housing prices to rise back to 2007 levels for another nine years. Only 21 percent of respondents said they would.
The findings, which authors called “a decidedly pessimistic outlook”, are a sharp reversal from cautious optimism the survey respondents expressed late last year and in early 2011.
In addition, 73 percent of surveyed bankers say they expect mortgage defaults to remain elevated for at least another five years. And 46 percent believe mortgage delinquencies will increase over the next six months.
Only 15 percent of respondents expect mortgage delinquencies to decline during that period.
“While the housing sector will almost certainly gain strength during the next nine years, many bankers clearly believe prices will remain depressed for half a generation,” said Andrew Jennings, chief analytics officer at FICO.
Bankers concerns spread beyond the housing market.
A large number of respondents says they also expect to see an uptick in delinquencies on auto loans, credit cards and student loans.
Small businesses are expected to continue face a challenging credit environment. More than one-third of respondents forecast an increase in delinquencies on small business loans.
Bankers also appear to be pessimistic about recovery in consumer spending, with 64 percent of respondents expecting credit card usage to remain below pre-recession levels for at least five more years.
Half of the respondents expect credit card balances to increase over the next six months, due to higher spending by some households and smaller monthly payments by others.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44735283
It all depends on the area I guess. My best friend who is a contract lawyer has been going around the city of Milwaukee and buying good forclosed homes and profiting off them for the past 3 years. He currently lives in a nice duplex where the other side renter is paying the entire mortgage of the place each month. He has gotten a lot of houses near the UW-Milwaukee campus and charges the kids more each month than the mortgage. So in a nut shell I guess it just depends of if you know what you are doing or not.
I mean, even when you rent, in most cases, you still have the added expenses of the yard(s), private pool if there is one, insurance (renter's), and rental tax (in Phoenix the tax is 2%). It really depends on where you live and the cost of renting. Here, you can buy a house for $55,000 and if it's not a money pit, you will be making out like a bandit compared to renting the same place.... As a renter, the owner is going to be charging you $1200 a month to live there (versus a payment of about $800 if you own it) and you have nothing to sell when you move, and absolutely no tax breaks. Plus you can't alter the house if you want to.
I'd like to comment on your assertion that people going into foreclosure these days got themselves into the situation by buying something they couldn't really afford. Sure in many cases, that's absolutely true, but not across the board. A lot of people just got screwed by bad timing and the greed of the banking industry. The common Joe isn't to blame for the bubble or the burst. When I bought my place in 2005 for $226,000, I could certainly afford the payments given my salary - it was a modest houses with a modest payment. The problem was, the value dropped so alarmingly that I found myself in a situation where I was being asked to pay $226,000 for a $55,000 house. Why would I do that when I could leave and buy a house just like it or nicer for the actual value? That would be the stupidest financial decision ever. The reason the banks would not work with me is that they prefer a foreclosure or a short sale so they can write it off as a loss - that way they get the full amount of the original loan from their own insurance. If they sell it to me for what it's really worth, they can't collect the 226. My only choice was to short sell or foreclose - did the short sale to avoid having to wait 5-7 years before I can buy again. I am an example of someone who got fucked by the system. Remember, the crash was caused by greedy bankers and investors, not middle class families.
These comments make me very sad. I live in West Los Angeles (both me and my wife work here so no choice) and you could not buy anything decent outside of a Mexican or Black gang area for under $600k, probably closer to $1 million for modernized 3 bedroom home. Sadly, for the forseeable future I will be forced to rent, paying WAY more than the numbers you guys are throwing around, just for the pleasure of making some rich Jew who owns whatever property I am living in at the moment richer.I mean, even when you rent, in most cases, you still have the added expenses of the yard(s), private pool if there is one, insurance (renter's), and rental tax (in Phoenix the tax is 2%). It really depends on where you live and the cost of renting. Here, you can buy a house for $55,000 and if it's not a money pit, you will be making out like a bandit compared to renting the same place.... As a renter, the owner is going to be charging you $1200 a month to live there (versus a payment of about $800 if you own it) and you have nothing to sell when you move, and absolutely no tax breaks. Plus you can't alter the house if you want to.
I'd like to comment on your assertion that people going into foreclosure these days got themselves into the situation by buying something they couldn't really afford. Sure in many cases, that's absolutely true, but not across the board. A lot of people just got screwed by bad timing and the greed of the banking industry. The common Joe isn't to blame for the bubble or the burst. When I bought my place in 2005 for $226,000, I could certainly afford the payments given my salary - it was a modest houses with a modest payment. The problem was, the value dropped so alarmingly that I found myself in a situation where I was being asked to pay $226,000 for a $55,000 house. Why would I do that when I could leave and buy a house just like it or nicer for the actual value? That would be the stupidest financial decision ever. The reason the banks would not work with me is that they prefer a foreclosure or a short sale so they can write it off as a loss - that way they get the full amount of the original loan from their own insurance. If they sell it to me for what it's really worth, they can't collect the 226. My only choice was to short sell or foreclose - did the short sale to avoid having to wait 5-7 years before I can buy again. I am an example of someone who got fucked by the system. Remember, the crash was caused by greedy bankers and investors, not middle class families.
Whoa whoa wait a second. Are you saying you decided to leave because the house value dropped, not because you could no longer afford the payments? Then that's complete BS! You can't just decide to quit an agreement because you no longer like the terms! What if your $225k house increased in value to $400k? By your assertion the bank should be able to withdraw your loan and offer it to someone else because you know "it would be a stupid financial decision" not to do so.I mean, even when you rent, in most cases, you still have the added expenses of the yard(s), private pool if there is one, insurance (renter's), and rental tax (in Phoenix the tax is 2%). It really depends on where you live and the cost of renting. Here, you can buy a house for $55,000 and if it's not a money pit, you will be making out like a bandit compared to renting the same place.... As a renter, the owner is going to be charging you $1200 a month to live there (versus a payment of about $800 if you own it) and you have nothing to sell when you move, and absolutely no tax breaks. Plus you can't alter the house if you want to.
I'd like to comment on your assertion that people going into foreclosure these days got themselves into the situation by buying something they couldn't really afford. Sure in many cases, that's absolutely true, but not across the board. A lot of people just got screwed by bad timing and the greed of the banking industry. The common Joe isn't to blame for the bubble or the burst. When I bought my place in 2005 for $226,000, I could certainly afford the payments given my salary - it was a modest houses with a modest payment. The problem was, the value dropped so alarmingly that I found myself in a situation where I was being asked to pay $226,000 for a $55,000 house. Why would I do that when I could leave and buy a house just like it or nicer for the actual value? That would be the stupidest financial decision ever. The reason the banks would not work with me is that they prefer a foreclosure or a short sale so they can write it off as a loss - that way they get the full amount of the original loan from their own insurance. If they sell it to me for what it's really worth, they can't collect the 226. My only choice was to short sell or foreclose - did the short sale to avoid having to wait 5-7 years before I can buy again. I am an example of someone who got fucked by the system. Remember, the crash was caused by greedy bankers and investors, not middle class families.
To say the crash was caused not by middle class families is asinine. It takes two to tango and these families were entering into agreements too. To call the banks greedy when it was the families wanting to live in 5,000 sq foot abodes when they couldn't afford them is hilarious to me.
Last edited by jsearles22; 05-09-2012 at 02:08 PM.
I mean, even when you rent, in most cases, you still have the added expenses of the yard(s), private pool if there is one, insurance (renter's), and rental tax (in Phoenix the tax is 2%). It really depends on where you live and the cost of renting. Here, you can buy a house for $55,000 and if it's not a money pit, you will be making out like a bandit compared to renting the same place.... As a renter, the owner is going to be charging you $1200 a month to live there (versus a payment of about $800 if you own it) and you have nothing to sell when you move, and absolutely no tax breaks. Plus you can't alter the house if you want to.
I'd like to comment on your assertion that people going into foreclosure these days got themselves into the situation by buying something they couldn't really afford. Sure in many cases, that's absolutely true, but not across the board. A lot of people just got screwed by bad timing and the greed of the banking industry. The common Joe isn't to blame for the bubble or the burst. When I bought my place in 2005 for $226,000, I could certainly afford the payments given my salary - it was a modest houses with a modest payment. The problem was, the value dropped so alarmingly that I found myself in a situation where I was being asked to pay $226,000 for a $55,000 house. Why would I do that when I could leave and buy a house just like it or nicer for the actual value? That would be the stupidest financial decision ever. The reason the banks would not work with me is that they prefer a foreclosure or a short sale so they can write it off as a loss - that way they get the full amount of the original loan from their own insurance. If they sell it to me for what it's really worth, they can't collect the 226. My only choice was to short sell or foreclose - did the short sale to avoid having to wait 5-7 years before I can buy again. I am an example of someone who got fucked by the system. Remember, the crash was caused by greedy bankers and investors, not middle class families.
It really bothers me when I hear somebody say they are walking away from a house because it went down in value and not because they can no longer afford the payments. I'm a firm believer that if you sign the contract to buy a house then you need to make payments regardless of where the price goes.
If the value went up to 500k would the bank come after you for the profit?
For example, what if somebody like me and not a bank loaned you the money for the house then it goes down in value and you basically say fuck you I'm not paying.
Don't take this the wrong way but the world is going through all this bullshit because of people like you.
Also lol for blaming it on the greedy banks.
No bank ever put a gun to somebody's head to sign a ridiculous interest only/adj rate mortgage.
It really bothers me when I hear somebody say they are walking away from a house because it went down in value and not because they can no longer afford the payments. I'm a firm believer that if you sign the contract to buy a house then you need to make payments regardless of where the price goes.
If the value went up to 500k would the bank come after you for the profit?
For example, what if somebody like me and not a bank loaned you the money for the house then it goes down in value and you basically say fuck you I'm not paying.
Don't take this the wrong way but the world is going through all this bullshit because of people like you.
All car loans are upside down at some point, so should I just let them come repo my truck? This is the most asinine argument I have ever heard that Vwls just made!
I just strongly disagree with strategic defaults. I think these people should be treated worse than bankruptcies. No chance of a loan for 7 yrs minimum.
What is even more sinister is when people know they are going to default, and stay in the house rent free awaiting the foreclosure process. In my example with my friend, he was able to stay in the house 8 months before finally being forced to leave. He paid nothing in that period. Basically he just pocketed the money and used the money to buy a new car before the foreclosure went on his credit. Just pathetic.
That unpaid portion needs to be paid before any future loans are issued.
there should be a small house available on Hermosa Beach vacatedGood luck with your transition. I'm flirting with the idea of buying a small house but there are so many variables to consider.
How the fuck do you know when the right time is? I'm 26 and currently happy with my life but who can forecast what lies ahead?
by Joe Sebok
Micon gave me pictures of your tits and told me to tell you to know your dam role!!
Your sense of entitlement is mind-boggling and your analysis of the real estate market is cringeworthy.
"I am an example of someone who got fucked by the system"
Wow, scary part is you probably believe this
:batshit
Read this article and you will understand better what caused the crash and what people are dealing with.Whoa whoa wait a second. Are you saying you decided to leave because the house value dropped, not because you could no longer afford the payments? Then that's complete BS! You can't just decide to quit an agreement because you no longer like the terms! What if your $225k house increased in value to $400k? By your assertion the bank should be able to withdraw your loan and offer it to someone else because you know "it would be a stupid financial decision" not to do so.
To say the crash was caused not by middle class families is asinine. It takes two to tango and these families were entering into agreements too. To call the banks greedy when it was the families wanting to live in 5,000 sq foot abodes when they couldn't afford them is hilarious to me.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-fail-20120314
By Matt Taibbi
March 14, 2012 10:55 AM ET
Bank of America: Too Crooked to Fail
The bank has defrauded everyone from investors and insurers to homeowners and the unemployed. So why does the government keep bailing it out?
At least Bank of America got its name right. The ultimate Too Big to Fail bank really is America, a hypergluttonous ward of the state whose limitless fraud and criminal conspiracies we'll all be paying for until the end of time. Did you hear about the plot to rig global interest rates? The $137 million fine for bilking needy schools and cities? The ingenious plan to suck multiple fees out of the unemployment checks of jobless workers? Take your eyes off them for 10 seconds and guaranteed, they'll be into some shit again: This bank is like the world's worst-behaved teenager, taking your car and running over kittens and fire hydrants on the way to Vegas for the weekend, maxing out your credit cards in the three days you spend at your aunt's funeral. They're out of control, yet they'll never do time or go out of business, because the government remains creepily committed to their survival, like overindulgent parents who refuse to believe their 40-year-old live-at-home son could possibly be responsible for those dead hookers in the backyard.
It's been four years since the government, in the name of preventing a depression, saved this megabank from ruin by pumping $45 billion of taxpayer money into its arm. Since then, the Obama administration has looked the other way as the bank committed an astonishing variety of crimes – some elaborate and brilliant in their conception, some so crude that they'd be beneath your average street thug. Bank of America has systematically ripped off almost everyone with whom it has a significant business relationship, cheating investors, insurers, depositors, homeowners, shareholders, pensioners and taxpayers. It brought tens of thousands of Americans to foreclosure court using bogus, "robo-signed" evidence – a type of mass perjury that it helped pioneer. It hawked worthless mortgages to dozens of unions and state pension funds, draining them of hundreds of millions in value. And when it wasn't ripping off workers and pensioners, it was helping to push insurance giants like AMBAC into bankruptcy by fraudulently inducing them to spend hundreds of millions insuring those same worthless mortgages.
But despite being the very definition of an unaccountable corporate villain, Bank of America is now bigger and more dangerous than ever. It controls more than 12 percent of America's bank deposits (skirting a federal law designed to prohibit any firm from controlling more than 10 percent), as well as 17 percent of all American home mortgages. By looking the other way and rewarding the bank's bad behavior with a massive government bailout, we actually allowed a huge financial company to not just grow so big that its collapse would imperil the whole economy, but to get away with any and all crimes it might commit. Too Big to Fail is one thing; it's also far too corrupt to survive.
All the government bailouts succeeded in doing was to make the bank even more prone to catastrophic failure – and now that catastrophe might finally be at hand. Bank of America's share price has plunged into the single digits, and the bank faces battles in courtrooms all over America to avoid paying back the hundreds of billions it stole from everyone in sight. Its credit rating, already downgraded to a few rungs above junk status, could plummet with the next bad analyst report, causing a frenzied rush to the exits by creditors, investors and stockholders – an institutional run on the bank.
They're in deep trouble, but they won't die, because our current president, like the last one, apparently believes it's better to project a false image of financial soundness than to allow one of our oligarchic banks to collapse under the weight of its own corruption. Last year, the Federal Reserve allowed Bank of America to move a huge portfolio of dangerous bets into a side of the company that happens to be FDIC-insured, putting all of us on the hook for as much as $55 trillion in irresponsible gambles. Then, in February, the Justice Department's so-called foreclosure settlement, which will supposedly provide $26 billion in relief for ripped-off homeowners, actually rewarded the bank with a legal waiver that will allow it to escape untold billions in lawsuits. And this month the Fed will release the results of its annual stress test, in which the bank will once again be permitted to perpetuate its fiction of solvency by grossly overrating the mountains of toxic loans on its books. At this point, the rescue effort is so sweeping and elaborate that it goes far beyond simply gouging the tax dollars of millions of struggling families, many of whom have already been ripped off by the bank – it's making the government, and by extension all of us, full-blown accomplices to the fraud.
Anyone who wants to know what the Occupy Wall Street protests are all about need only look at the way Bank of America does business. It comes down to this: These guys are some of the very biggest assholes on Earth. They lie, cheat and steal as reflexively as addicts, they laugh at people who are suffering and don't have money, they pay themselves huge salaries with money stolen from old people and taxpayers – and on top of it all, they completely suck at banking. And yet the state won't let them go out of business, no matter how much they deserve it, and it won't slap them in jail, no matter what crimes they commit. That makes them not bankers or capitalists, but a class of person that was never supposed to exist in America: royalty.
Self-appointed royalty, it's true – but just as dumb and inbred as the real thing, and every bit as expensive to support. Like all royals, they reached their position in society by being relentlessly dedicated to the cause of Bigness, Unaccountability and the Worthlessness of Others. And just like royals, they spend most of their lives getting deeper in debt, and laughing every year when our taxes go to covering their whist markers. Two and a half centuries after we kicked out the British, it's really come to this?
Bank of America started out in San Francisco in 1904 as an emblem of American capitalism. Founded by a first-generation Italian-American named Amadeo Giannini – it was even originally called the Bank of Italy – the bank set out to serve immigrants denied credit by other banks, and it was instrumental in helping to rebuild the city after the devastating earthquake of 1906.
But like many of the truly bad ideas in history, the present-day version of Bank of America was the product of a testosterone overdose. The concept of an overmassive, acquiring-everything-in-sight, bicoastal megabank was hatched in the terminal inferiority complex of a greed-sick asshole – actually two greed-sick assholes, both of them CEOs of Southern regional banks, who launched a cartoonish arms race of bank acquisitions that would ultimately turn the American business world upside down.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...#ixzz1uQPw3sxP
The last thing I am going to waste time on, is reading a financial article from a reporter from the RollingStone.
Nobody is defending the banks. But at the end of the day, all they did was lend too much money. Basically Vwls, they lent a lot of money to people like you, who just handed the keys back to them because they did not like the way their investment turned out.
You took advantage of the system, which is your right. Just don't bitch about having to sleep in the spare bedroom of a friend, or having to "demean" yourself to actually renting.
As far as I am concerned, people like you that voluntarily break contracts because you did not like the way your investment turned out, should not have the right to purchase anything on credit for 10 years. Without that type of penalty, you'd do it again and again.
Nobody screwed you. You signed the papers and walked away. Tough shit. You were the same person that ripped that one dude off sportsbetting so it appears you are comfortable with stiffing other people at your convenience.
Crazy talk. If that were so, then the government would not be subsidizing programs to assist the banks in rewriting people's loans when they are upside down. It was not my fault the values were plumped up to far more than they should have been, nor is it my doing that they fell to where they should have been in the first place. I seriously doubt you would continue in an agreement paying 4 times as much for something as it is worth. For those who were able to get a modification that reflected the new (and true) value of their homes, there was justice. Many were systematically disqualified for completely arbitrary reasons, and access to the programs designed to make things right were denied.
Also, read the article. It's pretty damn good, and definitely true.
It's OK for business to do it, but not homeowners? Really?http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/ma...ln-t.html?_r=1
Walk Away From Your Mortgage
Think of private-equity firms that close a factory — essentially deciding that the company is worth more dead than alive. Or the New York Yankees and their World Series M.V.P. Hideki Matsui, who parted company as soon as the cheering stopped. Or money-losing hedge-fund managers: rather than try to earn back their investors’ lost capital, they start new funds so they can rake in fresh incentives. Sam Zell, a billionaire, let the Tribune Company, which he had previously acquired, file for bankruptcy. Indeed, the owners of any company that defaults on bonds and chooses to let the company fail rather than invest more capital in it are practicing “strategic default.” Banks signal their complicity with this ethos when they send new credit cards to people who failed to stay current on old ones.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote