Forums » Housing Bubble, Credit Crunch, Sub Prime Meltdown & Real Estate Market » Stop Paying the Mortgage and Get Bailed Out Too!

Stop Paying the Mortgage and Get Bailed Out Too! Subscribe to Stop Paying the Mortgage and Get Bailed Out Too! 80 posts by 26 users

Joshua D.

BiggerPockets Founder
Denver, Colorado
Josh_head_profile_preview_forum_avatar

5494 posts

Lets see how much thought is going to go into this housing / bank bailout . . . frankly, I'm starting to think that the move to make is to stop paying the mortgage so I can:

a) Get "bailed out"
b) Renegotiate my loan
c) get any or all of the other great perks that some people in politics will bestow on those people who walked from their home.

Why not, right?

What do you think? Isn't this bailout just rewarding bad behavior? Yes, some people got screwed by bad people, but lots of people made bad decisions. Why should they be rewarded and those of us who pay our bills not?

Sponsors:

Scott S.

General Contractor
Floyd, VA
Jan_4_2008_002_crop_forum_avatar

6 posts

I agree. An outright bailout of people and institutions reinforces bad patterns that emerge again down the road in a new set of clothes.

I'm not sure if nothing can be done now, but it seems like there must be some sort of middle road where financial solutions can be reached while still keeping the people on the hook that made poor decisions.

I honestly don't know what the answer is.

Michael R.

Real Estate Investor
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Mrogers_forum_avatar

81 posts

Attached is a link to a CNBC interview of Warren Buffett this morning. Click on the video in the link to get his thoughts.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/26867866

He talks about the dire situation effecting the credit markets last week and the consequences of doing nothing. I don't pay much attention when people on Wall Street start screaming the sky is falling, but Buffett is of a different sort and I believe him when he says this would effect everyone significantly. I was surprised by the gravity of some of his comments.

I agree with you whole-heartedly on the concept the executives that got rich making bad decisions should not get off easy.

Richard W.

Real Estate Investor
Las Vegas, NV
Rjw_forum_avatar

1167 posts

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Unfortunately the reaction isn’t always obvious. This bailout will cause problems that can’t be foreseen now. How often has the government done something only to have it backfire?

That was actually the topic of my blog post this week http://www.biggerpockets.com/renewsblog/2008/09/22/that-fateful-day-%e2%80%93-november-12-1999/. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall act almost a decade ago may have been the seed that germinated into the current mess. What unintended consequences will follow a bailout?

David P.

Real Estate Consultant
Tallahassee, Florida
Cimg0097_forum_avatar

670 posts

I agree with you whole-heartedly on the concept the executives that got rich making bad decisions should not get off easy.

I don't think that Josh was specifically talking about executives. I sensed that he was speaking of setting a bad precedent for the good old regular American borrower.

Joshua D.

BiggerPockets Founder
Denver, Colorado
Josh_head_profile_preview_forum_avatar

5494 posts

Dave has it right. I'm talking about the future bailout of the average consumer.

Bob H.

Homeowner
StL, Missouri
Sylvia_s_first_strawberry_forum_avatar

36 posts

Buffet is right about the credit market-as bad as the stock market seems right now, stocks are doing MUCH better than the credit market. Although, if the government doesn't do anything stupid and starts acting rationally (I know, I know) it could help the country out. There is so much fear in the credit market right now that the 3 mo Treasury Bill auction went for .05% this week! People are willing to lend the US government money for virtually no return as 0 return is better than a loss in investors eyes right now! Last week, T Bills were actually trading ABOVE par meaning that people were willing to take a guaranteed loss rather than risk a much bigger loss-or said another way-they were willing to pay to have the US Government take their money. Things are FUBAR right now.

Michael R.

Real Estate Investor
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Mrogers_forum_avatar

81 posts

I don't know what the final proposal will look like, but it looks like that the final provisions of the bill will have little in the way of direct reward for homeowners who borrowed more than they could afford. (Although it might end up with something.) I guess they will indirectly benefit by keeping the financial markets functioning and therefore still be able to get credit in the near term.

I'd be surprised to see if anything gets in there allowing judges to reduce principal balances on loans. However, it does look like a cap on executive compensation for firms participating in the plan has gained approval by Hank Paulson. We'll have to see how things get hammered out. It looks like late this week or early next week we should know something.

Bob - Good point on Treasury Bills last week. That was crazy to see people literally paying a small yield to be invested in T Bills.

Joshua D.

BiggerPockets Founder
Denver, Colorado
Josh_head_profile_preview_forum_avatar

5494 posts

Michael - This bill probably won't take into consideration the consumer in terms of bailouts, but Obama has proposed that something to that tune be done ASAP, and he's not alone. These guys need to think long and hard at the ramifications of such a bill.

Alan B.

Real Estate Investor
Provo, Utah
22206_forum_avatar

14 posts

I think it's preposterous and tampering with the free market.

I believe that one of the reasons we're in this mess is because the Fed forced rates to stay low for so long after they were due to increase, which led to the buying spree, inflated prices, and further blowing the bubble.

Krzysztof D.

Homeowner
kent, Ohio
Dsc00301_forum_avatar

202 posts

let me insert my 2 cents into this discussion: on sep. 10th i quit my full time job ( paying $ 11.50/hr, no benefits - in fact they offered ' health insurance' with the premium that would exceed my monthly take home pay......funny, huh?) my lady keeps her p/t library job with take home of $ 900/ month exluding some o/t... as i said before we paid cash for our house so the house expenses ( utilities and taxes) are about $ 550 over the calendar year avg.; we drive toyota yaris sedan ( paid off , 45 mpg. avg.) with monthly fuel costs of ca. $ 50; our food bill is about $ 100 per month, monthly auto ins. = $ 18, trash p/u = $ 10( just switched supplier) , internet is $ 3.33/mth. ( just switched isp).... total monthly expenses are then ca. $750 plus we get eic every year due to low income and our two college aged daughters still living with us ( it will be ca. $ 4000 fed. and state tax returns included) which subtracts about $ 330 / mth. - so our avg. monthly expenditures ( for basics) after that correction come down to $ 420, which - with only my lady working ( without o/t) leaves us with $ 480 monthly surplus...... now, because i quit my job , in about 2 months i will be getting free er and hospital care ( zero income backrated 3 mths); our local supermarket dumpsters are overflowing with high quality throw away food ( hope to reduce my monthly food bill to $ 0.00 soon)....... so now we are prepared for a long and painful great depression #2, not sure how about you guys; for us $ 700 bln bailout does really mean crap because we will get our yearly eic anyways ( obviously we have and will have zero tax liability) so we will never be " on the hook" due to that bailout; moreover - if - despite , or maybe in absence of the bailout -us economy tanks we will still be well off ( dumpsters will be full regardless- actually they will be more abundant if folks skimp on food and - as a consequence- stores will throw away even more good stuff.....) anyways for me and my wife future looks rosy ; kids will go out of college in 2 years and good luck to them; we will concentrate on mushroom hunting ( stupid term as it is) and growing veggies in our garden........

Edited: 09/25/2008 at 01:02PM by Krzysztof D.

Michael R.

Real Estate Investor
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Mrogers_forum_avatar

81 posts

Michael - This bill probably won't take into consideration the consumer in terms of bailouts, but Obama has proposed that something to that tune be done ASAP, and he's not alone. These guys need to think long and hard at the ramifications of such a bill.


I agree with you on your point of consumer bailouts. If you take the risk and enjoy the rewards, then you've got to accept the pain when you are wrong.

I once heard someone say, capitalism without failure is like Christianity without hell.

Krzysztof D.

Homeowner
kent, Ohio
Dsc00301_forum_avatar

202 posts

right - and capitalism without risk associated rewards is like christianity without heaven.....now, lets take out word " risk" and replace it with " uncle sam bailout" and we have HEAVEN FOR EVERYBODY..... too good to be true ? yessssss!

Edited: 09/25/2008 at 03:03PM by Krzysztof D.

Karen H.


Louisville, Kentucky
Moon_fairy_forum_avatar

3 posts

I am a real estate title examiner in KY and I don't think the consumer needs to be bailed out, but they do need help. I have done so many title searches for Countrywide that were forclosures that I began to think they were in the business to forclose on properties. Many of these people have owned their homes for 30 to 50 years. A lot of people were lied to when they got variable intrest rate loans. No sane person would take out a variable intrest rate loan to purchase a home they intend to live in unless interest rates are very high and will most likely go down, not up. I think the lenders should have to convert the variable interest rate loans to a fixed rate loan, at their expense, and the interest rate should be fixed at the original agreed upon rate on each mortgage. I feel like this would help stabilize the housing prices and help stop the foreclosures and bankruptcies so that when the goverment buys up all these mortgages at least the houses will still be valued at the amount of the mortgage. I am not a financial wiz and would like to know if anyone sees any problems with this idea.

Jon H.

Real Estate Investor
Denver, Colorado
0926070805-00_forum_avatar
Star Moderator

3875 posts

Arrg! This just makes me want to scream! Someone buys a house they can't really afford. But, they can, based on some "teaser" rate, and, most likely, flat out lies about their income on their application. And you say you want to set their loan back to the teaser rate? B*llsh*t! They should have bought a house they could afford based on their actual income and the fixed rates THAT HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS! People who bought a house they couldn't really afford, assuming that their income would rise and their house value would rise and they could refinance are gamblers. If prices really had continued to rise, they would have been screaming bloody murder about paying taxes on their gains.

(Deep breath)

Yes, I'm sure there are numerous cases where people were put into bad loans. That's fraud, and something should be done to help those people. Letting them stay in a house they cannot afford is not the answer, though. Let them off the hook for the deficiency judgment, and let them get on with the life they could afford.

I daresay most people in this position knew exactly what was happening when they took these loans. Anyone who owned their home for 30 or 50 years, and is getting foreclosed was either out and out conned or used their house like a piggy bank.

Sorry, Karen, I don't really mean to attack you on your first post in the forums. It just really, really galls me that people bought houses they can't afford, or took all their false bubble equity out, creating a house they couldn't afford, and now want to be bailed out. Meaning that I'll pay higher taxes and my grandma will see her income from her CD's reduced to pay for what, in many cases, was greed on the part of these borrowers. I bought a house I could and can afford. I refied in the midst of the boom but took the great fixed rate that was available then. Where's my handout?

Joshua D.

BiggerPockets Founder
Denver, Colorado
Josh_head_profile_preview_forum_avatar

5494 posts

Well said, Jon. I concur.

Shari P.

Residential Real Estate Agent
Long Beach, California
Myheadshot_forum_avatar

150 posts

I agree with both Karen & Jon...is that possible? I agree with Jon that people made some stupid choices but I side with Karen that it seems to me the smart thing for Countrywide and other banks would have been to simply reset the interest rates, especially enlight of the bailout talks. O.k. maybe not reset all the way back to the teaser rate but how about to something market rate like 6%. I know that some banks have a policy not reducing to less than 7.5%. If people can't afford it they will end up foreclosing anyway but at least they can try a few payments at the new rate and try to hang on. There are many ways the banks could improve their own situations but I guess it's easiest to create a horrible mess and then wait for Uncle Sam to clean it up.

Matty M.

Real Estate Investor
Encino, CA
Mesmile_forum_avatar

167 posts

At the risk of sounding redundant and adding no value to the thread, I totally agree with Jon. I feel a bit of resentment for being responsible. Not buying into the bubble, doing a lot of research on the difference between an investor and a speculator, and choosing the be the former, and now some irresponsible people get a bailed out at my expense.

Ah well...These are times when I need to practice being grateful that I am able to pay increased taxes to help those irresponsible people out. I'm going practice being all zen on this one...anything that will help me relax when making embarrassingly low offers on properties.

Edited: 09/26/2008 at 04:29PM by Matty M.

David P.

Real Estate Consultant
Tallahassee, Florida
Cimg0097_forum_avatar

670 posts

I agree with both Karen & Jon...is that possible?

Shari,
I don't think so. It's a matter of math.

Karen,

I think the lenders should have to convert the variable interest rate loans to a fixed rate loan, at their expense, and the interest rate should be fixed at the original agreed upon rate on each mortgage.

It is my experience that an interest rate change will not make any difference. If you cannot afford a home at today's rates, then it was never meant to be. Our rates have been historically low for years (as Jon said).

The interest rate isn't the problem. The new loan balances are the problem. If you owned your home for 30-50 years, then you probably had some equity when you refinanced. So, for the person that was in their home for 30-50 years and refinanced, where did the money go? (obviously not to paying their mortgage).

Interest rate modifications are a phony product being pitched for politicians to be able to claim that they are "sticking up for the little guy".

In very few cases do they do any good. Anyone with a HP12-C can do the math.



Krzysztof D.

Homeowner
kent, Ohio
Dsc00301_forum_avatar

202 posts

from AP news desk about "bailout negotiations progress":
"pelosi told fellow democrats during a closed door meeting that the idea of letting judges rewrite mortgages to help bankrupt homeowners avoid foreclosure won't be a part of the emergency legislation. That provision would be a deal - breaker for republicans whose votes are needed to pass the measure"...

So uncle sam buys insolvent note for , say , 30 cents on a dollar of unpaid balance. Mortgage company guys are happy that someone even thought about buying a nonperforming asset, let alone paying them wholy cow 30 CENTS ON A DOLLAR. Now uncle sam has a "poor homeowner" on a hook. And what do you think uncle sam will do now ? Send a note of default to a circuit court to initiate foreclosure ? Or........
maybe "reformulate" terms of the loan to " keep homeowner in his home"? How about lowering outstanding principal balance to - say - 35%.....? anyways uncle sam is making 5% profit on taxpayers money, even if it will be zero interest loan ! So let's make it zero interest ! Let's help "distressed homeowner' and reward him for letting uncle sam use "his" money as a taxpayer to help him, right?
Obviously the former is not an option. Unless the purpose of "bailout" is to dump much much more foreclosed properties on the market and clog it completely plus let re prices plummet even more. So we got the latter. But now, " judges won't be able to rewrite mortgages". Who then will ?

Any thoughts?