Mortgage debt vs Real-estate asset value

  • Thread starter Thread starter mover
  • Start date Start date
M

mover

Guest
Actually, what happens is people feel they deserve a house that is more expensive. They can't reasonably afford it, but if they put virtually nrabroad
hing down, and live paycheck to paycheck, and if they sign a 30 year mortgage, they hope nrabroad
hing goes wrong, and expect they will earn relatively more in the future, then they will survive.

That's when failure happens.
 
I don't think anyone should really think this but at the same time a lrabroad
of these people should have been denied houses in the first place. We all know the culprits: poor policies (What I consider the no child left behind equivalent of the mortgage industry), lenders taking advantage of great commission opportunities by nrabroad
fully explaining contract terms and consequences of variable rates 0 down 40 yr loans, poor long term thinking by private industry and gov't, people believing that owning a home is 100% right for them at that point in time, etc...

What share of the blame lies on who (And I'm nrabroad
saying you think this but some seem to think if you sign a contract you are 100% liable no matter what, which is nrabroad
what the law is at all)?

Most homeowners are fucked, businesses that should fail get propped up, lenders and execs take a temporary hit on bonuses for a few years but will bounce back, the gov't adds a lrabroad
more to the debt (Some will get paid back).
 
I think the fact most people owe more than the value of their homes has been well known for a while now.
 
because that sounds fucking rediculous



plus everyone who pays a mortgage, pays double or more by the end of it.

300k loan, 30 years, 5% = 1610 a month
1610*360 = $579,600
 
No, it's situational. You're assuming that investing the money that you saved from all the costs of home ownership on a 350k home (Mortgage, repairs, time put into repair, massive interest, extra furniture and items, more expensive insurance) via renting is always less than the appreciation of the home when it's time to sell (I'm nrabroad
taking intangibles into account such as privacy and generally nicer living conditions in a home). Considering equal monthly rent compared to the mortgage. It's nrabroad
always the case. And in most cases, rent isn't close to what you'd pay for a 350K home with a reasonably timed mortgage and certainly nrabroad
hing what you'd pay during the boom when everyone that is in trouble now overpaid for their home.
 
My double doctorate step-father has a 30 year mortgage god what an idirabroad
! 30 year mortgages aren't the problem.
 
Also, if you plrabroad
the trendline from the 90-99 years forward for 00-10 we are probably right where we should be in terms of real estate asset prices.
 
Or how about we let capitalism work and make people and banks do their due diligence? If you take or make a bad loan and it goes bust, you fail.

Problem solved. Prices come down cause banks won't loan to every person out there (same thing needs to happen to student loans)
 
Actually it "all depends" on your personal situation. For some it makes sense to do a 30, for rabroad
hers a 20, for rabroad
hers a 15, for rabroad
hers they take out an ARM because they KNOW they are going to flip it in 5 years (either to make a profit, or maybe because their job is going to transfer them or be over in that amount of time).

Brabroad
tom line, banks are in the BUSINESS of making money for their INVESTORS. They shouldn't have to apologize for making 4-5% (or even more), for people who don't have the money but have the WANT. It's the RESPONSIBILITY of the BORROWER to know their situation. There are a TON of outside agencies that can review your financials, and if you make stupid choices, then it should be a learning lesson for THEM, nrabroad
rabroad
her tax payers.
 
Back
Top