There is nothing to fear unless you have something to lose. When a good chunk of the people are losing their houses and selling their stocks and bonds to pay bills the fear is not imagined but rather is real.
Where are the news articles showing this?
quote
Folks sell off their 401s it translates to stock market losses. When big investors start loosing money they sell and shelter, when CEO's start seeing a loss in stock values they prop them up by slashing spending on salaries, bonuses and computer upgrades. That effects company like Dell and HP who then need to scale back... EVERYTHING is related and symbiontic. That guy who used to make 50k at Dell lost his fixed rate mortgaged home because he lost his income.
Where are the news articles showing this???
quote
When the banks concocted this greed scam to prey on the publics natural desire to have the biggest dik in town with the most toys, there was no energy difficulties so the rate of failure was "manageable" and tolerable.
People are becoming penny wise so they are BOTH less apt and or able to play games with money in volatile times such as we ALL are currently experiencing.
Even the richest man in America pays more for gas, the fact is he can pay 9.00 a gallon and it wont mean a damn thing to him... everything is just lovely... well until he gets down to his last few hundred million.
Scare tactics. Let's point our fingers at the successful!
Originally posted by aceman: Where are the news articles showing this?
Christ.. I post news articles and you bich that I'm not making any opinions then I post my own opinions you say I'm not posting news articles.
You are just an argumentative internet dweeb looking to argue about... well just anything and everything.
quote
Scare tactics.
That depends on who is scared. Are you afraid of something in this thread?
I'm not.
I don't even care if you are right and it really is all fear mongering. Sheit man... I dont even fear the fearmongers, scaremongers or the fear fighting mongering mongers who point out the fearmongers and scaremongers as if they have something to gain from it all.. lol
quote
Let's point our fingers at the successful!
Hey!!!!!!11!!!!!@ Lets point our fingers at the unsuccessful!
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 03-08-2008).]
Your opinions are not based on rational facts. Therefore, your opinions are irrational. (Philosophy 101...College Edumacation)
Find me articles that show that a majority of or a large percentage of the housing market crash is due to layoffs at the factories and unemployment, reductions in workers pay or a mysterious outbreak of disabilities and deaths to the homeowners and THEN you'll have a RATIONAL OPINION BASED ON FACTS.
I base my facts off the articles that show that foreclosures and the market meltdown are because people took out loans that they couldn't pay because they figured that if they couldn't pay when the rates went up, they'd sell because the housing prices would go up.
What happened? Too many people bought overinflated market valued houses because they figured that the sky and outer space was the limit for the housing prices to go up and should their payments go higher than their paycheck......SELL. OOPS! Some rational people said......"BULLSH!T!!!! I can't afford and I won't buy a $175,000 house for $225,000. The guy selling it, bought it for $165,000 2 years ago when it was really only worth $150,000." Some dumbsh!t idiot that bought the house for $165,000 two years ago when it was only really worth $150,000 back then, now is left holding the bag on a house worth maybe $175,000 now. What's his options?
A) Hope to sell for $175,000 and walk away with ZERO $$$$ in hand but no house payment on an overinflated house.
B) Stay in the house and bust ass trying to make ends meet to pay the mortgage
C) Say HELLO to foreclosure.
In the end, who was the idiot? a) The Real Estate Agent? b) The Buyer? c) The Bank?
If you chose b), you are CORRECT!
------------------------------------------ Got it Bill and Mr Bitter?
[This message has been edited by aceman (edited 03-08-2008).]
Originally posted by aceman: Your opinions are not based on rational facts. Therefore, your opinions are irrational. (Philosophy 101...College Edumacation)
So that mean your opinions mean so much more? Haha!!! Whatever Spaceboy.
So that mean your opinions mean so much more? Haha!!! Whatever Spaceboy.
No, my opinions are based on rational facts. That's what that means, Billy. I don't throw something out there and HOPE that it's believable and no one will cross check the post.
I dunno what this thread is about beyond the title. i didn't read anyone's posts. I just wanted to say I will prolly be losing my house. but not because of the econemy or global warming. or any of that bullshit. i simply failed at life when I ****ed up and made a huge business mistake causing me to lose both my stores. now If I don't open something that makes me money like my old places soon I will lose alot. I also have to learn from my mistake and not stop opening stores when I feel I am confrotable so a big giant company doesnt come shove me out like last time.
btw I have no idea who's point I just helped argue. if any. But I am not sticking up for ether one of your sides. bill should be spending his arguing time with his kids. and aceman needs more expert training on how to detect a racist thru the internet
btw I have no idea who's point I just helped argue. if any. But I am not sticking up for ether one of your sides. bill should be spending his arguing time with his kids. and aceman needs more expert training on how to detect a racist thru the internet
LOL
quote
Originally posted by 84fierotrevor: I dunno what this thread is about beyond the title. i didn't read anyone's posts. I just wanted to say I will prolly be losing my house. but not because of the economy or global warming. or any of that bullshit. i simply failed at life when I ****ed up and made a huge business mistake causing me to lose both my stores. now If I don't open something that makes me money like my old places soon I will lose alot. I also have to learn from my mistake and not stop opening stores when I feel I am confrotable so a big giant company doesn't come shove me out like last time.
Nahhh man Cmon!!! You didnt fork up.. It's the fear mongers fault.. FEAR MONGERRRRRRRSSSS I SAY!
Originally posted by aceman: Find me articles that show that a majority of or a large percentage of the housing market crash is due to layoffs at the factories and unemployment, reductions in workers pay or a mysterious outbreak of disabilities and deaths to the homeowners and THEN you'll have a RATIONAL OPINION BASED ON FACTS.
I didn't say it was due solely to layoffs and whatever blaaah blahh you just concocted. Sorry but you are confusing me with someone else... bub.
quote
I base my facts off the articles that show that foreclosures and the market meltdown are because people took out loans that they couldn't pay because they figured that if they couldn't pay when the rates went up, they'd sell because the housing prices would go up.
Banks gave it away so I don't fault the guy needing the loan when the issuer does not make sure the person they are lending to is able to pay it back. Their lending practices were VERY shoddy.
quote
What happened?
The banks came up with ARMs and interest only loan scams to cash in on people who mistakenly "trust" the banks judgment. The people didn't spend years pouring over data to come up with a target range of people who they knew would fail at repaying their loans leaving the banks to make a quick flip for more cash.
quote
Too many people bought overinflated market valued houses because they figured that the sky and outer space was the limit for the housing prices to go up and should their payments go higher than their paycheck......SELL. OOPS! Some rational people said......"BULLSH!T!!!! I can't afford and I won't buy a $175,000 house for $225,000. The guy selling it, bought it for $165,000 2 years ago when it was really only worth $150,000." Some dumbsh!t idiot that bought the house for $165,000 two years ago when it was only really worth $150,000 back then, now is left holding the bag on a house worth maybe $175,000 now. What's his options?
A) Hope to sell for $175,000 and walk away with ZERO $$$$ in hand but no house payment on an overinflated house.
B) Stay in the house and bust ass trying to make ends meet to pay the mortgage
C) Say HELLO to foreclosure.
In the end, who was the idiot? a) The Real Estate Agent? b) The Buyer? c) The Bank?
If you chose b), you are CORRECT!
Okay Toddster!
The over inflation problem is a direct result of house flipping.
And anything ace says is fact, at least in his mind.
No one can find anything as far as what % of home loans are ARM’s and what % are regular loans.
See the thing is this is going to hurt everyone, even ace, see he still owes on his house and if the current trend keeps up as far as devaluing homes he may not get what he paid for his home because it will be worth less than what he paid for it.
This is going to affect everyone, homeowner or not.
Companies are already laying off people because of this, I have already posted links.
But ace said they have nothing to do with this, even though it said right in the article it was because of this.
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't. Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
Originally posted by 84Bill: The people didn't spend years pouring over data to come up with a target range of people who they knew would fail at repaying their loans leaving the banks to make a quick flip for more cash. .
That's an interresting theory, but it's not true. If you look into it you'll find that banks lose money in foreclosures regardless of the strength of the housing market. Owning a house is not good for a bank. They don't win by acquiring a home via foreclosure, they win by collecting mortgage payments on that home.
Think about it. You loan someone $120,000 for 30 years at 6% interrest. If they fulfill their obligation, you'll end up receiving about $250,000 on that loan. If they default, you're stuck with the house. If you're lucky, you can sell it for the loan amount ($120,000) + foreclosure costs + other expenses such as damage done to the house, taxes/maintenance/utilities while it is vacant, etc. If you're extremely lucky you'll break even.
Originally posted by 84Bill: Banks gave it away so I don't fault the guy needing the loan when the issuer does not make sure the person they are lending to is able to pay it back. Their lending practices were VERY shoddy.
The banks came up with ARMs and interest only loan scams to cash in on people who mistakenly "trust" the banks judgment. The people didn't spend years pouring over data to come up with a target range of people who they knew would fail at repaying their loans leaving the banks to make a quick flip for more cash.
AMEN Brother Bill!!!! I say do I hear a Halleleauha???
Just like Capital One and a lot others bulk mailed out tens of thousands of offers of 'pre-approved' Credit Cards to people who didn't even have a bank account--or a job for that matter.
No, they didn't force them to accept them, but the bait was awfully tempting to people that were flat downand out.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 03-08-2008).]
No one ever said it was due solely to one thing in particular except ace and phranc.
They blame it all on those who took out the ARM loans.
I think that most rational people can agree that the blame lies with more than one party.
You have the lenders who gave money to people with crappy credit.....poor decision You have the buyers who borrowed more than they should have.....poor decision
Then you have the realtors, but I'm not ready to flame them. I have had much experience with realtors and in my opinion they have little part in this. The buying process is simple. You go to the bank and get approved for a given amount. You let your realtor know what that amount is and they look for houses in that price range. The bank is the one who evaluated your income, etc, and they are the ones who approved you for XXX amount of $, not the realtor.
I'd love to say "let the banks and homeowners fry", but that affects the market tremendously and people who did the right thing are paying for this as well. I'm just glad that I'm in my early 30's and there is plenty of time for the market to come back before I retire. If I was close to retirement, I'd be pretty upset concerning my investments.
[This message has been edited by ditch (edited 03-08-2008).]
Originally posted by ditch: That's an interresting theory, but it's not true. If you look into it you'll find that banks lose money in foreclosures regardless of the strength of the housing market. Owning a house is not good for a bank. They don't win by acquiring a home via foreclosure, they win by collecting mortgage payments on that home.
Think about it. You loan someone $120,000 for 30 years at 6% interrest. If they fulfill their obligation, you'll end up receiving about $250,000 on that loan. If they default, you're stuck with the house. If you're lucky, you can sell it for the loan amount ($120,000) + foreclosure costs + other expenses such as damage done to the house, taxes/maintenance/utilities while it is vacant, etc. If you're extremely lucky you'll break even.
You and Bill are both right. Bill in saying the target was a high risk category-you in saying the banks really have no way to break even on mass foreclosures. The banks took the word of economists that the economy would remain strong, and underestimated the total # of people accross the country who were actually taking these loans.
The buying process is simple. You go to the bank and get approved for a given amount. You let your realtor know what that amount is and they look for houses in that price range. The bank is the one who evaluated your income, etc, and they are the ones who approved you for XXX amount of $, not the realtor.
I'd love to say "let the banks and homeowners fry", but that affects the market tremendously and people who did the right thing are paying for this as well. I'm just glad that I'm in my early 30's and there is plenty of time for the market to come back before I retire. If I was close to retirement, I'd be pretty upset concerning my investments.
Been a few decades since I bought thru a realtor, but back in the day, it was not unusual at all for the realtor to match a buyer up with financing company. I did it myself in Pensacola while in the military. Went to a realtor, told him what I was looking for, he ask how much I wanted to spend, and he helped me find a mortgage. Probably because I knew no one in Pcola, had just become stationed there and had a growing family. May have just been something more common around military bases than in general population.
And anything ace says is fact, at least in his mind.
No one can find anything as far as what % of home loans are ARM’s and what % are regular loans.
See the thing is this is going to hurt everyone, even ace, see he still owes on his house and if the current trend keeps up as far as devaluing homes he may not get what he paid for his home because it will be worth less than what he paid for it.
This is going to affect everyone, homeowner or not.
Companies are already laying off people because of this, I have already posted links.
But ace said they have nothing to do with this, even though it said right in the article it was because of this.
YOU ARE SO FUKING IGNORANT!
HERE'S THE FUKING MATH AGAIN........
I owe $95,000. I'm listing at $185,000 Taxed market value is $235,000 Last comparable houses sold in the past 6 months in the $170s. The last time ANY house with 2,000 square feet sold in my area for less than $100,000 was 1999.
Sorry Mr Bitter, as of 1:00pm this afternoon, I may be keeping my house. Retirement from the Army next year and owning a "family" business where I grew up is looking quite tempting. So, I'll keep the house and sell it in 3 years for over $200,000.
Keep up your barroom brawl drunken argument you ignorant, uneducated, worthless fuk!
---------------------------------- Spend 5 minutes searching the internet and you'll find numbers for your ARM and regular loans. It's much better than your method of let's pull something out of Mr Bitter's ass and try to link it or hope nobody's checking that it really isn't a fact.
You posted links to the mortgage companies laying off people. DUH! Many of those companies went under. Where does this directly link to the mortgage meltdown? Did John and Sally and Bob get a ARM mortgage as a bonus to taking a job with XYZ Mortgage Company?
Pull your head out of your ass and stop being a bitter fuk!
You and Bill are both right. Bill in saying the target was a high risk category-you in saying the banks really have no way to break even on mass foreclosures. The banks took the word of economists that the economy would remain strong, and underestimated the total # of people accross the country who were actually taking these loans.
I totally agree that they targeted a higher risk category with ARM's, but to say they did it with the hopes of foreclosure couldn't be farther from the truth. There is no money to be made in foreclosure. That is what I was commenting on.
I think you're right about the banks underestimating the number of people taking these high risk loans. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised to find out they never even considered how many people would jump on those loans.
Evidently there are more than a few who believe the realtors are at least a little involved in this. (if the link works) Read down where it shows the realtors tied in. Yes, I understand this is just some peoples' opinions.
I totally agree that they targeted a higher risk category with ARM's, but to say they did it with the hopes of foreclosure couldn't be farther from the truth. There is no money to be made in foreclosure. That is what I was commenting on.
I think you're right about the banks underestimating the number of people taking these high risk loans. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised to find out they never even considered how many people would jump on those loans.
Absolutely dead-on, ditch. But, once again..........Who is the idiot in the end of this?
I totally agree that they targeted a higher risk category with ARM's, but to say they did it with the hopes of foreclosure couldn't be farther from the truth. [b]There is no money to be made in foreclosure.[\b] That is what I was commenting on.
.
Agree fully-the mortgage banks aren't in the housing business-they are in the money business. No one wins in foreclosures--and no one makes money except the speculators and they better have deep pockets and a lot of patience.
There! There are some numbers and fact to chew on. Took me 3 minutes to search the net for this:
"Subprime ARMs represented just 7 percent of loans outstanding, but accounted for 42 percent of foreclosures starts during the fourth quarter. Prime ARMs represented 15 percent of outstanding loans, and 20 percent of the foreclosures started."
ARMs accounted for 62 percent of last quarter's foreclosures. Not to tough to go to Google and find FACTS!
[This message has been edited by aceman (edited 03-08-2008).]
Originally posted by ditch: That's an interresting theory, but it's not true. If you look into it you'll find that banks lose money in foreclosures regardless of the strength of the housing market. Owning a house is not good for a bank. They don't win by acquiring a home via foreclosure, they win by collecting mortgage payments on that home.
Think about it. You loan someone $120,000 for 30 years at 6% interrest. If they fulfill their obligation, you'll end up receiving about $250,000 on that loan. If they default, you're stuck with the house. If you're lucky, you can sell it for the loan amount ($120,000) + foreclosure costs + other expenses such as damage done to the house, taxes/maintenance/utilities while it is vacant, etc. If you're extremely lucky you'll break even.
they lose nothing when they provide a larger loan amount to the next buyer. I mean man! How do you think the housing bubble" got its buyers? sh!t loans and a quick flip. The banks aren't in the business to LOSE money bub... The bank schemes "had" many avenues of escape on foreclosures and defaults right up till their little bubble got burst. Why do you think the altered bankruptsey laws? Do you REALLY believe they altered them to "help" the people.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 03-09-2008).]
But, once again..........Who is the idiot in the end of this?
Does it really matter that much to you? {A bank is robbed. One man drives the getaway car. One man knocks out the alarms. One man keeps watch. Only one man enters the bank and does the heist.} The whole thing falls apart when the car crashes into a dead cow and the cops catch them. How many go to jail for the robbery? All of them.
Originally posted by maryjane: Does it really matter that much to you? {A bank is robbed. One man drives the getaway car. One man knocks out the alarms. One man keeps watch. Only one man enters the bank and does the heist.} The whole thing falls apart when the car crashes into a dead cow and the cops catch them. How many go to jail for the robbery? All of them.
Does it really matter that much to you? {A bank is robbed. One man drives the getaway car. One man knocks out the alarms. One man keeps watch. Only one man enters the bank and does the heist.} The whole thing falls apart when the car crashes into a dead cow and the cops catch them. How many go to jail for the robbery? All of them.
How'd they hit a dead cow? Was it in the road or a field? Sounds like the getaway driver is to blame.
"The trends revealed in the third quarter survey lead the MBA to project 1.5 million homes will enter the foreclosure process in 2007, up from 960,000 in 2006 and 704,000 in 2005.
Subprime ARM loans are expected to generate the largest share of foreclosure starts -- 660,000 -- followed by 275,000 foreclosure starts among prime, fixed-rate loans; 264,000 prime ARM loans; 186,000 subprime fixed-rate loans; 140,000 FHA-backed loans, and 21,000 VA loans."
"The trends revealed in the third quarter survey lead the MBA to project 1.5 million homes will enter the foreclosure process in 2007, up from 960,000 in 2006 and 704,000 in 2005.
Subprime ARM loans are expected to generate the largest share of foreclosure starts -- 660,000 -- followed by 275,000 foreclosure starts among prime, fixed-rate loans; 264,000 prime ARM loans; 186,000 subprime fixed-rate loans; 140,000 FHA-backed loans, and 21,000 VA loans."
Love it... I love it when the banks get their asses handed to them.
There! There are some numbers and fact to chew on. Took me 3 minutes to search the net for this:
"Subprime ARMs represented just 7 percent of loans outstanding, but accounted for 42 percent of foreclosures starts during the fourth quarter. Prime ARMs represented 15 percent of outstanding loans, and 20 percent of the foreclosures started."
ARMs accounted for 62 percent of last quarter's foreclosures. Not to tough to go to Google and find FACTS!
No one is disputing the fact that ARMs-(subprime) account for a high % of defaults.
Read Mr Bitter's comment's, Don. Mr Bitter believe that this mortgage meltdown is coming from all walks of life....From those that have been laid off, or get a smaller wage, or are disabled, or die. Mr Bitter believe that the economy is the reason for the mortgage meltdown.
The mortgage meltdown: Idiots took out loans there was no way in hell for them to afford. Banks allowed it and no one wanted to realize that there is a ceiling on the price/value of a house in a given point of time.
[This message has been edited by aceman (edited 03-09-2008).]
Absolutely dead-on, ditch. But, once again..........Who is the idiot in the end of this?
Well, I know it's not me. I have always done fixed rate. I'm the type of person who thinks ahead, way ahead. I would never do an ARM, but if I had done an ARM I would have read the entire contract and plugged the max interrest rate into a mortgage calculator to see if i could afford it based on my salary.
To answer your question, my opinion is this: There are two idiots in the end, the lender and the borrower. Now to go into more depth on my opinion, I think the bigger idiot is the borrower. Here is why I say this. The lender can absorb the cost associated with the fallout of many buyers who made bad decisions. The buyer can't absorb anything, they default and it's all over; therefore, they have to be more vigilant.
they lose nothing when they provide a larger loan amount to the next buyer. I mean man! How do you think the housing bubble" got its buyers? sh!t loans and a quick flip. The banks aren't in the business to LOSE money bub... The bank schemes "had" many avenues of escape on foreclosures and defaults right up till their little bubble got burst. Why do you think the altered bankruptsey laws? Do you REALLY believe they altered them to "help" the people.
Just do a little research on foreclosures, they absolutely lose. I'm not making this stuff up.
Originally posted by ditch: Just do a little research on foreclosures, they absolutely lose. I'm not making this stuff up.
They only "lost" in the short term while the bubble was increasing. Now they are losing their freaking asses and I do love it so... I really really do. It just puts a smile on my face.
I take it you don't have investments with your bank. Savings-MMs-CDs?You think the bank itself is going to go down alone?
I pulled all my stuff out of the market about a year and a half ago. I now use paper only method for what I buy. If they dont take paper money then they dont get my business.
man! How do you think the housing bubble" got its buyers? sh!t loans and a quick flip. The banks aren't in the business to LOSE money bub... The bank schemes "had" many avenues of escape on foreclosures and defaults right up till their little bubble got burst. Why do you think the altered bankruptsey laws? 
Do you REALLY believe they altered them to "help" the people. 
