That is the lenders fault? In what world do lenders of mortgages control what the rate of equity is in the housing market?
More bs, it was not a point about either parties fault, it is a description of the market condition and the borrowers asset value. It was a a counter to your "well the borrower is gonna get equity", as if a borrower has ANY equity in the first ten years of a 30 year mortgage and will see any when he short-sells.
FFS
Now, if the borrower is not able to meet payments on the house, then maybe they weren't qualified to buy the damned thing in the first place.
Maybe, but then who is at bigger fault then, the borrower who was offered a NINA loan or the lender who offered the NINA loan? You do know what NINA means...yes?
It could also be that you, like the harry one, is unaware of the magnitude of the job losses we have seen
The pressure for lenders to take these unqualified borrowers and get them into these houses was brought about directly by the CRA. It was government turning the blind eye as to what banks did with these sketchy mortgages in mitigating their loss when they inevitably went belly up, and that is on the banks. But, don't feed us that these people out there buying 3,4,$500K homes that knew full well that they could never afford them are not to blame at all either.
I knew this one was coming, the old CRA myth. You shouldn't have played it. CRA loans had
HIGHER standards than sub-prime, had
LOWER levels of defaults than sub-prime, and were very
SMALL portion of the new loan market from 2002 thru 2007.
They created NO pressure on the sub-prime lenders as the major lenders stated so in front of Congress, since they were not in competition with that program. There was plenty of funds available for lending, no supply issues at all. There were no supply issues with homes or buyers, either. CRA was created to fill the need for lending in "red lined" areas, places where LENDERS WERE NOT SERVICING IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I am familiar with what a short sale is. And if the borrower can't afford what THEY borrowed then that is an option for them to mitigate THE CONTRACT THEY SIGNED!
Again, as above, this was a counter argument to your claim that the borrower would see some gain from equity. There is no equity, yours is a false point.
As they should be, they are a business, not a charity.
More red herrings, I never said mortgage insurance for the LENDER was a "charity".
Ok. Those are the terms of buying that house. If you don't like the terms that are spelled out at closing, then don't sign the contract. Once you sign that, YOU AGREE to those terms.
It is how most mortgages are structured, it was a statement simply spelling out that the borrower pays for the
lenders mortgage insurance directly, so again, the lender can cry me a river when a default occurs, the borrower had him covered.