ForumGarden

They say that one out of four American home owners owe more on their mortgage than the house is worth. Soooo------whadda ya do. Walk away and declare bankruptcy or hang in there? In many cases the homes are worth less than half of what the mortgage is. It reminds me of the big hit that those with pension assets, investors, retirees etc. took during the big market crash of 2007. Those that hung in there have seen their investments come back and then some. Of course that's not to say that the market and investments will not decline again. Many have been spoiled by what looked to be a housing market with ever increasing appreciation with little or no decline. That's not realistic for investments nor should it have been for housing, there are too many factors involved. Both investments and housing values will increase over time. How much time?

Who knows. What's your thoughts? Stay in the house? Walk away?

Depends why you bought the house. If bought as a home and you can afford the mortgage why walk away? Prices will recover and it's still better than renting as eventually it will be yours, as time goes on the relative cost versus income will come down whereas with rent it always stays the same at best. If it's because you've lost your job and can't afford the mortgage that's a whole different ball game. If you bought it as an investment then tough you should have thought it out a bit more, there are plenty people bought houses to rent out, the rent still more than covers the cost of the mortgage so the loss in equity you can sit and wait out rather than sell and realise a loss.

The tax system incentivizes taking the loss, gmc. One's home should no more be considered an investment than one's grilled cheese sandwich, but that's the reality today. It disgusts me that people would be so stupid as to gamble with their shelter, but there we are.

We bought our house outright. We were able to do that because of wise decisions, sensible budgeting, and living within our means. I think there are fewer of us in America than there are millionaires.

Sure, why not walk away from it? Why pretend we are a virtuous people in this aspect when we have no use for it anywhere else? If it's a new home the person paying for it isn't the real owner anyway. The HOA is the one who controls all the decisions, so the HOA is the real owner. The legal owner is just a renter with tax benefits.

Accountable;1352719 wrote: The tax system incentivizes taking the loss, gmc. One's home should no more be considered an investment than one's grilled cheese sandwich, but that's the reality today. It disgusts me that people would be so stupid as to gamble with their shelter, but there we are.

We bought our house outright. We were able to do that because of wise decisions, sensible budgeting, and living within our means. I think there are fewer of us in America than there are millionaires.

Sure, why not walk away from it? Why pretend we are a virtuous people in this aspect when we have no use for it anywhere else? If it's a new home the person paying for it isn't the real owner anyway. The HOA is the one who controls all the decisions, so the HOA is the real owner. The legal owner is just a renter with tax benefits.


I don't know how your mortgage system works. Defaulting on a mortgage here is not a good idea nor is going bankrupt, it takes years for your credit rating to recover. On the other hand there is a lot of approbrium laid on lenders who do not try and help people in difficulty. Doesn't stop them being unhelpful bastards though.

We've adopted a No Idiot Left Behind policy. No one is responsible for any action anymore, therefore no one can be punished for something so understandable as going bankrupt. After all, it was the eeeeeeevil banks that forced them to buy the houses in the first place.

If the OP's accurate then it's hard to see any reason not to take bankruptcy while it's an option, clear the liability for what sounds like interest and capital repayment on typically $50-100k of unsecured debt. The alternative is to spend maybe the next twenty years allocating all available excess income to servicing that loan, instead of buying into the housing market at the bottom of the trough and accumulating capital on the upswing. Money knows absolutely nothing about honor. The honorable approach is not to take a speculative loan in the first place.

Did I read correctly that one in nine domestic properties in the USA at the moment is unoccupied? That's utterly shameful.

The housing market isn't going to start recovering until the last of the repossessed home is sold, and you've not even reached the peak repossession phase yet. There's a lot still to get through before house prices stop falling. The sale of a repossessed home is always going to undercut the sale of an equivalent owner-occupied property.

spot;1352729 wrote: IDid I read correctly that one in nine domestic properties in the USA at the moment is unoccupied? That's utterly shameful.Why? Should we knock them down?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's a thought: What if the owner took the money and ran, waited for the banks to repossess, then bought the house back on the foreclosure market? Win/win, right?

spot;1352729 wrote: If the OP's accurate then it's hard to see any reason not to take bankruptcy while it's an option, clear the liability for what sounds like interest and capital repayment on typically $50-100k of unsecured debt. The alternative is to spend maybe the next twenty years allocating all available excess income to servicing that loan, instead of buying into the housing market at the bottom of the trough and accumulating capital on the upswing. Money knows absolutely nothing about honor. The honorable approach is not to take a speculative loan in the first place.


You can't get mortgage relief in BK here. Many of the ppl walking away from mortgages are making 'strategic defaults'. They're buying comparable homes for a fraction of the price they originally paid, move into the new place, and then tell the bank to take their old property.

A business partner (lawyer) has advised some clients to do a strategic default. It makes me queasy but he says he has a duty to his clients to advise them of the practice.

Did I read correctly that one in nine domestic properties in the USA at the moment is unoccupied? That's utterly shameful.


Not in general. Most of the country never had a RE boom and did not suffer in the bust. Some areas have been hard hit but where are those ppl living? There isn't that much overhang in the rental market to absorb them all so while possible, I doubt it.

The housing market isn't going to start recovering until the last of the repossessed homes is sold, and you've not even reached the peak repossession phase yet. There's a lot still to get through before house prices stop falling. The sale of a repossessed home is always going to undercut the sale of an equivalent owner-occupied property.


Spot on (no pun intended)

I don't see the point of someone working as a slave paying down a worthless debt while the people they are serving have little or no honor. Part of the business of loaning money is the risk one won't get it back.

Exactly what the situation is Spot. There isn't a house that wasn't over priced in the past in many parts of the US. Those that bought at the high prices will continue to be upside down in their houses. If they can't afford that they have to get out as there is no way it will change. I know many who have done just that short sales or bankruptcy it is what it is, and it is a shame that banks couldn't or wouldn't help them. Their houses will never be worth what they paid for it ever.

I think you might be right about knocking them down they turn in the drug houses or a blight on the neighborhood as no one can keep them up and the the repairs to sell them is to much. The American dream of being a homeowner will never be for the majority of its citizens in this economy you can't get a loan and you can afford one if you did even with the plummeting prices of houses they are still over priced in most areas.

The housing market isn't going to start recovering until the last of the repossessed homes is sold, and you've not even reached the peak repossession phase yet. There's a lot still to get through before house prices stop falling. The sale of a repossessed home is always going to undercut the sale of an equivalent owner-occupied property.

yaaarrrgg;1352747 wrote: I don't see the point of someone working as a slave paying down a worthless debt while the people they are serving have little or no honor. Part of the business of loaning money is the risk one won't get it back.
Yeh, **** honor, responsibility, & all that useless crap. It's way overblown anyway. Oughta just burn the house down for the insurance while we're at it, right? After all, part of the business of insurance is the risk that one will have to pay out.

BaghdadBob;1352734 wrote: Not in general. Most of the country never had a RE boom and did not suffer in the bust. Some areas have been hard hit but where are those ppl living? There isn't that much overhang in the rental market to absorb them all so while possible, I doubt it.I was asking about national figures, not hard-hit areas. The national housing vacancy rate. Or, if you like, the total number of housing units in the country, less the total number of housing units occupied, expressed as a percentage. Nearly 131 million housing units, less the 112.5 million occupied, is 18.4 million vacant housing units in the last quarter of 2010. Of those 14% of total housing units which were vacant that quarter, 11% were vacant all year round.

All those figures are from the Consumer News and Business Channel (CNBC) which in turn took them from the US Federal government census.

Did I read correctly that one in nine domestic properties in the USA at the moment is unoccupied? That's utterly shameful.

Yes it is shameful and it will stay that way for a long time over building, selling, and to high prices for homes that should cost 1/2 of what they are still trying to sell them for.

Example:

My parents bought a house in the burbs in San Diego in the 50's in a community called "Allied Gardens" nice quite simple 3 bedroom 1 bath home for $13,500.00. Its not at the beach or in the country smack dab in what turned out the be the burbs. We have not added on to the house it is maintenance immaculately inside and out. But it still a 3 bedroom 1 bath house. Over the years we have had it appraised and its worth was staggering in the late nineties till about 2008 when the bottom fell out of the housing market it was valued at $525.000.00 YIKES it only cost $13,500.00 new that is what is wrong with the housing market in the US. You have people who bought at that price and now the value is still very high in my opinion in the neighborhood they are going for around 250 to 325 thousand unbelievable at best its worth 175 too 200 and that is still high. Houses will remain unoccupied till prices are realistic and that won't happen any time soon.

I don't see the point of someone working as a slave paying down a worthless debt while the people they are serving have little or no honor. Part of the business of loaning money is the risk one won't get it back.


What has happened here in America is the largest exploitation of idiocy and greed in history. If people were dumb and greedy enough to sign their names in the conditions of the recent past and other people were dumb and greedy enough to help them do it why not let them all suffer?

I feel no pity, in fact I find it quite amusing. Fools and their money are soon parted.

CARLA;1352761 wrote: [QUOTE=spot;1352760]Did I read correctly that one in nine domestic properties in the USA at the moment is unoccupied? That's utterly shameful.Yes it is shameful
WHY???

What is shameful and who should be ashamed??

Should developers be ashamed that they anticipated market growth and built accordingly?

Should landowners be ashamed that they accepted developers' offers to purchase their land?

Should the builders be ashamed that they accepted work, employed thousands of employees, and produced a product built to specifications?

Help me out here.

Accountable;1352756 wrote: Yeh, **** honor, responsibility, & all that useless crap. It's way overblown anyway. Oughta just burn the house down for the insurance while we're at it, right? After all, part of the business of insurance is the risk that one will have to pay out.


Many of the lenders would be out of business if they didn't run to the government to get taxpayer money to lend back to the taxpayer (with interest?!). Honor requires two participants.

yaaarrrgg;1352766 wrote: Many of the lenders would be out of business if they didn't run to the government to get taxpayer money to lend back to the taxpayer (with interest?!). Honor requires two participants.No, it doesn't. My honor absolutely does not require you to be honorable, and your dihonorable behavior does not excuse me from behaving with honor.

Your post says alot about you.

Accountable;1352767 wrote: No, it doesn't. My honor absolutely does not require you to be honorable, and your dihonorable behavior does not excuse me from behaving with honor.

Your post says alot about you.


Well, that's fine and all but if you are in the middle of a dog-eat-dog war, that just means you will be the first to get your legs chewed off.

Mind you, I still pay on my home, and have no intention of defaulting. But I just don't take the economic system seriously anymore. It's actually pretty funny stuff if you ignore the human suffering aspect of it all. The joke ultimately is on the people who play by the rules.

yaaarrrgg;1352771 wrote: The joke ultimately is on the people who play by the rules.We can agree on this. It's you situational ethicists that are ruining this society.

Accountable;1352774 wrote: We can agree on this. It's you situational ethicists that are ruining this society.


That's not my rules, it's the law of the jungle. You don't like the the dog-eat-dog system you've helped create?

Accountable;1352764 wrote: WHY???

What is shameful and who should be ashamed??

Should developers be ashamed that they anticipated market growth and built accordingly?

Should landowners be ashamed that they accepted developers' offers to purchase their land?

Should the builders be ashamed that they accepted work, employed thousands of employees, and produced a product built to specifications?

Help me out here.


What's shameful is that American society can tolerate one in nine housing units across the entire country being long-term unoccupied, while at the same time having millions of people long-term unhoused and more millions of people evicted from their homes for something as utterly trivial as want of money. The overriding supremacy of the almighty dollar over health and well-being disgusts me and shames your entire nation.

spot;1352760 wrote: I was asking about national figures, not hard-hit areas. The national housing vacancy rate. Or, if you like, the total number of housing units in the country, less the total number of housing units occupied, expressed as a percentage. Nearly 131 million housing units, less the 112.5 million occupied, is 18.4 million vacant housing units in the last quarter of 2010. Of those 14% of total housing units which were vacant that quarter, 11% were vacant all year round.

All those figures are from the Consumer News and Business Channel (CNBC) which in turn took them from the US Federal government census.

Did I read correctly that one in nine domestic properties in the USA at the moment is unoccupied? That's utterly shameful.


Those numbers didn't sound right and I live right in the middle of one of the worst hit housing markets in the US.

Did some checking and this sounds a bit closer to the reality around here..



Just to add that I have read articles and spoken to ppl that that live in condos where only a handful are occupied. Mostly new bldgs that couldn't move units when the market tumbled. I know 1 guy living in an upscale condo in Ft Liquordale where the bldg is mostly empty and he hasn't made a mortgage payment in 3 years and just recently heard from the mortgage servicer. I'm not even sure if he's paid any HO assoc fees either.

BaghdadBob;1352789 wrote: Those numbers didn't sound rightWell no, you're used to a technical term "Vacancy Rate" which is defined in a very specific way and hovers around 2.5% to 3% and sounds wonderful.

What I asked was whether one in nine domestic properties in the USA at the moment is unoccupied and the answer is yes, one in nine domestic properties in the USA at the moment is unoccupied. And, as you say, the soporific let's-all-feel-cozy "Vacancy Rate" is around 2.7%.

The "Vacancy Rate", in this technical (as opposed to idiomatic) sense, is the percentage of available housing units that remain unoccupied. Notice the word "available"? They have to be on the market for them to be available, either for rent or purchase. Around 2.7% of housing units are in that position. The 11%, or one in nine, unoccupied domestic housing units are not available for rent or purchase, they are owned and unoccupied and not on the market. They do not form part of the technical "Vacancy Rate" at all.

The article you reference even says as much, toward the end -The best explanation I have seen is that the 11% number is technically correct, but irrelevant. It is not the Vacancy Rate, but simply the total number of structures that are unoccupied.

Clear, is it? 11% is a true figure, just not the one you want to look at? The 11% actually excludes the units available on the market. Both added together make 14%. I have no argument with the ones in the process of being sold, it's the ones deliberately left long-term unoccupied that I drew attention to - one ninth of the nation's entire domestic housing stock.

Don't see it around here. Rents are still strong. Clear, is it?

BaghdadBob;1352796 wrote: Don't see it around here. Rents are still strong. Clear, is it?


I'm glad we've reached agreement on the facts. It should happen more often.

spot;1352788 wrote: What's shameful is that American society can tolerate one in nine housing units across the entire country being long-term unoccupied, while at the same time having millions of people long-term unhoused and more millions of people evicted from their homes for something as utterly trivial as want of money. The overriding supremacy of the almighty dollar over health and well-being disgusts me and shames your entire nation.


Arguably it was an ill thought out attempt at social engineering that is at the back of it all.

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

Not helped by financial institutions re-packaging them and selling them on as safe investments - that was deliberate fraud and what happened to the ones that did it?

SEC accuses Goldman Sachs of defrauding investors - Yahoo! Finance

None of what has happened was unforeseen it's like the emperor's new clothes no one would accept ninja loans were a really really stupid idea or that the housing bubble would inevitably burst. Do a search, there are dozens of articles warning what was going to happen.

It's like being in a car crash where the driver had his head so far up his own backside he doesn't see the cliff edge and then thinks it's not his fault.

Course if the banks foreclose on you when they shouldn't tough **** seems to be their attitude in the states.

U.S. REP. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS CALLS FOR FORECLOSURE MORATORIUM | Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Representing the 8th District of Arizona

The joke ultimately is on the people who play by the rules.


Exactly, this is American style capitalism. He who plays by the rules is a fool. Look at the Lincoln county wars and the cattle barons of the 1800s. Look into Dupont in WWI, they pushed and endorsed one of the most vile forms of warfare known to man. Look at our drug kingpins to this day. Who's clogging up our prison system? It isn't the drug lords now is it?

Morality, ethics mean nothing. That's for the weak minded here in America. This is about running with the animals. It's one of the reasons we're dying as a country. We don't trust one another, we can't depend on one another.

spot;1352788 wrote: What's shameful is that American society can tolerate one in nine housing units across the entire country being long-term unoccupied, while at the same time having millions of people long-term unhoused and more millions of people evicted from their homes for something as utterly trivial as want of money. The overriding supremacy of the almighty dollar over health and well-being disgusts me and shames your entire nation.


BaghdadBob;1352789 wrote: Those numbers didn't sound right and I live right in the middle of one of the worst hit housing markets in the US.

Did some checking and this sounds a bit closer to the reality around here..



Just to add that I have read articles and spoken to ppl that that live in condos where only a handful are occupied. Mostly new bldgs that couldn't move units when the market tumbled. I know 1 guy living in an upscale condo in Ft Liquordale where the bldg is mostly empty and he hasn't made a mortgage payment in 3 years and just recently heard from the mortgage servicer. I'm not even sure if he's paid any HO assoc fees either.
Oh come now, Bob. Don't you have people starving in the street? Aren't dead bodies scattered about that you have to step over as you go inside? Surely spot isn't wrong?!? :sneaky:

Accountable;1352820 wrote: Oh come now, Bob. Don't you have people starving in the street? Aren't dead bodies scattered about that you have to step over as you go inside? Surely spot isn't wrong?!? :sneaky:You become grumpy when you don't work.

What's wrong, spot. Tired of me tagging the truth when I see it?

spot hates america. It's the truth. Why be ashamed?

Accountable;1352823 wrote: What's wrong, spot. Tired of me tagging the truth when I see it?

spot hates america. It's the truth. Why be ashamed?


I hold these exchanges with you in order to provide evidence, primarily to future generations of American readers, of the opinions that screwed their nation into the ground. They will, I'm convinced, read what you've written here over the years with a mixture of dismay and reprehension, much in the same way that I'm currently reading the truly pernicious and vile ravings of Elizabeth T Carne (The Realm of Truth, 1873, London). I am, as any unbiased observer here is fully aware, sympathetic toward and siding with the often deluded and ignorant American majority, and I always have. You, those like you and the false propaganda you collectively propagate are the sole reason the majority of Americans currently inhabit a hell on earth with every prospect of matters worsening. I post on FG primarily to help make that simple fact transparently obvious.

spot;1352832 wrote: I hold these exchanges with you in order to provide evidence, primarily to future generations of American readers, of the opinions that screwed their nation into the ground. They will, I'm convinced, read what you've written here over the years with a mixture of dismay and reprehension, much in the same way that I'm currently reading the truly pernicious and vile ravings of Elizabeth T Carne (The Realm of Truth, 1873, London). I am, as any unbiased observer here is fully aware, sympathetic toward and siding with the often deluded and ignorant American majority, and I always have. You, those like you and the false propaganda you collectively propagate are the sole reason the majority of Americans currently inhabit a hell on earth with every prospect of matters worsening. I post on FG primarily to help make that simple fact transparently obvious.Uh huh.

1) What propoganda?

2) What about the tag?

Accountable;1352820 wrote: Oh come now, Bob. Don't you have people starving in the street? Aren't dead bodies scattered about that you have to step over as you go inside? Surely spot isn't wrong?!? :sneaky:


Oh come now, Bob. Don't you have people starving in the street?


Of course we do! Everyday, the oldsters line-up outside food kitchens (we shortened that to the word 'restaurants') to eat before 6 o'clock.

Aren't dead bodies scattered about that you have to step over as you go inside?


Always wondered what that awful smell was. With my nose so hi in the air I can't look down.

Accountable;1352820 wrote: Oh come now, Bob. Don't you have people starving in the street? Aren't dead bodies scattered about that you have to step over as you go inside? Surely spot isn't wrong?!? :sneaky:


BaghdadBob;1352848 wrote: Of course we do! Everyday, the oldsters line-up outside food kitchens (we shortened that to the word 'restaurants') to eat before 6 o'clock.



Always wondered what that awful smell was. With my nose so hi in the air I can't look down.That's right, the two of you go on and exagerate what others say in order to redefine meaning to feed your egos and unconsciousness.

Ahso!;1352852 wrote: That's right, the two of you go on and exagerate what others say in order to redefine meaning to feed your egos and unconsciousness.
I've exaggerated nothing. Spot has been spewing his hate for the US for years here, claiming that we let homeless people starve on the street, indeed that we force them to.

Accountable;1352856 wrote: I've exaggerated nothing. Spot has been spewing his hate for the US for years here, claiming that we let homeless people starve on the street, indeed that we force them to.You've now engaged in Ad hominem attacks on both Spot and yaaarrrgg in this thread, and neither have done anything to warrant them. Like it or not, everyone here is entitled to his or her opinion. If you insist on playing the victim, speak for yourself and not the rest of the American people. I certainly am not offended by anything said by you, Spot or anyone else here. (Texas snow does indeed appear to be toxic.):)

Ahso!;1352858 wrote: You've now engaged in Ad hominem attacks on both Spot and yaaarrrgg in this thread, and neither have done anything to warrant them. Like it or not, everyone here is entitled to his or her opinion. If you insist on playing the victim, speak for yourself and not the rest of the American people. I certainly am not offended by anything said by you, Spot or anyone else here. (Texas snow does indeed appear to be toxic.):)
I have not engaged in ad hominem attacks. I have never represented myself as a spokesman for America. You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

[QUOTE=Accountable;1352719]One's home should no more be considered an investment than one's grilled cheese sandwich, but that's the reality today.


I dont understand this statement. How is the biggest purchase we will probably ever make NOT an investment. Its an investment on many levels. Its an investment in the stability of our future well being as well as the fact that most people own more than 1 home in their lifetime, when its time to move we want to make a profit on our sale. Many elderly people rely on the investment theyve made in their homes to carry them through retirement by downsizing after their children have moved out as well as other similar scenarios.

We bought our house outright. We were able to do that because of wise decisions, sensible budgeting, and living within our means. I think there are fewer of us in America than there are millionaires.


Im extremely impressed.

Nomad;1352900 wrote: I dont understand this statement. How is the biggest purchase we will probably ever make NOT an investment. Its an investment on many levels. Its an investment in the stability of our future well being as well as the fact that most people own more than 1 home in their lifetime, when its time to move we want to make a profit on our sale. Many elderly people rely on the investment theyve made in their homes to carry them through retirement by downsizing after their children have moved out as well as other similar scenarios.Housing has changed in many people's minds from being a home that is also an investment, to a short-term investment that you live in for awhile. The "profit" once matched or barely beat inflation, after 10 years of repairs & improvements, so it was not much of a net profit at all. Now (or at least until very recently) people take out interest-only loans with the plan to sell within 5 years (before the payment balloons beyond affordability), and the plan is part of the overall retirement plan. That's a dangerous gamble.

Nomad wrote: Im extremely impressed.Thank you!

A humorous look at the mortgage bankers association:

Mortgage Bankers Association Strategic Default - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 10/07/10 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

yaaarrrgg;1353212 wrote: A humorous look at the mortgage bankers association:

Mortgage Bankers Association Strategic Default - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 10/07/10 - Video Clip | Comedy Central


Thanks for posting this-------------a bit of hypocrisy eh?

SAD Chart: Owing more than home is worth - USATODAY.com