Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Smiling Bob who wrote (166938)	11/24/2008 5:02:38 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 306849

The least tumultuous and least costly path is to allow them to stay in the home and maintain the home and lose x% of future equity gains. ---- Because 42% of those who've already had their loans modified in 2007 are already 90 days late and in default just a year later?

To: Smiling Bob who wrote (166938)	11/24/2008 5:14:58 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

the best approach is to just let the house go into foreclosure, it will get bot by investors and if purchased at a deep discount, those houses can be turned into affordable rental units it's cruel to hold out a carrot to a poor person who is underwater (and will get more so) to take a loan mod, keep making payments (money down the rat hole) and eventually default anyway they're better off to walk away now, find much cheaper rent, and within a couple of years be able to purchase a home at a much more reasonable price....only then will they have a chance of actually have room for price appreciation and raising their net worth and standard of living

To: Smiling Bob who wrote (166938)	11/24/2008 5:56:56 PM
From: ChanceIs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

>>>There's little choice but to make these people into renters again. The least tumultuous and least costly path is to allow them to stay in the home<<< I am a little confused about your meaning. When you say, "keep them in their homes," do you mean: 1) keep them in their homes as owners, or 2) keep them in what used to be their home but as renters? I go with option #2. Keep them in situ but send ownership elsewhere. Also give them a big incentive to take care of the place. No doubt you would want to give them an option to repurchase the place. Another twist you don't hear much about....When interest rates go negative (OK zero) there will hardly be any mortgage interest to deduct. Lets say that you literally have a zero percentage interest mortgage. All you are doing is making monthly principle payments. How does that crank into the price/rent arguments. It makes renting look a little more attractive. I would have to run a lot of numbers of course. Again if you crank in falling house values............ Ugly, ugly, ugly. And the freaking homebuilders want to get $50 billion or so to go increase the supply!?!?!?!?! How about Toll Brothers property management corporation. Hey!!! They built them, lets have them deal with renters, broken pipes, crack pipes, leaky roofs, late payments, etc, etc, etc. Makes sense, doesn't it??? I mea after all, they are next in line behind Detroit in laying off thousands. They know the houses..they built them after all. Oh. How about Toll Brothers yard maintenance and landscaping. You know...a jobs program. Hey!!! Better than extended unemployment benefits....for the hundredth time.