As home prices fall, more borrowers walk away

John Brecher / msnbc.com

David Martin, 68, in his home in north Seattle, Washington. He and his wife are facing retirement within five years, but their retirement income won't cover their mortgage.

When David Martin and his wife bought their north Seattle condo five years ago, they figured they had plenty of time to downsize if they needed to before they retired.

Now, with the property worth roughly $60,000 less than the balance of their mortgage, Martin, 68, has been giving serious thought to just walking away, a process lenders call "strategic default."

"Guilt and morality are one side, and objective financial analysis are on the other side," Martin said. "They're coming to two opposite conclusions. I wonder how many other people are struggling with the same question."

Strategic defaults like the one contemplated by Martin are on the rise. A survey last year by two Chicago-area finance professors, Paola Sapienza at Northwestern University and Luigi Zingales at the University of Chicago, found that roughly three out of 10  mortgage defaults in 2010 were by homeowners who could afford to make their payments, up from 22 percent in 2009.

"It's a looming problem that's in the shadows," said Jason Kopcak, a mortgage trader at Cantor Fitzgerald who advises lenders on how to value the loans on their books. "It's very worrisome to mortgage lenders."

Researchers point to a number of forces that are driving borrowers to walk away from their mortgages. At the top of the list is the estimated 12 million homes that are underwater, meaning the owners owe more than they are worth.

Until recently, borrowers like Martin and many industry analysts held out hope that a housing recovery would reverse the rising tide of "negative equity." But after stabilizing this summer, home prices began falling again, dropping 7.5 percent in the third quarter alone and leaving more homeowners underwater.

Even if prices stabilize this year, millions of underwater borrowers face a long wait before they can sell their homes without having to write a big check to their lender to cover the shortfall. Economists at Goldman Sachs recently forecast that after bottoming in 2013 house prices won't recover their 2006 peak until 2023. (No, that's not a typo.)

Many homeowners simply can't wait that long.

In the early stages of the housing bust, the main causes of defaults included unemployment or other financial setbacks and adjustable mortgages that reset to unaffordable levels, according to researchers. Now, five years into the housing recession, strategic defaults are growing as financially healthy borrowers learn of friends or family who have decided to walk away.

A recent study commissioned by the Mortgage Bankers Association likens the rise in the rate of strategic defaults to the spread of a disease. The longer the crisis drags on, the more homeowners will be exposed to someone who has successfully walked away, making the decision easier, the study suggested. "As fundamentally social animals, humans consciously (and subconsciously) look to their peers when forming opinions, habits and behaviors," the report said.

"Most people who own a home know of someone -- a friend, a colleague a family member -- who has defaulted, especially in housing markets that have taken a big hit," said Jon Maddux, CEO and co-founder of youwalkaway.com, a service that advises homeowners on walking away from their mortgage. "They realize these are not bad people. They're not deadbeats. They're just like them."

Researchers say strategic default is also more common among borrowers who feel no personal connection to the party on the other end of the transaction. Gone are the days when you walked into a bank and met with a lender who shepherded your application and congratulated you when the loan was approved, said Michael Seiler, a finance professor at Old Dominion University and a co-author of the MBA study.

"If you defaulted, it was like you were defaulting on your friend," he said. "Your kids might go to the same school. You all might go to the same church. And you're constantly reminded of who you're defaulting on."

That scenario is a far cry from the modern system of mortgage finance, where loans are sold over the phone or online, chopped up into pieces and then sold to multiple, anonymous investors. Many underwater homeowners who try to negotiate with their lender can't even find out who owns their loan.

"We're finding that people are much more willing to walk away when the other party is unknown or what you might call a 'bad bank,'" said Seiler. "Those are the ones that received a lot of bailout funds or were active in the subprime market, giving loans to people who couldn't afford them and they knew that."

The mortgage lending industry's widespread reluctance to modify loan terms has also changed homeowner attitudes about walking away, according to Maddux.

"They feel much better about doing it if they've tried to contact the lender and the lender won't budge," he said. "They feel justified about it because they've tried to do their best to work it out."

Shifting attitudes about the causes of the housing bust are also playing a role, say researchers. In their surveys, Sapienza and Zingales found that 48 percent of Americans said they would be more likely to default if their bank was accused of predatory lending, even if they are morally opposed to strategic default. Some 11 percent said they’d be less likely to pay their mortgage, and more likely to walk away from their loan, if their lender was cited for using false foreclosure documentation.

The government's ineffective response to the housing crisis, even as it went to extraordinary lengths to backstop banks, has also propelled walkaways, say researchers. Since the housing bubble burst in 2006, some $7 trillion in home equity has evaporated, according to Federal Reserve data. Now, as home prices resume their fall, some homeowners believe lenders should bear at least a portion of the losses inflicted by a housing bust the industry helped create.

"The money didn't disappear," said Martin. "We still owe it to the bank, so the bank will end up getting all of its money back on a loan that no longer has its original value. They're taking no part in the loss."

Widespread reports of lenders' bad behavior, from filing defective paperwork to selling investors bad loans, have begun to erode one of the strongest deterrents to walking away: the sense that skipping out on a debt is morally wrong. University of Arizona finance professor Brent White interviewed hundreds of homeowners for his research on strategic default. He found that, in the eyes of many homeowners, mortgage bankers have lost the moral high ground.

"The reality is: for the bank it is simply an economic transaction," he said. "They have no moral qualm about taking your house, and they feel no moral obligation to modify your mortgage even if you're in a difficult financial situation."

Still, there are much more serious consequences to strategic default than pangs of guilt. Any loan default will damage a borrower's credit score. But some strategic defaulters are finding that the impact isn't as long-lasting as widely believed, according to Maddux.

"You don’t destroy your credit, you wound your credit," he said. "Just like a wound, it heals over time."

Maddux said surveys of the roughly 8,000 customers who have signed up for his service in the last four years found that some strategic defaulters are able to restore their credit in as little as a year and a half.  

The bigger risk for walkaway borrowers is that their lender will pursue them in court and win a so-called "deficiency judgment," a court-ordered, full repayment of the mortgage balance. That process is governed by state laws; some so-called "non-recourse" states bar lenders from pursuing such judgments.

But the force of that deterrent is also weakening, according to Sapienza.

"(There's an) increasing perception that lenders are not going after borrowers who walk away," he said.

That perception may be dangerously misplaced, as many lenders continue to aggressively pursue judgments against homeowners who strategically default. That's why there's widespread agreement that homeowners considering it need to get solid legal advice from an experienced real estate attorney in their state.

"There's a process to strategic default and a lot of people don't know how to do it," said Kopcak. "They don't really know what their options are. People really need to talk to a lawyer who knows the process."

For now, Martin is electing to stay in his home and continue paying the mortgage.

"We intend to continue as we are on the basis that we gain nothing from acting at this point," he said in a note. "We think that the real estate market in Seattle will rise by 2013 enough to offer better alternatives. There is a small chance that the federal government will act to offer more rational choices. The real possibility is that the debt might be refinanced in 2013 at a level that might offer enough reduction in payments to allow us to hang on long enough to shore up our financial position."

In short, giving up at this point may be worst of all alternatives. Giving up seems to run counter to our value system, no matter how financially wise experts seem to believe it may be."

 

 

Would you consider a 'strategic default' if your home was worth less than your mortgage?

Results with 956 short comments
Total of 74,011 votes - click on the "Display Comments" bar below to sort comments

61.8%
Yes
45,712 votes
19.7%
No
14,610 votes
18.5%
Depends
13,689 votes
Display Comments:
Yes

Strategic default isn't that just another word for foreclosure? If I quit paying 4 my car cause its value decreased is that a strategic rep

  • 29 votes
 - 8:02 am EST on Mon Jan 9, 2012
No

It's like asking for your money back for brown bananas.

  • 46 votes
 - 8:04 am EST on Mon Jan 9, 2012
Yes

Depends on the amount. If it was over $10,000 then yes if I needed to sell.

  • 5 votes
 - 8:05 am EST on Mon Jan 9, 2012
Yes

The more house prices drop they more affordable they become.

  • 24 votes
 - 8:17 am EST on Mon Jan 9, 2012
Yes

Companies file Chapter 11 to break debt contracts even thought they have the capital to pay, why shouldn't individuals

  • 219 votes
 - GoBirds
 - 8:17 am EST on Mon Jan 9, 2012
Yes

These loans need to be rewritten at current valuations. Let the lenders share the pain. We need people in their homes and working again.

  • 223 votes
 - 8:19 am EST on Mon Jan 9, 2012
No

I gotta live somewhere!

  • 27 votes
 - 8:20 am EST on Mon Jan 9, 2012
Yes

Yes, the banks will have to budge or they are going to be getting into the real estate business....

  • 97 votes
 - 8:22 am EST on Mon Jan 9, 2012
Yes

hell yes

  • 29 votes
 - phusi
 - 8:33 am EST on Mon Jan 9, 2012
Yes

Banks should more aggressively modify mortgages or risk being held with bad assets. It would be better to keep these homes occupied.

  • 108 votes
 - 8:42 am EST on Mon Jan 9, 2012
Yes

i am in this position. my house is worth $60,000 less than the mortgaage and heartless citibank refuses to modify my mortgage.

  • 82 votes
 - 8:43 am EST on Mon Jan 9, 2012
No

Our home is worth 70K less than we paid for it. However, we can wait for the market to recover. Meanwhile, we may refinance to 15 years.

  • 20 votes
 - 8:44 am EST on Mon Jan 9, 2012
Yes

Something has to give. Houses are our costliest asset; and now they are worthless. Corpos have ways to walk away from debt, why not people?

  • 113 votes
 - 8:44 am EST on Mon Jan 9, 2012
No

It is my home and a legitimate debt I am obligated to pay; especially if I am able to pay.

  • 68 votes
 - 8:46 am EST on Mon Jan 9, 2012
Depends

It depends on the magnitude of the difference. If it's something I couldn't ever pay off without winning the lottery, I'd walk.

  • 32 votes
 - 8:46 am EST on Mon Jan 9, 2012
Yes

I already have.

  • 40 votes
 - whaszat
 - 8:48 am EST on Mon Jan 9, 2012
No

no one can spell responsibility any more. stupid is as stupid does. WHO signed that mortgage contract?

  • 65 votes
 - 8:48 am EST on Mon Jan 9, 2012
No

I initiated my mortgage. It is my responsibility. When my home went up in equity I didn't offer the bank more money.

  • 134 votes
 - 8:51 am EST on Mon Jan 9, 2012
No

Home prices rise/fall 1-5% a year (think salaries) not on a "fix it up" scheme! Couldn't have paid me to buy during that whacky time! DUM

  • 21 votes
 - 8:53 am EST on Mon Jan 9, 2012
Yes

Google "Stuyvesant Town" and then make a morality case. Loans are satisfied by payoff, service, or return of collateral subject to terms.

  • 17 votes
 - 8:55 am EST on Mon Jan 9, 2012
Yes

It is a business decision and nothing more. Running your personal finances like a business makes sense.

  • 53 votes
 - OUwhine
 - 8:55 am EST on Mon Jan 9, 2012
Depends

I'am not walking in that man's shoes. I can't really say.

  • 11 votes
 - 8:56 am EST on Mon Jan 9, 2012
Yes

The lenders need to mark to market or face much more strategic default!

  • 24 votes
 - 9:00 am EST on Mon Jan 9, 2012
Yes

The loan is an investment for the lender like the house is for you. If they don't want to lose, why should you.

  • 41 votes
 - 9:00 am EST on Mon Jan 9, 2012
Yes

I'm paying for insurance to indemnify my bank against the risk they think I represent. I have paid for the privilege of walking away.

  • 94 votes
 - 9:00 am EST on Mon Jan 9, 2012

Discuss this post

Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 ... 30
Comment author avatarWasn't Me!Expand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

Knowing their retirement income wouldn't cover their mortgage, they bought this place 10 years out from retirement? Doesn't sound like that was a hot idea, not matter what the market prices were doing!

  • 56 votes
#1 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 7:45 AM EST
Comment author avatarRick-881466Expand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

Nowhere in the story does it even imply that their retirement income wouldn't cover their mortgage.

  • 34 votes
#1.1 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:13 AM EST

Regardless, I know a couple of people who walked away from their homes. One of them walked the keys to the bank and signed a No-contest agreement, which also cleared up their credit report.

  • 13 votes
#1.2 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:20 AM EST

Rick, The caption under the picture at the beginning of the story states that their retirement income won't cover their mortgage.

  • 30 votes
#1.3 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:23 AM EST

It said that when they retire in 5 years thier retirement will not pay their mortgage then. It did not say they could not pay now. This is why it is strategic

  • 9 votes
#1.4 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:47 AM EST

@ Wasn't Me!

David Martin and his wife should have already been retired at "62".

As for purchasing the home knowing in advance that his "retirement" income wouldn't be able to carry the mortgage; he along with millions of other Americans invested, yes invested their hard earned money into the "real estate" market. I'll bet anything the real estate broker pushed the house telling the couple they didn't have anything to worry about because the house was bound to increase in price; wanna bet? The "real estate" contract of sale should have had an investment disclaimer in it; if not I suggest the Martin's retain a good "real estate" lawyer to sue the "real estate" broker and salesperson involved in the transaction.

Also, while we're on the subject. The bank/mortgage company which issued the mortgage should have ran a "income projection" on the couple before issuing the mortgage.

  • 18 votes
#1.5 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:04 AM EST

The banks could easily modify at a new rate or term, and still make money!

Essentially, when you walk away, they can sell AND keep all the principal you paid in already. It's to their benefit to work with you and make sure they are still collecting a monthly payment. I don't get why they are so NOT flexible.

  • 31 votes
#1.6 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:09 AM EST

@ janellect

When the mortgage was originally issued, I'll bet the bank/mortgage company already knew they wouldn't be able to make the payments when they retired (banking fraud). I'm sure many financial institutioins "BANK" on buyers not being able to make their payments down the road just so as you stated "they can sell AND keep all the principal you paid in already".

  • 18 votes
#1.7 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:15 AM EST

Sadly, true economics is no longer taught in school. There's that adage "if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is", whereas Americans are so easily duped because they won't take the time to educate themseselves on such complex matters. Econ 101 --l home ownership has ALWAYS been a steady LONG TERM financial investment! You buy your first home after marriage, raise your family in it, pay it off, so when retirement comes and your income is substantially reduced you won't have a flippin mortgage! FYI, home prices rise/fall with the economic conditions which is usually tied to salaries as this determines the amount of home you can financially afford...unless your salary has increased 300%, you don't buy a home that has risen that much in one year!!! It's not rocket science people! Oh, and ARMS were invented for HIGH INTEREST RATE PERIODS when cash is less available to lend---this was to ensure the buyer's mortgage would be REDUCED as interest rates DROPPED---Not rise when rates are already low...dumb, dumb, dumb!!! This is your financial lesson of the day :o)

  • 19 votes
#1.8 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:17 AM EST

If they bought the house ten years ago, they bought it at the very beginning of the price inflation that constituted the "housing bubble." It's pretty clear that they were buying in the expectation of being able to sell the house at a nice, non-taxable gain in a few years. Ironically, if they had sold in 2006 or 2007, they would have been fine.

  • 12 votes
#1.9 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:19 AM EST

That is not unusual, most people regardless of retirement didn't live in the same house ten years. The problem is (not in story but generic) that if the house is worth 200K and the mortgage is 300K the bank will take the house back and can only sell it for 200K. Fannie makes up the difference. Change the rules and let the owner keep the house at 200K.

  • 10 votes
#1.10 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:34 AM EST

Question...When the lender takes back the property why are they not liable for the property taxes that support the community? and why don't they have to maintain the property? More "loopholes" in the laws?

  • 20 votes
#1.11 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:05 AM EST

@Rick881466 - Try reading it again. "David Martin, 68, in his home in north Seattle, Washington. He and his wife are facing retirement within five years, but their retirement income won't cover their mortgage."

  • 3 votes
#1.12 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:11 AM EST

Thanks for the Economics lesson! It is a shame that school has been 'dumbed down' so much.

I bought a home that was below that I "qualified" for and paid it off early. I'll turn 50 this year and had no mortgage for 3+ years now. It's quite liberating.

It was also interesting the comments that people would walk away form their mortgage if "underwater". Why? That is, as long as you can make the payment....

  • 12 votes
#1.13 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:14 AM EST

If he hasn't refinanced that house recently, he should with another 30 year loan. With the low rates, maybe he can cover that mortgage after retirement.

Many people got sucked up into the "irrational exuberance" in the stock market then the housing market. A home is a roof over your head, not an investment. If you want to invest in real estate, buy an apartment building or rental property. THAT is an investment, not your home.

  • 6 votes
#1.14 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:15 AM EST

Let's be sure to mention is 'morality' means the bank wanting you to keep your word while it doesn't bother with keeping its own word. You take the guilt trips away and it is simply a financial decision. You know, the kind the banks make, and often fail at, all the time.

  • 18 votes
#1.15 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:16 AM EST

The biggest issue under-reported is that people bought homes, not as places to live, but as "Investments". Stupidest move they could have ever made. A house is living space and protection from the elements, not Stock/Bond/Mutual Fund. As more people walk away, I am hoping that the over-inflated prices will come down to no more than 2x (preferably 1.5X) a family's Annual Gross income. That is reasonable for a home. 10 times a person's annual gross income or higher is insane, and anyone (especially the Middle-Class) buying such a home should be locked away until Drs get them on the right meds.

The wife and i are in hurry to buy a home, though we could easily afford one but won't pay the local $300K+ for a starter home (which is all we need as we have no children). Most are small, in need of repair but are close enough to NYC's city limits and have good schools that people will not drop the prices to reasonable levels. In 1950 my Dad bought my parent's home for all of $9,500 which included a finished attic and basement. It is currently valued at over $350K, and no additions have been added since it was built. that is insane! Personally I wouldn't pay more than $90K for it, as it is rather small, and the neighbors at least on one side) are White trash (drunks, drug-addicts and run an illegal business out of their home w/o permits). If the neighbors leave, I'd go as high as $100K, but that is all, because it isn't worth more than that.

  • 14 votes
#1.16 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:17 AM EST

At 68 he should NOT even have a mortgage. I am 62 and our home (which is nice, middle income) has been completely paid for completely since 1987 at 8% interest. Bad management of their money.

  • 22 votes
#1.17 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:19 AM EST

This is another example of people not being responsible for their own actions. Many people on here blame the banks. I wonder how many of those defaulting bought bigger, nice homes than what they could afford. Now they blame other people for their actions. I think if they default and have the abliity to pay banks should go after them. It is like people abusing credit cards. If you can't afford it don't buy it.

  • 28 votes
#1.18 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:23 AM EST

I guess the lender didn't do due diligence on the borrower and is now suffering the result of poor lending practices.

  • 9 votes
#1.19 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:28 AM EST

This is another example of people not being responsible for their own actions. Many people on here blame the banks. I wonder how many of those defaulting bought bigger, nice homes than what they could afford. Now they blame other people for their actions. I think if they default and have the abliity to pay banks should go after them. It is like people abusing credit cards. If you can't afford it don't buy it.

Exactly right. My wife and I bought our house NEVER expecting it to be an investment. Just a modest, cozy place to live. We'll have it paid off before 65.

You just have to love these dumbasses who "live it up" while young, don't save a dime, spend everything they make, DON'T read what they sign, and expect US who DO handle our money well to clean up the mess they make of their lives.

  • 32 votes
#1.20 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:33 AM EST

Remember we ALL pay for these people who walk away from the homes they bought at the peak of the market. For each person who quits, the value of our homes drops another percentage point or two. Why should I pay for someone elses bad decision? Suck it up folks, you signed the contract, you pay the piper.

I've lived in the same house for 35 years. Thought about buying a new one in 2000 but decided that I wanted to retire in 10 years, so stayed put. I have seen the value of my home drop from a hight of $350K in 2006 to about $150K today. Sad to lose that much, but glad it's paid for.

  • 22 votes
#1.21 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:41 AM EST

We WOULDN'T all pay for it if a) we didn't over-inflate the market by buying too much, and b) we didn't let our government bail out failed banks. I think the homeowner AND the banks should 'suck it up, folks.' If you can't pay enough attention to make sure you lend money to trustworthy people, you shouldn't be running a bank.

  • 11 votes
#1.22 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:45 AM EST

I agree that a primary mortgage is a home and that you should hold on to it as much as possible. However, if the price of your house has decreased substantially and that you haven't committed a lot of principal on it... then it is a good idea that you dump it and get another one at a reasonable price. Obviously, you will lose all the principal/fee/etc and the bank will have to eat up the remaining gap. Market speculation (speculative investors/analysts) is to blame for the bubble.

  • 3 votes
#1.23 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:47 AM EST
Comment author avatarMal'achiExpand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

@ Steven X

It is a shame that school has been 'dumbed down' so much

Our school systems have been 'dumbed down' to abet minorities and 'illegal immigrants'.

  • 7 votes
#1.24 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:53 AM EST

Personally I would not default even though my house is probably worth less than the mortgage at the moment. I also bought it 18 months ago knowing prices could fall farther, but i plan on being in it well past 2023 so its more of a long term thing.

  • 8 votes
#1.25 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:54 AM EST

Exactly! We have two homes. One will be paid off this month, and will provide extra money to pay off our second home in less than 12 years (we are only 36). We bought, we live, and show to our kids how to live below your means. One of my husband's co-worker has decided to "stick it to the banks" even though he has a fixed 30 yr mortgage, a very good reliable job, and health insurance, and no sickness in the family. HE is a prime example of what a deadbeat is! HINT: You are not only hurting your precious credit, you are hurting communities, your county, your state, and therefore your own country with such blatant "I don't have to pay" attitude! In my honest opinion, you are worse than the people who take advantage of welfare.

  • 16 votes
#1.26 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:54 AM EST

In an entitlement society, responsibility and moral integrity are secondary in importance. So those homeowners who choose to walk away from a bad investment that they agreed to in order to let someone else take the hit is perfectly okay! It's interesting though: the underwriter who invested in the home owner did so in good faith that the buyer would honor his/her word. But in an entitlement society, who cares about honor? It is simply "me first", "I deserve the other guy's money", etc.

Next time you as a homeowner condemn an Obama-initiated socialist mandate or policy of "income re-distribution", know that you are guilty of the exact same thing. And those who wish to rationalize your dishonorable behavior as "need" or "no other options"....just know that we can rationalize just about anything. The reality is that the investor who trusted your word has been deceived by your own love of money.

America has fundamentally changed: it has become the land of the greedy, selfish, and dishonorable.

  • 15 votes
#1.27 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:57 AM EST

@ FDJLakers1

In an entitlement society, responsibility and moral integrity are secondary in importance...

You should have said; financial institutions are not being held responsible for their moral lack of integrity in the predatory mortgage market.

they agreed to in order to let someone else take the hit is perfectly okay

The so called investor can write the loss off the homeowner gets screwed...

  • 19 votes
#1.28 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:03 AM EST

Verow75: I applaud you! I truly hope you pay off your second home in 8 years rather than 12. You have a great attiude and you are teaching your kids that your word means something. Although I wish you the best of prosperity, you are already rich beyond what money can buy with something called integrity. And your kids are learning what that word means. Congratulations on having your morality in order, and congratulations even more for being great examples to your children!

Mal'achi: You are absolutely right about the lending institutions! But their moral decadence does not justify yours or mine. Our word should mean something, regardless of the unscrupulous and greedy nature of those institutions.

  • 6 votes
#1.29 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:07 AM EST

After years of witnessing the swindling of America by Goldman Sachs and Congress the people are finally learning by example! When it comes to money , In Amerika there is no morality! Untill some banksters go to jail their will be no faith in wall street or the government> Dont walk from your obligations run from them! Its what our congressmen do!

  • 14 votes
#1.30 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:08 AM EST

@ FDJLakers1

You forgot to finish your last sentence...

America has fundamentally changed: it has become the land of the greedy, selfish, and dishonorable.

FINANCIAL LENDING INSTITUTIONS

  • 13 votes
#1.31 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:13 AM EST

Absolutely. The bank has no moral high ground here. Welcome to capitalism and business. Works both ways!!!

  • 19 votes
#1.32 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:14 AM EST

Mr. Martin was only 68 ??? Must of had a hard life?? Looked more like 88.... I wish them the very best..

  • 4 votes
#1.33 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:18 AM EST

You know Mal'achi, it's still happening today!!! My wife's daughter is buying a house with a borrowed undocumented downpayment, a borrowed undocumented loan to pay off her car so her credit score can increase from 590 to 615, outgoing debt totalling $4,200 per month with income of $3,800 per month, with a recent history of multiple bounced checks every month, and the lender is pushing her loan thru anyway!!! The lender she is working with is doing whatever he can to avoid showing the underwriter her bank statements, and I am disgusted with the whole ordeal! This kind of action by both borrowers AND lenders is what has gotten this country into the mess it is today, and it is still happening!!!!!!! I have talked to her about the deception she is presenting to the underwriter, but it falls on deaf ears because she wants this house no matter what, and I am only the step father.....

So know that my respect for lending institutions and their greed is very low.

  • 10 votes
#1.34 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:22 AM EST

Run Don't Walk -

You owe your allegiance to your family and yourself having worked in the mortgage business for twenty five years bankers have no qualms of throwing you and your family out on the street, nothing personal mind you, only following prudent financial measures.

The same behavior of financial self interest and providing shelter from the storm for your family and yourself is your number one goal. They want to hang some morality guilt trip after stealing and gauging the American people this moral argument is a ruse for the stupid to stay and line the pockets of the BankSters - Run don't Walk Run move your money into a "safe place" and move on. The greatest greed is that of the one percent and the most Greedy Bastards on planet earth you have one life enjoy your life don't suffer in poverty for people that would have you starve and die for lack of simple health provisions, yes they won't and don't give a damn for you and yours to even offer a national health plan and they talk of honor and morality?..........the minions on this page spewing the old and tired rhetoric of some arcane obligation to your masters Ahahahahahahaha this is funny if not so brutally dishonest to conjure up some phony guilt trip on the poor homeowner - WALK!!!!!!

This is beyond laughable beyond the absurd to sit in place and watch your life support which is your financial worth dwindle away because you are contributing to a greedy culture this is the argument of a fool meant for children a joke coming from the greedy bastards and their myopic zombies that argue your self-interest is line with the financial industry what a farce - RUN DON'T WALK RUN from a money pit that only benefits the lien holder and drains you of your only means to survive - what a pitiful argument from the financial sector and their apologists - a moral argument with no basis in morality only thier self-interest on yours - wise up.

Have a good day ....run don't walk.....

  • 16 votes
#1.35 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:27 AM EST

In the final analysis, let us not justify our own moral decadence by the disgusting activity by these greedy lending institutions. Let us all individually take responsibiity for our own actions. Instead of becoming like the unethical lenders, let us keep our dignity and fight them regardless of what it takes! Don't join them fight them!

Whatever happened to JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"? The whole mentality of this country is changing very rapidly so that we will all become the predators modeled after the worst of the financial institutions.

Persevere: "Poor homeowner?". Interesting choice of words.

  • 2 votes
#1.36 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:34 AM EST

@FDJLakers1 Post #1.31 - Thank You -

Yes this poster is spot on the financial products are back not as many variations as in the recent past but they are back the allure of riches is just to great. They, the financial sector that has now truly purposely bought so many local and regional banks with the bail out money - taxpayer money borrowed at zero interest from "The Window" that they now are "Too Big To Fail" - Yes the ploy worked.

They used your money and now can roll the financial dice big time and you have too now bail them out our Sharia high court won't break them up the anti-trust division is non-existent you are at their mercy - Oh mercy me what will they think of next but you have a higher moral ground you must abide by BWAhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha - too funny this is grand larceny at it's best (and no one will ever go to jail but for underlings, what a gilded racket) with some gutter moral argument based on the church of Wall Street hahahahahahahahaha - Suckered again lol

  • 8 votes
#1.37 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:40 AM EST

It's interesting to read the responses on here and see how clearly each response is colored by the responder's view of banks.

Buying a home carries certain risks with it. If you buy it and the price goes up, then you can sell it later and realize a profit from it. However, if you pay too much for a home and the price doesn't go up, you can lose money when you sell it. This is true of any investment. These same people who feel like it's okay to walk away from a mortgage when the price of the home drops would have no trouble turning around and taking the profit if the price of the house went up. In essence, they want to be in line for the upside of the investment (the value goes up) but stick someone else with it on the downside (the value goes down). In the case of this article, it states multiple times that the couple CAN afford the payments. However, they want to break the contract with the bank because the value has fallen and they feel like it no longer makes financial sense to keep paying.

I would say this is an issue of character. The fact that the bank has a right to file suit for the rest of the money you borrowed is a strong indicator that it's not "okay" to do this. What you are doing is borrowing, promising to pay back, and then bailing on your promise (and then rationalizing it by saying banks are evil). Only in a society where there are no longer any moral absolutes is this considered to be "prudent". Maybe if this couple keeps paying the mortgage, the prices will rise to the point where they won't lose so much. Remember folks, you don't actually make or lose anything until you SELL an investment.

  • 6 votes
#1.38 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:41 AM EST

There is just no sense of duty/honor/moral obligation anymore. If people borrow money, they should pay it back... PERIOD!!! Someone received the money that you agreed to pay back. Even if you have to claim bankruptcy, it should only be a temporary relief and not just wipe the slate clean.

With the logic of these people who strategic default... perhaps the banks should turn this around. A bank should get all gains made in real estate when you sell your house. I'll bet people would say "THAT'S NOT FAIR!!!!". Well....neither is what you are doing.

I agree that there was predatory lending. But still...people need to be responsible for their OWN actions.

  • 3 votes
#1.39 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:51 AM EST

GEORGIA PEACH

who are you to say they shouldn' have a mortgage. i am 67 and had to buy a house for myself after a bitter divorce where i lost everything, including a $450,000 house that was completely paid for! don't judge anyone but yourself!

  • 8 votes
#1.40 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:51 AM EST

@ FDJLakers1

Whatever happened to JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"?

It was flushed down the toilet when "big business" and the "military establishment" had him assassinated.

  • 10 votes
#1.41 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:52 AM EST

I'll keep it brief...Girlfriend lost her job 3 years ago....stopped paying $900/month Mortgage and $500/month Association dues.....Applied for every new "program" that came out....she was declined in each case....In 3 years she saved $50,400 something in payments and she still lives there.....for a little while anyway....Her townhouse she "bought" for $165,000 7 years ago....is in the process of a short sale for $34,900.....

Warning:...Get your foreclosure done before the end of 2012.....after that you will get a "1099" from the Bank/IRS for the difference between the Mortgage Balance and the price your home sells for.....they will consider it "INCOME" (They do it now if it isn't your Primary Residence. ie, vacation home or rental property)

  • 3 votes
#1.42 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:54 AM EST

I think the fact, that these people, saw this as an investment rather then a home to live in, is the problem with many of the people, who have walked away from their mortgages. They bought it with the intention of living in it for a short time, and selling it for a profit.

  • 4 votes
#1.43 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:55 AM EST

Bruce: You are right on! Investments that produce profit are embraced by, in this case, the homeowner. But the investment that produces a loss is one that the homeowner bails out on, and then rationalizes his unethical behavior on the evil banks. Yes, it is very definitely an issue of character, and you explained it very well. Thank you.

And your last point about not losing anything until the investment is sold is an excellent point as well!

  • 3 votes
#1.44 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:55 AM EST

@FDJLakers1 -

Take your moralizing and sit (stick it up your) on it. I nor does anyone owe you a damn thing...zero...my obligation is to my family not your idiotic stupid baseless business morality drawn up at The Church of Wall Street.

Wise up stop being a fool and if you want to be their tool than by all means do so but don't preach business ethics for the benefit of the financial sector - where the hell did you come up with the gutter morality you are preaching?

This sounds as though it came from The Church of Goldman Sachs? You do as you please I advise everyone to run away and provide for yourself because no one else will. This phony moral argument is meant to fool and miss-guide you to fall in line for the benefit of Wall Street pure and simple you are being immoral not to provide for your family first and put them above the interests of Wall Street - Get a clue - what a goat........a fools fool. Do you think the moralizers will help you out should hard times come your way?....the answer is NO....only you can and must help yourself look out for the needs of your family they do not care a wit for you...get that in your head.....Please

RUN DON'T WALK......don't fall for empty moralistic dribble dreamed up on Wall Street and bought wholesale by fools and their minions - I owe Wall Street BWAhahahahahahahah - can't stop laugnhing thanks for the great laugh a wonderful way to start my day lol ....Whew Weeee.....lol - thanks a great laugh hahahahahaha

Too Funny.......

  • 7 votes
#1.45 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:56 AM EST

If you need to do this at least know your options! There are ways to default that can make life better!

Remember the rules change in 2013.........

    #1.46 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:01 PM EST

    Unless there was fraud committed by the lender, then these people need to pay up on their loans, especially if they can afford it.

    You don't get to walk away from your debt if you lose out in Vegas.

    An investment can go UP or DOWN...that's the RISK.

    We have a attitude in this country that things can only go up. SOOOO sick of it.

    How about we stop letting mortgages be packaged as investments and let homes only be for...wait for it...LIVING IN.

    • 7 votes
    #1.47 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:02 PM EST

    The part that confuses me with this couple is, they set a retirement date, but then they arranged their finances so they would not be able to pay their mortgage when they retired? That doesn't make any sense.

    It sounds to me like they decided to take a gamble and tried to flip the house, but they were off on their timing and now they are going to lose money or delay their retirement. The bottom line is, they got greedy and they miscalculated - they get no sympathy from me.

    Now, I also do not have any sympathy for the banks that hold their mortgage. If they had done their due diligence, they probably would have seen this coming, so I also don't have a problem with them losing as well.

    • 3 votes
    #1.48 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:02 PM EST

    In 3 years she saved $50,400 something in payments and she still lives there

    Mike in Delray: I would suggest changing the word, "saved" to the word, "stole". Your girlfriend lived in a home for 3 years stealilng from the mortgage company she promised to pay for the money she borrowed.....and you are proud of that and giving advice to others on how to go back on their word before the end of 2012???? Wow!

    • 6 votes
    #1.49 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:03 PM EST

    And another thing that SHOULD be done is that the interest rates for most people in over their heads should be reduced to a level they can afford payments. The principal should never be touched.

    • 3 votes
    #1.50 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:05 PM EST

    Wall St. walked away and they are Vegas!

    Even the Mortgage Association walked away!

    But you should pay until you sink, says who? A big bonused banker who received TARP! Really?

    • 6 votes
    #1.51 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:07 PM EST

    What many of you guys fail to see the real problem! You don't know or understand that the housing bubble was created and initiated on purpose, for just this event to occur. Go watch: Inside Job. That documentary will explain the entire process of how this was caused, and executed! The movie I found on torrent sites, probably can find it streaming, do a search. Whats more, is that many Americans should stop using banks, or even seek approval of getting loans to even buy a house. Build your house yourself, or be your own general contractor, or barter with other tradesmen. Anybody can get around from paying for a house for 20 years, what you have to do, is do some foot work, research other alternatives to securing a home. We are to be lenders, not borrowers. That is in the bible!

    • 3 votes
    #1.52 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:08 PM EST

    I think that the Adjustable Rate Mortgages should be completely done away with. People get those hedging their bets that in the next 2 or 5 years their situation will be better. We have seen how that's worked out! And once in an ARM, those never adjust downward, they always rise. They sell you on the fact that your interest, etc. starts out low. And the spiel that it may either go up or down, in fact, it never goes down.

    I have never had an ARM for myself. I have always had a Fixed Rate mortgage; however, I bought a property with an ARM as co-signer for my daughter. Big mistake. I did get out of it by selling it at a profit, however, before you ever sign for an ARM, just think long and hard about it.

    The other thing is that most lenders unless you have more than 20% down require PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance) until you do reach that 20% down amount. So most of these companies already will get their money back, you having paid the PMI for them to do so. And I bet the insurer doesn't pay more than market value, so why not allow the homeowner to do the same thing?

    • 2 votes
    #1.53 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:12 PM EST

    Are there 'moral' foreclosures? Are there 'moral' layoffs? Walking on a mortgage (or investment) is a business decision - nothing more. We have all lately seen the 'morality' of business decisions.

    Keep in mind that most retirement planning includes value and expected returns from other investments. If a couple makes a decision based on expected returns from a 401k - but - then loses 40% of that investment - the balance sheet is affected. The 'moral' business decisions of banking not only crashed housing values - those 'moral' business decisions crashed future ability to repay the mortgages from other investments.

    There is nothing wrong with walking away from a mortgage. It is a business decision - nothing more. The banks do not consider 'morality' in their decision making and are not concerned about how their actions affect others. Make the decision like a banker does - benefit yourself first. We have all been shown how to do that - we have all been taught the lessons of business. It is not your fault that banks loaned more than they could afford ...

    • 7 votes
    #1.54 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:12 PM EST

    as dionne warwick sang...."walk on by"....and don't buy anymore things you can't afford especially on speculative valuation such as real estate

    • 2 votes
    #1.55 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:17 PM EST

    Persevere: Your vulgar response is not surprising. It is typical of those who lack moral character and will do anything and everything to gain for themselves regardless of who they step on. I provide very well for my family. But provision for ones family does not have to be done with an attitude of "screw everyone else but me and my family". Providing financially, sir, is simply not enough. In business, I make a good living, but not at the expense of lying, cheating, etc. I am sure, with the attitude you have described in yourself, you would be one heck of a business associate....to stay far away from. There are boundaries we should respect in business, pursuing our livelihood, and in all of our interactions with others....and those boundaries are called something that you lack in understanding out of your bitterness: it is called honor.

    • 2 votes
    #1.56 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:17 PM EST

    Banks lend you money, using your house for collateral, the "contract" is, you pay back the loan, if you can't pay back the loan, then the bank foreclosers on your loan and get's their money back by repossessing the "collateral", if the bank lends the money for more than the collateral is worth, then it's the bank that is stupid! If the banks would "refinance" these assets at their current value, and take a loss for their dumb loan policies, there would be so many walk aways...this isn't about "morals" it's about business....the banks made some truly BAD business/loan decisions....it ain't personal..it's business!

    • 2 votes
    #1.57 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:22 PM EST

    In my 70 years, I have never seen or even heard of a real estate contract on a residential property that

    guaranteed a market value at some future point in time. This is probably because there has never been

    one. The notion that one's home should maintain it's market value indefinitely or deliver a profit at some

    future point in time is a manifestation of the "entitlement mentality" that afflicts so many people.

    "Strategic default" is a euphemism for "breach of contract". "Underwater" is an over-used cliche,

    which in truth means, "it ain't worth what I foolishly thought it would be worth". The truth is

    that many of these people who now think that they are in jeopardy participated materially in

    their own demise. Case in point: the couple you feature as an example. Here's a man who

    claims to be 68 years of age (???), and he is planning to retire in five years!!! Clearly, he is

    the victim of his own ignorance and naivete.

    • 7 votes
    #1.58 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:25 PM EST

    If corporations are people, and they are allowed to file chapter 11 and walk away... then why can't other "people" do the same thing? Does anyone ever question the "morality" or "responsibility" of corporations who file and walk away? Of course not.

    • 5 votes
    #1.59 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:35 PM EST

    FDJLakers1....." Your girlfriend lived in a home for 3 years stealilng from the mortgage company she promised to pay for the money she borrowed "....Ummm NO...Just playing by the rules THEY set up

    " A mortgage in it's simplest terms.....Bank says, you make payments or we take the house. Period......It's a business transaction......No Different than "Renting to Own"....The Bank owns the house you get to live in it unless you don't pay.....

    If I take out a loan and put a Rolex up for collateral....and I don't pay....they keep the watch....same thing .

    The Banks used to LOVE foreclosing on Properties that were worth more than was owed...Putting widows on the street.......Now that the shoe is on the other foot, we are supposed to feel sorry for them....Farmers lost their farms due to adverse weather conditions or whatever....they put up the farm to buy the seeds.....no crops= no money= Bank takes farm and divides up the property and puts in a subdivision....So, if they are taking it up the shorts now...oh well..

    • 4 votes
    #1.60 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:35 PM EST

    Its a shame the Americas people have lost their integrity. YOU bought the home. YOU signed on the dotted line. YOU owe the money. To walk away from that contract is low down. Don't care what anyone says.

    • 5 votes
    #1.61 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:51 PM EST

    FDJLakers1,

    Not sure what business you are in, but you are the type of person I would seek out to do business with because I feel like I would be treated fairly and courteously. I suspect you do provide pretty well for your family because with the attitude you've exhibited in these threads, your business probably does pretty well. Business isn't about "screwing people to get ahead", but rather of treating people fairly and providing good products/services that people want to pay for. There is NOTHING evil or underhanded in this.

    • 6 votes
    #1.62 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:52 PM EST

    MULTI-TASKER: I also was divorced and got taken to the cleaners. Was left with a 3 year old, a part time job, a house that had just been finished and barely any payments made, a house full of furniture and a brand new car. I upped my part time job to a full time job. Got a second job. I lived BENEATH my means and managed to pay my house payment. NOBODY helped me. I remarried 20 years later. I never missed a payment. I am not judging anyone, but at 67 ones home SHOULD be paid for. You can't make mortgage payments off of social security.

    • 4 votes
    #1.63 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 1:01 PM EST

    Since the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United all corporations are now people, logically the reverse would also be true; all people are corporations.

    If that is the case we the people are entitlted to all tax deductions and debt remedies under the law afforded to corporations. That should entitle me to setup a board of directors, take deductions for property, plant, and equipment, sale stock, write off all the expenses related to the business of the corporations, including subscriptions, dues, fees, clubs..., and defer taxes on ALL revenue(s).

    Sound ridiculous? Don't tell SCOTUS...

    IF NOT OBAMA IN 2012 WHOM?

    • 4 votes
    #1.64 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 1:11 PM EST

    So, 60% of respondents find no shame in being a deadbeat, huh? Pathetic!

    • 5 votes
    #1.65 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 1:19 PM EST

    @ No Party Affiliation

    The biggest issue under-reported is that people bought homes, not as places to live, but as "Investments".

    In the past... "Real Estate" was always considered to be one of the best investments you could make.

    Not anymore... Once the baby boomer generation starts dying off the "real estate" market as we know it today will be null and void... Simply put; You ain't seen nothing yet, the worse is yet to come.

    • 2 votes
    #1.66 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 1:19 PM EST

    To Mrs Peech:

    Georgia produces some of the sweetest peeches in the US, but not all peeches are created equally. In a perfect world absent of ignorance, fear, racism, and prejudice most folks would have their homes paid for by 67, but that is not the case, e.g., there are at least a million circumstances that impact folks with all the best intentions in the world yet they find themselves, (blameless or not), in untenable situations in their latter years. If you belong to a priviledged class of people in the US you can easily find loans at the lowest rates, however, now if you live in the wrong neighborhood you'll be lucky to qualify for a loan at an outrageous rate 12-16% versus 3-6% for your counterpart.

    One might easily see that those of us not born into priviledge will find it much harder to acquire the income, and will work much longer to satisfy the same debt.

    • 1 vote
    #1.67 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 1:30 PM EST

    Sheesh, it is the fault of both the lender and the borrower. No one mentioned the SNL crisis, which was very similar to what is happening today. Real estate was the great investment, buy and sell, flipping, and the price just kept going up. Except...tada! There comes a point when inflated value goes from the ridiculous to the sublime. Homes are not investments to be worked and turned unless you get in early and get out before the crap hits the fan. Therein lies the problem, a house which in the real world is worth $150,000. was selling for half a million.

    Like car dealers, selling cars at inflated prices, rather than attaching a reasonable price to said car, they created all these 'easy money loans' for sixty and seventy months, so they spread out the payments and still got the inflated price. Same applied to houses, balloon payments, ARMS, kept the inital payments low but once that time was up, suddenly those payments doubled and tripled. Lots of folks assumed (wrongly) that they would sell said house before the balloon expanded and when they didn't and the payments hit the roof, many simply walked away.

    The fault lies with greedy lenders and greedy and irresponsible buyers and the real fault lies with a system that removes responsibilty for the actions of lenders and buyers and allows the government to 'pay' for those mistakes with taxpayer monies. Why be responsible when your irresponsibility doesn't affect you? Rather like the kid who continually screws up, knowing that Mom and Dad will cover their butts. Classic case of ennabling.

    • 2 votes
    #1.68 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 1:34 PM EST

    Bruce: Thanks for the encouraging words. After reading some of the opinions on this thread, I think I needed it! My business is computer software for a segment of the construction industry. I built it from the ground up 20 years ago. We too suffered in this economy, because the construction industry is suffering. But instead of asking for a bailout (which I wouldn't have considered or gotten anyway LOL), I re-structured this software company to be successful in this economy, and also expanded to Canada, Australia, and the UK to increase sales volume. Many of our customers are hurting because of the state of the construction industry, and we have waived update fees (which can be a bit spendy) until they can afford to pay them....with nothing but a verbal agreement. This way, customers can continue to use our software even though they cannot afford to pay the required fees. But it is not an entitlement. Our customers are hard workers (business owners) and do not want anything for nothing. They will pay the fees when they can, and I trust them to honor their word.

    I cannot give you a link to our software website since I've already discussed my wife's daughter....and that would indirectly be a violation of her privacy. But if you have any ideas on how I can somehow communicate with you privately, I would be happy to send you a link to our website.

    We can lose a lot of things in this world. Some losses are in our control while others are outside our control. But the only thing we can not have taken from us unless we throw it away ourselves is our integrity. And it is sad to read the ideas of some on this thread who have no problem rationalizing what really amounts to their own greed and selfishness. But it is also encouraging to read quite a few posts here from people who reject that rationalization and are obviously honest men and women with great moral character!

    • 1 vote
    #1.69 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 1:39 PM EST

    @ Mike in Delray

    Warning:...Get your foreclosure done before the end of 2012.....after that you will get a "1099" from the Bank/IRS for the difference between the Mortgage Balance and the price your home sells for.....they will consider it "INCOME"

    You're right; and if you don't pay the tax on it the I.R.S. will charge you 18% interest (compounded daily) on it.

    Yet the financial institutions get to write the loan off as bad debt and issue a 1099 to the person in default. It should only be one or the other... either write it off or issue a 1099 not both.

    • 3 votes
    #1.70 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 1:56 PM EST

    FDJLakers1 for president! and Bruce-308647 for Vice President!

    • 1 vote
    #1.71 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 2:27 PM EST

    Strategic - Deadbeat - Defaulters need to get out of someone else's house so these houses can be be quickly sold to rightful new owners, you know people who have been saving, practicing their due diligence and weren't greedy/foolish enough to buy a home they could not afford.

    two wrongs do NOT make a right.

    you can put the blames on anything your heart desires but the fact remains that no one put a gun to your head and forced you to take out the mortgage. NO ONE guaranteed that your job will be there nor did anyone could say for sure that the price will always go up.

    STRATEGIC DEFAULTING IS IMMORAL, it is as immoral as predatory lending.

    PLEASE LEAVE!!! thank you.

    • 4 votes
    #1.72 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 3:19 PM EST

    Moral high ground? PLEASE! The middle class was going to work and paying into their retirement portfolios when the bankers and politicians got together and screwed us so a few could GET RICHER.

    Nobody went to jail and Dodd and Frank are allowed to ride off into the sunset to become lobbyists.

    Meanwhile, our jobs and retirement savings are lost and our long-term investment is now underwater.

    Screw anyone who lays that morality crap on you, you do what if right for you, just like the jerk-offs who allowed this to happen in the first place.

    1

    • 3 votes
    #1.73 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 3:26 PM EST

    It is obvious Mr. Martin made a mistake buying Condo at age 62. By the looks of it, he didn't put very much down on it either. (Knowing he was going to retire in 10 years, he should have taken that into consideration when looking at monthly payments, etc.) Poor decisions on his part then doesn't mean he should make another poor decision and walk away from the Condo. This is another prime example of what's wrong in America. Making poor decisions, not taking responsibility for the poor decision, and then walking away from the mess. I've read several other posters in this thread, who've encountered bad times and put their nose to the grindstone and fixed their problems. Kudos to you! These other folks need to look to people like you, instead of those who encourage walking away from your problems, leaving someone else holding the bag.

    Until recently, borrowers like Martin and many industry analysts held out hope that a housing recovery would reverse the rising tide of "negative equity." But after stabilizing this summer, home prices began falling again, dropping 7.5 percent in the third quarter alone and leaving more homeowners underwater.

    What housing recovery?

    Even if prices stabilize this year, millions of underwater borrowers face a long wait before they can sell their homes without having to write a big check to their lender to cover the shortfall. Economists at Goldman Sachs recently forecast that after bottoming in 2013 house prices won't recover their 2006 peak until 2023. (No, that's not a typo.)

    If you keep paying, you will eventually not be underwater. It is no different than paying rent. All that rent money is gone and you never have anything to show for it. At least here, eventually, you will own a home. There are many here WHO CAN STILL MAKE THEIR PAYMENTS, yet think they should walk away because their house is worth less than the mortgage. That is really, really stupid. There is no guarantee a house will remain the same value as when you purchased it. To expect it to stay the same or appreciate, is unrealistic. You chose the risk, now own up!

    • 2 votes
    #1.74 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 3:27 PM EST

    by extending their illegal stay in homes they don't own, these deadbeat "home owners" are waiting for more bailouts from the government at the expense of other tax payers.

    mind you, there are talks about a new "mortgage rescue" package by congress. why should my tax money go to pay to some greedy individual's free rent when i don't even have a house myself? it would be an unfair tax, pushed by failing politicians who will do whatever it takes, including misusing tax revenue, to help secure another term in this coming election.

    by delaying the foreclosure process with bankruptcies and other dirty tactics employed by deadbeat owners, they are preventing the homes from being released to the market, keeping home prices higher than they should have been. home prices were inflated for a decade to the point where many could not afford. it's time to bring prices back down so the average person can own one - the way it should be.

    Trategic - Deatbeat - Homeowners are anti-American. they deny other fellow Americans the opportunity to own an affordable home for their selfish gain. they should not be tolerated.

    we should demand congress to take immediate action to stop this injustice and throw all of these deadbeat homeowners in jail.

    • 2 votes
    #1.75 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 3:39 PM EST

    Banks are just two faced legal liars when it comes right down to it.

    When I bought my home the bank knew I had to have it or I would be homeless and when I went to sign the loan papers they had upped the interest rate by 4 1/2%, I had 2 choices, either become homeless or sign. They knew all to well I had to sign so if I ever had to chance to get even with them I would.

    I have since refinanced my home with a better bank but still the first 1 cost me dearly, (Countrywide)

    Good luck to all those people who have been taken by a bank or loan company. I feel for you big time.

      #1.76 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 3:50 PM EST

      Banks are just two faced back stabbing legal liars when it comes right down to it.

      They want as much $$ as they can get out of each loan anyway they can get it...

      When I bought my home the bank knew I had to have it or I would be homeless and when I went to sign the loan papers they had upped the interest rate by 4 1/2%, I had 2 choices, either become homeless or sign. They knew all to well I had to sign so if I ever had to chance to get even with them I would.

      I have since refinanced my home with a better bank but still the first 1 cost me dearly, (Countrywide)

      Good luck to all those people who have been taken by a bank or loan company. I feel for you big time.

      • 1 vote
      #1.77 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 3:51 PM EST

      I'm so tired of you people assuming everybody but you was stupid. We didn't have an ARM, We bought based on the size of the family at the time. We had a 32K downpayment on 150K mortgage we still lost the house because the financial institution refused to honor Iowa land transfer laws and required court proceedings not neccesary in Iowa. In other words pay to probate a property and pay inheiretance taxes that would be unneccesary if the family resided in the house for 5 years after the death of the first name on the title. They just wanted to clear their books after buying Indymac by refusing to cash checks from the same account they had been cashing them from for 5 years.

        #1.78 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 3:54 PM EST

        Now, with the property worth roughly $60,000 less than the balance of their mortgage, Martin, 68, has been giving serious thought to just walking away, a process lenders call "strategic default."

        I did the calculation on his age. He was 25 in the late 60s. He was of the worst generation the greatest generation spawned. "Strategic default" is just another name for rationalizing your lack of morality. Go ahead and run along deadbeat. Thanks for leaving the world and the generations to follow worse off than you found it.

          #1.79 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 3:57 PM EST

          We are a "It's not my fault" nation. No one held a gun to these home owner's head and forced them to buy their homes. Doesn't anyone read their contract terms? How dare you point your finger at the politicians for being idiots when the masses are in the same boat...stupid people elect stupid leaders and the finger pointing ensues from there.

          I think it is a little far fetched to throw people in jail as our prisons are overpopulated as is, but would support madatory schooling / classes for financial responsibility and learning to live below your income level...the government will always have the upper hand if people don't start in their own back yards...Johnny can't read or write because the school district failed?...the truth is...mom and dad didn't put foot to rear on Johnny and make him apply himself....off my soap boax

          • 2 votes
          #1.80 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 4:00 PM EST

          It is not the bank's fault applicants make poor decisions. Just because there was a way to finagle one's way into a mortgage doesn't mean the applicant had to take the deal. Stop blaming the banks for consumers greedy decisions. Greed played a big part in this, on both sides of the table, not just one side.

          • 2 votes
          #1.81 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 4:04 PM EST

          .

            #1.82 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 4:13 PM EST

            Ah, once again "the Community" has seen fit to collapse dissenting opinion. Don't you just LOVE the hypocrisy of the liberal left, spouting "tolerance" out of one side of their mouths while censoring dissenting opinions with the the other? This is exactly why I don't trust power in then hands of liberals. The first thing they do, it seems, is to try to use their power to squelch those who disagree with them. We've seen it on global warming, right to work, abortion, gay rights, and any other controversial issue. I read about a college professor who preached tolerance, but she censored the right wing views of a student with the explanation, "I will not tolerate the intolerable." This is the justification from the left. They are tolerant, but they will NOT tolerate the intolerable (and of course THEY define what is and is not tolerable). So once again here on newsvine, the so-called community has deemed honest, but dissenting opinion to be "intolerable". They can't be removed from power soon enough.

            • 2 votes
            #1.83 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 4:29 PM EST

            What a bunch of jerks! Corporate America will and has defaulted at the hint of a loss! Moving jobs to 3rd world countries for bigger profits is moral? Why do you continue to require more from the average Joe when the courts have stated there is no difference!

            Immoral, what a load! Its a contract, period! Its the John Galts of the world who are immoral. Getting richer off someone else s work, disagree? Ok then, who actually invented/created the engine in the book that he STOLE and took the credit for? Yeah right you wanna be's forget that part that shows the wonderful Galts of the world are nothing more then thieves.

            Of course anyone paying attention to anything but faux news already knows this.

            • 1 vote
            #1.84 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 4:38 PM EST

            Bruce-308647

            Ah, once again "the Community" has seen fit to collapse dissenting opinion. Don't you just LOVE the hypocrisy of the liberal left, spouting "tolerance" out of one side of their mouths while censoring dissenting opinions with the the other? This is exactly why I don't trust power in then hands of liberals.

            WOW Bruce, what an intelligent man you are. I've seen just as many posts collapse for people on the left on here as I have seen for those on the right. Most of them collapsed for rediculious reasons. Posts shouldn't be collapsed unless there is profanity or threats.

            Let me tell you why I don't trust power in the hands of you cons.....most of them are liars, ie bush/cheny, many more are racists, ie Newt and Rick, even more are war mongers that want to send the other folks sons and daughters to do the fighting while they, ie, bush/cheney, find ways not to serve or fulfill their duty. People like you complain about Obama, Reid, and Pelosi but for each of them you have a bush, a McConnell, and a Boehner.

            Maybe you should take a long look in the mirror. You might not like what you see. Reading your post I know I don't.

              #1.85 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 7:44 PM EST
              Reply

              If it makes financial sense to default do it. This is about numbers all the money you are putting into that property could go to a better investment. If you made a dumb decision by buying a overpriced property now you can correct your mistake.

              • 18 votes
              #2 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 7:45 AM EST

              Everyone makes some dumb decisions sometimes in their life. Does that mean they don't have to take responsibility for those decisions? I have made plenty of stupid mistakes in my life and never expected someone else to pay my consequences. I am sick of this mindset, "I messed up let someone else pay for it".

              • 21 votes
              #2.1 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 7:55 AM EST

              That is what bankruptcy is for. A fresh start, but to not pay something you can so you can live better is outright stealing.

              So if I have a rental house that I am collecting rent but the house is not worth the loan I can just stop paying, keep collecting the rent and 6 month to a year later when they foreclose I can just keep all the rent and let the bank kick the tenets out. They can't foreclose my main house if I stay current. This sound like a good thing to do right because its good for me and there is nothing in the law that prevents me from doing it.

              Lucky most states you can't just walk away. If you have assets the bank will be more than happy to get court judgements against and force you into bankruptcy if needed.

              • 4 votes
              #2.3 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:28 AM EST

              The banks and mortg companies created "reverse" mortgages specifically for seniors. Now they're eating the ruins, because these houses are declining in value.

              • 12 votes
              #2.4 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:31 AM EST

              Sally, I agree but add to that that most of these houses were massively overvalued to begin with. People point fingers at the bank and the home buyers, but I don't hear to much about the people who overinflated the value of houses over the past few decades: the realtors and the house-flippers.

              • 27 votes
              #2.5 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:49 AM EST

              UDunnoBro, isn't the definition of value "what the market will bear?" In that case I could argue that we are undervalued now. It's not an exact science.

              • 4 votes
              #2.6 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:11 AM EST

              So defaulting will damage a person's credit score. So what. The last thing most people need is more debt.

              • 14 votes
              #2.7 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:16 AM EST

              UDunnoBro - Yes, but that is a risk the buyer takes. As someone mentioned in the comments, you don't split gains with your banks, so why do people think it's fair to dump their losses on the banks? These people signed on the dotted line and nobody held a gun to their head. I am renting because I couldn't afford to pay the over-inflated housing prices, so I wasn't going to take the chance. It's called personal responsibility. I'm tired of people blaming everyone but themselves for their problems. And I'm a liberal. Happy to help those genuinely in need but absolutely NOT willing to foot the bill for irresponsible deadbeats. If you know your retirement won't cover the bills in 10 years then learn to live within your means now.

              • 19 votes
              #2.8 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:18 AM EST

              Mr Steady,

              I have made plenty of stupid mistakes in my life and never expected someone else to pay my consequences. I am sick of this mindset, "I messed up let someone else pay for it".

              Nobody has to pay for it. That's what a default is. You put up the property as collateral. If the bank loses a lot of money on the property, perhaps they shouldn't have given a loan for the amount they did, or chosen more favorable terms for themselves. Nobody forced them to give this guy money for the property.

              • 11 votes
              #2.9 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:07 AM EST

              "you don't split gains with your banks, so why do people think it's fair to dump their losses on the banks?"

              Because the banks haven't played fair!

              • 17 votes
              #2.10 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:08 AM EST

              Banks are owned by shareholders, many shareholders are pension plans and 401k's, you are stealing from the people who do the right thing and continue to pay the mortgage on their overvalued home, or bought a house they could afford and intended on living in, so that you can give money to the people who bought homes they could not afford, or homes they bought with the intent of flipping for a profit.

              • 5 votes
              #2.11 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:16 AM EST

              To David Quintana:

              Having the banking industry start the worse financial collapse since 1929 does not constitutive a "bad financial decision." Banks were made whole by the federal government's bail out. Now they want to hold their customer's feet to the fire to collect again on the same property, while sitting on the cash from their profits and not lending their cash. If it's not illegal to walk away from your mortgage, and moreover, it's a tool the bank or other multibillion dollar company would use, why shouldn't a middle class homeowner use this avenue?

              How many times had Donald Trump declared bankruptcy? Do you think he's poor? NO. He did it to PROTECT what cash he has left. Why do people expect the average citizen to have better morals than the rich bankers and hedge fund manager who caused this mess?

              • 15 votes
              #2.12 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:21 AM EST

              NFIL -

              Flip that around. Why did the banks, with ready access to the most information, feel it was a good idea to engage in predatory lending? Why did they feel the need to shop around for the best rating (read: refuse to pay for a bad grade), when an actual rating would have informed them what their assets were really worth? Why did they feel the need to farm mortgage work out to unregulated companies that could not be forced to stand by their decisions in court? Why don't they feel the need now to work with existing customers to keep them in their homes and keep making money, or at least take less of a loss, rather than foreclosing?

              You say there should be personal responsibility? What about corporate responsibility? According to the laws of the US as interpreted by the Supreme Court, corporations are people, too. And, therefore, they need to have some responsibility in this. So far, all I've seen is them taking a handout, turning record profits by laying off hard working folk, and further consolidating wealth into the hands of a few. And you call the buyers irresponsible? This is not sustainable.

              • 14 votes
              #2.13 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:22 AM EST

              I've read several comments that imply that since the corporate bankers have done wrong, it's okay for the consumer to also do wrong in return. A person should do what he has pledged to do within his power, no matter what the corporate bank or the next door neighbor or the president in the white house is doing. Just because no one in sight has moral fortitude doesn't mean that you throw your moral obligations away also. Ingenuity and creativity will make a way for the person who finds himself/herself in a position where the odds are against them if they stick to the moral high road. Doing the right thing will be rewarded in the long run.

              • 11 votes
              #2.14 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:53 AM EST

              In the entire discussion laying blame, I find it interesting that no share of the blame has been placed on the government. Since Jimmy Carter's term, every president has had the goal of increased home ownership which led to reduced lending requirements first allowed then mandated by the government.

              These goals led to the formation of Fannie and Freddie with the goal of reducing lending requirements such as down-payments. With the "free money" available to everyone, many over extended and bought multiple houses to flip. If everyone had to have 20% of their own skin in the game, as they used to, the bubble wouldn't have been created and people wouldn't be a quick to walk away.

              • 5 votes
              #2.15 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:02 AM EST

              The only way morality could possibly play into the situation is if all parties concerned were playing by those morality rules. Since financial institutions are not "people", irrespective of the flawed Citizens United decision of late, and have zero conscious need or ability to act morally, to expect customers they engage to do so is silly, if not totally misguided. Why should moral responsibility be expected on one side of the equation and not the other?

              These posts that clamor for individuals to "suck it up" and act more noble than the financial markets clearly are being suckered themselves by a system that has no sense of responsibility whatsoever.

              I'm not saying that the morality of personal responsibility should not be part of the market place, it should. But when you have a culture that accepts the idea of caveat emptor as a normal market credo, you are already on the track to accepting immorality as part of how the game is played.

              • 13 votes
              #2.16 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:31 AM EST

              Nobody has to pay for it. That's what a default is.

              If the bank loses a lot of money on the property, perhaps they shouldn't have given a loan for the amount they did

              Your two statements are in direct contradiction of one another. If the bank "loses a lot of money" they are in effect "paying for it"

              • 3 votes
              #2.17 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:39 AM EST

              When a bank "loses", it increases the riskiness of loaning money and every future borrower pays for that loss by increased fees and higher interest rates. So, by "sticking it to the bank", what you are really doing is sticking it to the rest of us.

              • 1 vote
              #2.18 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:08 PM EST

              I just did the math on my loan. I have paid the bank $1300 every month for 4.5 years, which equals $70,200. My house is worth $160,000, though I owe over $170,000. The original selling price was $182,500. So, I have paid them $70,000 so far, only $12,500 of which has gone to principal. So, if I walked away from it tomorrow and didn't pay them another dime, even after foreclosing and reselling the house, they have still made a profit on me.

              If I pay on it another 6 years, I will have paid them back the entire original selling price of the house but will still owe them ~$140,000 with MAYBE $20,000 in equity. I'm sorry - paying $180,000 for $20,000 in equity is BULL CRAP! Once I have paid them as much as the house is worth in payments, I would walk away with no regrets. They could repossess and resell the house and will have still turned a huge profit on me.

              If they reposess the house, BTW, how can they come after me and force me to pay them the mortgage money? They got their house back. If its not worth as much as they gave me a loan for, assuming the house is in the same condition as when I bought it, thats not my problem, is it?

              • 8 votes
              #2.19 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:57 PM EST

              Upstate that's a bit of a cop-out. Banks are skimming QUITE A BIT off the top of that 401k return on investment. By your logic no one running a Company would ever be held responsible for their doings since its not technically their money.

              • 3 votes
              #2.20 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 1:17 PM EST

              Wow, Will....you really have no idea how this really works. Were you not paying attention when they showed you the payment schedule, interest rates, loan amortization, etc.? I encourgage you to get out of your house and plan to rent for the remainder of your life....you are too ignorant to be left unattended around a bank....BTW, cut up your credit cards as well....you are no doubt being screwed to the wall by those guys. Try living you life on cash....preferably small bills.

              • 2 votes
              #2.21 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 1:29 PM EST

              Will, in all your calculations, you've forgotten to include the value of your being able to actually LIVE in your house. What would you have paid to rent a similar house? Probably pretty close to the $70,000 you have paid for your mortgage over the last 4.5 years.

              Stop trying to sound like a victim of the big mean bank. You could see the terms of the loan and you had the option to take it or leave it. Now go back to renting, where you'll probably complain about how the landlord charges you so much rent and you have nothing to show for all the money you pay him.

              • 1 vote
              #2.22 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 2:07 PM EST

              It disgusts me that so many people who can very well afford to continue to pay the mortgage think it is OK to walk away from their obligations. They not only hurt the banks, they hurt every other property owner in the area. This is because their action only serve to further depress the value of homes in the area. When banks sell these homes at discounts to get them off their books quickly these reduced prices are used as comps in determining what a home is worth when their neighbor goes to sell. This causes many people to not be able to sell or be force into a short sale or foreclosure because the value of their home has bee damaged by these deadbeats.

              I think that the whole idea of "no recourse" needs to be abolished. The idea that a millionaire can walk away from a contract with no responsibility for the shortfall is absurd. That has been happening here in CA. People with plenty of money in the bank are walking away from their homes because they are worth less than the mortgage balance and then turning around and buying another home in the same area. They are not walking away because they are in financial difficulty or because they have to move, they are doing strictly a a business decision. Never mind the fact that they signed a contract to pay the mortgage, they feel it is OK to stick it to the bank and let them take the loss for the home buyers poor financial decision. The ability to do this needs to be stopped as it is only making the housing crisis worse and hurting other homeowners who have no choice but to sell due to job loss or need to relocate for work. The banks should be able to go after other assets to satisfy the shortfall.

              • 3 votes
              #2.23 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 3:52 PM EST

              CLong so you are saying because I'm just a poor lowly human being type person instead of a corporation type person I have to pay money owed to the same people who screwed me out of 5 times as much money because of some kind of moral responsibility. Take a long walk off a short pier.

              • 2 votes
              #2.24 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 4:01 PM EST

              There are so many posters here that are blaming this couple for their "underwater" home mortgage.

              Because of the greed of Wall Street and the Big Banks, many American have been financially ruined. Predatory lending practices played a significant role in our country's economic collapse. Lenders have a fiduciary responsibility to tell a mortgage applicant if he or she does not financially qualify for a loan. Home ownership is the American dream. The greedy financiers were fully aware of this fact. These irresponsible "stewards" took full advantage of people seeking to build a future.

              No, it is not this senior couple's fault that they were economically preyed upon.

              Because of sad stories such as this, there are petitions that Americans are asked to sign..to hold Wall Street responsible for our economic chaos.

              • 5 votes
              #2.25 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 4:16 PM EST

              IF I was powerful, rich and corrupt, I'd make my money by creating a bubble, selling to suckers at high prices, create a crisis, watch prices drop and pick up the assets on the cheap.

              • 4 votes
              #2.26 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 6:01 PM EST

              Business get rid of bad investments all the time. Why shouldnt homeowners? Is there something special about the bank!

              • 3 votes
              #2.27 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 6:13 PM EST

              Deadbeats will never understand but my father said this to me when I was a young man "A MAN honors his debts"

              To all you scumbags that can pay and don't, your day will come soon....

              • 2 votes
              #2.28 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 6:57 PM EST

              It didn't come to Fannie Mae and the bailed out banks.

              • 2 votes
              #2.29 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 7:13 PM EST

              Run Don't Walk -

              You owe your allegiance to your family and yourself having worked in the mortgage business for twenty five years bankers have no qualms of throwing you and your family out on the street, nothing personal mind you, only following prudent financial measures.

              The same behavior of financial self interest and providing shelter from the storm for your family and yourself is your number one goal. They want to hang some morality guilt trip after stealing and gauging the American people this moral argument is a ruse for the stupid to stay and line the pockets of the BankSteers - Run don't Walk Run move your money into a "safe place" and move on. The greatest greed is that of the one percent and the most Greedy Bastards on planet earth you have one life enjoy your life don't suffer in poverty for people that would have you starve and die for lack of simple health provisions, yes they won't and don't give a damn for you and yours to even offer a national health plan and they talk of honor and morality?..........the minions on this page spewing the old and tired rhetoric of some arcane obligation to your masters Ahahahahahahaha this is funny if not so brutally dishonest to conjure up some phony guilt trip on the poor homeowner - WALK!!!!!!

              This is beyond laughable beyond the absurd to sit in place and watch your life support which is your financial worth dwindle away because you are contributing to a greedy culture this is the argument of a fool meant for children a joke coming from the greedy bastards and their myopic zombies that argue your self-interest is line with the financial industry what a farce - RUN DON'T WALK RUN from a money pit that only benefits the lien holder and drains you of your only means to survive - what a pitiful argument from the financial sector and their apologists - a moral argument with no basis in morality only thier self-interest over yours - wise up.

              Since when am I obligated to crooks (financial sector/Wall Street) the biggest crooks in the world to stay stuck in an upside down home? I can barely make payments on when I can buy the same home for half or less than what I owe and provide a shelter and a decent standard of living for my family for their future years such as college tuition and so much more. Only a fool would impoverish himself relegate his children to poverty living month to month fearing one mishap and the bank throws you and your family out on the street or instead secure your futures and live with your guilt and remorse equal to that of Goldman and all the others.

              They won't lose but a few dollars after the loan insurance pays them and the interest payments are calculated the banks have not "lost" money in the traditional sense (they keep what payments you have made plus your down payment is lost to them) in turn you and your family enjoy a decent standard of life. I can live with my guilt if those receiving $1.5 Billion in bonus money can sleep well after we bailed them out then I can sleep just as well - what goes around comes around.

              Take care of yourself and your family first and worry about these moral windbags some other day look out for yourself no one else will....no one but you will provide for your needs so do the financial smart thing and let the moralists and apologists for Wall street spew their dribble and if you make a business deal with a religulous person get it in writing they are the worst and their word is not worth a shyte not with God telling them how to screw you over - they are the worst. Look out for yourself no one else will get that idea in your head these moralists are talking from some orifice I can't which take a guess. Look out for yourself and your family first then Wall Street do the honorable thing take care of your family.

              Have a good day ....run don't walk...

              • 8 votes
              #2.30 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 7:45 PM EST

              Cal_Chi, I am not playing the victim. I am just pointing out that with a mortgage, the bank makes all of their money back first before you start paying down principal, so if I walk away, they get to keep the money I have paid them and get the house back. So, I have no moral regrets over that.

              The comment about the money paid to live in the house is all well and good, but irrelevent to the question at hand: Would I consider a strategic default? If rent is the same cost as a mortgage, no. However, if I am killing myself to pay for a house that is not even worth it anymore AND rent on a smaller house or apartment is a lot cheaper, a strategic default makes sense.

              Grandfather, quit being a hateful judgemental condescending goat. I know how the payment schedule works, and I know that for the first half of the mortgage, the majority of my money is going to paying interest. So, during the time I have been in the house, I have paid oodles of money and only paid off a relatively small portion of the principal, most of which has been eaten away by the falling value of the home. BTW, are you usually this big of horntoad to people you meet in real life, or are you much braver with the anonymity of the internet?

              • 3 votes
              #2.31 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:07 PM EST

              culheath,

              Yes, "a culture that accepts the idea of caveat emptor as a normal market credo" describes today's USA to a tee.

              TY

                #2.32 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:59 PM EST

                David Quintana,

                Did you grow up with the American Dream? I did.

                Can we hold onto it? I don't know -- if I (and you) hold on, maybe. Otherwise what are we teaching our children/grandchildren?

                  #2.33 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:14 PM EST

                  Boris,

                  Can we hold onto it?

                  I don't know...it seems to me there is a tipping point we have crossed. And yet, tilting at windmills has never felt so appropriate and sensible somehow.

                  • 1 vote
                  #2.34 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:06 PM EST

                  Cul,

                  "...a tipping point we have crossed." You know you're gonna make a grown man cry?

                  • 1 vote
                  #2.35 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:12 PM EST

                  I'm close to a BIG city. I lived in cities all my life (and since college and after), until I had a family. I took them to the suburbs.

                  (And do NOT regret a moment of that)

                  So now I'm 57 and missed out (too young) on the important stuff of the 60s. D@mnit, I refuse to miss the important stuff of NOW!

                  I've protested with my girls and will continue to protest (OWS/99%) with them.

                  (If I get flagged for a "personal comment,' so-be-it.)

                  • 2 votes
                  #2.36 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:03 AM EST

                  Good on you...as long as good men do something, evil is impeded. To acquiesce in despair is beyond pointless, it's suicidal.

                  Eye on the prize, bud. :)

                    #2.37 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:10 AM EST

                    Culheath and Boris: I'm right there with you. I'm 57, and I'm looking at retirement in the not too distant future. My tipping point is at hand, too. I've reared my children, held my job, paid my bills, and was hoping to relax into my well-earned retirement. But with the changes and change ups, the retirement plan has moved back a few years, the self-employment at that point ramps up, and dependence on myself for everything, well, will remain the same. My American dream may still happen, but on a smaller scale. I'll make it, I always do. (You will, too.) But I wish it would be easier, rather than harder. (Okay, I'll stop whining and get back to work.)

                    (I really just stopped by to say Hi!)

                    • 1 vote
                    #2.38 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:05 PM EST
                    Reply

                    Would somebody please explain to why they would walk away just because the house is worth less than the mortgage as long as they are able to make the payments? As long as you are able to make the payments you still have a roof over your head and a place to come home to. Unless you bought the house as just an investment (stupid decision) I fail to see the point of just walking away. After all you knew when you took the mortgage that you were obligated to pay it back.

                    Oh, silly me, that would require taking responsibility for your decisions. What was I thinking?

                    • 21 votes
                    #3 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 7:51 AM EST

                    The morality issue aside, renting might cost less than the mortgage payment, especially for this couple which wants to downsize. So, why continue to pay more for the same level of housing, when there's no return on that extra money?

                    Please, guys ... no attacks. I'm not defending anyone, I'm just explaining the logic (a distinction often overlooked on newsvine).

                    • 9 votes
                    #3.1 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:14 AM EST

                    Barry -- you make a lot of sense! My cousin walked away from his house and he's renting a 3 bedroom with his family for $1300 in Texas. Very spacious with a two car garage. His house went underwater and he couldn't rent it.

                    • 6 votes
                    #3.2 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:33 AM EST

                    Buying a home is not a test of your morality, it is a contract with a financial institution--nothing more, nothing less. Those financial institutions make all the rules, rig the game in their favor, and get government (taxpayer) help whenever they need it (or don't need it, as seems the case).

                    The banks wrote the contract that put them, and the buyer, in this place, and since they didn't require any reasonable down payment or collateral (the only collateral is the house), then why should they blame the buyer for doing what is best in his financial interest? You think banks care about morals, or responsibility when they are making financial decisions?

                    • 28 votes
                    #3.3 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:41 AM EST

                    I may not walk away but it would be nice to have the mortgage re-done to reflect the current home value, thus lowering my payment and giving me a little extra money at the end of the month to Oh I don't know, STIUMLATE THIS PISS POOR ECONOMY!

                    • 11 votes
                    #3.4 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:48 AM EST

                    You think banks care about morals, or responsibility when they are making financial decisions?

                    So, in other words, two wrongs make a right? Just because somebody else does it, right or wrong, it gives me the right to do it too, correct? No wonder this country is in trouble with that kind of mindset. Sad. It IS all about morals and each of us has the responsibility to take the moral high road regardless of whether or not someone does.

                    • 13 votes
                    #3.5 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:11 AM EST

                    Mr. Steady - Interesting point. My parents bought a home in 1961 and added about $5000 in improvements to it in 1969, in the form of expanding the kitchen. The community they lived in experienced a gradual decline in its industrial base, average income of residents, and even in the population of the community itself. At one point in the late 1980's their community of 35K could count the number of new home building permits on one hand with fingers to spare. That's bleak, by any metric.

                    I calculated that, in real dollars, they were "underwater" on their home's value until approximately 2001, or 40 years later. Did they cry about it? No. Did they say the government should bail them out? No. Did they say they should mail their keys in and "stick it" to the bank? No.

                    They lived there, worked a family business and raised me. The only "disappointment" was the realization that the value of their home, up until the very late 90's, had not kept up with inflation and that our community's real estate market, across almost all price points, was illiquid and slow moving. As I remember, there was one house they always liked, similar in size and in the same neighborhood, but it would be out of reach due to stagnation of the market and illiquidity.

                    Point being - They never assumed they had a "right" to an "investment" that would go up in value every year and that was liquid and fairly valued from Day 1.

                    • 7 votes
                    #3.6 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:16 AM EST

                    -michael- - If that's how you feel then don't borrow from the banks. If you sign the bank's contract then you agree to the terms. If you have issues with the terms then do not sign.

                    • 7 votes
                    #3.7 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:23 AM EST

                    So, in other words, two wrongs make a right?

                    No, no wrongs make...no wrongs.

                    The bank offered this person a deal. The bank would buy the house, and then sell it to you for payments of X dollars per month for X amount of months. If, at any point, you fail to make those payments, the bank takes the house back. Both parties agreed to that deal, and when the buyer stops making those payments, he has not done anything wrong. As per the deal he signed, the bank takes the house back--that was the deal the bank created. The bank requires no reason for the buyer stopping those payments, and they required no collateral to cover any possible losses they might have in cases like this.

                    Why insist on blaming the buyer for his decision? One could just as easily blame the bank for making such a bad loan. If the banks had required better financial credentials and larger down payments, the market wouldn't be in its current state. Banks are, or at least should be, more financially savvy and knowledgeable than the average public, they should know better, no?

                    • 20 votes
                    #3.8 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:24 AM EST

                    -michael- - If that's how you feel then don't borrow from the banks. If you sign the bank's contract then you agree to the terms. If you have issues with the terms then do not sign.

                    I think you misunderstand how a mortgage works. The buyer did sign the contract, and did agree to the terms, and by walking away from his mortgage, he is in no way breaking that contract. If he was, the bank could sue him for breach and recover any money they lost, especially for people that are clearly capable of making their payments, but have just decided that it is no longer worth it.

                    As I mentioned above, the bank wrote the contract to stipulate if you walk away, they take the home back. Nobody has broken the contract.

                    • 13 votes
                    #3.9 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:30 AM EST

                    michael is right. It's a contract. The terms are laid out. When the borrower stops paying, the bank gets the collateral, which is the property. If the bank loses any money at all in the course of the transaction, they didn't set good terms for themselves and it's their own stupid fault for doing so. Nobody held a gun to their head to make the loan. It was a decision entered into by both parties voluntarily.

                    I would also like to point out that when wealthy folks walked away from the mortgages on their investment properties back in 2008-2009, they were considered savvy investors. They knew when to walk away from a bad deal. Why should this situation be viewed any differently?

                    • 11 votes
                    #3.10 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:29 AM EST

                    @michael - I think a lawyer would tell you that if you walk away from the house, the lender gets to take back the house, sell it, and then take other actions to recover the rest of the loan (including any interest and penalties that have accumulated, any of their legal costs to foreclose, their expenses for maintaining and selling the property - like property taxes, insurance, mowing, winterizing, security, appraisal fee, realtor fee, recording fees, etc.)

                    If they recover more than the loan-plus-expenses, they must pay that extra amount to the borrower. If they recover less, the borrower is on the hook for the difference - it's in the contract as a personal obligation. The mortgage gives the lender the legal right to take possession of the property as described in the agreement, according to laws. The loan agreement also gives the lender the right to pursue a shortage after selling the property. To kill the personal obligation of the debt, a bankruptcy might be necessary.

                    If strategic defaults become more common, banks may be more willing to allow short sales with total release from obligation on both sides of the contract. This would be the best way to get values down quickly to realistic levels and write off the losses that would otherwise take many years to recoup. New occupants could move in and properties would remain on the tax rolls (at a lower assessed value.) This is much better than the lenders hanging on to vacant properties while they decay and are vandalized. Banks don't want to be in the property-management business.

                    • 4 votes
                    #3.11 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:29 AM EST

                    People buy cars that once they drive off the lot it is worth less then they bought it for, but they still continue to make the payments. Their priorities are in the wrong place. Only they knew what they could afford when they bought their house,yet they let the bank tell them what they could afford. Shame on them both. The lender told me I could afford a 900k house but I didn't want to be house poor so I bought one at 150k. I have never been late on a payment however I would just like to have the lower interest rates 2-3% they are offering now, but the banks will not let me have it, as they want a 30k down payment to make the change. On a property that already had that same down payment 6 years ago. Not fair to someone who is never late on a payment. OH well, I guess I will sit tight in my house and keep making the 6.25% interest payments. I guess the banks will keep sticking it to me and those who default will buy a cheaper house on the cheaper interest rates. My morals will not let me default.

                    • 3 votes
                    #3.12 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:37 AM EST

                    on the other hand.. those that just "walk away" are part of the reason why the economy is so depressed. Already the home prices have been slashed to a more adequate price. What is needed is for the banks to reassess those that want to walk away and determine if the mortgage amount can be lowered so that it reflects todays pricing. They do get the interest off the loan and it would stabilize the market.

                    • 3 votes
                    #3.13 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:46 AM EST

                    If we are talking about morality, then it should be directed at everyone sitting in the Stock Market Exchange, especially those day-traders. They are the ones creating bubbles and bursting them. As a consumer, we try to be responsible for what we bought. However, a refund is necessary if we found out that we have been rip off in the first place.

                    • 9 votes
                    #3.14 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:59 AM EST

                    Based on the following...

                    "The money didn't disappear," said Martin. "We still owe it to the bank, so the bank will end up getting all of its money back on a loan that no longer has its original value. They're taking no part in the loss."

                    Will contracts start stipulating what happens if values fall due to recessions? Perhaps the mortgage insurers will cover this lose for the mortgage holder.

                      #3.15 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:59 AM EST

                      Chris, nice try... The stock market exhibits hourly ups and downs, the housing markets ups and downs occur over a much longer time line. Why shouldn't the buyer be held responsible for determining potential loss or profit in either case?

                      The only way you can hold an advisor responsible is if you can prove that the intent of the advisor was to commit fraud.

                        #3.16 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:15 AM EST

                        The banks do not have legal ownership information for the vast majority of homes sold between 2001-2007, why do you think they con low paid patsies to sign off on foreclosures?

                        http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/business/06mers.html?pagewanted=all

                        http://walkawayok.com/

                        • 2 votes
                        #3.17 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 4:36 PM EST

                        Exactly, knightofdespair. I've had a good laugh over all the people here talking about "breaking contracts".

                        • 2 votes
                        #3.18 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 4:40 PM EST

                        Exactly, knightofdespair. I've had a good laugh over all the people here talking about "breaking contracts".

                        Me too, first of all the bank's loans were all paper assets, they were not backed by anywhere near the 'value' of the loan, and secondly if someone is stupid enough to pour half of their life's earnings into a rabbit hole then that is up to them, but anyone with a brain would put that difference into their retirement savings instead.

                        • 3 votes
                        #3.19 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 4:49 PM EST

                        if someone is stupid enough to pour half of their life's earnings into a rabbit hole then that is up to them,

                        Especially when they knew they were betting AGAINST the borrower. These mortgage backed securities were toxic and they knew it. They were all looking to make huge profits off of those they knew would default.

                        Sending you a FR btw - you travel in good company!

                        • 3 votes
                        #3.20 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 5:59 PM EST
                        Reply

                        I have also read that the most likely defaulters are wealthy people, because they own two or more homes and won't miss losing one of them.

                        • 8 votes
                        Reply#5 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:18 AM EST

                        The wealthy are considered savvy investors if they walk away from an underwater investment property. But poor people? They're deadbeats for not owning up to their responsibilities.

                        • 12 votes
                        #5.1 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:35 AM EST

                        Now think about what you said....wealthy people are just the ones to go after if they walk away 'cuz they have the money to pay. So you think the banks will waste time chasing people around who have no money so they can ignor the folks with lots of money....makes sense to me.

                          #5.2 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:13 PM EST

                          I have also read that the most likely defaulters are wealthy people, because they own two or more homes and won't miss losing one of them.

                          This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If a person is so wealthy that they have multiple homes, they most likely got there by being fiscally responsibly and having good credit. There is no way that such a person is going to tank their credit rating (for however long) to unload a house. They would sell it, take the hit and move on.

                          And, despite what talking heads might say, there are good, honest and reliable wealthy people who would not hurt a fly, much less rip off people or businesses. Not everyone who makes a good paycheck is evil. Common sense in this country has been completely replaced by anger and extremism. Sigh.

                            #5.3 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 1:54 PM EST

                            If a person is so wealthy that they have multiple homes, they most likely got there by being fiscally responsibly and having good credit.

                            Um no, that would be if they had multiple homes paid off, the vast majority who have 'multiple homes' were probably just loaned a bit more during the crash.

                            • 2 votes
                            #5.4 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 5:40 PM EST

                            Knight, you are letting pop culture (real housewives, anyone?) and outlier cases dictate your perceptions. I have never met a real, live wealthy person who was stupid with their credit or their money. If they were loaned a bit more it's because they had good credit and were able to prove they had the finances to meet the requirements outlined in the mortgage contract.

                            Any wealthy person will tell you that having bad credit is the kiss of death. The vast majority pay their bills on time and are in good standing so that they can keep on investing and moving forward. Most would never walk away from a loan obligation.

                            • 1 vote
                            #5.5 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:15 AM EST

                            The vast majority pay their bills on time and are in good standing so that they can keep on investing and moving forward.

                            Most who are smart enough to have their business managers pay their bills for them do - yes. But many wealthy people are slackers when it comes to personal money management. The difference - unlike the rest of us, the wealthy can afford to make up any ground lost due to poor payment. For example: they can pay down an extra 20% to sweeten a deal for the bank, where we might have a hard time coming up with that. They can also show vast amounts of steady income coming in; another thing you and I might have a hard time proving.

                            Mind you, I'm referring to your term "the wealthy", as in the top 1%.

                            • 2 votes
                            #5.6 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:09 AM EST

                            Prove it, then. Show me the facts you are basing this on?

                            I don't know ONE wealthy person who doesn't meet their financial obligations. NOT ONE. Your bias is showing.

                              #5.7 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:16 AM EST

                              For example: they can pay down an extra 20% to sweeten a deal for the bank, where we might have a hard time coming up with that. They can also show vast amounts of steady income coming in; another thing you and I might have a hard time proving.

                              How does this reflect poor financial management? So what if they can put an extra 20% down? Who cares? Are you jealous? If I can't put down an adequate payment and I have a hard time proving my financial situation then I don't deserve to have a house. We are not entitled to home ownership in this country.

                              They are going through the same process everyone else goes through - a down payment and proof of income. They have more money, so they can pay more upfront and they can prove financial security. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this NOR is this gaming the system in any way. If they failed to meet their financial obligations over a sustained period of time, they too would reap the consequences of that. If they can pay their way out of those consequences, there is nothing wrong with that. That's how the world works.

                              But to say that many of the people walking away from homes are the wealthy is ridiculous. People don't get wealthy by making extremely bad financial decisions that impact the credit.

                                #5.8 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:28 AM EST

                                I don't know ONE wealthy person who doesn't meet their financial obligations. NOT ONE. Your bias is showing. Who cares? Are you jealous?

                                I think it's your bias that's showing. Let's not get personal - ok? And furthermore - let's not get into proving supposed facts with who we know. You show your proof about the claims you make. All I have to do is point to the multitude of 1%ers who've filed for bankruptcy, lost homes, sold off all their assets, only to make a killing on an investment, or a movie, and get it all back again.

                                Again, I'll remind you that the true wealthy in this country are the 1%ers. Your definition of the wealthy probably includes my income bracket - top 5% - but that's not wealthy. We still make most of our money on income, not investments.

                                • 1 vote
                                #5.9 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:37 PM EST
                                Reply

                                I did it, and I don't feel one ounce of moral guilt or obligation to JP Morgan Chase! I stayed in the house and saved my money. I then purchased a cheap condo with the cash I would have lost in the house and have no mortgage now!

                                • 13 votes
                                Reply#6 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:22 AM EST

                                Why no sense of obligation? You are the one who made the decision to buy the house, and you're the one who agreed to the price. Chase made no money off the sale of the property. If the property had increased in value, they wouldn't have shared in the gains. Chase (or the original lender) made the mortgage to you in good faith. Why don't you feel obligated to pay the mortgage?

                                • 12 votes
                                #6.1 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:42 AM EST

                                Why no sense of obligation?

                                Because we already paid these a-holes via TARP. They've got us coming and going. When, can I ask you, have the banks ever held themselves to an obligation? These are the same banks that arbitrarily re-issue your terms of service agreement with them, as if once you're in up to your eyeballs with them you have any choice as to whether or not the agreement can be rewritten.

                                It is awfully disingenuous of you to complain about "sense of obligation" when the banksters have shat on, spat on, and shoved back down our throats any obligation they ever had. SCREW THEM.

                                • 13 votes
                                #6.2 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:09 AM EST

                                @Barry

                                You're right. Chase made no profit from the sale of the house. However they more than made up for that with the profit they made from selling the loan. Is there a moral obligation to guarantee the investors in the securitized loans a profit?

                                • 7 votes
                                #6.3 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:14 AM EST

                                Chase made an investment on giving him a mortgage. They didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. It is a classic risk/reward scenario: They took a risk that he would pay out his mortgage over 30 years and they would make a crapload in interest. He decided to bail, so to me it looks like Chase made a bad investement. They took a risk and lost.

                                • 13 votes
                                #6.4 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:16 AM EST

                                Smart Lady! Don't pay your mortgage, save your money, and then pay cash for a condo. Now, everyone should understand why we are a debt based economy. People are still waiting for the economy to rebound and don't seem to understand that the rebound is already occuring, because we are amassing more debt in this fortuitous debt based economy. The government removes housing, food and gasoline from the CPI and then bail out the banks, so I guess consumers are beginning to learn how to operate. The days of pride, morality, character, honesty and civility are a fleeting memories. Better yet, it has all been predicted and orchestrated to the letter. The only question that remains, is "When will it end?".

                                • 1 vote
                                #6.5 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:08 AM EST

                                People's attitudes amaze me. How would you feel if you loaned someone some money and then they just decided not to pay you back, even though they could?

                                • 8 votes
                                #6.6 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:19 AM EST

                                Yet another news reader,

                                If you were a smart lender, you'd own something of theirs that is worth at least what you loaned them. That is called collateral. When they don't pay you back, you take possession of the collateral and sell it, getting back all of your money. I wouldn't care, because I wouldn't have lost any money.

                                • 5 votes
                                #6.7 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:39 AM EST

                                You're right. Chase made no profit from the sale of the house. However they more than made up for that with the profit they made from selling the loan.

                                Duane said that he feels no obligation to repay Chase. So, they're the ones holding the loan. They either made the loan originally and are still holding, or they bought it from someone else. In either event, they haven't recovered their initial investment and have made no profit.

                                • 4 votes
                                #6.8 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:56 AM EST

                                maybe all the people who walk away deserve to be able to.. but on the other hand you have just lowered yourselves to the "bad" banks levels.. so you are a BoA? I will hang on and pay my mortgage and pay it off. Most of you sound like you should be working for a bank. What happened to the Americans, what happened to your pride? Most of you also say that the dept in the country is going on our kids shoulders, well you just put more on them... how does it feel?

                                • 2 votes
                                #6.9 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:02 AM EST

                                Most of you also say that the dept in the country is going on our kids shoulders, well you just put more on them... how does it feel?

                                That's ridiculous. Why should bank losses become part of a general public obligation (on your kids shoulders)?

                                but on the other hand you have just lowered yourselves to the "bad" banks levels.. so you are a BoA?

                                It's called fighting fire with fire. If moral hazard doesn't apply to the bail-out rich banks, then it shouldn't apply to individual borrowers either.

                                • 8 votes
                                #6.10 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:06 PM EST

                                I agreed to a price that Chase, the appraisers, and the Ponzi Schemers of Wall Street knew was overinflated! I paid 180K for a house that Chase said was worth 220K, I thought I was getting a great home at a mortgage I could afford, even if it was an hour and a half from work. 4 years later, when I needed work done on my roof, Chase, the bank that originated the loan, tells me my home is worth 75K...You do the math! It was a contract, I read it. It says if I stop paying, they take the house back. I stopped paying, I saved up enough to buy a 30K condo that is 20 minutes from my job in DC, and I appealed my taxes because they went off the last appraised value of 110k, so my taxes are less than 450 a year...I took a hit to my credit? So what! I pay cash for everything. My biggest expense is over with, and I won't be a slave for 30 years...My American Dream turned into a nightmare, but I had the sense to wake up. These banks don't have any morals, that is the American Way, I wised up and I play their game by the rules that the rich play by...The rich walk away, and it was a bad business deal, we walk and it is wrong and a sin? Whatever dude, I am free!

                                • 3 votes
                                #6.11 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 3:17 PM EST

                                After who knows who stole my home I decided to use their tactics to not pay them. I feel no moral obligation to pay some corporation that stole 5 times as much money from me and was bailed out with my tax money to boot. I will live a cash life from now till I die and not miss them at all.

                                • 4 votes
                                #6.12 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 4:09 PM EST

                                If these were poor blacks in the inner city, would we be so sympathetic? When this happened to African Americans back in the 70's nobody cared.

                                Why do we only care about big issues (teen pregnancy, unemployment) when they happen to white people?! They even have fancy names for it- strategic default?! <eye roll!!!>

                                Grrrr!

                                  #6.13 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 7:11 PM EST
                                  Reply

                                  Why are the average homeowners the only one taking a hit as they watch a large chunk of their real estate value evaporate into thin air??? Why are not the banks- who created this real estate bubble being forced to share in the losses? The government even gave them money to bail themselves out... what has the average homeowner gotten- except a loss of equity and inability to sell a house they may want to/need to sell??? I want to retire and relocate- but I can currently do neither because of the loss of value in my home- and the inability to sell it due to the current market. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

                                  • 15 votes
                                  Reply#7 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:40 AM EST

                                  To be fair, the banks didn't technically create this mess. Rather, us and them lived in a hyper competitive world that everybody was forced to be a part of. Someone finds a loophole that makes them more money, then the others must do as well. Someone gets granite countertops, so we must as well. It's like taking the bus to reduce polution. It doesn't impact the environment, just makes your life suck more while you get to watch others freely pollute as usual.

                                  We could add more regulation, prevent banks from lending to people who can't afford houses, close loopholes that prevent exploitation of consumers and the economy, stop exporting interest payments to other countries. Yet will that happen? Of course not. Republicans won't allow it and Democrats prefer to be the odd one out saying "it doesn't go far enough" because, well, Regulation = Socialism. In fact, some Republicans want the economy to "bottom out". I think they want your house to be cheaper so they can buy it and rent it out for more profit.

                                  If the people can stop fighting and look around enough to see what works and what doesn't, they'll realize better answers are out there. For example, banks and government could enable people to trade houses and loans allowing people to upgrade/downgrade and move to where jobs are. They could also buy unsellable houses on behalf of charities like HopeLink or in exchange for reduced social security benefits or retirement pensions

                                    #7.1 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 7:03 PM EST
                                    Reply

                                    I did it and I feel much better for it. I tried in vain as my mortgage lender lied to me and told me that they were going to refinance my loan which they ended up not doing once the bottom fell out of the market. I contacted just walk away and I now am living in my own townhome completely paid for with the money I saved by stopping making my mortgage payments for a year. I own my home free and clear with no help from the banks and mortgage lenders. The banks and wall street have been lying to us for years, taking our money and then hanging us out to dry when the times get tough, however when the times were tough for them I remember them crying for a bailout using our tax dollars, so no, I don't feel any remorse for sticking it back to them.

                                    • 19 votes
                                    Reply#8 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:45 AM EST

                                    This is the only situation in which I think you have some justification... You tried to work with the bank and they were inflexible.

                                    • 2 votes
                                    #8.1 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:13 AM EST

                                    Look most people just dont have no choice. If you lose your job, how do you expect tp pay for it? The wealthy or the folks that have mommy and daddy to help them out can get by. My home was purchased for 180,000 in 05. At the height of the boom. Only put 20 g down. In 2007 the banks were sending me refinancing options every day. Does anyone rememeber this? I refied to get a lowe rate. Of course...its a smart decision, because according to the bank my house was now worth $335,000. Thats them giving the appraisal for the refinance. Not making this stuff up folks. What happened. The economy crashes(phoenic area) my construction business was completely gone. Didnt see it coming. Needless to say....my home now wasnt worth $100,000. Would you pay for a mortgage that was so far upside down. Not my fault the economy tanked. In this case I even with a good job wouldnt pay for it. We lost it all. Yes we worked with the banks to help.(NewYork life) a bank that took our loan because we have solid credit(unlike BOA)(countrywide). it was a fixed rate also. Its now 2 1/2 yrs later and the house is empty and still cant sell it because the neighborhood went to hell(No jobs anywhere) . Canadians are now buying these homes(2nd) on the cheap. But to me that even worse because they are not contributing to the city(revenue) and it will continue to decline. You have rentals and canucks. Glad its over and we have moved on with no regets!

                                    • 1 vote
                                    #8.2 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:06 AM EST

                                    My wife and I bought our house in 1998. Despite the realtor urging us to buy a larger place (we could have qualified for twice what we bought), we chose to stick to a price that would allow us to continue to meet our obligations if one of us lost a job for an extended period. We put down roughly 33% of the purchase price. We saw the value of our house escalate to absurd levels in 2007 but resisted taking out any equity or engaging in any of that other foolishness. We paid off the house in 2010, and sold it (for cash) at the end of the year. Didn't get what we hoped, but we didn't take a loss either. Moved to Texas where we paid cash for our present house and own it outright.

                                    The moral of the story is you can avoid being a victim of circumstances if you simply apply some commonsense and discipline. Yes, there are those who took a bath despite doing everything right - but there are way more that got into trouble because they got caught up in the craziness, and like lemmings, went with the crowd.

                                      #8.3 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:44 PM EST

                                      Good for you Gumps. But the moral of YOUR story is you bought at the right time and sold at the right time and didnt lose your job. Why comment when you were not effected whatsoever? Really.. it sounds as though you were more like lucky than smart!

                                        #8.4 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:24 PM EST

                                        Bought at the right time - perhaps. But others who bought at the same time and later also refinanced - taking "equity" out, basically treating their house as an ATM. And at times, I was unemployed and so was my wife - during those times when we had just a single income we did not alter our lifestyle; the only change was that we didn't put money away in our savings like when we enjoyed two incomes. Both my wife and I are unemployed - I've been out of work for two years now. Doesn't seem very lucky to me.

                                          #8.5 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:12 PM EST
                                          Reply

                                          We know the Federal reserve bailed out the banks to the tune of 17 trillion and tarp has bought up toxic assets,having said that would it have not made sense for the fed to refinance all existing mortgages at 0% thereby bailing out the banks and the homeowners? This I believe would have solved many of our nations consumer finance problems.

                                          • 7 votes
                                          Reply#9 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:47 AM EST

                                          I was taught to honor my obligations. I made them of my own free will and will do whatever (second job, etc.) it takes to fulfill them. Before anyone starts throwing barbs, it's my opionion, I'm entitled to it, and you can do as you please. My response is to the question, not your situation, lifestyle, or morals.

                                          • 6 votes
                                          Reply#10 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:48 AM EST

                                          So if your only asset is a large life insurance policy...? How far should someone go to "honor an obligation?"

                                          • 2 votes
                                          #10.1 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:17 AM EST

                                          Danno,

                                          I admire your morality and honor to keep your obligations. Allow me to give you some friendly advise. There is no moral stipulation in any contract. It is wise to act in your own self interest within the terms of the contract or renegotiate the terms to some more favorable to you, if you are able to convince the other party to do so. This will keep you from getting taken advantage of by jerks who do not have your honor or moral code.

                                          • 5 votes
                                          #10.2 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:58 AM EST

                                          Danno, your "obligation" is to pay back the loan, the Banks obligation is to hold the house, car, whatever as collateral for the loan, if for some reason, you can't meet your loan obligations then the bank get the collateral...if the bank made a bad loan, loaning more than the collateral was actually worth...then it's the banks bad business decision. You are not obliged to "cover" the banks bad loan or their business decision to make a bad loan, or to not refinance at rates that would better reflect the current business/economic climate.

                                          • 2 votes
                                          #10.3 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:28 PM EST
                                          Reply

                                          Lots of arguments here about "morality" and "contracts", etc. Yup, there's a contract. And that contract provides for certain provisions applicable to both sides. From the day you could listen, you have heard that buying a home was to be your largest "INVESTMENT". You can sugar coat that any way you please, it remains a fact. People purchase homes with the expectation of accruing a positive equity position through asset growth. When that fails to materialize, one should do with that investment choice the same as they would with any other bad investment, and that is to dump it. Bank of America, in particular, "dumped" several multimillion dollar properties back on the lenders it borrowed from in Los Angeles in the last year. Businesses conduct "strategic defaults" every single day, and the shareholders of those companies would have the CEOs pilloried if the did not. Why, then, the animosity towards private citizens who have the intelligence to do the same? The Banks are in a no-loss position in most of these cases anyway, between the bailouts from the Fed ( don't EVEN get me started there ) and the PMI ( remember the PMI? ) which is why they have ZERO interest in working with borrowers; FDIC ( The Taxpayers ) has their back. As long as it makes business sense to dump a bad investment, more and more private individuals will tire of the double standard and toss in the keys as well. Why shouldn't they?

                                          • 25 votes
                                          #11 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:48 AM EST

                                          Perhaps they should. But, if that attitude became the norm, mortgage rates would skyrocket. They're the lowest of all types of loans now because 1) they have considerable security behind them and 2) traditionally, homeowners are very careful to pay them. If a mortgage was to become riskier for the lender, we'd all pay more.

                                          • 3 votes
                                          #11.1 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:59 AM EST

                                          Well said, John.

                                          • 3 votes
                                          #11.2 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:00 AM EST

                                          Actually this is the biggest problem. Looking at your house as an investment. I was taught and believe a house is your home and a place to live. Buying it as just an 'investment' is the problem. I have lived through 3 housing busts. I never looked at my house as an investment. I looked at it as a safe place to live out my years. Perhaps if more people didn't think of it as just an investment they would make better decisions.

                                          • 5 votes
                                          #11.3 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:38 AM EST

                                          I am so sick and tired of all the idiots out there who chose not to be responsible for their own finances, and who have now chosen to walk away from their obligations. Your friggin' house is underwater, so now you plan on walking away. Cry me a friggin river. YOU ARE AN IDIOT who likely should have NEVER bought the damn house in the first place. It's underwater--boo hoo. Join the club! Our home is worth less than what we originally paid for it, too. You know what you do? Don't sell and stay in it until the market recovers. That's the difference between a home owner, and a moron who chose to buy it as an investment or used it as a piggy bank. With all the idiots out there choosing to "strategically default," the market will never recover, and the idiots out there who recommend this as a "business" practice are only making the situation worse for the entire country. Stupidity only begets stupidity.Talk about irresponsible behavior!

                                          • 5 votes
                                          #11.4 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:05 AM EST

                                          I whole heartedly agree dsb... you hit the nail on the head.

                                            #11.5 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:07 AM EST

                                            To dsb:

                                            In the strict sense, you're right. Your home should not me purchased as an investment in most circumstances, BUT you also do not buy a home expecting it to drop in value 30 to 50%.

                                            In all honesty, when you purchased your home a decade ago, did you expect to only get 70% of what you paid for it when you sold it? EVEN THAT would be acceptable, if it was not the case where the banking industry CAUSED THE PROBLEM WHICH MADE HOUSING PRICES DROP, then received a bailout, but refuse to extend leniency to their customers, the homeowners.

                                            • 2 votes
                                            #11.6 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:11 AM EST

                                            The problem that I see with all this is that your "Primary Residence" is not an investment! It's a place to live! There's no guarantee that just because you buy a home that it's value will and should go up. If that was the case, home prices would go up forever, meaning someday my $270k home should sell for a million bucks? That's ridiculous.

                                            You people have been brainwashed all these years thinking that a home is an investment...wake up! Stocks, bonds, businesses, and rental properties are investments, not your home where you live!

                                            • 2 votes
                                            #11.7 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:49 AM EST

                                            I think a lot of this has to do with the complete lack of trust in our institutions. American feel fundamentally that the playing field it tilted against them in favor of the wealthiest and those in power. So morally right or wrong they are feeling the need to look our of number one and when a society begins to loose trust something must be done to level scales of justice

                                            • 4 votes
                                            #11.8 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:53 AM EST

                                            Well, businesses file for bankruptcy; they don't just not pay their bills if they have the ability to do so. You are right that normally, bad investments are just dumped...but the dumpor has to accept the losses (such as a stock that goes down in price). If you borrowed the money to buy a stock and it goes down in value, do you owe the same amount of money to the lender...or do you expect the lendor to share in your losses? For individuals, if you can't pay, file for bankruptcy...people do that all the time; but the situation being discussed here have nothing to do with that....it is more akin to you being owed wages by your employeer and the employeer refusing to pay you even if they have a ton of money in the bank. You would be outraged! You are owed something, and they have the ability to pay...end of story. You would never accept that your employeer can simply not pay you if they dont' want to. Why would you support that notion with regard to a large amount of money somebody loaned to you?

                                            • 2 votes
                                            #11.9 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:57 AM EST

                                            To Grandfather-2041741

                                            You are right in your statement:

                                            You would never accept that your employeer can simply not pay you if they dont' want to.

                                            The issue is, however, whether you expect it or not, when your employeer goes bankrupt, then pensions, insurance premiums and even back salary owed is not paid.

                                            If you borrowed the money to buy a stock and it goes down in value, do you owe the same amount of money to the lender...or do you expect the lendor to share in your losses?

                                            If the broker who loaned you the money caused the stock to go down, then yes, I would expect that lender to share or completely cover those losses. The American public feels that because they borrowed money in good faith, then faithfully paid their mortgages year in and year out, if the banking industry and the ratings industry and the hedge funds caused the financial system to collapse through shady dealings, then yes, those industries should share the loss.

                                            If electing not to pay a mortgage was not an option, then the contract, (mortgage) would not mention it. If the bank found it unacceptable for a person not to pay their mortgage, then they would have the mortgagee arrested. Ask Donald Trump if he was arrested when he stopped paying his mortgage in 1991, 1992, 2004 or most recently in 2009, when he didn't pay the mortgage on the Taj Mahal or other properties he owned.

                                              #11.10 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:10 PM EST

                                              vector-tech'

                                              The problem that I see with all this is that your "Primary Residence" is not an investment! It's a place to live! There's no guarantee that just because you buy a home that it's value will and should go up.

                                              Actually, that's a very usual expectation for any homeowner...it's called equity.

                                              • 3 votes
                                              #11.11 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:10 PM EST

                                              It shows how ingrained the idea that your home will definitely increase in market value goes that you consider it (the increased value) the equity in your home.

                                              Equity is and always has been the value of your home minus the principle remaining on any loans. It is influenced by many things- many outside the control of the homeowner. In my lifetime, it has only increased- if the home value has increased AND the amount owed has steadily been paid down over time. But it doesn't automatically increase.

                                              In my lifetime, and probably in the lifetime of the man featured in the article, it was very rare for you to lose money on your home if you didn't add to the principle balance and you paid it down faithfully. That is no longer the case.

                                                #11.12 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 2:48 PM EST

                                                YOU ARE AN IDIOT who likely should have NEVER bought the damn house in the first place.

                                                Agreed! But who helped make this possible?

                                                I set an ambitious goal. It's one that I believe we can achieve. It's a clear goal, that by the end of this decade we'll increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families. (Applause.) … And it's going to require a strong commitment from those of you involved in the housing industry. … I think if you were to talk to a lot of families that are desirous to have a home, they would tell you that the down payment is the hurdle that they can't cross. And one way to address that is to have the federal government participate.

                                                President George W. Bush, White House Conference on Increasing Minority Homeownership Oct. 15, 2002

                                                Fact of tghe matter is, W decided that anyone, no matter unqualified they were, deserved to own a home.

                                                • 1 vote
                                                #11.13 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 3:12 PM EST

                                                I worked for a company that went bankrupt in 2000. Our corporate management wanted to honor the vacation and severace package down the line. The bankruptcy court refused and screwed everybody with more than 16 years of service out of 1 week per year over 16 two weeks if you had vacation coming.. But you think I should honor my obligations brcause I'm just a stupid human being instead of a corporation. Go to hell.

                                                • 4 votes
                                                #11.14 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 4:18 PM EST

                                                Perhaps they should. But, if that attitude became the norm, mortgage rates would skyrocket. They're the lowest of all types of loans now because 1) they have considerable security behind them and 2) traditionally, homeowners are very careful to pay them. If a mortgage was to become riskier for the lender, we'd all pay more.

                                                And it will become more difficult to own a home. Home ownership has a positive effect on neighborhoods, school systems, towns, cities, states and the country. It is one of the reasons mortgage interest is tax deductible and rent is not. When you walk away from your mortgage, you affect the property values of your neighbors. You affect the taxes collected for schools. You hurt more than just the bank.

                                                  #11.15 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 4:58 PM EST

                                                  When you walk away from your mortgage, you affect the property values of your neighbors. You affect the taxes collected for schools. You hurt more than just the bank.

                                                  It's the banks who've defiled the idea and the ideals of home ownership, not the borrowers. Those who choose to walk away don't have a choice. This is what happens when you put profits over people. And yes, Alice, our neighborhoods are going to suffer for it. But Hong-kong Shanghai Bank Corporation (HSBC) doesn't care a fig about our neighborhoods; anymore than Bank of AMERICA.

                                                  • 4 votes
                                                  #11.16 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 6:09 PM EST

                                                  Alice-354401

                                                  Equity is and always has been the value of your home minus the principle remaining on any loans.

                                                  Equity is also whatever improvements made to the home during the course of ownership.

                                                    #11.17 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 6:45 PM EST

                                                    Cull...no it isn't. Equity is the difference between what the home will sell for and what is owed...period. The only way improvements factor in, is that they may help boost the value...but almost never as much as they cost.

                                                    • 1 vote
                                                    #11.18 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:51 PM EST

                                                    The only way improvements factor in, is that they may help boost the value

                                                    Yes, the improvements add to the value of the house at resale.

                                                      #11.19 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:55 PM EST

                                                      Cul,

                                                      Maybe...and almost never at the full price you paid for them

                                                      Regards,

                                                      Mike

                                                        #11.20 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:09 AM EST

                                                        Tina-3891635, it is obvious you aren't a home owner, or if you are, you are a jealous homeowner because someone owns something better than what you own. We never over bought, and we paid off our mortgage before the economy tanked, but we are sitting in a home that is worth much less than the money it cost to build it fifteen years ago. It is heartbreaking. This thing of buying a home as an investment or using it as a piggy bank didn't start just a few years ago. It's been part of the American dream since the 1950's. Sure, some people bought more than they could afford, but no one ever thought the economy would turn out this way, and a lot of us are suffering for mistakes we took no part in whatsoever. Being mean, small, and petty and name calling isn't going to solve anything. It just shows you up for being mean, small, and petty with a lousy vocabulary.

                                                          #11.21 - Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:55 PM EST
                                                          Reply

                                                          The banks Pushed by the government were writing loans to people who could not afford them. this caused a Housing shortage which artficially jacked up the prices of homes. The banks also knew that these were overinflated prices but they wrote the loans anyway figuring that when the people lost their homes the banls coudl resell them ands make lots of money. However they did not forsee that no one would be left able to afford loans.

                                                          • 2 votes
                                                          Reply#12 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:50 AM EST

                                                          the main causes of defaults included unemployment or other financial setbacks and adjustable mortgages that reset to unaffordable levels,

                                                          Who could afford ANY mortgage when they lose their job or get sick?

                                                          • 4 votes
                                                          #12.1 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:16 AM EST
                                                          Reply

                                                          The people who have moral issues with this are just plain suckers, people need to start making decisions on what's financially good for them just like any business does. As stated in the article the banks would not have any moral issue evicting people when they could not pay their mortgage, cut your losses and move on its the way of capitalism

                                                          • 8 votes
                                                          Reply#13 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:56 AM EST

                                                          then perhaps you inability to take your decision to purchase then move on when it isn't " making you money should cost you too.. Perhaps you should be flatlined credit wise for 15 years. I think that it is going to become the next step for Credit bureaus.

                                                            #13.1 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:10 AM EST

                                                            Why should I if I wait 5-10 years every debt will be written off. I'll be clear and they can go to hell.

                                                            • 1 vote
                                                            #13.2 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 4:28 PM EST
                                                            Reply

                                                            For whatever reason it is sad that they still owe on a mortgage at age 68.

                                                            Between private and commercial investors they were managing to ruin affordability without the mess being created by sub prime loans. If ain't broke - don't fix it. The old rigorous mortgage qualification process was working.

                                                            The article points out the disassociation created by remote ownership of the true burden. This does not make it right, just what is happening more and more.

                                                            • 2 votes
                                                            Reply#14 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:56 AM EST

                                                            "Strategic default' provides a false patina of logic to what is in most cases a stupid decision. Do these same people also park and walk away from their new car the moment they drive it off the lot, 'cause at that point they are underwater?

                                                            • 4 votes
                                                            Reply#15 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:57 AM EST

                                                            Straw man spotted. Everyone expects depreciation in new or reasonably used automobile purchase. Home ownership, on the other hand, has *ALWAYS* been referred to as a INVESTMENT. By definition, something that should grow in equity position. Only someone lacking in business acumen, or those with an overblown sense of morality would willingly stay in a hopeless negative equity position.

                                                            Try again.

                                                            • 9 votes
                                                            #15.1 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:28 AM EST

                                                            John Gaskill.. if you pay your mortgage and pay it off with additional payments then eventually it is yours free and clear. You would have been honorable. And you have a home that you know you paid for the right way. What is wrong with that? Or is your honor and moral character a meaningless thing to you?

                                                            • 1 vote
                                                            #15.2 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:14 AM EST

                                                            Moral character and honor are a long dead virtue in modern society. There is only the almighty dollar. That said, thirty years out if your home isn't worth more than you paid for it, something is very wrong.

                                                            • 4 votes
                                                            #15.3 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:07 PM EST

                                                            Not to mention that banks own homes in perpetuity.

                                                            Very few people own their homes outright. Every time a home is purchased a bank owns it. Take a home someone built in 1920 for $10,000. What do you suppose that home is worth today and how many years over the lifetime of that house do you think it was mortgage free?

                                                            Real estate is a great racket for the banks.

                                                            • 3 votes
                                                            #15.4 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:17 PM EST

                                                            Sorry people, but you never own your home even if you paid cash for it. You are simply holding it until someone can make more profit from it than you can, just ask the Supreme Court. According to our great biblical scholars sitting on SCOTUS corporations are super citizens, a well regulated militia is any person with more guns and ammo than functional brain cells and private property is actually government property and can be confiscated at any time someone believes they can make more money from it than you are.

                                                            And right wingers complain about activist judges.

                                                            And why is it you guys call these people immoral for walking away from a debt when you call Donald Trump and Mitt Romney "job creators" and heroes for bankrupting companies intentionally to get the most profit possible out of them?

                                                            • 1 vote
                                                            #15.5 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 2:33 PM EST

                                                            My honor and moral character died a little every time I got screwed over the last 11 years by corporations. Now I work on their system do what is best for me.

                                                            • 3 votes
                                                            #15.6 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 4:32 PM EST

                                                            I love it: the only people who should function with honor and decency are banks and corporations. If they don't everyone else should act just as badly.

                                                            We sound like a bunch of silly children who only know how to do right when other people are. The definition of being an adult is to do the right thing without being told.

                                                            If you are only willing to do the right thing when everybody else does, you are rudderless and blown by the winds of peer pressure.

                                                            We're sad and we don't even know it!

                                                            • 1 vote
                                                            #15.7 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 7:20 PM EST

                                                            Thank you. Two wrongs don't make a right.

                                                              #15.8 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:06 AM EST
                                                              Reply

                                                              Thank goodness we aren't in this gentleman's situation. We are in our mid forties, and we are still right side up on our mortgage (house still worth over $80,000 more than mortgage). But if prices continue to fall, who knows? The thing is, the cards are completely stacked against the individual. Costs have risen for everything, from gas to college educations, and our major assets are worth less. Policymakers are catering regulations to benefit banks and corporations, with little thought to the average person's predicament. If I was approaching 70 under these circumstances, I wouldn't care a fig about credit scores or financial obligations.

                                                              And the interesting part is that the majority of this country, the baby boomers, are all approaching this age. A good chunk of them have had their retirement savings shrunk and are upside down on their homes... perhaps we bailed out the wrong group. In either case, it will be interesting how banks react when more and more people opt for walking away from their financial obligations instead of suffering under an impossible situation.

                                                              • 21 votes
                                                              Reply#16 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:58 AM EST

                                                              Excellent post

                                                              • 5 votes
                                                              #16.1 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:16 AM EST

                                                              It's only an "impossible situation" if you lose the ability to pay the mortgage or are compelled to relocate for some reason and have to sell the house now. Otherwise, you just keep paying like you always planned to, and don't worry about the "value" of the house. This article is about people considering walking away from their homes when there is no need to do so....just the fact that the market says the value of the asset is less than the mortgage owed. That fact alone is not a compelling reason to walk away. If the market said the house was worth twice the mortgage balance, nobody would consider walking away. If you plan to sit tight and have a job that supports the mortgage, then all the rest of this is a made-up problem.

                                                              • 1 vote
                                                              #16.2 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:42 AM EST

                                                              This article is about people considering walking away from their homes when there is no need to do so....just the fact that the market says the value of the asset is less than the mortgage owed. That fact alone is not a compelling reason to walk away.

                                                              It is when you are approaching 70 and can see no hope of affording that mortgage. At that age credit scores and financial obligations don't play the role that they do when your in your 40s, as my husband and I are. We know we need to work within the system for a while longer, and will. Hopefully we'll never have to resort to this type of decision. But the world out their is unkind to the elderly: by the time we turn 65, who knows if we'll have social security and Medicare?

                                                              Bottom line Grandfather, the system is failing the individual. We need to acknowledge that, educated future homeowner, and most of all - stop giving banks a pass. They are the ones who set these people up.

                                                              • 1 vote
                                                              #16.3 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 3:05 PM EST

                                                              If the market said the house was worth twice the mortgage balance, nobody would consider walking away.

                                                              Good point, Grandpa. And walking away when the mortgage is twice what the house is worth is analogous to the bank doubling your interest rate when the house is worth twice the value of the mortgage. Either way someone is guilty of breaking the contract. So how would all of you people who voted "yes" like it if the banks did that? You would be screaming bloody murder and suing them for all they were worth.

                                                                #16.4 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 4:00 PM EST
                                                                Reply

                                                                Yup, Bernard Madoff made a "strategic default". Why shouldn't he ALSO be able to do so without having consequences other than a blemish on his credit score?

                                                                Wow, when I bought a new car it was worth less than I paid for it the moment I drove it off the lot. Damn car dealer should have to bare some of that loss! Maybe I should just "walk away" from it.

                                                                I bought a coat from Walmart. It was worth less the moment I walked out the door. I should walk away from that transaction if Walmart won't bear some of the loss. Maybe I should just go naked.

                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                Reply#17 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:59 AM EST

                                                                Good points Kent, but who really cares about morals anyway? I have to do what is best for me and to heck with everyone else. *sarcasm*

                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                #17.1 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:17 AM EST

                                                                To add to your examples, Kent ... you sell a stock or mutual fund from your IRA at a good price. Through no fault of yours, it drops 50% the next day, before settlement is complete. Should the buyer be allowed to walk away from the sale?

                                                                  #17.2 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:01 AM EST

                                                                  Are you DRUNK or just plain stupid. Circumstances are usually the driving force and a car or house are not the same as a house. When folks apply for a job they usually have to take some type of test to determine if they can comprehend enough to get the job, maybe they should have a test here before posting.

                                                                  • 1 vote
                                                                  #17.3 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:45 AM EST

                                                                  Actually Barry, in Feb/Mar 2000 I anticipated the market drop and sold ALL my Intel and Cicso Systems stock, just before they started their rapid 90% decline in value. I kept the money. I told others to do the same. Only one did. The others blamed me for not being more adamant in trying to convince them. It was all MY fault they didn't take my warnings seriously.

                                                                    #17.4 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 7:09 PM EST
                                                                    Reply

                                                                    I love how, in this article he brings up the fact that the banks are taking no part in these losses, they are getting their full value. Unlike the rest of us. I am really tired, though, of reading comments about how people who consider these drastic measures are deadbeats who overspent on a house they never should have considered buying (and not just re. this article...I've just seen that attitude over and over). While my family isn't defaulting or planning on it, I could see how someday - if this market continues - we may be in the same situation as many of those people. We bought our house at the height of the market, at the top of our budget range (it was such an aggressive market at the time, we considered ourselves lucky to get it when we did). Now just 5 years later, the house 2 doors down (which is the exact same model/land/everything as ours, but with more updates than ours) just sold for $240,000 less than we paid. Our house value is far, far less than our mortgage. We can still afford to pay, just as we have for the last 5 years, but when we chose this house we never expected the economy to deteriorate so quickly - taking with it many of my husband's customers (he owns his own business). So for now we are holding on, but if things get worse, who knows? We can't move - we'd end up paying the bank if we sold our house. We can't improve on our house. We can't afford to put away any money for our kids' college years or our retirement, because we just don't know what will happen. So if you bought a house when the market was low, or your salary hasn't changed in the last 5 years, good for you - but not all of us were so lucky.

                                                                    • 13 votes
                                                                    Reply#18 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:02 AM EST

                                                                    @J_newyork

                                                                    I agree completely! Defaulting on a mortgage is failing, and that's not what we're programmed for. Maybe a HANDFUL of people over-bought, but even then I'm wondering how, but many of us have had LIFE CHANGES that significantly impacted our ability to pay the mortgage.

                                                                    I was making decent money when I purchased my last house, and then became completely disabled 8 months later. I waited too long to downsize and now the house is stagnating on the market. I asked for relief/help from the Mortgage Holder (ING) and they told me I should sell the house--DUH!

                                                                    The house has lost value, but I have equity in it that I don't want to kiss off. What can I do?

                                                                    • 3 votes
                                                                    #18.1 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:15 AM EST

                                                                    UnitedWEStand - exactly. I feel for you. The banks/mortgage lenders say, "Just do x" but somehow x always benefits them, not us. Your mortgage lender is getting the original amount promised to them, no matter what the bank has decided your house is worth now (or no matter the fact that no one is buying, no matter what the house price is these days). I am glad for you that you still have some equity, that is great news, at least! Not sure what you can do but... good luck. I just hope this market (and economy) turns around. It's our only way out of this mess.

                                                                    • 3 votes
                                                                    #18.2 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:34 PM EST

                                                                    As a single mom, it is a struggle sometimes to pay my mortgage. Years ago I would never have even considered walking away from my home, but my views have changed in the last couple of years. It began when I was laid off for about 6 months. My mortgage had been sold to Bank of America and before I was laid off, I had been current. When I got behind, I tried to work with them to see if I could adjust my payments somehow- I CALLED THEM and tried to do the right thing and do you know what I was told?? I was informed by some girl at Bank of America that there was nothing they could do for me and that I should call my friends and family members to have them help me pay my bills! I was mortified. Here I was making an effort to do the right thing and I was being treated so rudely. I ended up getting caught up, but in the mean time I accrued almost $1000.00 in LATE FEES, which they won't even waive. I am sorry, but Bank of America has treated me poorly, why should I respect them?

                                                                    • 3 votes
                                                                    #18.3 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 2:06 PM EST

                                                                    I should also make a few more notes: We put over 20% down when we bought our home. Both my husband and I work. I have an excellent job and got my MBA a few years back. When we were house shopping in 2006, all we knew was that we wanted to grow our family and we needed to move out of our tiny apartment to do that. We had no idea that it would turn out to be the height of the market and that the house we bought would devalue so severely in such a short time. Sure, as long as we don't move, the value doesn't matter, really - except that now that we have no equity (no equity! We've put more than $400K into this house between our mortgage payments, downpayment and improvements) we can't get any home loans and had an unbelievably hard time refinancing earlier this year. We couldn't even qualify for a fixed-rate loan. It is all just insane.

                                                                    • 5 votes
                                                                    #18.4 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 5:01 PM EST
                                                                    Reply

                                                                    Businesses do this all of the time and are cheered by wall street and cnbc for their 'smart' business decision...strangely enough these same rightwing clowns don't think individuals should do the same thing...

                                                                    • 13 votes
                                                                    Reply#19 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:02 AM EST

                                                                    I myself was for business failing. Why should the Government decided who succeeded and who failed? Those decisions were made by the businesses. Just as I was against bailouts, I am against running out on my obligations. Therefore, I purchased my grandparents home of 55 years, after the death of my Grandmother. It was good enough for them, it is good enough for me. Cheaper than rent anywhere in this town I live. I feel good about my decision as I watched friends lose homes they bought just to impress.

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    #19.1 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:09 AM EST
                                                                    Reply

                                                                    These folks can rationalize walking away any way they want. The fact of the matter is that they made a bad financial decision, and now want to blame someone else, and hand off the consequences to someone else.

                                                                    They lack moral character.

                                                                    There is also a serious consequence for future home buyers. The terms will be much stiffer.

                                                                    • 5 votes
                                                                    #20 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:03 AM EST
                                                                    Alf77Deleted

                                                                    @Letusreason - Who lacks moral character? The banks who show no signs nor ever have or morality, decency, or guilt? It is nothing more that a business/financial decision and that is all. Banks would screw you if you missed your mortgage payment so why are you all upset that people decide they are now in a bad financial deal and make a business decision? Yes it will affect them if they buy something but that is a choice they decide to live with.

                                                                    • 10 votes
                                                                    #20.2 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:19 AM EST

                                                                    Alf - Gosh, everybody's doin it, so I better do it too!

                                                                    Why should I accept responsibility when everybody was doin it?

                                                                    Lemmings.

                                                                    • 4 votes
                                                                    #20.3 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:40 AM EST

                                                                    p.s. Alf - I've always purchased homes I could afford, and I've always paid for them.

                                                                    • 5 votes
                                                                    #20.4 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:59 AM EST

                                                                    Banks would screw you if you missed your mortgage payment so why are you all upset that people decide they are now in a bad financial deal and make a business decision?

                                                                    Missing a mortgage payment is a breach of contract. So, they're entitled to take action. I'm not defending them, but that's contract law. Deciding that you don't feel like honoring your end of the deal is a completely different matter.

                                                                    Banks have no morals, decency, or guilt. So what. As long as they uphold their end of the contract, you have no reason to complain. It would be different if they were breaking their contracts by, for instance, demanding early repayment of loans or raising interest beyond that permitted by the mortgage, but for the most part they're not hassling people who are in compliance with the terms of their mortgage.

                                                                    • 7 votes
                                                                    #20.5 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:05 AM EST

                                                                    Alf - Actually it was the Clinton administration that pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to loosen their regulations on who was able to qualify for a home loan. "The Clinton Administration directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to underwrite loans to people of modest means, and people with damaged credit. "

                                                                    Don't just blame your opposing parties president like and idiot, go 'google' up a search on "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac crisis" and find out some facts for yourself before regurgitating a bunch of liberal bullcrap thats fed to you. Time to take some responsibility. See how great it works when the government decides to involve itself in business?

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    #20.6 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:40 PM EST

                                                                    When you go to the bank and ask a loan to buy a million dollar home, the bank does not have the money. It simply makes a "promise" to pay you. The bank knows you will never ask for the money. When you buy the house, you write a check. The seller takes the check back to the bank. The bank switches the "promise to pay" (aka your bank account) from your account to the seller's account. During this transaction bank gets the house. Now you made a promise to pay to the bank, and the bank made a promise to pay to the seller. The seller did not ask for the money. The seller thinks he has the money in the bank account, but he does not. It is just a promise from the bank to pay to the seller and that promise is based on YOUR promise to pay to the bank. If you don't pay, the collateral is the house which now the bank has a claim even though the bank did not put a dime of it's own money.

                                                                    At the end, economy feels like there is an extra 1 million dollars that previously did not exist. Because now the seller is free to write a check for a million dollars. You see, what we use as money is not cash, it is our check book and bank accounts. This is how the banks create money out of nothing.

                                                                    Now for the next 30 years you will work hard and pay triple the amount of your home in the form of interest just because the bank made these empty promises.

                                                                    When the liquidity crisis hit, banks get caught and they cannot pay these empty promises. Thus they require a bailout. It is a conspiracy to rob people out of their wealth and financial freedom. It is not a theory. It is simple fact. But the ignorant masses do not understand.

                                                                    These people are talking about morality, contract etc. The mortgage contract is an impossible contract and shall be void! Why? Because individuals who sign these contracts do not know this: When the money supply deflates, and banks can deflate it at will, then weakest borrowers are guaranteed to go bankrupt. This is a musical chairs game and there are not enough chairs to sit when the music stops. The contract should have stated this clearly, but it did not!

                                                                    Google for "DEFLATIONARY CRASH" to understand why banks are guaranteed to foreclose some of the homes without putting a dime of their own. It is robbery.

                                                                    • 3 votes
                                                                    #20.7 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:49 PM EST

                                                                    Excellent Logic. I was waiting for someone to bring up Clinton's contribution to this housing mess. There were actually some very good TV illustrations on a popular "home" network of individuals buying homes with 0 down payment and then not just a first mortgage but a second too .... all for a first-time home buyers. Home ownership is the American Dream, but it is foolish to believe everyone would ACTUALLY qualify. We have thousands and thousands of people who are walking away because they are unwilling to take personal responsibility for THEIR decision, because when someone closes on a home it is not the loan officer/closer with the pen their hand, it is the new homeowner who maybe did not take the time to educate themselves.

                                                                    If my home value was up I would not offer the bank MORE money, so why would I expect them to take LESS when the market value is low

                                                                    • 2 votes
                                                                    #20.8 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 1:01 PM EST

                                                                    When you go to the bank and ask a loan to buy a million dollar home, the bank does not have the money. It simply makes a "promise" to pay you. The bank knows you will never ask for the money. When you buy the house, you write a check. The seller takes the check back to the bank. The bank switches the "promise to pay" (aka your bank account) from your account to the seller's account.

                                                                    Mikes - you really ought to get a better understanding of how the financial system works. When I sell a house, the money paid at closing is mine to do with as I wish. It is not a 'promise' to pay me as you suggest. If I choose to, I can take all cash, and light cigars with it. Nothing promising about that.

                                                                    • 5 votes
                                                                    #20.9 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 1:17 PM EST

                                                                    usa - I couldn't disagree more.....

                                                                    people who are walking away because they are unwilling to take personal responsibility for THEIR decision,

                                                                    Just like these financial institutions....IT IS A FINANCIAL DECISION...NOT A MORAL OR PESONAL RESPONSIBILITY ISSUE!

                                                                    BOA walked away from hundreds of "Obligations" as you put it, becuase of the loss of "VALUE" in properties they purchased...WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

                                                                    I can't see why, if someone can afford it, they would walk away, simply because, they are going to pay someone. But if you know, down the line, (just like David Martin in the article), that they will not be able too, WHY put anymore into it....WHAT SHOULD HE DO, MAKE ANOTHER 5 YEARS IN PAYMENTS, THEN HAVE THEM FORCLOSE ON THEM....?

                                                                    Morality or personal responsibility, should have NOTHING to do with it, until these financial institutions, are HELD, TO THE SAME LEVEL.

                                                                    • 3 votes
                                                                    #20.10 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 1:23 PM EST

                                                                    two wrongs never make a right!

                                                                      #20.11 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 2:30 PM EST

                                                                      Well I guess if the elected public servants and the treasury department would not have bailed out Wall Street and the Banks..............they would have walked away too! However, our elected public servants used "we the people," who live on Main Street tax money to bail out Wall Street and the Banks. Now if our elected public servants would only do the same for Main Street.............we the people would now own our homes debt free...........you think? Just my thoughts glw-321945

                                                                      • 2 votes
                                                                      #20.12 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 2:46 PM EST

                                                                      DBW if the government had taken the money and bailed out the people instead of the banks we wouldn't be in this position. The banks were supposed to use the money to adjust those loans instead they paid gigantic bonuses to the people who started the whole mess in the first place.

                                                                      • 4 votes
                                                                      #20.13 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 4:41 PM EST

                                                                      At the end, economy feels like there is an extra 1 million dollars that previously did not exist.

                                                                      You really need to sign up for Econ 101. While the banking system CAN create money, an individual bank can not. The million dollars that was paid to the seller is very real. The million dollars that was lent to the purchaser either came from the bank's capital or from the bank's depositors.

                                                                      Now, if the money is kept entirely within the banking system, the system can (and will) create additional money. The formula is a reciprocal of the reserve requirement. That happens automatically and is no plot by the banks. It is how the systems works. But, these days, it is rare for money to remain entirely within the banking system. There are too many other places for it so end up (mutual funds, money market accounts, stocks, etc....) so the theoretical expansion is never reached.

                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                      #20.14 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 5:52 PM EST

                                                                      You really need to sign up for Econ 101.

                                                                      I couldn't have said it better.

                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                      #20.15 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 6:11 PM EST

                                                                      Letusreason

                                                                      You purchased a home you could afford - so did everyone else - at the time. I don't get what you are criticizing them for?

                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                      #20.16 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:08 PM EST
                                                                      Reply

                                                                      People who walk away from their mortgages should be sued for the balance. That would send a clear message about contracts.

                                                                      • 3 votes
                                                                      Reply#21 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:09 AM EST

                                                                      So what makes you think that the elderly would care about being sued after having their homes stolen, their pension stolen, and their medicare stolen, which was all under contract, from them by Wall Street and the Banks; because of a bail out by our elected public servants and the U.S. Treasury Department legally? Please walk towards the light!! Just my thoughts!!

                                                                      • 5 votes
                                                                      #21.1 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 2:55 PM EST

                                                                      Go ahead sue me I got nothing left.

                                                                      • 5 votes
                                                                      #21.2 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 4:42 PM EST

                                                                      Contract law in California and other states is clear. On a purchase money loan, the bank has agreed to take your house if you fail to perform. That is what they agreed to and that is what they get!!! If the media would make this clear, those of us in the know would not have to deal with your noise.

                                                                      • 3 votes
                                                                      #21.3 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 7:54 PM EST

                                                                      Shark: If you have ever read your loan agreement and documents and mortgage contract, you will find that the reason those two documents exist is to provide contractual escapes for both parties, since-for the bank-your loan is an investment to produce income.

                                                                      If you stop paying, the bank begins a foreclosure process to evict you from their collateral property, and thereby make it available for resale so that they can recoup their money.

                                                                      Also, if you wish to stop paying, in some states, you have the option of surrendering your collateral property ("House") to the lender and are then relieved of the obligation-under their terms of the loan agreement-since you "surrendered" the loan collateral to the bank voluntarily. Every investment has an element of risk attached. This is how the banks and lenders have a risk in real estate lending as an investment. This market is just what they have been hating to see happen.

                                                                        #21.4 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:57 AM EST

                                                                        @Letusreason, the money in the bank does not exist. FED printed 3 trillions, 2 trillion of it last 3 years. Bank credit alone is 9.5 trillion. Banks are lending money that they do not have. This is how money, check book money, is created in debt based monetary system. But in a society, I believe that new money should belong to the society, not the bank or the capital owners. This is the root cause of our economic problems. Please read about how banks create money and understand fractional reserve banking and money multiplier.

                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                        #21.5 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:48 AM EST

                                                                        Sorry Shark.... Got to go with KJames.... Unlike a loan without collateral, Home loans are based on Collateral. Fail to perform, they get the house as the held collateral... They get to resell it to someone else. They get the profit. They bear the risk.

                                                                        With all that said -- I have a situation that the Banks want my home - just so they can lower their balance sheet - by taking a "loss" at my expense.

                                                                        Due to our wonderful economy, I have been laid off twice and forced to become a contractor (without benefits or insurance). I got behind, but managed to float about 4 months behind for 2.5 years as some people did not pay me on time. This last time I got to 6 months behind again and the day before I was to make a payment - was notified I was going into foreclosure. For 2.5 years my "bank" worked with me accepting payments at 7.75% interest. They had "changed their policy" was the statement I received about why they were proceeding now after 2.5 years of making payments.

                                                                        I bought the house for $365K - it is worth $330K in today's market - I owed the bank $284K. - Guess who see's the profit from the sale (not me). I paid the mortgage, albiet 4-6 months behind - but it was paid.

                                                                        I did not walk away when times were tough. I could not qualify for a modification - I'm a contractor that goes through times of no employment, with some clients that decide not to pay for a while - making it difficult to pay my mortgage. But I paid... for 2.5 years, I paid. Once the housing market started to get better - They decided that they could get more money by taking my house..... And guess what - I bailed their collective asses out all the while stuck in a 7.75% loan.

                                                                        Thanks - I am duly rewarded.

                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                        #21.6 - Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:06 PM EST
                                                                        Reply
                                                                        Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 ... 30
                                                                        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                                        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.