Some cool equity home insurance loan images:
American Mailbox (Wakulla County, Florida) .. Walk Away From Debt For a Better Future

Image by marsmet461
One time, my wife said to me, [imitating his wife] "Honey, the dryer is broken." [as himself] Did you check the lint trap? [imitating his wife with a clueless face] Sit down, honey, I’ll check it. [as his wife] "Was there anything in there?" [as himself] Just a quilt. …Ron White …a/k/a Tater Salad..
.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
.
…..item 1A)…..The Huffingtonpost…..HUFFPOST BUSINESS….Shifting the Focus From "Strategic Default" to "Prudent Walkaway"
Nicholas CarrollAuthor, "Walk Away From Debt for a Better Future"
Posted: March 24, 2011 07:38 PM
www.huffingtonpost.com/nicholas-carroll/shifting-the-focu…
A "strategic default" currently means walking away from an underwater home even though the owner could afford to pay the mortgage. However, this represents far less than half of walkaways. The vast majority of foreclosures happen to people who cannot afford to pay the mortgage.
Portrayals of strategic default in 2009 were typically of homeowners who "used their home as an ATM," or "deadbeats." Even news stories describing the positive side of default didn’t entirely shake those images. One of the earliest semi-positive stories was in the Wall St. Journal, titled "American Dream 2: Default, Then Rent." This article described a couple who had defaulted, cut their housing costs from nearly ,000/month to just over ,000/month, and were living in a bigger house with "a swimming pool with three waterfalls." Another strategic defaulter in the same article found the benefits of default-and-rent included the discretionary income to go out to dinner more often, and hang on to his series-6 BMW.
These are not the people I meet in the course of interviewing and writing about surviving tough times. The people I meet are laid off, or from two incomes down to one, or on their way to medical bankruptcy. They cannot imagine a swimming pool, much less a waterfall — they just have bills they can’t pay, one of which is the mortgage. Some are slow in adjusting to the "new normal," and still eat out regularly, but others have already cut back to eating out four times a year.
Their home may be underwater — or they may have equity. Often it doesn’t matter, when the bottom line is that they have to choose between the mortgage and medical insurance — because losing medical insurance in America is potentially lethal.
For this group, it is not a matter of cunningly defaulting to maintain a latte-sipping lifestyle. It is a matter of prudently walking away from the mortgage that is dragging their family and future under the waves.
The benefit for people who act both prudently and decisively can be startling. Taking a fairly typical example from people I’ve interviewed, this is the family’s financial situation:
Primary income of ,000 net per month is gone, with one laid off.
Secondary income of ,000 net is still coming in.
,000 in cash and savings, including the 401K.
,000 in credit card debt.
One car fully paid for.
Second car — ,000 owed.
They have done a careful financial projection. The total monthly expenses are ,000, right down to the last dime — which includes ,500/month on mortgage and credit card bills. That says that if the main breadwinner is not fully employed in 14 months, they will lose the home — and of course take a dip in their credit rating. And if the job doesn’t come until the 13th month, it had better be at the same salary as the previous job, or they’ll lose the home anyway.
Scenario A: Betting on a job, and continuing to pay the mortgage (a.k.a. "doing the right thing," according to the moralists). They guess that they will be fully employed again in time to save the home. They continue paying mortgage, car payments, and minimum monthly credit card payments. If their bet is wrong, their trajectory is shown by the red line below.
Scenario B: Prudently walking away. They decide that getting a job might require a career shift or relocation, with some time and money invested in re-education. They immediately stop paying the mortgage and credit card payments. In this scenario, they cut their expenses by ,500/month (which rises to ,500/month when they move out and start paying rent). If there is real equity in their financed car, they sell it and buy a used car to replace it.
.
………………………………………………………..
Betting on a Job – Prudent Walkaway….
images.huffingtonpost.com/2011-03-22-prudenthomewalkaway.jpg
………………………………………………………..
.
………………………………………………………..
Worksheet online in MS Excel format or PDF
www.walkawayfromdebt.com/worksheets&charts.html
.
……………………………………………………..
The difference between A and B is incredible. If the family bets the primary bread-winner will be working within the year and is wrong, they could be leaving their home without enough money to rent a decent apartment in 14 months — exhausted, frightened, and possibly running on bald tires. (People who "do the right thing" tend to leave long before they actually get legal notice to move.)
The family that bets the primary bread-winner will not find a job in 13 months and stops paying the debts will be leaving their home with ,000 cash in hand, move to a rental (usually in the same school district, if need be), and will have three years for the primary bread-winner to find a job. And that’s their worst scenario — it’s quite likely they’ll be in the house for 18-24 months without making any mortgage payments.
Conclusion: when the writing is on the wall, the best plan is often a prudent walkaway — an escape to the future, equipped with enough cash to get there.
.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
.
…..item 1B)…..The Strategic Default Monitor….
Sunday, March 6, 2011
The 3 Must Send Debt Defense Letters
The 3 Must Send Letters
The following are the 3 "Must Send" Debt Defense letters. This means that at all times you must send any of these letters to any debt collection company or the original lender that contacts you
Read more »
Posted by Grinnin Skinny at 3:03 AM 2 comments
.
………………………………………………………
.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Consider Using A Mortgage Calculator, Amortization Table And Property Value Data For A Strategic Default
Part of our job at strategicdefault.org is to review other viewpoints about strategic default. This current post is inspired by another post we found while researching the universe of articles on strategic defaults and foreclosures.
We found this post entitled : “Should I Do a Strategic Default on my Mortgage?” by JLP in his blog All Financial Matters posted December 2, 2010.
This question was posed by a reader of JLP’s blog. The question and answer are as follows:
"I bought my condo at precisely the wrong time. I didn’t, however, listen to everyone telling me I could afford to buy more. I did a straight 30 year fixed that I could afford in reality. Of course I am incredibly underwater on my mortgage now. It is depressing, needless to say, and even more so when I feel as if my taxes are helping people who didn’t “do things the right way” and some companies who seemed to have contributed greatly to the problem and are not being held responsible…I live in Illinois, western burbs of Chicago…I bought for 9,000, now owe 2,000 and the most recent sale was ,000…30 year, 6.75% (which was good then!) percent…When I bought I planned on staying 5 years or so and moving up (didn’t everyone?). I don’t *need* to move. I sure wish I could buy some of the houses on the market now though! For what I paid? I bring home (after taxes) about ,000 a year. My mortgage + PMI + escrow is almost ,100…I know there are people in much worse shape. If I lost my job this whine about underwater wouldn’t even exist, you know? Still – just the though of paying even MORE out when I feel like I am not getting any benefit is upsetting, depressing."
The writer, JLP answers as follows:
Read more »
Posted by Grinnin Skinny at 12:06 AM 5 comments
Labels: a diji, amortization, augustine a diji, augustine ademola diji, augustine diji, ken mcallion, ken mccallion, kenneth mccallion, mortgage calculator, property value, strategic default
.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
.
…..item 1C)…..The Strategic Default Monitor…The 3 Must Send Debt Defense Letters
Sunday, March 6, 2011
www.strategicdefault.org/2011/03/3-must-send-debt-defense…
.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
.
.
.
~ Bailout ~ Bubbles ~ Burst ~

Image by eyewash
BLOGGED: 08 Oct. 2008: www.counterspinyc.blogspot.com/
see the blog here —> blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&fr…
Past Economic BAILOUT BUBBLES
By: Industry/Corporation
By: Year
What Happened?
Cost in 2008 U.S. Dollars.
● Penn Central Railroad
1970 .2 billion
In May 1970, Penn Central Railroad, then on the verge of bankruptcy, appealed to the Federal Reserve for aid on the grounds that it provided crucial national defense transportation services. The Nixon administration and the Federal Reserve supported providing financial assistance to Penn Central, but Congress refused to adopt the measure. Penn Central declared bankruptcy on June 21, 1970, which freed the corporation from its commercial paper obligations. To counteract the devastating ripple effects to the money market, the Federal Reserve Board told commercial banks it would provide the reserves needed to allow them to meet the credit needs of their customers.
● Lockheed 1971 .4 billion
In August 1971, Congress passed the Emergency Loan Guarantee Act, which could provide funds to any major business enterprise in crisis. Lockheed was the first recipient. Its failure would have meant significant job loss in California, a loss to the GNP and an impact on national defense.
● Franklin National Bank
1974 .7 billion
In the first five months of 1974 the bank lost .6 million. The Federal Reserve stepped in with a loan of .75 billion.
● New York City 1975 .4 billion
During the 1970s, New York City became over-extended and entered a period of financial crisis. In 1975 President Ford signed the New York City Seasonal Financing Act, which released .3 billion in loans to the city.
● Chrysler 1980 .9 billion
In 1979 Chrysler suffered a loss of .1 billion. That year the corporation requested aid from the government. In 1980 the Chrysler Loan Guarantee Act was passed, which provided .5 billion in loans to rescue Chrysler from insolvency. In addition, the government’s aid was to be matched by U.S. and foreign banks.
● Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co.
1984 .5 billion
Then the nation’s eighth largest bank, Continental Illinois had
suffered significant losses after purchasing billion in energy loans from the failed Penn Square Bank of Oklahoma. The FDIC and Federal Reserve devised a plan to rescue the bank that included replacing the bank’s top executives.
● Savings & Loan
1989 3.8 billion
After the widespread failure of savings and loan institutions, President George H. W. Bush signed and Congress enacted the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act in 1989.
● Airline Industry 2001 .6 billion
The terrorist attacks of September 11 crippled an already financially troubled industry. To bail out the airlines, President Bush signed into law the Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act, which compensated airlines for the mandatory grounding of aircraft after the attacks. The act released billion in compensation and an additional billion in loan guarantees or other federal credit instruments.
(What happened after the bailout?)
● Bear Stearns 2008 billion
JP Morgan Chase and the federal government bailed out Bear Stearns when the financial giant neared collapse. JP Morgan purchased Bear Stearns for 6 million; the Federal Reserve provided a billion credit line to ensure the sale could move forward.
● Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac
2008 0 billion
The near collapse of two of the nation’s largest housing finance entities was yet another symptom of the sub-prime mortgage and housing market crisis. In an effort to prevent further turmoil within the financial market, the U.S. government seized control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and guaranteed up to 0 billion for each company to ensure they would not fall into bankruptcy.
● A.I.G. 2008 billion
When AIG was unable to secure a private-sector loan, the federal government intervened by seizing control of the insurance giant.
● Auto Industry 2008 billion
In late September 2008, Congress approved a more than 0 billion spending bill, which included a measure for billion in loans to the auto industry. These low-interest loans are intended to aid the industry in its push to build more fuel-efficient, environmentally-friendly vehicles. The Detroit 3-General Motors, Ford and Chrysler-are the primary beneficiaries.
● Troubled Asset Relief Program 2008 0+ billion
The Bush administration has proposed a rescue plan to ease the current crisis on Wall Street. If approved by Congress, the Treasury Department will be authorized to purchase up to 0 billion of distressed mortgage-backed securities and other assets and then resell the mortgages to investors.
<————————————————————————————
Why should responsible Americans be forced to pay for the mistakes of others?
A bailout is morally irresponsible because it encourages reckless and irrational behavior. Here’s a short list of the many "moral hazards" a bailout enables:
A bailout sends the wrong message about personal responsibility. It tells Americans in no uncertain terms that their financial decisions have no consequences; the government will pick up the tab.
A bailout tells responsible Americans that they are suckers. If responsible American had been smart, they would have overextended themselves, purchased homes they could not afford, and taken out home equity loans based on the paper value of their property. Then, when the bill came due, they could just pass it to the government.
A bailout allows banks, mortgage brokers, speculators, and re-financers to benefit from their abuse of the system. By doing so, it encourages these people to act irresponsibly, in future.
A bailout will force Americans who acted responsibly to pay for those who did not. The average American – who saved and scrimped for years to buy a house, but could not because speculators and over-extenders boosted home prices beyond affordability – will now be forced to pay for the homes of those who were less scrupulous.
A bailout will have a disproportionately negative affect on minorities and youth. Minorities and Americans under 35 are disproportionately underrepresented among homeowners. While non-Hispanic whites enjoy a 75% homeownership rate, less than 50% of blacks and Hispanics own homes. Similarly, only 42% of Americans under 35 own homes, compared to 80% for Americans 55 and older. A government bailout will perpetuate this race and generation gap by propping-up inflated house prices, thereby permanently pricing minorities and a generation of youth out of the market. And, in a Kafkaesque irony, these folks will actually have to pay to prevent themselves from buying homes (i.e., taxes).
A bailout is also fiscally irresponsible:
A bailout props up over-inflated housing prices, thereby putting homeownership out of reach for young families and responsible Americans who recognized that there was a bubble. The housing market needs the correction that the bailout seeks to prevent because the average American cannot afford to purchase a home. "You cannot be both in favor of affordable housing and in favor of propping up home prices!"
A bailout creates perverse incentives. Rather than punishing their behavior, it encourages fiscal irresponsibility among bankers, mortgage brokers, speculators, and refinancers. These folks made money hand over fist in the past nine years (remember, home borrowers who tapped their home equity received cash money to pay for Escalades, vacations, and stainless steel appliances; now they want you to pay for it!). Why change your behavior when you benefit from it?
A bailout shifts the risks of falling market prices from financially secure banks to the American taxpayer. As a result, either taxes or the federal deficit will skyrocket! This is a government handout we simply cannot afford & moreover, It Is Wrong!
A bailout is contrary to the free market principles upon which our economy is based. It jams a huge wrench into the market correction, with negative effects that will be both severe and long-term.









