B of A to bail out $3.5 billion to California homeowners

We should get a class action lawsuit going for all of us that don't afford homes, since this type of legislation is hurting us by keeping prices from being affordable.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1223358521]"Some borrowers stuck with Countrywide customers might qualify for having to pay nothing but interest for a decade. Even people who can't afford to keep their homes with such changes will be able to get help moving to a new home."</blockquote>


But they won't do a damn thing for homeowners who were responsible and obtained mortgages that they could actually afford and that used correct income figures for their loans.



That just pisses me off.
 
I think there still will be a lot of people will just walk away. People will not like to hold on to real estate especially when it's loosing money. If there is a slight deflation, that will make it worse. They only win in inflation scenario.
 
Thats the most retarded thing I've ever heard why should the people partly responsible for this nightmare be saved from foreclosing on a home they could never afford in the first place
 
[quote author="Anon." date=1223374737][quote author="trrenter" date=1223358521]"Some borrowers stuck with Countrywide customers might qualify for having to pay nothing but interest for a decade. Even people who can't afford to keep their homes with such changes will be able to get help moving to a new home."</blockquote>


But they won't do a damn thing for homeowners who were responsible and obtained mortgages that they could actually afford and that used correct income figures for their loans.



That just pisses me off.</blockquote>


If you are a homeowner, do you want to see more or less foreclosures in your neighborhood? Understandably, many of you are rooting for prices to go down further and just about everyone has a problem with rewarding irresponsibility. However, if you are an owner, even a responsible owner with an affordable mortgage, it's in your best interest for there to be fewer forleclosures dragging down the value of your home.



If you are looking to buy, you want prices to come down. However, if the entire economy gets dragged down too far due to all the forelcosures, how will your job or business fare? Without a job or your business failing, you can't very easily afford a home even at lower prices.
 
[quote author="stepping_up" date=1223510556][quote author="Anon." date=1223374737][quote author="trrenter" date=1223358521]"Some borrowers stuck with Countrywide customers might qualify for having to pay nothing but interest for a decade. Even people who can't afford to keep their homes with such changes will be able to get help moving to a new home."</blockquote>


But they won't do a damn thing for homeowners who were responsible and obtained mortgages that they could actually afford and that used correct income figures for their loans.



That just pisses me off.</blockquote>


If you are a homeowner, do you want to see more or less foreclosures in your neighborhood? Understandably, many of you are rooting for prices to go down further and just about everyone has a problem with rewarding irresponsibility. However, if you are an owner, even a responsible owner with an affordable mortgage, it's in your best interest for there to be fewer forleclosures dragging down the value of your home.



If you are looking to buy, you want prices to come down. However, if the entire economy gets dragged down too far due to all the forelcosures, how will your job or business fare? Without a job or your business failing, you can't very easily afford a home even at lower prices.</blockquote>
I've heard a realtor said the same thing to me. Why buy and bring down the neighborhood? Why because I want my children and their children to at least be able to afford to buy a place in the future.
 
<strong>"If you are a homeowner, do you want to see more or less foreclosures in your neighborhood? Understandably, many of you are rooting for prices to go down further and just about everyone has a problem with rewarding irresponsibility. However, if you are an owner, even a responsible owner with an affordable mortgage, it?s in your best interest for there to be fewer forleclosures dragging down the value of your home." </strong>

As long as a foreclosure doesn't bring an unsavory element into my neighborhood I would not care about foreclosures. The value of a home to me is having a place to raise my family. Having a place as time goes by I pay down my priciple and have equity. Then one day pay it off and not have the monthly expense of a rent or a mortgage.



If over the course of my 30 year fixed housing prices go up or down it won't matter to me. If every house in my neighborhood is foreclosed on and it brings down the market "value" that wouldn't concern me in the least bit. Unless of course I bought at the top of the bubble then shame on me.
 
My point was more along the lines of how widespread the pain of an overcorrection would be. I'm not advocating keeping prices above market, rather pointing out that responsible and irresponsible people alike will benefit from preventing an overcorrection.
 
[quote author="stepping_up" date=1223519810]My point was more along the lines of how widespread the pain of an overcorrection would be. I'm not advocating keeping prices above market, rather pointing out that responsible and irresponsible people alike will benefit from preventing an overcorrection.</blockquote>
Overcorrection? I think SoCal has not reached this point yet. Sorry I have been memorizing house prices in Irvine on MLS for the last 5 years.
 
[quote author="biscuitninja" date=1223523464]Dammit! I knew I wasn't a good american by going into debt as much as i could!



-bix</blockquote>


Don't worry. As long as you've contributed to hyper-consumerism and over-consumption, you've still been a good American. ;-)
 
One of my favorite calvin and hobbes quote.

Calvin: ?Dad, I?d like to have a little talk.?

Dad: ?Um?ok.?

Calvin: ?As the wage earner here, its your responsibility to show some consumer confidence and start buying things that will get the economy going and create profits and employment. Here?s a list of some big-ticket items I?d like for Christmas. I hope I can trust you to do whats right for our country.?
 
[quote author="WestparkRenter" date=1223520660][quote author="stepping_up" date=1223519810]My point was more along the lines of how widespread the pain of an overcorrection would be. I'm not advocating keeping prices above market, rather pointing out that responsible and irresponsible people alike will benefit from preventing an overcorrection.</blockquote>
Overcorrection? I think SoCal has not reached this point yet. Sorry I have been memorizing house prices in Irvine on MLS for the last 5 years.</blockquote>


SoCal encompasses the IE and Irvine. I was not referencing Irvine by any means.
 
<strong>"My point was more along the lines of how widespread the pain of an overcorrection would be. I?m not advocating keeping prices above market, rather pointing out that responsible and irresponsible people alike will benefit from preventing an overcorrection."</strong>



I think the point that would be argued is what is an "over correction"? Going back to 2005 pricing, 2003 or 1997? People who bought in 2005 would probably say anything below 2005 as would people who bought in 2003.



Being selfish I want prices to be where they should be. These same homes that are being foreclosed on today were part of the run up that kept me from buying. They "over corrected" on the way up and that is what got us into this mess.



If they want to stay then they should give up all equity in the future until the "forgiven" amount is paid back to the forgiving bank.
 
I may be wrong on this, but I was under the impression that equilibrium should be around rental parity. If this is the case, then overcorrection would be when it is cheaper to buy than it is to rent. And yes, I agree that there should be no free lunches.
 
[quote author="stepping_up" date=1223527473]I may be wrong on this, but I was under the impression that equilibrium should be around rental parity. If this is the case, then overcorrection would be when it is cheaper to buy than it is to rent. And yes, I agree that there should be no free lunches.</blockquote>


I just found out that people in my neighborhood bought a home for $680K to rent to UCI students for $2300/month. This is too crazy!
 
[quote author="WestparkRenter" date=1223542518]

I just found out that people in my neighborhood bought a home for $680K to rent to UCI students for $2300/month. This is too crazy!</blockquote>


At 3% interest rate, that $680k will earn him roughly $15,300 annually after taxes. At $2300/month rental, he will earn roughly $27,600 annually tax-free. That is crazy!!
 
[quote author="asianinvasian" date=1223544145][quote author="WestparkRenter" date=1223542518]

I just found out that people in my neighborhood bought a home for $680K to rent to UCI students for $2300/month. This is too crazy!</blockquote>


At 3% interest rate, that $680k will earn him roughly $15,300 annually after taxes. At $2300/month rental, he will earn roughly $27,600 annually tax-free. That is crazy!!</blockquote>


How will the $27K be tax-free? You don't have to claim rental income and expenses if you are renting to students?



How will it be $27,600 annually in earnings? Aren't there any expenses associated with a rental, like say maybe <strong>property taxes</strong>, maintenance, gardeners, association dues, insurance, etc. Wouldn't there be at least $13-14K worth of expenses annually and taxes providing a net pre-tax return on investment of perhaps $13-14K?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top