Getting Knocked Down by Prime ARMs

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by somdrenter

Sorry Larry, looking back through the thread I didn’t see any mention of the government bailout programs.

I was referring to the:

theory you have. Apparently, given the two examples I provided, someone will chose foreclosure as their best route. In either of the two examples given, the result is the same. No reduction in housing inventory, and further downward pressure on prices.

...the way I worded the post was intended to convey folks who wanted a house for traditional reasons; they wanted to live there. Yes, you are correct, I was wrong; some people want to.

As per the link they want to simply walk away from one house so they can have 'more' down the street for less, nevermind that they already determined that what they have is just fine both to live in and the size of the payment.

People who can afford to do this, real estate gambles, are not the people I was thinking of. By this same logic, we should be baling out stock purchases that have dropped, right?

[somdrenter]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...People who can afford to do this, real estate gambles, are not the people I was thinking of. By this same logic, we should be baling out stock purchases that have dropped, right?

Bailouts? Of course not. But as you were referring to earlier (the family that needs an extra $500 per month) given these foreclosures, declining prices, and further economic pressures (did you notice the DOW yesterday?), that $500 may be getting harder to come by.

Simply put, maybe their home is now a liability and it’s not worth the time and effort to procure said $500, which leads us back to, with even your example, that the “best” choice is to walk away.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by somdrenter

Bailouts? Of course not. But as you were referring to earlier (the family that needs an extra $500 per month) given these foreclosures, declining prices, and further economic pressures (did you notice the DOW yesterday?), that $500 may be getting harder to come by.

Simply put, maybe their home is now a liability and it’s not worth the time and effort to procure said $500, which leads us back to, with even your example, that the “best” choice is to walk away.

...that OK? Where is the need or rational for governmental intervention?

Anyone who risked an ARM made a bet, as is fitting a free market society. Risk implies winning and losing. Government fixing their bet is not risk and no risk is not a free society.

[Kyle (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Wickedwrench

Wow, this place is dead without Patchy.

Has he been evicted?

[somdrenter]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...that OK? Where is the need or rational for governmental intervention?

Anyone who risked an ARM made a bet, as is fitting a free market society. Risk implies winning and losing. Government fixing their bet is not risk and no risk is not a free society.

Larry, we're in agreement. They made the bet, they pay the price. It’s not the governments job to bailout these folks. If so, the government mitigates risk and each bubble will be greater than the last.

[EmptyTimCup]

Originally Posted by somdrenter

Awwww My heart bleeds for the ....... ID10T's rolled the dice and lost, no personal responsibility "oh the value dropped, I am not going to continuing paying : I am loosing money"

Dumb #####: why make a 3200 dollar payment on a 1200 sq ft home it makes no sense -

Interviewer: because thats what you agreed to do

DB: fine as long as the value is going up, the value is going down it makes no sense ....

because thats what you agreed to pay you stupid ####


reminds me of a high school teacher that bought a beach house in FL back in the late 70's, he was stuck with one of those special 21% interest loans from the Carter Years .... the Property Values had fallen and he could never refi

when I caught up with him in the 90's he still had the house