it may be "good business" but if he's just cutting bait I find it somewhat pathetic in these times. Maybe that is just because I know people that struggled to pay their mortgages long after they should have because it was the right thing to do, hoping things would turn around for them, only to eventually lose them in this economy. Sorry, I can't get with the notion that it's alright. I'm not blaming him, more blame for the legislation regarding mortgages in California, but something like this doesn't sit well with me in this climate. It smacks of lack of responsibility and accountability, and points to a larger problem regarding lending. I can't blame him for making the decision if that indeed is what's going on, but the fact that someone who is a millionaire can just walk away from this and not take a long term hit is somewhat irritating when I see so many others struggling to do what's right and hang on to theirs. That said, I agree that the banks knew the risk and if they want to live by the sword they have to die by the sword, in a case like this. Can't hate on him, but not impressed. Is this the right forum for this? I guess it's loosely related to him coming here, but...
Crazy, I understand the personal connection etc, but just because your friends made their choice etc, don't hold that against someone else making what they think is the right choice for themselves. Heck, your friends may do it differently if it happened again. DD
I don't. and said that, I just can't get with it. Choices in Texas are not as easy as they are in Cali. regarding this. It points out a climate that should have never been, and taking advantage of that, whether a bank or a millionaire, doesn't sit well with me.
I think there's a big difference between guys like Kmart that are really more like a company then an individual, and the every common person. And I disagree that you should always follow your financial advisors...they have no concern for your personal ethics.
Don't know why anyone would expect something different from Kevin Martin. He's doing pretty much the same thing off the court that he does on the court-- taking full advantage of the rules for personal gain. He's never declined free throws because a certain foul he drew happens to be kind of cheap and he wants to take "personal responsibility" for his shot attempt, who why would we expect him to decline to make full use of his contractual and statutory rights?
If you make that much money, you're stupid to even HAVE a mortgage. Why borrow money at all? If I had his annual salary, I'd pay cash for everything - or I wouldn't buy it.
not really. off the court he defended his position by levering his house to the hilt, so that if things didn't go the way he'd hoped, he wouldn't get burned. on the court his defense is much less effective.
He signed a contract to pay back a loan and now he's not. I can understand the sympathy factor if you fall on hard times but IMO - you have an obligation. Taking a loophole out just because you want to pass on your loss to the bank is not OK. Yao come up to you and says, "Lend me $500. Here's an IOU". You say ok because really the guy has plenty of money to pay you back so there is little risk. He buys some lottery tickets and which all tickets turn out to be losers. You say, "How about my $500 back?". Yao decides since his investment didn't turn out the way he thought and since he's not legally obligated to pay you back in that state as IOUs hold very little value, he says, "Sorry - but you can have the tickets I bought". Fair and right? No it is not.
No you wouldn't because you would be losing money by doing that. What you described is stupid..... You earn more in interest on your money than you pay in interest on the mortgage payments. Rich people get richer because they use other people's money.....not their own. DD
This is a great point and you can read it in the replies by most folks in this thread too. We are not all looking at it from the same perspective. DD
Ima, no offense but you are not making much fiscal sense. It is all about maximizing your own capital. DD
in this particular instance that statement may be okay. but if it were like the million americans that bought a house worth more than they could afford, we wouldnt be where we are today. and i have a problem with that.
It is a hiccup in the market, the houses in Cali were over inflated, and the market crashed, it is cyclical. DD
You have to factor in the RISK, DD. Dude is a millionaire and he's having to default on his mortgage for crying out loud. If that's what you call "maximizing your own capital", count me out. 100% of foreclosures happen to people with mortgages. If you're as rich as Martin, why not pay cash for a house and invest the $$ that would normally go towards a mortgage payment? Eh, this is the GARM. Why are we arguing about money? I'm out.
So if the argument is that Kmart should assume all the risk and take the hit because he's loaded....I think it's safe to say that the bank has more money then he does. I really don't think that should matter. So is it fair that the bank and Kmart split the loss on the short sale? Would it then be fair for Kmart and the Bank to split the profit if it was sold for gain. Also, the article doesn't say how much is still due on the bank loan. If he only owes $1.2 mil on it for example, then the bank is only out $100k, while Kmart is essentially losing $700k on the investment
