Poll: Underwater

[matt770]

I used to largely agree with Az's stance on this issue but of late I've read more and more about the way mortgage companies have been behaving in every aspect of this game and now I say F 'em, they don't give two chits about you and would dump your ass on the street in a NY minute, so why should you care about them? Your note above about them not bothering to process documentation properly is totally accurate and the reason why one of them (I think BoA) has halted foreclosures everywhere because pretty much every state was lining up to sue them.

 

They get to keep every cent you've ever paid them plus they get the house. You get nothing except a fresh start. Again, F 'em, do what's right for you.

 

It is downright sickening how they treat people who are hurting and trying to save their homes. Try to work out a loan mod, or get some of the debt forgiven, or work out a short sale, you're SOL. My first choice was a short sale, but was told it would never be approved because I don't have a "true" hardship. Even for people that do, 90% of short sales fail because the lenders hold up the approval. I wonder if they are more cooperative when a Trump or Merrill Lynch stops paying the note on some commercial property? The little guy gets f'd every time.

[geeteebee]

It is downright sickening how they treat people who are hurting and trying to save their homes. Try to work out a loan mod, or get some of the debt forgiven, or work out a short sale, you're SOL. My first choice was a short sale, but was told it would never be approved because I don't have a "true" hardship. Even for people that do, 90% of short sales fail because the lenders hold up the approval. I wonder if they are more cooperative when a Trump or Merrill Lynch stops paying the note on some commercial property? The little guy gets f'd every time.

 

 

Matt, I don't mean this to be a personal attack.

 

Above you said that you view this as a contract and you are willing to walk away and suffer the consequences and now you nad Ursa are whining about how mortgage companies don't care about people. Well, tough titties. They view this as a contract also. If they uphold their end, then why should they not expect you to uphold yours? what obligation are they under to work with people who are hurting? Sure it would be nice if they worked with someone a little bit but if they did it for one person, then they'd have to do it for everyone and for that one person they said no to, they'd get sued for some sort of descrimination.

 

Should the mortgage companies be punished if they did something illegal? Definitely. Should B of A get sued if they don't follow the foreclosure rules? Of course. Should they have to deal with all of the losses for making perfectly legal but idiotic loans to people who couldn't afford them? Absolutely. Should they pursue someone to the fullest extent of the law if that person defaults on their contract? Yep.

 

The difference between your mortgage and a commercial mortgage is that most commercial mortgages are non recourse so there is nothing other than the property backing up the loan. However, when you signed your mortgage, you effectively gave them your personal guarantee that you would repay it. Like it or not, it is a major difference.

 

I do agree with Ursa on one point. Do what's right for you. If you and your wife are willing to suffer the consequences, then pull the trigger and don't look back. Know that for a while things may get hairy but it will pass. Best of luck whatever you decide.

[Ursa Majoris]

Above you said that you view this as a contract and you are willing to walk away and suffer the consequences and now you nad Ursa are whining about how mortgage companies don't care about people. Well, tough titties. They view this as a contract also. If they uphold their end, then why should they not expect you to uphold yours? what obligation are they under to work with people who are hurting? Sure it would be nice if they worked with someone a little bit but if they did it for one person, then they'd have to do it for everyone and for that one person they said no to, they'd get sued for some sort of descrimination.

 

Should the mortgage companies be punished if they did something illegal? Definitely. Should B of A get sued if they don't follow the foreclosure rules? Of course. Should they have to deal with all of the losses for making perfectly legal but idiotic loans to people who couldn't afford them? Absolutely. Should they pursue someone to the fullest extent of the law if that person defaults on their contract? Yep.

I get irked by the constant refrain of "we want to keep people in their houses" No you don't, you bunch of liars because if you did, you'd follow the procedures that are in place to help do just that. Instead you prefer to grab the property, no doubt with a view to it being more profitable over time.

Absolutely they have the right to pursue defaulters. But please, enough with the crocodile tears they shed over dumping people out of their houses when, if they made the effort, many of them could stay and repay the loan. Seems clear to me they'd rather have the property and the free money they've already been paid.

[geeteebee]

I get irked by the constant refrain of "we want to keep people in their houses" No you don't, you bunch of liars because if you did, you'd follow the procedures that are in place to help do just that. Instead you prefer to grab the property, no doubt with a view to it being more profitable over time.

Absolutely they have the right to pursue defaulters. But please, enough with the crocodile tears they shed over dumping people out of their houses when, if they made the effort, many of them could stay and repay the loan. Seems clear to me they'd rather have the property and the free money they've already been paid.

 

 

Totally agree. They shouldn't have to apologize for pursuing their rights under the contract.

[Ursa Majoris]

And here's an apposite news article.

 

NEW YORK – In an effort to rush through thousands of home foreclosures since 2007, financial institutions and their mortgage servicing departments hired hair stylists, Walmart floor workers and people who had worked on assembly lines and installed them in "foreclosure expert" jobs with no formal training, a Florida lawyer says.

 

In depositions released Tuesday, many of those workers testified that they barely knew what a mortgage was. Some couldn't define the word "affidavit." Others didn't know what a complaint was, or even what was meant by personal property. Most troubling, several said they knew they were lying when they signed the foreclosure affidavits and that they agreed with the defense lawyers' accusations about document fraud.

 

"The mortgage servicers hired people who would never question authority," said Peter Ticktin, a Deerfield Beach, Fla., lawyer who is defending 3,000 homeowners in foreclosure cases. As part of his work, Ticktin gathered 150 depositions from bank employees who say they signed foreclosure affidavits without reviewing the documents or ever laying eyes on them — earning them the name "robo-signers."

 

The deposed employees worked for the mortgage service divisions of banks such as Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase, as well as for mortgage servicers like Litton Loan Servicing, a division of Goldman Sachs.

 

Again, the mortgage companies see more profit in grabbing the land and houses on top of what they've already been paid.

[geeteebee]

And here's an apposite news article.

 

 

 

Again, the mortgage companies see more profit in grabbing the land and houses on top of what they've already been paid.

 

 

And that is fine. They haven't been paid in full under the contract so they have the right to foreclose, sell the property and get paid in full. But they also have to abide by all laws under the foreclosure process.

[Chief Dick]

And here's an apposite news article.

 

 

 

Again, the mortgage companies see more profit in grabbing the land and houses on top of what they've already been paid.

 

Yeah, but aren't we really comparing apples and oranges here? matt has the capacity to pay. He is not in default and is not in foreclosure proceedings.

 

Are banks turds sometimes? Yes. But this is not applicable in this scenario.

[dmarc117]

im not a fan of defaulters, but you have to do whats best for you and your family. plus, whatever you do, expect the worse. expect them to come after your savings, your credit getting shalacked for a few years, etc. just so you can prepare yourself for the worse case scenario.

[dmarc117]

Yeah, but aren't we really comparing apples and oranges here? matt has the capacity to pay. He is not in default and is not in foreclosure proceedings.

 

Are banks turds sometimes? Yes. But this is not applicable in this scenario.

 

 

thats why i would expect them to come after the savings. there are tons of people that cant pay and have nothing. thye will shuffle those to the side. those that can pay, they will go after imo. it may take months, years, but they will eventually imo.

[matt770]

Matt, I don't mean this to be a personal attack.

 

Above you said that you view this as a contract and you are willing to walk away and suffer the consequences and now you nad Ursa are whining about how mortgage companies don't care about people. Well, tough titties. They view this as a contract also. If they uphold their end, then why should they not expect you to uphold yours? what obligation are they under to work with people who are hurting? Sure it would be nice if they worked with someone a little bit but if they did it for one person, then they'd have to do it for everyone and for that one person they said no to, they'd get sued for some sort of descrimination.

 

Should the mortgage companies be punished if they did something illegal? Definitely. Should B of A get sued if they don't follow the foreclosure rules? Of course. Should they have to deal with all of the losses for making perfectly legal but idiotic loans to people who couldn't afford them? Absolutely. Should they pursue someone to the fullest extent of the law if that person defaults on their contract? Yep.

 

The difference between your mortgage and a commercial mortgage is that most commercial mortgages are non recourse so there is nothing other than the property backing up the loan. However, when you signed your mortgage, you effectively gave them your personal guarantee that you would repay it. Like it or not, it is a major difference.

 

I do agree with Ursa on one point. Do what's right for you. If you and your wife are willing to suffer the consequences, then pull the trigger and don't look back. Know that for a while things may get hairy but it will pass. Best of luck whatever you decide.

 

I agree 100% with all of this. I was trying to make the point that there should not be a moral stigma on a borrower for exercising their legal right to default, since the lenders act in a way that is completely amoral themselves. I think most people instinctively consider it a moral imperative to honor their debts; I certainly always have and it was the reason I first rejected the idea. I sensed that tone in a few posts and that is what I was responding to.

[Ursa Majoris]

Yeah, but aren't we really comparing apples and oranges here? matt has the capacity to pay. He is not in default and is not in foreclosure proceedings.

 

Are banks turds sometimes? Yes. But this is not applicable in this scenario.

Oh yes, I completely agree the situations are not the same. I was taking the opportunity to have a good rant, hoping to provoke Perch into some laughable defense of mortgage companies doing illegal stuff, probably because of Obama.

[Chief Dick]

Oh yes, I completely agree the situations are not the same. I was taking the opportunity to have a good rant, hoping to provoke Perch into some laughable defense of mortgage companies doing illegal stuff, probably because of Obama.

 

[Perchoutofwater]

I agree 100% with all of this. I was trying to make the point that there should not be a moral stigma on a borrower for exercising their legal right to default, since the lenders act in a way that is completely amoral themselves. I think most people instinctively consider it a moral imperative to honor their debts; I certainly always have and it was the reason I first rejected the idea. I sensed that tone in a few posts and that is what I was responding to.

 

Matt I'm not going to tell you what to do, that is something only you and your wife with the help of an attorney can decide. I will say this, that if people start taking the approach that you are taking when they can live up to their obligations, it is going to unnecessarily increase the cost of borrowing money for others. Additionally if you were to try to do business with me and I found out that you had done something like this I would pass up that business opportunity regardless of how good it looked otherwise.

[matt770]

Matt I'm not going to tell you what to do, that is something only you and your wife with the help of an attorney can decide. I will say this, that if people start taking the approach that you are taking when they can live up to their obligations, it is going to unnecessarily increase the cost of borrowing money for others. Additionally if you were to try to do business with me and I found out that you had done something like this I would pass up that business opportunity regardless of how good it looked otherwise.

 

People have been taking this approach since the crisis began, are still doing it in increasing numbers, yet rates are at historic lows. A lot of those people did it so they could take advantage of the market and buy a better house, or just blew the money on vacations. We're doing it because we don't feel safe here anymore. To the bank, that's not a tangible hardship that qualifies us for a short sale or loan modification, but as I see the toll it has taken on my wife, it is every bit as bad as losing a job. Sorry you wouldn't do business with me -- and I'll have to get used to that reaction when creditors see my lower FICO score. But if I were your son-in-law, hopefully you'd respect my decision to try to give your depressed and scared daughter some semblance of her old happy and secure life back.

[Perchoutofwater]

People have been taking this approach since the crisis began, are still doing it in increasing numbers, yet rates are at historic lows. A lot of those people did it so they could take advantage of the market and buy a better house, or just blew the money on vacations. We're doing it because we don't feel safe here anymore. To the bank, that's not a tangible hardship that qualifies us for a short sale or loan modification, but as I see the toll it has taken on my wife, it is every bit as bad as losing a job. Sorry you wouldn't do business with me -- and I'll have to get used to that reaction when creditors see my lower FICO score. But if I were your son-in-law, hopefully you'd respect my decision to try to give your depressed and scared daughter some semblance of her old happy and secure life back.

 

I wasn't trying to be an ass, I was just pointing out that if you do what you are considering there is more on the line than just how hard it's going to be to get your next loan. I know that when ever we enter a contract with a firm to build a building, they pick over our financial records and we pick over theirs prior to entering into the contract. It is just something that is done. I also know that many employers look at the financial records of those they employ as well. I would have a hard time hiring a bookkeeper that did what you are contemplating, or anyone else that would have the ability to write checks or use credit cards. On the other hand there are plenty of jobs that we don't look at like that, but most of them are lower paying with less responsibility and less risk to us. I'm not trying to attack you personally, or even speak to the morality of the issue, just trying to make you aware of the ramification this decision could have on you. Obviously you have to do what is right for your family, whatever that may be, just be aware that there are more issues than just getting the next car loan or home loan. It could affect your employment prospects, and any future business dealings you may wish to get involved in.

 

With regard to rates, they are being held artificially low by the Fed, and that can not continue forever, and don't think for a minute that people defaulting on loans isn't going to make it harder and more expensive to borrow money in the future. Right now the government still has many of the larger banks by the balls thanks to TARP, that will not always be the case, and the FED will not always take such an active stance.

[Azazello1313]

I agree 100% with all of this. I was trying to make the point that there should not be a moral stigma on a borrower for exercising their legal right to default, since the lenders act in a way that is completely amoral themselves. I think most people instinctively consider it a moral imperative to honor their debts; I certainly always have and it was the reason I first rejected the idea. I sensed that tone in a few posts and that is what I was responding to.

 

as far as I can tell, they have honored their side of the deal completely. they loaned you money to buy a house that you chose, and now a few years later you have buyer's remorse and want to stick them with your purchase. they didn't buy the house, you did. you assumed the benefit of any appreciation, and (most of) the risks of any depreciation. morality isn't really the issue here as far as I'm concerned, but you are essentially trying to walk away with their money. if you considered it a moral imperative to honor your debts before, but now you don't, the only thing that's changed is your moral imperative. blaming the people who loaned you the money is a weak rationalization, IMO.

 

yeah, you can default on your debt while you have the ability and assets to pay, and if you say there should be no moral stigma attached to that, fine, I am on board with that. but on the other hand, I will not attach any moral stigma if the bank exercises their legal right (assuming they have one) under your agreement with them to come after your other assets. you seem to be pretty convinced they won't, but I'm not sure how you can feel so confident about that. those folks are usually pretty vigilant when it comes to leaving money on the table. it appears they have 3 years after the sale out of foreclosure to initiate a deficiency judgment. you want that hanging over your head for the next 3+ years?

[matt770]

as far as I can tell, they have honored their side of the deal completely. they loaned you money to buy a house that you chose, and now a few years later you have buyer's remorse and want to stick them with your purchase. they didn't buy the house, you did. you assumed the benefit of any appreciation, and (most of) the risks of any depreciation. morality isn't really the issue here as far as I'm concerned, but you are essentially trying to walk away with their money. if you considered it a moral imperative to honor your debts before, but now you don't, the only thing that's changed is your moral imperative. blaming the people who loaned you the money is a weak rationalization, IMO.

 

yeah, you can default on your debt while you have the ability and assets to pay, and if you say there should be no moral stigma attached to that, fine, I am on board with that. but on the other hand, I will not attach any moral stigma if the bank exercises their legal right (assuming they have one) under your agreement with them to come after your other assets. you seem to be pretty convinced they won't, but I'm not sure how you can feel so confident about that. those folks are usually pretty vigilant when it comes to leaving money on the table. it appears they have 3 years after the sale out of foreclosure to initiate a deficiency judgment. you want that hanging over your head for the next 3+ years?

 

How am I walking away with their money? I am exercising a legal option that is covered in the contract. I default, they get the house back. Their legal option is to come after me for the difference. They may very well do that.

 

As far as this hanging over my head -- the benefit of leaving this house greatly outweighs the risk of a judgment. I'm not convinced it won't happen, I just know the odds are low from everything I've heard and read. If it does happen, I believe they would be willing to settle, since I don't have the assets to cover the deficiency.

[Ursa Majoris]

you are essentially trying to walk away with their money.

Completely disagree. If he's been there five years, he has paid five years worth of interest that goes into the bank's pocket. They then also get the house in it's entirety which they can sell. How is he walking away with their money?

[Azazello1313]

Completely disagree. If he's been there five years, he has paid five years worth of interest that goes into the bank's pocket. They then also get the house in it's entirety which they can sell. How is he walking away with their money?

 

they loaned him, say, $220,000. they'll sell the house for, say, $180,000. they got interest from him at maybe 1% over what that money would be doing just sitting in the money market. so they've made maybe 5 grand off the deal so far, against a loss that stands at 40, just in this off the cuff hypothetical.

 

if he wasn't walking away with their money, he wouldn't have to walk away at all, he could just sell it himself.

[matt770]

they loaned him, say, $220,000. they'll sell the house for, say, $180,000. they got interest from him at maybe 1% over what that money would be doing just sitting in the money market. so they've made maybe 5 grand off the deal so far, against a loss that stands at 40, just in this off the cuff hypothetical.

 

if he wasn't walking away with their money, he wouldn't have to walk away at all, he could just sell it himself.

 

If you buy a mutual fund that has gained 15% annually over the past 5 years, can you calculate what it will be worth in 5 years assuming 15% annual growth and call it "your money"? No. That would be what you hope to earn on the investment, but you have no idea what will happen. My mortgage, along with millions of others, is just an investment that was packaged as a security, given a rating, and was then bought and sold numerous times over these 4+ years. Each of those buyers assumed risk when they bought those securities. One risk is that the market would crater, and borrowers would default in droves, which is what happened. Don't like risk, don't invest.

[Big Country]

I'd line up a place to rent before walking away. Probably a good idea to have a roof over your head. Get that lined up then deal with the consequences.

[Ursa Majoris]

they loaned him, say, $220,000. they'll sell the house for, say, $180,000. they got interest from him at maybe 1% over what that money would be doing just sitting in the money market. so they've made maybe 5 grand off the deal so far, against a loss that stands at 40, just in this off the cuff hypothetical.

 

if he wasn't walking away with their money, he wouldn't have to walk away at all, he could just sell it himself.

Why then are the mortgage companies so keen to ram through as many foreclosures as possible in as short a time as possible, even going to the lengths of illegality? Wouldn't it make more sense to restructure the loans so that they could avoid the paperwork, the hassle and also get paid over time?

 

I know this isn't Matt's situation but it's a question that has me puzzled. On the one hand, you say they take a loss. On the other hand, they seem to be doing everything they can to maximize the loss.

[Big Country]

Why then are the mortgage companies so keen to ram through as many foreclosures as possible in as short a time as possible, even going to the lengths of illegality? Wouldn't it make more sense to restructure the loans so that they could avoid the paperwork, the hassle and also get paid over time?

 

I know this isn't Matt's situation but it's a question that has me puzzled. On the one hand, you say they take a loss. On the other hand, they seem to be doing everything they can to maximize the loss.

 

 

Are you suggesting the banks should forgive portions of the loans, or simply restructure to lower rates/longer terms?

 

From a business perspective, one major reason I would think banks would want to avoid restrucutring loans is that these clients (speaking in generalities, not to matt770's particular situation) have already shown a propensity to miss payments, etc., and as such are higher risks to loan to. The banks would want to charge higher rates, and rightfully so for the increased risk. I would venture to guess that the losses associated with the processing of the foreclosing, holding the property until it can be sold and taking the loss on any potential difference between outstanding loan amount and eventual sale price is less than the estimated cost of restructuring the loan to only go through the hassel again with someone that has shown a propensity to not make payments.

 

 

I would also see a much larger issue brewing if banks were to forgive portions of loans (something I understand is being suggested in some states). Once again that is something that rewards individuals that possibly made very poor decisions in buying more than they could afford, etc. while those that were a bit more fiscally responsible and bought below their means, saved up for the 20%+ down and have made other sacrifices in order to keep up with their payments are left holding the bag and getting screwed over.

 

 

None of this is to say that banks not following the foreclosure process to the letter of the law should not be held accountable for their actions and forced to striaghten out their act, but at the same time, individuals need to be held accountable for their decisions.

[Delicious_bass]

The lenders barely have the resources to process all the foreclosures, and in many cases they are botching the paperwork because they have people signing stacks of papers without reading them. You think they have the time to examine every default and determine who has assets to go after? And you know what, the mortgage companies and the gov't got us unto this mess, handing out mortgages to people who had no business qualifying. I'll be damned if I'm going to wreck my future out of some sense of obligation to these people. Again, I'm willing to accept the consequences of this decision. They want to sue me, my lawyer will work to negotiate a settlement or help me protect my assets. No way in hell I'm touching retirement money.

This frightens me if you really feel this way.

 

The govt and banks/lenders definitely are guilty of contributing to the mess, but PLEASE dont try to imply that the people taking out the loans are not also guilty.

 

Matt, I don't mean this to be a personal attack.

 

Above you said that you view this as a contract and you are willing to walk away and suffer the consequences and now you nad Ursa are whining about how mortgage companies don't care about people. Well, tough titties. They view this as a contract also. If they uphold their end, then why should they not expect you to uphold yours? what obligation are they under to work with people who are hurting? Sure it would be nice if they worked with someone a little bit but if they did it for one person, then they'd have to do it for everyone and for that one person they said no to, they'd get sued for some sort of descrimination.

 

Should the mortgage companies be punished if they did something illegal? Definitely. Should B of A get sued if they don't follow the foreclosure rules? Of course. Should they have to deal with all of the losses for making perfectly legal but idiotic loans to people who couldn't afford them? Absolutely. Should they pursue someone to the fullest extent of the law if that person defaults on their contract? Yep.

 

The difference between your mortgage and a commercial mortgage is that most commercial mortgages are non recourse so there is nothing other than the property backing up the loan. However, when you signed your mortgage, you effectively gave them your personal guarantee that you would repay it. Like it or not, it is a major difference.

 

I do agree with Ursa on one point. Do what's right for you. If you and your wife are willing to suffer the consequences, then pull the trigger and don't look back. Know that for a while things may get hairy but it will pass. Best of luck whatever you decide.

Well said

 

I wasn't trying to be an ass, I was just pointing out that if you do what you are considering there is more on the line than just how hard it's going to be to get your next loan. I know that when ever we enter a contract with a firm to build a building, they pick over our financial records and we pick over theirs prior to entering into the contract. It is just something that is done. I also know that many employers look at the financial records of those they employ as well. I would have a hard time hiring a bookkeeper that did what you are contemplating, or anyone else that would have the ability to write checks or use credit cards. On the other hand there are plenty of jobs that we don't look at like that, but most of them are lower paying with less responsibility and less risk to us. I'm not trying to attack you personally, or even speak to the morality of the issue, just trying to make you aware of the ramification this decision could have on you. Obviously you have to do what is right for your family, whatever that may be, just be aware that there are more issues than just getting the next car loan or home loan. It could affect your employment prospects, and any future business dealings you may wish to get involved in.

 

With regard to rates, they are being held artificially low by the Fed, and that can not continue forever, and don't think for a minute that people defaulting on loans isn't going to make it harder and more expensive to borrow money in the future. Right now the government still has many of the larger banks by the balls thanks to TARP, that will not always be the case, and the FED will not always take such an active stance.

+1

 

as far as I can tell, they have honored their side of the deal completely. they loaned you money to buy a house that you chose, and now a few years later you have buyer's remorse and want to stick them with your purchase. they didn't buy the house, you did. you assumed the benefit of any appreciation, and (most of) the risks of any depreciation. morality isn't really the issue here as far as I'm concerned, but you are essentially trying to walk away with their money. if you considered it a moral imperative to honor your debts before, but now you don't, the only thing that's changed is your moral imperative. blaming the people who loaned you the money is a weak rationalization, IMO.

 

yeah, you can default on your debt while you have the ability and assets to pay, and if you say there should be no moral stigma attached to that, fine, I am on board with that. but on the other hand, I will not attach any moral stigma if the bank exercises their legal right (assuming they have one) under your agreement with them to come after your other assets. you seem to be pretty convinced they won't, but I'm not sure how you can feel so confident about that. those folks are usually pretty vigilant when it comes to leaving money on the table. it appears they have 3 years after the sale out of foreclosure to initiate a deficiency judgment. you want that hanging over your head for the next 3+ years?

Well said

 

Are you suggesting the banks should forgive portions of the loans, or simply restructure to lower rates/longer terms?

 

From a business perspective, one major reason I would think banks would want to avoid restrucutring loans is that these clients (speaking in generalities, not to matt770's particular situation) have already shown a propensity to miss payments, etc., and as such are higher risks to loan to. The banks would want to charge higher rates, and rightfully so for the increased risk. I would venture to guess that the losses associated with the processing of the foreclosing, holding the property until it can be sold and taking the loss on any potential difference between outstanding loan amount and eventual sale price is less than the estimated cost of restructuring the loan to only go through the hassel again with someone that has shown a propensity to not make payments.

 

 

I would also see a much larger issue brewing if banks were to forgive portions of loans (something I understand is being suggested in some states). Once again that is something that rewards individuals that possibly made very poor decisions in buying more than they could afford, etc. while those that were a bit more fiscally responsible and bought below their means, saved up for the 20%+ down and have made other sacrifices in order to keep up with their payments are left holding the bag and getting screwed over.

 

 

None of this is to say that banks not following the foreclosure process to the letter of the law should not be held accountable for their actions and forced to striaghten out their act, but at the same time, individuals need to be held accountable for their decisions.

Again, well said.

[Azazello1313]

If you buy a mutual fund that has gained 15% annually over the past 5 years, can you calculate what it will be worth in 5 years assuming 15% annual growth and call it "your money"? No. That would be what you hope to earn on the investment, but you have no idea what will happen. My mortgage, along with millions of others, is just an investment that was packaged as a security, given a rating, and was then bought and sold numerous times over these 4+ years. Each of those buyers assumed risk when they bought those securities. One risk is that the market would crater, and borrowers would default in droves, which is what happened. Don't like risk, don't invest.

 

comparing to a mutual fund is a little disingenuous. their investment was a contract with you for a fixed return. yes, this investment carries with it the risk that you will bail on your debt and leave them holding the bag.

 

in any case, I'm not casting speculative investment returns as "their money". I am counting the cash they loaned you to buy a house as "their money".