Any of you guys know about loan mods?

[combusean]

^ Because the government introduced inconceivable externalities. I thought I went over that.

[DowntownDweller]

Originally Posted by combusean

^ Because the government introduced inconceivable externalities. I thought I went over that.

I read it loud and clear, but its irrelevance persists. Just pay your mortgage like you agreed to do and go on with life. Not like you are going to start a family or anything, which would require more space.

Your situation reads like somebody walked on their mortgage, and now I want to also even though I can still afford the payments. I think they should bring back debtor's prison for the people who feel this way.

[combusean]

I totally get where you're coming from, but your horse is as illogical as it is high.

Your comment about debtor's prisons is a red herring--my debt is secured by the mortgage. Incidentally, debtor's prisons would largely eliminate the need for disparate interest rates, and with no profit in lending nobody would do it. Did I mention I'm paying 7.625%?

And those externalities are completely relevant when they just cost me at least $50,000 in equity compared to what would have happened without. I like where I'm at, and I can sort of afford it now. But in six months, I might not have a job, and if I'm at where I'm at in a year I'm worse off than before because of inflation and increasing cost of living.

At a certain point, one has to realize a bad investment is just that, and throwing good money after bad is a business decision one just can't make anymore.

[jvbahn]

Here is an editorial pertaining to walkaways.

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/for...ce=patrick.net

[DowntownDweller]

Originally Posted by jvbahn

Here is an editorial pertaining to walkaways.

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/for...ce=patrick.net

Best content of said article.

This seems to subscribe to the view that underwater homeowners are simply victims of society. Now, there have certainly been cases of predatory lending that deserve aggressive prosecution, but absent fraud, it’s dangerous to claim that individuals are not responsible for their actions. When a family stretches its budget and gambles both the college fund and the retirement savings to buy a bigger house, it should be held accountable for its choice. Such gambles have often paid off and made homeowners richer without anyone’s arguing that their gains should be shared with society at large. More recently, the gamble didn’t pay off; why should we hold society responsible now? Undermining individual responsibility—privatizing gain and socializing loss—threatens the fundamental principle of a capitalist economy, whether you’re bailing out banks or homeowners.


Strategic Defaulters are scum, pure and simple. They should be branded with a scarlet D so the rest of society can point at them and make them feel like the lowly creatures they are.

[Don B.]

^ I agree with you regarding strategic defaulters, even though we disagree on almost everything else. People who strategically default are simply hosing everyone else in the neighborhood who tries to play by the rules, especially in terms of resale values. Advocating wholesale abandonment of contractual obligations will potentially cause the destruction of the mortgage industry. At the very minimum, getting a mortgage in the future will be so difficult that it will severely curtail the number of people who can own a home.

Then again, you think Arizona's recent legislative record will be helpful to the state. I predict massive economic misery for Arizona, as we continue to become the laughingstock of the United States and the world, unless the perception that Arizona is full of tea-party right-wing nutjobs that control the state's legislative agenda is eliminated. For example, one of the reasons why Arizona is not more economically diverse (e.g. attract more big companies with good paying jobs) is because of our shitty, underfunded educational system. This is why Microsoft is in Seattle, Apple is in San Jose, Coca Cola is in Atlanta, etc. ad nauseum.

--don

[DowntownDweller]

Originally Posted by Don B.

This is why Microsoft is in Seattle, Apple is in San Jose, Coca Cola is in Atlanta, etc. ad nauseum.

--don

What about Dial, Northwest Tire, Phelp's Dodge, GoDaddy, etc.?

[Don B.]

^ Dial doesn't exist anymore, at least not in the sense that you are thinking. It is now owned by a German company, and that German company, Henkel, does not have their headquarters here. There is a subsidiary headquarters that employs perhaps 300 people in a 5 story office building next to the 101 freeway in Scottsdale, but I'd hardly hold that up as an example of Phoenix's economic and business muscle. The sad reality is, none of the companies you mention have anywhere near the number of employees and economic power of the companies I mentioned. There's a reason why Phoenix only has five Fortune 500 companies headquartered here (below such considerably smaller cities as Richmond, VA, and Milwaukee, WI), and that reason is looking back at you in the mirror. Such extremist conservative views does not tend to attract businesses, and this why Phoenix will always be an economic backwater compared to real sunbelt business centers like Dallas (25), Houston (24) and Atlanta (12). Source:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=180942

--don

[PHX NATIVE 929]

Dallas County has voted for the Republican Presidential Candidate in almost every election since 1960; the only exceptions being in 1964 and 2008.

In the United States House of Representatives, districts 3, 5, 24, 26, 30 and 32 are entirely within the county and all are represented by the Republicans, with the exception of one district being Democrat. In order of district number they are Sam Johnson, Jeb Hensarling, Kenny Marchant, Michael C. Burgess, Eddie Johnson, Pete Sessions.

So there goes your latest horrendous theory. I'll eagerly await your next Keith Olbermann spoon-fed tale of those pesky redneck, racist teabaggers....

[Don B.]

^ Please study your history. Dallas was a progressive major business center long before Phoenix was anything but a dusty village in the middle of nowhere. For example, people in Dallas long ago (e.g. 1960s and 1970s) built freeways and light rail (along with some big-assed skyscrapers), while Phoenix resisted all of this for many decades afterwards (and we still have no "big-assed" skyscrapers). Some of this was due to anti-tax sentiments, and some of this is because Phoenix feared "becoming another LA." Needless to say, that plan failed miserably, and today Phoenix covers a larger land area than Los Angeles. Phoenicians like their governments and their buildings small.

To this day, Texas politics are not as bare-knuckled. You know there's something wrong with Arizona politics when there is a candidate to the right of McCain trying to take his seat. This, amongst other reasons, is why Texas has two major cities with world-class economies, while Phoenix struggles along in a third or fourth-tier status. Also, Maricopa County has NEVER supported a democratic candidate for President, so one can argue that Dallas County is not quite as conservative as Maricopa County.

Look at some of the legislators Maricopa County has spawned: Lori Daniels, who pushed through a "defense of marriage amendment" to make it harder to divorce in Arizona. She never did answer the question as to which of her five marriages would have been saved by the bill. Then we have Karen Johnson (R-Idiotic), who has publicly stated gays are cannibals and all have an "agenda" to "convert" more kids to their cause (whatever the hell that means). Robert Gould, a hardcore right wing wacko recent import from California that makes the Governator (a Republican) look like Nancy Pelosi, and Arizona State Senate Majority leader Chuck Gray, who follows the Twitter account of StormfrontWPWW (White Pride Worldwide). Let's face it, Arizona's state legislature has done little to dispel the common notion of being "the ninety dwarves" who are so virurently reactionary on the right wing that they can't rationally consider anything in the middle of the political spectrum. We have too few Carolyn Allens there (she was the only Republican to vote against SB1070) and too many of the other types of extremists, and entirely too few Democrats. Look at the criminal justice system in Maricopa County. Especially if you compare it to Tucson, Maricopa County is known as the "hangin' county." You do murder here and you very likely will be put to death, much more so than anywhere else in the state (as a percentage of cases tried). Pima County is not as conservative, and this is reflected in the different politics of the respective county sheriffs. In law enforcement circles, Sheriff Joe (a Republican) is pretty much considered a sideshow and a joke, as he is only interested in his image and getting re-elected. Look at our recently resigned county attorney, Andrew Thomas (a very conservative "family values" Republican). He helped Sheriff Joe turn Maricopa County into a police state over the last decade.

This is also why Texas' economy is in much better shape than Arizona's. In fact, a large percentage of the Hispanic population we are doing our best to drive out are moving to Texas right now. Every person that leaves Arizona is going to further hurt our state economy, especially since our state is quite regressive and relies heavily on sales tax revenues to fund basic governmental operations. Texas may generally be described as "conservative," but they know better than to cut off your nose to spite your face. They welcome diversity, even if that consists of taking your money with one hand, then laughing about how your daughter will never make the Junior League debutante ball coming up soon with the other hand.

--don

[PHX NATIVE 929]

I'm in no need of a history lesson from you, Don. Your "point" that large corporatations don't choose to headquarter here due to our conservative values is laughable.

Texas is clearly one of the most "red" states in the nation. Nobody debates this point. Aside from the facts I've already provided for Dallas County, I'll also point out that Barack Obama was the first Democrat to win Harris County (Houston) since Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

Now unless you want to try to argue that all of these Fortune 500 firms established themselves in Greater Dallas and Houston in the past 16 months (obviously false), it's time for you to accept the fact that 49 Fortune 500 companies have willfully chosen to call two of the more conservative cities in our nation their home.

Again, your absurd notion that we don't have more Fortune 500 companies because of our conservative values is utterly ridiculous. One minute, liberals want to paint the businessmen that work for corporate giants as a bunch of greedy right-wingers and the next minute you're stating that these corporate giants don't want to be here due to conservative (right-wing) values. You can't have it both ways.

Here's a stereotype that I enjoy:

Republicans do (business), Democrats sue.

[Don B.]

^ And you've written nothing to counter the many points I've raised about the excessively conservative nature of Phoenix politics compared to older, bigger cities like Houston and Dallas. This isn't about Texas being a "red state," because it certainly is. I would just argue that Texas is not quite as red as Arizona, and this extremism can hurt business prospects. That's why there are 49 Fortune 500 corporations in Dallas and Houston, but only 5 in Phoenix.

Arizona has a long and troubled history with politics. From the debacle of Evan Mecham (a Republican governor from the late 80s who publicly referred to blacks as "pickanninies"), to the fracas over approving a MLK holiday in Arizona that cost us at least one Superbowl (amongst a lot of other economic fallout from boycotts) to the joke that was Republican governor Fife Symington, Arizona has a lot of colorful political history that is helping to maintain our image as a bunch of backwoods hicks that can't get our act together.

As a personal anecdote, my boss grew up in Dallas, worked there as an attorney for many years, then relocated to Las Vegas for a decade and now finally Phoenix (he's been here for five years). Of all three cities, he said Phoenix is, by far, the most conservative. He mentioned (when I asked him) that Las Vegas has a more open society, more of a "live and let live" mentality than Phoenix, and he said Dallas is in a whole different class of maturity and development. Dallas had over 400,000 people in 1950, while Phoenix only had 106,000, so Dallas clearly is the bigger and more mature city than Phoenix is.

--don

[soleri]

I think that Texas is probably more conservative than Arizona but it's a tough call and not particularly relevant anyway. It has more major corporate headquarters because it had substantial oil wealth that leveraged investment in educaton, infrastructure, the arts, and business start-ups. As raw as Texas can be, there is some "old money" that has kept it stable. Business is conservative there but it's not nihilistic. I seriously doubt Texas will pass draconian anti-immigrant legislation for that reason. Texans ultimately take money more seriously than they do right-wing carnival politics.

Down the road, both Arizona and Texas will trend blue. The growing Hispanic population guarantees that. In Arizona, 81% of people over 65 are white but under 18, that falls to 38%. The figures are reversed for Hispanics. SB1070 will be a permanent gift to Democrats. Even socially conservative Hispanics are alert to the dog-whistle politics of right-wing heavy breathers.

You have to go back 20 years to remember when business really guided Arizona economic policy. The loss of local major banking headquarters, Motorola's virtual collapse, the rise of low-end call centers and the attrition of higher-end employment (semiconductors and aircraft) meant that real-estate developers became the principle business force. These people had no real interest in economic development strategy since their industry is predicated on low taxes and quick turnovers. To survey the landscape today is to realize just how shallow their roots are in this state.

Today, Arizona's major employer is Wal-mart. We have a weak economic strategy, burgeoning social pathologies, a declining tax base, and a global reputation for toxic policy and nutty politicians. Not very smart. And because we're leading the parade, other states will learn what not to do. Political power now flows from right-wing media, which promote self-perpetuating temper tantrums. The "adults", aka, the business elite, walked away and the void was filled with zealots.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by Don B.

^ Dial doesn't exist anymore, at least not in the sense that you are thinking. It is now owned by a German company, and that German company, Henkel, does not have their headquarters here. There is a subsidiary headquarters that employs perhaps 300 people in a 5 story office building next to the 101 freeway in Scottsdale, but I'd hardly hold that up as an example of Phoenix's economic and business muscle. The sad reality is, none of the companies you mention have anywhere near the number of employees and economic power of the companies I mentioned. There's a reason why Phoenix only has five Fortune 500 companies headquartered here (below such considerably smaller cities as Richmond, VA, and Milwaukee, WI), and that reason is looking back at you in the mirror. Such extremist conservative views does not tend to attract businesses, and this why Phoenix will always be an economic backwater compared to real sunbelt business centers like Dallas (25), Houston (24) and Atlanta (12). Source:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=180942

--don

Don,
While I agree with much of what you said, you're reasoning for why fortune 500 companies aren't located here is just personal bias with no facts to back it up. Most companies are conservative in their political views anyways.

A more likely reason to there not being that many huge corporations is the extreme remoteness of Phoenix to other markets. We're basically an island in the desert. We're not exactly in a hub of economic activity. As soon as Phoenicians raise their education levels, acquire wealth and create their own businesses that mature into global companies we aren't likely to see too many fortune 500 companies re-locating here. We shouldn't hold our breath that one day we're going to snag a Microsoft or a Coca Cola here.

[Don B.]

^ Well, certainly rational people cannot agree the bills like SB 1070 will help attract businesses to this state?

--don

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by Don B.

^ Well, certainly rational people cannot agree the bills like SB 1070 will help attract businesses to this state?

--don

The only thing that is controversial about SB 1070 is that it gives AZ law enforcement the same powers that federal law enforcement already has. Watch as this turns into a racial issue, when clearly, it is not.

The good thing about the law is it forces the Feds to enforce their laws already on the books.

[AJphx]

walk and buy something cheap. for no other reason than because people say you shouldn't.

[DowntownDweller]

Originally Posted by AJphx

walk and buy something cheap. for no other reason than because people say you shouldn't.

Watch while he gets a deficiency judgement, ruined credit, and has to end up paying the difference in the end.

[PHX31]

Originally Posted by DowntownDweller

Watch while he gets a deficiency judgement, ruined credit, and has to end up paying the difference in the end.

I've been wondering about this... is this happening? I've heard stories about people walking from their houses and mortgages and they think they'll just take a credit hit, but really they end up owing the difference between what they owed on their mortgage and whatever their house ended up selling at short sale.

ie:

"You Owe" = "The amount left on your loan" - "The amount the bank sold your house for at short sale and maybe even foreclosure".

Is this happening in isolated incidents or is there a process that is standard that makes people owe this difference plus take a credit hit?

[kingofleos]

Sean,

I bought a condo near McClintock/University back in Sep 2004. At the time I bought it, it sold for $120K. Within a year and a half I had banks flooding me with equity loan offers as my condo was now "worth" $200-$210K. So of course, like the young idiot I was, I rolled school loans, credit cards, and the rest of my car balance into my equity. So there I was with a new mortgage of $190K, and low & behold within another year and a half, my house "worth" went down to $145-$150.

Thankfully I've been able to pay about $30K into my mortgage, so I'm down to $160K left. I of course tried refinancing to get a lower payment, but, since I'm at or over what the condo is worth, they can't do it without a considerable payment to reduce the balance.

Thankfully I was referred to a loan modification company that swore they could help. Had to shell out $1,900, but it looks like my mortgage interest rate will drop a point or so, and my payment should drop $400-$500.

This will help a lot. I couldn't justify paying $1,200 a month, in addition to $200 HOA fees for a 1,100 SQFT condo that wasn't even worth $150K.