View Poll Results: Would you do a strategic default?

Voters
13. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    7 53.85%
  • No

    6 46.15%
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Would you strategic default on our mortgage?

  1. #1
    Member madengr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    Posts
    1,121

    Default Would you strategic default on your mortgage?

    I was listening to NPR this morning. They were discussing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lowering the principle on troubled mortgages up to $50k. Someone then mentioned how bad of an idea this was since it would trigger a tidal wave of strategic defaults by those who had no trouble paying their mortgages.

    Would you do it?

    http://www.npr.org/2012/03/23/149166...ge-write-downs
    Last edited by madengr; 03-23-2012 at 08:05 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Out Of This World
    Posts
    20,858

    Default

    Why would you want to do a strategic defalut? If you purchased a house which you liked and intend to continue to live in and can currently afford it is not really relevant if the "estimated value" is higher than what you still owe on it. A default will also harm your credit if you want to buy another house in the next few years (I believe it will stay on your credit reports for seven years though somebody may want to check on that). I would not do a "strategic default" if I could still make payments on the house. If you simply cannot afford to make payments, that is a different question.

    (As I recall, to qualify you must be perfect in making on- time payments on your home currently and have good credit).
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  4. #3

    Default

    If there is a viable financial reason to strategically default then of course, why not? There is no shame or moral weakness is making prudent financial decisions. Banks don't loan you money because they like you. They make loans to people based on risk. There are millions of people who banks lent money to stupidly, and there nothing wrong with those banks paying for their mistakes if someone decides to strategically default.

    If a couple bought a house in 2006 with no money down, adjustable rate mortgage, interest only payments for the first 3 years, and all of the sudden their house tumbles to half its value there is nothing wrong with making the financial decision to not pay that mortgage. You would be crazy not to strategically default in that instance even if you had the money. Live in the house as long as possible and offer up a deed in lieu and get out.
    E che sospiri la libertÓ!

  5. #4
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Out Of This World
    Posts
    20,858

    Default

    I take it you have no problem with people walking away from contracts they signed if they want to- even if you can afford to keep the contract. That is what you are doing. They agreed to do it (both the individual and the bank). Should the bank likewise be able to forclose on you if the price of your home goes up instead of down? If you can walk away if it goes down, they should be able to walk away if it goes up.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aurave View Post
    Banks don't loan entities money because they like these entities. They make loans to entities based on risk. There are millions of entities who banks lent money to stupidly, and there nothing wrong with those banks paying for their mistakes if someone decides to strategically default.
    Reads much cleaner...
    Sign up, Log in:
    http://forums.officer.com/
    Surviving
    http://www.themodernsurvivalist.com/

    • Libertarians need to stop deluding themselves that people WANT them. They don't. They want free healthcare, free soc sec, free meds, free education,...at anyone but themselves expense.
    • Fiat Banking - Your supply of capital is limited to whatever arbitrary limit those who have limitless currency resources allow.
    • If you don't want the mafia, don't disgrace yourself by paying the mafia.

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    I take it you have no problem with people walking away from contracts they signed if they want to- even if you can afford to keep the contract. That is what you are doing. They agreed to do it (both the individual and the bank). Should the bank likewise be able to forclose on you if the price of your home goes up instead of down? If you can walk away if it goes down, they should be able to walk away if it goes up.
    I could care less...
    http://www.pbgc.gov/wr/trusteed/plans.html
    Sign up, Log in:
    http://forums.officer.com/
    Surviving
    http://www.themodernsurvivalist.com/

    • Libertarians need to stop deluding themselves that people WANT them. They don't. They want free healthcare, free soc sec, free meds, free education,...at anyone but themselves expense.
    • Fiat Banking - Your supply of capital is limited to whatever arbitrary limit those who have limitless currency resources allow.
    • If you don't want the mafia, don't disgrace yourself by paying the mafia.

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aurave View Post
    If a couple bought a house in 2006 with no money down, adjustable rate mortgage, interest only payments for the first 3 years, and all of the sudden their house tumbles to half its value
    You have the situation almost exactly backwards.

    Is it a different house than the one they bought? Did the bank come and take half of the house away? Is it somehow providing them half as much shelter as it did in 2006? If not, then the house has the same value it had when the couple bought it.


    Actually, what happened is that the couple did not purchase the house based on its current value. They, instead, bought it based upon what they thought the future price would be. And they were wrong. It wasn't the bank that made a poor economic decision, it was the couple.

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    I take it you have no problem with people walking away from contracts they signed if they want to- even if you can afford to keep the contract. That is what you are doing. They agreed to do it (both the individual and the bank). Should the bank likewise be able to forclose on you if the price of your home goes up instead of down? If you can walk away if it goes down, they should be able to walk away if it goes up.
    huh?

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    I take it you have no problem with people walking away from contracts they signed if they want to- even if you can afford to keep the contract. That is what you are doing. They agreed to do it (both the individual and the bank). Should the bank likewise be able to forclose on you if the price of your home goes up instead of down? If you can walk away if it goes down, they should be able to walk away if it goes up.
    But part of that contract states that if they don't pay then the bank gets the house. So walk away and the bank owns the house. The contract has been honored.
    All your voter base are belong to us!

  11. #10

    Default

    Just think if everyone in America no longer had a house payment...mortgage forgiveness stimulus

  12. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Land of Indians
    Posts
    26,044

    Default

    The poll , says 60 % in favor , at this moment ( only ten votes though ) . I did not vote...

  13. #12

    Default

    Here's a better option - try to get a debt write down as well.

    It is a highly rational and reasonable function of a market economy. Bubble forms, - banks and homeowners BOTH have rough balance sheets due to over leverage. Banks do not want to lose income, homeowners do not want to lose their homes. They negotiate. Bank lowers the principal amount, refinance at a higher interest rate (or not?)...homeowner can now afford to stay in the house (or simply want to because they won't lose their shirt on the asset value) and the bank stays solvent as their income does not dry up.

    Shwing.

    The REAL solution to this crisis is not keeping interest rates low, or pumping QE...It's a MUTUAL agreement between lender and borrower.

    The banks are just as sick as the borrowers. The banks got their bailout and **MIGHT** not be able to get more without a violent revolt.

    It's in their best interest to forgive principal to maintain solvency and income streams.

    THAT would create a recovery.
    Last edited by Seraphim; 03-25-2012 at 01:58 PM.






« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •