the scenario you presented definitely is not a loss, unless there is a long time between the buy and sell. its gotta go up 2-4 % a year or you lose $$. the only practical solution being discussed is for banks to refinance the loans based on current values. then if price goes up and owner sells, the bank gets their $$$ back first. dont really see why banks want to foreclose now anyway. with sooo many houses they will sit forever or they will lose tons in an auction. id think itd be better to accept a lower payment for some period of time.
So . . . if my modest house value doesn't fall, I get to pay full price. But someone can just buy an overpriced house and if the price goes down, he gets to refinance it at a lower value? OK, does the bank get to refinance it at a higher price if the value goes up. Most lenders will work with creditors on a short-term situation to keep you in your house. But it ain't their job to cover for you if you move and have to sell at a loss. They are in business and must profit by it and allowing creditors to escape their contractual obligations is bad business. They aren't "stuck" with the house like the creditor is. They already have your paid interest, they get your equity, and they get the asset of the house, too. They can sell it cheaper than you and not lose money. They have deep pockets and can afford to wait until values improve if need be. "Do not bite at the bait of pleasure till you know there is no hook beneath it." -- Thomas Jefferson
yes. im not talking about what is fair, just what has been proposed that would 1. prevent banks from spending tons of $ on foreclosures and curb their losses. 2. keep more people in their homes. 3. stabilize the market (keep your house price up). dont remember. sounds like a good idea. i wasnt really talking about my situation anymore, just the only proposal to keep things from getting too nuts that made some sense. im not going thru this crap just to take another job. i'll only do it, heaven forbid, if i lose my job and cant sell.
