Papa bull
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2013
- Messages
- 6,927
- Reaction score
- 2,599
- Location
- Midwest
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
so, that bank, the one that made a loan so you could be upside down in a home by $30,000, is the more moral party
doesn't matter that your moral bank sold that potentially upside down loan to an investor to avoid risking the loss it anticipated because it had statisticians and economists on staff to better anticipate the economic downturn than you
and when you ponied up the additional $30,000 in the belief it was the moral thing to do, you aided an investor with whom you had no dealings and who held your Note without your approval or consideration
now, share with us what you got for that $30,000 you needlessly gave over to that secondary market investor
in short, you made a terrible business decision
could it be that you are trying to find some justification in order to salve that expensively bad business decision
It's not the bank's fault that the property values where you live dropped to the point that your home is underwater. It's not the bank's fault that you paid more for the home a few years ago than it is worth today. How do you rationalize that sticking it to the bank is OK when you chose the home and you agreed to the terms of the loan? They didn't do anything wrong, but you're arguing that you should stick them with your bad decision anyway because... what exactly was that rationalization again?