3 ms·

thats okay - but this is like paying for music/porn to be taken away from you. A big part of the equity you got when you signed up and paid for has been taken a

by prat 17y ago

thats okay - but this is like paying for music/porn to be taken away from you. A big part of the equity you got when you signed up and paid for has been taken away but you are still paying the full price!!

pyre 17y ago
Nothing has been 'taken away' from you. Someone lent you $X to buy something that you thought was worth $X. The value of what you bought has gone down, it's now worth $(X-Y). The bank didn't do this. They lent you $X and you're paying them back for that $X at the interest rate that you both agreed on. Cars notoriously devalue over time. Are you saying that the bank is stealing money from you because you new car dropped 10% in value the moment that you drove it off the lot, but you are still paying the bank for a loan of 100% of the original value of the car?
- prat 17y ago
  I understand and agree.. but banks set up there loan terms and conditions assuming that real estate (unlike cars) increase not decrease in value over time. Ofcourse, thats an assumption that buyers have too and that's their risk. So what do you suggest if that assumption doesn't hold any longer? should the terms and conditions remain the same?
- kls 17y ago
  >The bank didn't do this. But they did, they took you loan packaged it with poop and sold it to the after market. They gave loans to people who could not afford and when it all cam crashing down they lobbied for bankruptcy law changes to make it difficult to absolve yourself from the debt and they lobbied for your tax money to bail them out of the bad speculations that they made on junk loans. All of this affected your mortgage and the underlining assets value. Now they are stable, they expect you to hold up your contracted obligations which you are free to make your own decisions on, but to say that they did not do this is wrong, they just did not do it in the contracted terms of your contract.

by prat 17y ago

pyre 17y ago

Nothing has been 'taken away' from you. Someone lent you $X to buy something that you thought was worth $X. The value of what you bought has gone down, it's now worth $(X-Y). The bank didn't do this. They lent you $X and you're paying them back for that $X at the interest rate that you both agreed on. Cars notoriously devalue over time. Are you saying that the bank is stealing money from you because you new car dropped 10% in value the moment that you drove it off the lot, but you are still paying the bank for a loan of 100% of the original value of the car?

prat 17y ago
I understand and agree.. but banks set up there loan terms and conditions assuming that real estate (unlike cars) increase not decrease in value over time. Ofcourse, thats an assumption that buyers have too and that's their risk. So what do you suggest if that assumption doesn't hold any longer? should the terms and conditions remain the same?
kls 17y ago
>The bank didn't do this. But they did, they took you loan packaged it with poop and sold it to the after market. They gave loans to people who could not afford and when it all cam crashing down they lobbied for bankruptcy law changes to make it difficult to absolve yourself from the debt and they lobbied for your tax money to bail them out of the bad speculations that they made on junk loans. All of this affected your mortgage and the underlining assets value. Now they are stable, they expect you to hold up your contracted obligations which you are free to make your own decisions on, but to say that they did not do this is wrong, they just did not do it in the contracted terms of your contract.