i don''t see anything wrong with housing price going down...

[saltymuffin]

Date: 3/6/2009 7:25:13 PM
Author: CrookedRock
The truth is no one actually ''owns'' their home unless there isn''t a mortgage. You are enforcing my point. She could afford the payments, which is what she agreed to.

EXACTLY - the bank owns her house, and allows her to live in it until she has paid for it, so long as she keeps making the payments. She didn''t make the payments, so they have to take it back - which is what they agreed to.

 

[saltymuffin]

hmmm....maybe i should call my stock broker telling him that i wanted my money back b/c i wasn't able to predict the future.

wonder what he would say to me.

Come on! This is not the same thing. You paid for your stocks and owned them when they dropped in price. If PP owned her house she would be out of luck too, but she didn't, the bank did, and she followed the terms of her contract and stopped paying, and is dealing with the consequences.

 

[purrfectpear]

Date: 3/6/2009 8:36:23 PM
Author: crown1



banks just got so greedy and scheming they made a big mess but a smart person like pp knew where she was heading.
the low down and the forty year loan were a dead giveaway. she was too close to retirement to allow such a deal if she fully intended to pay the thing off. she knew going in what her options were and it seems she could not loose. she had df's warning just as others did if she was reading at this time. i took his banter about that seriously and watched to see if he really knew what he was talking about. i wish he had been wrong but he was not. lot's of 'smart' people let their guards down and believed what they wanted to hear.

I just snipped the part I wanted to respond to.

You're entitled to believe me or not, but if you look at my join date (200 you'll see it was long after I purchased my condo. If DF posted something earlier, I wasn't around to read it.

You've mentioned the "close to retirement" before. I'm curious why you think it's unusual for people in the 50's, or for that matter 60's or 70's even, to take out a mortgage? All you need to take out a mortgage is to make sure that you can make the payments, whether it's while you have a salary, or when you're living on your retirement savings. If you die sooner then your estate will either sell the property, or live in it, or rent it out. Yes, I will intend to live in whatever I buy until I sell, or die there. There was no hidden agenda as you seem to believe.

If there was a hidden agenda then why wouldn't I have purchased a big single family home with NOTHING down and an interest only loan, and then defaulted. The banks were certainly willing to let me do so. They did it with hundreds of thousands of others. In fact the mortgage broker told me I was good for around $650K.

I think you might be digging too hard to find an ogre here, but believe what you will.

 

[saltymuffin]

Date: 3/6/2009 8:13:59 PM
Author: zhuzhu
Abusing the bank''s trust in PP''s ability to repay the loan is no better than abusing society''s welfare system to raise one''s ''surplus'' of children.

I couldn''t disagree more. Defaulting on a loan given to you by a for profit company, and legally following the process once you do, is completely different from abusing a social program funded by tax payers.

 

[crown1]

Date: 3/6/2009 6:38:39 PM
Author: saltymuffin

Date: 3/6/2009 5:48:23 PM

Author: crown1

. i feel the fact that the government and banking institutions have not made this illegal is ridiculous. when buyers take the chance they should be the one who pays the freight. walking and leaving the mess for someone else to deal with should be outlawed in my opinion.

Isn''t it the bank that ''took the chance'' by making the loan?? Isn''t making loans all about risk analysis etc? They obviously did a bad, bad job of that. It isn''t ''someone else'' who is left to deal with the default, it is the the lender that took the risk in the first place. Making it the tax payers problem by bailing out these institutions is the mistake. They should be allowed to fail.

yes the bank did take the chance. and in this case they made the right call. pp does not need to default. she chooses to default. buyer''s remorse.

i do agree in the offending party taking the failure. the offending party here is the able person saying i just don''t want to pay even though i have the money. there is plenty of blame to go around for the current financial condition. let''s put the blame where it belongs in each of the cases.

 

[Mara]

TG...ahh I am far too lazy to go back and look at what I said a few years ago. I do know that I thought DF was full of it in terms of such a HUGE decline. But also I do think, regardless of what anyone says, here in SF Bay it's a slightly hybrid situation. A 'correction' is required here for sure. But something on the water here dropping 50%??There are some good deals in SF but they are more like 10-20% less than last year...and yes that is a lot, but that is gainable back over time. I really do think it's quite locally specific. Not sure if I made references previously but whenever I think about what is happening, selfishly, I tend to just think about my area since that is what affects me immediately.

On a positive note, my girlfriend who is trying to sell her second property here, a condo she has had for a long time and rented previously, just got an offer today for what she wanted. So that is great news. On another positive note, a friend who has been out of work for a few months is going back for a 2nd interview next week. There are good things happening... I also check out the RE quite often online locally and stuff is selling, and it's not at 'clearance' pricing.

PP you note:
"All of that money, ALL OF IT will be down the tubes. Let's say it's 5 years instead of 10 (but I don't believe it for a second). That's around $60,000 I spent just to "live" here. Money that you don't get back because it would finally be marketable for what I owed. In other words in 5 or more years I might be as well off as I am today...only $60K poorer. Then and only then would my monthly payments begin to make a dent in equity."

Honestly, if you spent $60k to live there for 5 years...that is not bad. That is $1k a month. Do you intend to find something to rent that is the same amount? So lets see...lets just say 5 years, it's back up to what you actually owe. You paid $60k which is $1k a month to live in a place you liked, a home...for 5 years. You sell it for what you owe. What's wrong with that? Even if you are out your 3% originally, to me that is like 'cost of doing business' and making the original decision that was made. But you wouldn't have a foreclosure on your credit and you wouldn't have to live in an apt for 5 years. When we bought our townhouse we thought, if we could just sell it for what we owe in 5 years, its like we lived in a place we loved rent free. Also, for us, the tax break on owning property was quite huge, we needed it...extra bonus.

I guess that is why I don't QUITE get the logic. And yes you may have done the extra research this time around to come to this conclusion re: 10 years 3% etc but again, research where? Online? Are these people who write those articles and blogs FORTUNE TELLERS? Can they predict the future? If not, then you did research based on what is happening right now, and who knows how reliable that is for predicting the future.

Anyway, it's all speculation, but that's why I don't quite get how you came to the conclusions that you did but they are yours, and its your life...just like we made our own conclusions on our end for our own situation...I remind myself of that when we pay both mortgages...it was our bright idea. hahaa.

 

[Beacon]

Date: 3/6/2009 8:44:06 PM
Author: saltymuffin

hmmm....maybe i should call my stock broker telling him that i wanted my money back b/c i wasn't able to predict the future.

wonder what he would say to me.

Come on! This is not the same thing. You paid for your stocks and owned them when they dropped in price. If PP owned her house she would be out of luck too, but she didn't, the bank did, and she followed the terms of her contract and stopped paying, and is dealing with the consequences.

Actually it is very comparable.

PP did own her house, the bank did NOT own her house. PP owned the house and pledged it as collateral for a loan. Now that she is defaulting the bank will take ownership of the home as part of the foreclosure. That is how mortgages work.

I think the issue is one of attitude and presentation. It is unfortunate to hear someone telling all about the big money they have, they are saving, the large 401K that they cleverly put in cash, their bank account, the 100K they will have to buy the next home

etc., the smugness of it is uncomfortable.

I can see why she did what she did and provided the math worked as she thinks, she did a rational thing. But it is bad thing, in fact a shameful thing, and it goes against the grain of people who were taught to keep promises. There are people in the world who you don't need a contract with, you can count on them, they do what they say they will. Other people, you need to be careful and make many disclosures and protections, etc. I like to do business with the former. But I recognize there are many different people in the world.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 3/6/2009 7:32:44 PM
Author: purrfectpear

Date: 3/6/2009 7:18:01 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 3/6/2009 4:04:39 PM
Author: purrfectpear
Stealing from Tiffany''s no less

A better example would be

1. purchasing a car, making payments, driving it around, defaulting on payments and returning the car to the dealer.
2. buying a ring from Tiffany''s, making payments, wearing it, defaulting on payments and returning the ring to the store.

I don''t think either dealer or store will be thrilled with the outcome, but they''ll be a LOT happier that at least they got their goods returned.

Or were you just throwing dirt at me for funsies?

PP
when was in the coin business, i could order gold bullion with a phone call b/c my word was gold as gold. let say i order 100 oz of gold when gold is trading at $1000 per oz and on delivery day gold had drop down to $900 per oz. i could say screw you,i don''t want it now cuz i''ll be losing $10k instantly. how would you feel if you were the wholesaler of this gold deal? of course if gold had gone up an $100 per oz i would of been on the winning end of this deal. in other words...i can''t lose!!

Straw man. You can do better than that.

You order gold bullion and the seller offers you a payment plan in lieu of all cash. He puts a clause in there that says ''if DF doesn''t complete the payments I have the legal right to take my bullion back''. You make payments for a couple of years, the market for gold drops and you look at the contract and realize that you could give back the bullion. There is a penalty involved. Your name will be mud with this seller for 7 years. You will be prevented from buying anymore bullion on payment plans. Cash only. YOU are the one who has the right to decide whether you are willing to default knowing the black mark on your future bullion buying.

At least make your examples the same. Not too much to ask is it? Oh, and I''m not silly enough to think you personally brought the gold bullion market to it''s knees

PP
my point was...i still had to pay for the gold base on $1000 per oz. even if gold had drop 50% on the day of delivery.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 3/6/2009 4:16:14 PM
Author: saltymuffin
PP has shown an enormous amount of courage by sharing her story with all of us. She was in a tough situation and made a tough decision. One that I honestly think most people would make if they were actually faced with it.

Sure it would be tough, and sure you''d feel like crap for a while, but she learned from it. She is now planning on saving money, living well within her means, and will support the economy by her future financial security. She is not one of the people to be pointing fingers at.

salty
you don''t get it. PP been living within her means "she can afford this mortgage" but she just don''t wanna pay it.

feel like crap? PP bragged she''ll be able to save $400k in the next 10 yrs by walking out on the mortgage Co.

 

[TravelingGal]

Mara,

That is great to hear things are picking up for your friends! Wish I could say the same for mine, but here''s hoping!!!

I agree, I don''t think waterfront property is going to fall 50%. However, I said, even a 25% loss would be massive. A quarter million down on a million dollar home. Half a mil on a two million home. Even rich people don''t like to lose half a mil. You just gotta be hopeful they understand it''s not a loss until you sell, so they stay put. Manhattan Beach, which is a very posh area in my area is easily seeing 15-20% already.

And it''s not "selfish" to just be talking about what you know. I know squat about San Jose real estate. Nada. I don''t have the time to study it. Too much going on in my area! We all talk about what we know and I fully agree that RE is very localized. Let''s just say I wouldn''t want to live in Detroit right now.

 

[TravelingGal]

Oh and P.S. Mara - I guess I''m just worried about you. You and Greg and Portia are some of the nicest people (and dog) that I know - despite your Pricescope reputation, hahaha.

I''m just nervous on your behalf, so I apologize if I sound negative!! Obviously I''ve been thinking about you guys!

 

[purrfectpear]

It''s regrettable that some of you are unable or unwilling to recognize the difference between "bragging" and stating circumstances. Sounds like you would have preferred a made up a sob story about how I was one step away from homelessness, then you could feel smug and extend your hugs. There were some people who said "hmmm, that''s not how I''d handle it". There were some who said "you do realize that you''re part of the problem". I can respect that.

On the other hand when the best you can do is compare a default to robbing a jewelry store, stealing bullion, or having 14 children while unemployed...well, bitter much?



Mara, I''ll be able to rent a nice 1 bedroom with pool, workout room, etc. for around $850-$950. My current condo is a studio, no pool, no exercise room, extra for parking, no dishwashers or washing machines allowed (historic building, original plumbing). I was never in love with it, it was the cheaper of condos in 2006. I won''t miss it a bit. I just realized I misstated the cost of payments over 5 years, my math error. It''s actually $2K per month, plus $75 in parking, $3500 taxes so $291 a month, for a total monthly of $2366....$142,000 over 5 years.
Makes a difference. I can see how you were confused by my fuzzy math error.

 

[TravelingGal]

PP, I fully admit I am bitter...

I went to Europe in Jan of 2003. I had enough saved probably to buy a house, albeit a small one in this neighborhood (the same type of house which is going for 550-600K now). I chose to spend that money on backpacking through Europe. People said I wasn''t getting any younger. That I should settle down. That I wouldn''t be able to find a husband if I got much older. Etc etc etc.

Well, ironically, I found my husband in Europe. But by the time I got back and got a job again, it was nearly 2004. And prices were shooting through the roof. I always joke I found a husband, but probably lost out in 400K worth of equity. 400K or TGuy. Hmmmm...

Yaaaaaaaaaaah. Bitter.

 

[zhuzhu]

Date: 3/6/2009 11:22:53 PM
Author: purrfectpear


On the other hand when the best you can do is compare a default to robbing a jewelry store, stealing bullion, or having 14 children while unemployed...well, bitter much?

v

Yes I was indeed being blunt, but there is no question in my mind that your sense of entitlement makes you no different than that of octo-mom. It does not matter if you take advantage of someone (some organization) for $10 dollars or $500K, the act itself and motives are the same - You betrayed other''s trust in you.

Obviously what moral standard you chose to live by is up to you, but please don''t cry "you are so mean to me" to those of us who will end up paying for the consequences of your buyers remorse.

For some of you who still think PP''s purposeful defaulting on her mortgage "does not hurt anyone". I am sorry but you prob should take econ101.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 3/7/2009 12:00:07 AM
Author: zhuzhu

Date: 3/6/2009 11:22:53 PM
Author: purrfectpear


On the other hand when the best you can do is compare a default to robbing a jewelry store, stealing bullion, or having 14 children while unemployed...well, bitter much?

v

Yes I was indeed being blunt, but there is no question in my mind that your sense of entitlement makes you no different than that of octo-mom. It does not matter if you take advantage of someone (some organization) for $10 dollars or $500K, the act itself and motives are the same - You betrayed other''s trust in you.

Obviously what moral standard you chose to live by is up to you, but please don''t cry ''you are so mean to me'' to those of us who will end up paying for the consequences of your buyers remorse.

For some of you who still think PP''s purposeful defaulting on her mortgage ''does not hurt anyone''. I am sorry but you prob should take econ101.

Zhuzhu, all this stuff happening in housing does indeed sh*t me, but I think your comments are a bit off the mark here.

I don''t see PP as having a sense of entitlement. She doesn''t think she''s a victim, that anyone owes her, or anything else. She has not blamed ANYONE for her judgement of the market at the time. She heavily weighed the consquences of her actions and decided that it made no sense financially to continue in her contract with the bank, which ALLOWS her to walk away. She did not take advantage of anyone. Neither did any of the nitwits who didn''t know that 30K in salary couldn''t buy a 400K home. They took what was offered to them, and it is the BANK''S bottom line to weigh the risk before giving a loam. The banks were greedy too.

There was no betraying of trust here. The bank assumed at the time based on her salary and market conditions that she would pay. If they trusted her, there would be no need for a contract! They took the risk, and wrote the contract as it was. She chose to give the home back. I don''t love it, but I understand it. And yeah, it does sh*t me, but admittedly, it annoys me less than people who purposely used their house as an ATM willy nilly.

I think everyone thinks PP knows that her actions, and those of anyone who is walking out on a mortgage, is hurting the economy. PP''s question seems to be what came first, the chicken or the egg? Even PP has admitted she is part of the problem.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 3/6/2009 10:32:30 PM
Author: Beacon

Date: 3/6/2009 8:44:06 PM
Author: saltymuffin

hmmm....maybe i should call my stock broker telling him that i wanted my money back b/c i wasn''t able to predict the future.

wonder what he would say to me.

Come on! This is not the same thing. You paid for your stocks and owned them when they dropped in price. If PP owned her house she would be out of luck too, but she didn''t, the bank did, and she followed the terms of her contract and stopped paying, and is dealing with the consequences.

I can see why she did what she did and provided the math worked as she thinks, she did a rational thing. But it is bad thing, in fact a shameful thing, and it goes against the grain of people who were taught to keep promises. There are people in the world who you don''t need a contract with, you can count on them, they do what they say they will. Other people, you need to be careful and make many disclosures and protections, etc. I like to do business with the former. But I recognize there are many different people in the world.

exactly, that was the way it was done when i was in the rare coin business,no contracts,just base on trust and each others word. i''ve never gotten screw out of one dime,nor have i ever screw somebody out of a dime.

 

[crown1]

Date: 3/6/2009 8:49:21 PM
Author: purrfectpear

Date: 3/6/2009 8:36:23 PM

Author: crown1




banks just got so greedy and scheming they made a big mess but a smart person like pp knew where she was heading.

the low down and the forty year loan were a dead giveaway. she was too close to retirement to allow such a deal if she fully intended to pay the thing off. she knew going in what her options were and it seems she could not loose. she had df's warning just as others did if she was reading at this time. i took his banter about that seriously and watched to see if he really knew what he was talking about. i wish he had been wrong but he was not. lot's of 'smart' people let their guards down and believed what they wanted to hear.

I just snipped the part I wanted to respond to.


You're entitled to believe me or not, but if you look at my join date (200 you'll see it was long after I purchased my condo. If DF posted something earlier, I wasn't around to read it.

You've mentioned the 'close to retirement' before. I'm curious why you think it's unusual for people in the 50's, or for that matter 60's or 70's even, to take out a mortgage? All you need to take out a mortgage is to make sure that you can make the payments, whether it's while you have a salary, or when you're living on your retirement savings. If you die sooner then your estate will either sell the property, or live in it, or rent it out. Yes, I will intend to live in whatever I buy until I sell, or die there. There was no hidden agenda as you seem to believe.


If there was a hidden agenda then why wouldn't I have purchased a big single family home with NOTHING down and an interest only loan, and then defaulted. The banks were certainly willing to let me do so. They did it with hundreds of thousands of others. In fact the mortgage broker told me I was good for around $650K.


I think you might be digging too hard to find an ogre here, but believe what you will.

had you snipped more you would have noted i said if you were reading then. i have been consistent and will not retreat. i personally would not take a mortgage that i would be paying when i was ninety. if that is good economics to you stay right in there with that mortgage. you had the cash you could have gone a bigger down and reduced the time and would that not have saved you money in interest? i am not an econ major maybe i am deluded here?

additionally, if my memory serves, you stated that you were advised to not do ten percent but to do 3 percent? that is what tells me you deliberately set the mortgage up to have as little invested as possible. your finances are none of my business and i have tried to be civil while responding to the scenario you revealed. you called me by name and i was not the one who accused you of the things you mentioned above: stealing from the jewelry store, octomom and something else. i had some respect for you when you were admitting your actions were not the smartest thing you had done this new attitude, not so much.

eta: when i said called me by name i meant quoted my post and accused me of digging too hard and trying to find an ogre. maybe not exact words but to that affect.

 

[zhuzhu]

Date: 3/7/2009 12:09:52 AM
Author: TravelingGal

There was no betraying of trust here. The bank assumed at the time based on her salary and market conditions that she would pay. If they trusted her, there would be no need for a contract! They took the risk, and wrote the contract as it was. She chose to give the home back. I don''t love it, but I understand it. And yeah, it does sh*t me, but admittedly, it annoys me less than people who purposely used their house as an ATM willy nilly.

Of course it is a clear case of betrayed trust. The bank did NOT issue her a predatory loan in this case. Bank knew she could afford the mortgage and indeed she CAN. Bank ENABLED her to buy a place with just 3% downpay because she had/has a good job and bank trusts she will honor the contract, and counted on the interest money earned from her mortgage for other lending/investment. This is what keeps the credit system go around and help small business owners/want-to-be homeowners to achieve their dreams.

When she chose to walk because the situation "does not serve her right", her broken contract hurt not only the sorry bank that trusted her words/signature, but also the X number of people who NEEDS to borrow money for their life-long dreams.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 3/7/2009 12:41:14 AM
Author: zhuzhu

Date: 3/7/2009 12:09:52 AM
Author: TravelingGal

There was no betraying of trust here. The bank assumed at the time based on her salary and market conditions that she would pay. If they trusted her, there would be no need for a contract! They took the risk, and wrote the contract as it was. She chose to give the home back. I don''t love it, but I understand it. And yeah, it does sh*t me, but admittedly, it annoys me less than people who purposely used their house as an ATM willy nilly.

Of course it is a clear case of betrayed trust. The bank did NOT issue her a predatory loan in this case. Bank knew she could afford the mortgage and indeed she CAN. Bank ENABLED her to buy a place with just 3% downpay because she had/has a good job and bank trusts she will honor the contract, and counted on the interest money earned from her mortgage for other lending/investment. This is what keeps the credit system go around and help small business owners/want-to-be homeowners to achieve their dreams.

When she chose to walk because the situation ''does not serve her right'', her broken contract hurt not only the sorry bank that trusted her words/signature, but also the X number of people who NEEDS to borrow money for their life-long dreams.

Zhuzhu, I''d buy that if the banks were only ENABLING her (someone with good credit and income) to take such a loan. But they were greedy and doing it all over the place. If they only enabled people like PP, we would not be in this mess.

 

[purrfectpear]

FWIW, I have never cried "you are so mean to me". Frankly what you think about me doesn''t really concern me. I own my actions. I''m beginning to think that is what chaps you the most

 

[zhuzhu]

Date: 3/7/2009 12:54:43 AM
Author: purrfectpear
Frankly what you think about me doesn''t really concern me.

Should I be surprised?

 

[crown1]

Date: 3/6/2009 10:32:30 PM
Author: Beacon

Date: 3/6/2009 8:44:06 PM

Author: saltymuffin

hmmm....maybe i should call my stock broker telling him that i wanted my money back b/c i wasn''t able to predict the future.

wonder what he would say to me.

Come on! This is not the same thing. You paid for your stocks and owned them when they dropped in price. If PP owned her house she would be out of luck too, but she didn''t, the bank did, and she followed the terms of her contract and stopped paying, and is dealing with the consequences.

Actually it is very comparable.


PP did own her house, the bank did NOT own her house. PP owned the house and pledged it as collateral for a loan. Now that she is defaulting the bank will take ownership of the home as part of the foreclosure. That is how mortgages work.


I think the issue is one of attitude and presentation. It is unfortunate to hear someone telling all about the big money they have, they are saving, the large 401K that they cleverly put in cash, their bank account, the 100K they will have to buy the next home

etc., the smugness of it is uncomfortable.


I can see why she did what she did and provided the math worked as she thinks, she did a rational thing. But it is bad thing, in fact a shameful thing, and it goes against the grain of people who were taught to keep promises. There are people in the world who you don''t need a contract with, you can count on them, they do what they say they will. Other people, you need to be careful and make many disclosures and protections, etc. I like to do business with the former. But I recognize there are many different people in the world.

all the way back on page 4 i said that you revealed a little too much information and bragged about how you had handled things. the above post speaks of attitude and presentation. your continued comments that you don''t care what we think and the superior attitude are a little tmi. this thread has gone far enough for me. i sincerely hope you will consider this. it would probably shut a lot of us up.

anyway, no hard feelings and i am done trying to convince anyone.

 

[Harriet]

From an ethical point of view, I cannot say that I agree with PurrfectPear''s actions. Unfortunately, the law allowed her to do as she did. She told us her story as an example of how loopy the system is. Not once has she shifted the blame to someone else. As such, I am not sure what the point is of criticising her further

 

[CrookedRock]

Date: 3/9/2009 5:06:32 PM
Author: Harriet
From an ethical point of view, I cannot say that I agree with PurrfectPear''s actions. Unfortunately, the law allowed her to do as she did. She told us her story as an example of how loopy the system is. Not once has she shifted the blame to someone else. As such, I am not sure what the point is of criticising her further

I agree with your entire first line. I think this situation got aggravating bc she never admitted to being part of the problem, she actually denied it. For me it''s also the lack of personal responsibility that bothers me.
And again! I thank her for sharing her story. She didn''t break any laws in doing what she did. I now know more about how "loopy" (in my book f''d up) the system is. It was an enlightening thread.

 

[Harriet]

CR, we''ve been agreeing with each other recently!

 

[zhuzhu]

Date: 3/9/2009 5:06:32 PM
Author: Harriet
... I am not sure what the point is of criticising her further

Not much, except it makes me (who will end up paying for her buyers remorse) feel better.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 3/6/2009 7:48:57 PM
Author: Mara

That property was worth double to you a year ago. You said you would have planned to stay there for many years. So that changed because an appraiser said in 2009 it''s worth half? Will you feel silly in 5 years if that property IS worth what you paid and MORE and yet you are living in a small apt? Because as I have said earlier as well, we flat out DON''T KNOW what is going to happen. Which is why I honestly think if I was in your same exact scenario, I would not have walked out on that mortgage. I would have continued to pay it, considered it rent, enjoyed my beautiful new HOME, and see what happens in 1,2,3 years. Then make a truly educated decision at that point when things are not quite so volatile. I always tend to think long-term. Foreclose in 3 years. Or 5 years, if things have not happened the way you planned. I wonder if by then the penalties would be more steep than today. It would make a good case for not waiting. Everyone is doing it now!

I really think this is likely why it wouldn''t make sense to wait.

States that allow the walk-away will surely be (if they aren''t already) taking close stock of how those laws are affecting play right now, and I wouldn''t be surprised if they change.

It''s possible that the window to make this move is limited, and I''d argue that''s a pretty high probability. I can see why it might be less smart to gamble on the ''ride it out for a while'' course of action.

 

[Mara]

"Would You Walk Away?"

http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/would-you-walk-away.html

 

[purrfectpear]

The media finally realized that the more they discussed the masses of people walking away (through all of 2008 there were tons of TV reporters, online discussions, etc), the more they opened the eyes of people who didn''t even know about the concept (like me).

I think their horses have already left the barn, but better late than never to put a positive spin on it

 

[Beacon]

Interesting article.

The last guy, the one in Dallas brings up an interesting point. He mentions that a house went to foreclosure near him, sold for a low price, so he figures he is underwater. He probably is.

But is it wise to "mark to market" your home at distress sale comps? This is forced selling and there are few buyers. Of course prices are low!

So is it good to just "sell at the bottom" by walking away? Probably not.

I can see the future articles talking about Mr. Average guy who made himself a millionaire with things like, "hey can you believe I bought this thing for 85K in 2009?"

We all know those articles are out there waiting to be written in our future!