That can't EVEN be possible, Who's been in charge of this process for the last two and a half years, anyway?
If someone is way upside down on their mortgage, it makes financial sense to stop making payments and let the property go into foreclosure; and save the money normally used for payments to prepare for the time when you are forced out.
Not wise in all case, but a lot more than you would think.
That can't EVEN be possible, Who's been in charge of this process for the last two and a half years, anyway?
Get me a Harvard professor...surly they cant be right..........DUH!
The funny part is that banks are sitting on real estate right now. Not even putting houses in the market since they know the moment they do prices will plummet...
Putting any money down on a house is a waste of resources. It just puts more money in the banks pockets up front, and less in your account, money that can be more productively used to improve the property and handle ownership expenses. Even with no down loans, there is still several thousand dollars required in closing costs. A down payment is money never to be seen again, unless one was able to sell before the crash and profit on the increased equity.
Banks allowed these no down loans because house values were increasing, and were increasing for several years. The banks knew that even with a no down loan the buyers were seeing equity build up. Until the crash hit.
I think despite what this article says, After the crash, many home owners would still lose their built up equity along with any down payment they had made. By saving the down payment dollars, at least they might still have something to live on.
I enjoy Liebowitz. A good conservative thinker/writer.
But ... where houses have positive equity, there is no need to endure foreclosure. The owner could always sell the house and have a residual to keep. So it would seem that these results are not in any way surprising or inconsistent with other hypotheses.