by emersonbiggins » Wed 27 Jun 2007, 11:22:22
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', 'I')f there is some form of huge economic collapse (which right now i doubt) do you think its going to be prudent for hundreds of thousands or millions of homes to be foreclosed on? Why not allow homeowners the ability to "pay what they can" and at least remain in the property and maintain it? I think If there is some form of huge collapse coming who is going to repo your home when none of the banks remain?
Repo'ing homes will be somewhere way down the priority list for remaining financial institutions and the local police.
You are probably worse off, financially speaking, if there
isn't a complete collapse. If only 5-10% of homes are foreclosed on, you can bet there will be families on the street or staying in motels. If there is a complete and total collapse, then, yeah, I (along with everyone else) will be more worried about the dissolution of rule of law than if the banks were going to take my house. I find it curious that you think that banks would not survive a financial collapse, though, and that the creditors would somehow forgive mountains of debt and, instead, accept pennies on the dollar for their previous investments. More likely, the houses would be foreclosed on and rented out to the tenant families at the prevailing market rate, which very well may result in homelessness for a few, even those now considering themselves secure from market volatility. But, at that point, I agree, we are probably looking at squatters' law.