OT-walking away from underwater mortgages

[sjbraun]

Okay, this one is seriously off topic and has the potential to move into waters where we fear to tread, but here goes anyway. (I'm sure the mods will take any action they fell is appropriate.)

I saw a story on 60 minutes last week about a homeowner who was seriously underwater on his mortgage. The guy's plan was to just stop paying until the loan company evicted him. He felt no qualms about failing to pay the mortgage he'd agreed to. Here's the rub, the dude hasn't lost his job and admitted he could continue to make payments on his house.
So here's what I don't get. If someone takes out a 30 year mortgage for $300K and outs down just 5% to get the loan, how does the fact that their home is now worth only $150k today rationalize walking away from the loan? Unless they need to sell in order to move in the short term, why not keep paying realizing that housing values will probably return sometime over the remaining life of the loan?

Steve-puzzled and grateful that he bought a house 21 years ago during a depressed market in Tucson

[Lifelover]

1. There is more to the sotry that 60 minutes failed to report because it makes for better news.

2. The guy is an idiot.

Each is just as likely. Typically short sells happen because people are forced to move.

[rugbysecondrow]

Agreed, there could be many other facets to the story (adjustable rates eating him alive, alimony, child support, gambling, job loss, under-employment, car debt, medical bills). As many variables as you can think of could alter the structure of the decision.

To your question though, just because ones house declines in value, that does not nor should not automatically trigger a sale. If a person can afford the payments, has no other issues other than house depreciating, then they should probably stay for a while.

[AngryScientist]

i'm of the old school belief that if you promise to pay for something, you should do everything in your power to pay for it.

[Volant]

i'm of the old school belief that if you promise to pay for something, you should do everything in your power to pay for it.

+1

Would the guy in the story also walk away from his car payment if he was "underwater" on that?

[goonster]

The guy's plan was to just stop paying until the loan company evicted him. He felt no qualms about failing to pay the mortgage he'd agreed to. Here's the rub, the dude hasn't lost his job and admitted he could continue to make payments on his house.
So here's what I don't get. If someone takes out a 30 year mortgage for $300K and outs down just 5% to get the loan, how does the fact that their home is now worth only $150k today rationalize walking away from the loan?
It doesn't, and if that's all there is to the story then the homeowner is guilty of seriously unethical behavior. There are some consequences to this (terrible credit rating for a very long time).

On the supply side, the bank should have required a greater downpayment and should have hedged their risks against higher rates of foreclosure. Of course, if a single bank had done this against prevailing trends in the bubble economy they might have gone out of business, and it also does not excuse the wanton shirking of responsibility described above.

Lender fraud on loan terms (not indicated in this case) are a different story.

[BengeBoy]

There are a lot of serious discussions underway on this topic in our country today. The question is -- if giant commercial real estate investors can "walk away" from their bad commercial loans, why can't an individual homeowner?

The discussion -- prompted partly by some scholarly papers published in the past few months -- basically contends that the financial industry is trying to hold homeowners to a higher "moral standard" of indebtedness than commercial real estate investors. In other words, it's "just business" when a company walks away from an obligation to repay a long-term commercial loan...but somehow it's unethical and immoral when a homeowner does it.

From a Seattle real estate blog this week:

"If you find yourself in a situation where you have run the numbers every way you can and the best decision for your family’s financial future is to walk away from your mortgage, don’t let a misguided sense of ethics lead you to the wrong decision. Continuing to pay a mortgage that is hopelessly underwater is throwing good money after bad. If you already made the mistake of buying a massively overpriced house, that doesn’t mean you need to continue paying for that mistake for the next twenty years when there exists a way out. "

http://seattlebubble.com/blog/2010/05/11/on-misguided-ethics-and-walking-away-from-a-mortgage/



(BTW, I don't have a dog in this fight, as I don't have a mortgage).

[veloduffer]

I don't know if you can consider a selective default a moral/ethical obligation.

It's called non-recourse borrowing in the corporate world. In commercial real estate, the mortgage loan is limited to the underlying asset. This is happening many times over in the current commercial real estate downturn. The owners have the financial wherewithal to pay but the property may have become a bad investment and the owner can not get a sufficient recovery. So, it cuts its losses and refuses to throw good money after bad. Similarly can be said for residential mortgages.

Corporations also let subsidiaries fail (declare bankruptcy), even though the parent or other subsidiaries have the resources to repay the debt.

For most individuals, a residence is their biggest investment. But if their equity is wiped out by a decrease in valuation, it doesn't make sense to keep putting money into a losing investment, particularly at the expense of retirement, college funds, health.

Note: In most states, the mortgage lender cannot attach liens to the borrowers' other assets, but they can in some states.

[torquer]

The question is -- if giant commercial real estate investors can "walk away" from their bad commercial loans, why can't an individual homeowner?

... In other words, it's "just business" when a company walks away from an obligation to repay a long-term commercial loan...but somehow it's unethical and immoral when a homeowner does it.

Not sure this makes it OK, but an interesting point.

Here in NYC, Tishman Speyer put together a mega-billion $ deal for Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper Village that went all pear-shaped. Their "partner" investors (banks, pension funds, etc.) lost something like $3 billion. Jerry Speyer and his son each lost about $60 million, but this was chump change compared to the upside they planned on. I don't think either one of them has their limo up on Craigslist as a result of this reversal. Furthermore, they are still doing deals, and attracting investors.

Not to pick on Speyer (I once worked on a building for him, and he's prominent in several institutions I also support), but it does look like he's held to a different standard than the working folks who were fooled into believing they could use their real property as an ATM.

[veloduffer]

In commercial real estate, most mortgage lending is done on a non-recourse basis. That is, the lender can only go after the property and not the borrower's other assets if the borrower defaults. Sometimes, the lender can cross collateralize with other properties of the borrower if they are providing the financing for those properties too.

Similarly, small businesses often organize as limited liability companies. So if your business goes bankrupt, the creditors can not go after your personal assets (unless you provided a personal guaranty).

[johnnymossville]

Just some random thoughts on the matter.

Where is it written that the value of the home you purchased will only keep going up? Is that a new law or something? If you bought a $300k house, still owe $295k (not counting interest) and the house is now worth $200k, the "bank" that really owns your house has lost FAR more than you have if you walk away. I won't even get into Fannie and Freddie and how they fueled the bubble and put all taxpayers at risk by backing these loans and lessened bank's risk. At least you still have a roof over your head provided you keep making payments. The whole idea of home ownership has become bogus to begin with. Even you pay for the damn thing in cash the govt can take it away as soon as you get behind on taxes.

We eat depreciation on car purchases all the time. Why is it so cruel when the same happens to a house?

[SamIAm]

This is a BS move, if the fact are being reported properly.

Debtors prison?? :)

[xjoex]

What irks me about this is that for all intents and purposes we are rewarding bad, shortsighted behavior. Everyone wants a "relief" for these underwater mortgages.

Me? I want a reward buying a house I could afford and continuing to pay my mortgage.

-Joe

[Ralph]

We paid on our house for a few years, then paid it off when I retired. Now....it's lost at least a 1/3 of it's value. That's real money lost. Not paper money or someone else's money.

How do I recover that?

Answer....I don't. That's life. When I lose a couple hundred thou in the stock market, I don't go crying to the Feds for reimbursement. Why should anyone be bailed out or let off the hook on a house mortgage?

As you can tell....I'm kinda PO'd about the attitude of many about this.

[SoCalSteve]

What irks me about this is that for all intents and purposes we are rewarding bad, shortsighted behavior. Everyone wants a "relief" for these underwater mortgages.

Me? I want a reward buying a house I could afford and continuing to pay my mortgage.

-Joe

Post of the day!

I feel the same way. Go to work, pay my bills, don't spend ( much) more than I make...why should the irresponsible ones be rewarded?

[bluekudu]

Economists and game theorists often talk about "rational behavior" (wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory)) I personally think there is more to financial decision making for the typical person than this definition of rational behavior but I think that explains how some people are able to make seemingly unethical but "rational" financial decisions.

The house next to mine sold to a guy who did some work to it to boost his appraisal then took out a second mortgage. He did some more work and took out a third. Then the mortgage got a little too much for him. He put it up for sale (at the peak of prices here in the 801) and was made an offer that would have cost him $7K out of pocket to accept after commissions and loan payoff. From my perspective, this meant he would have had to pay back $7K of the equity he already cashed out in his 2d and 3d mortgages. Instead, he rejected the offer, market tanked, he foreclosed and house sold at auction for 57% of the offer. All the while, he walked around smiling like he hadn't a care in the world. I was amazed. That being said, I can't help but wonder if he had taken the offer, the fate of the new owner would have been the same since they would soon be, in all probability, in a similar upside down situation.

Hypothetically, if you have $100K in cash, your loan is $500K and your house is only worth $300K, it would seem like it's in your best interest (rational behavior) to walk away and take the hit to your credit and leave the cash where it is (cash is king, you can always rent and rebuild your credit.) After all, you haven't technically lost the $200K diff between the loan and current value (or $100K or anything for that matter.) It's certainly not something I think I would do, but I also hope to never be in that situation. At this point, what was the incentive for my neighbor to continue to pay his mortgage? Chances are his down payment was minimal and he probably recouped that and more by taking out 2d and 3d mortgages. Was the threat to his credit rating or his moral compass an incentive? I don't know...apparently not. His situation was also different than the subject of 60 mins -- I trust that my neighbor couldn't afford his mortgage.

My father in law tells a story of a wealthy client who walked away from his mortgage and then re-bought the house at auction for 50 cents on the dollar in cash. Ethical? You decide. Legal? Apparently. Rational? I suppose so. He did it, I believe, because he could and it saved him a ton of dough.

If banks were certain we were the type of people who would never walk away from our debt obligations, would we only pay the risk-free rate?

[Ken Robb]

The idea of buildings (not land) appreciating is relatively new. The IRS Code allows depreciation deductions against income from real estate because historically buildings' values decreased over time due to wear and tear and functional obsolescence. This became unreasonable due to massive overall inflation over the past 30+ years but it was still legal.

I wonder if people who think they don't owe all the money they borrowed because their property declined in value had planned to share the appreciation they were sure they were going to enjoy with their lender. When a person buys stocks on margin he borrows money from the brokerage to buy more stocks than he could afford for the cash he has. If the stocks go down to the point that his cash equity drops below the amount of the "down payment" he had to make to buy the stocks in the first place he gets a "margin call". He either puts up more cash equal to the minmum "down payment or equity" required or the brokerage sells the stock and his investment is wiped out. Leverage cuts both ways: you can make more or lose more.

[nm87710]

Pay me now or pay me later - in either case you will pay.

[zap]

At this point, what was the incentive for my neighbor to continue to pay his mortgage? Chances are his down payment was minimal and he probably recouped that and more by taking out 2d and 3d mortgages. Was the threat to his credit rating or his moral compass an incentive? I don't know...apparently not. His situation was also different than the subject of 60 mins -- I trust that my neighbor couldn't afford his mortgage.



In this case, if any equity was taken out it would most likely be taxed. Many do not realize this until the IRS comes back with a 5 figure tax bill.

[bluekudu]

Pay me now or pay me later - in either case you will pay.

So what happens in non-recourse states? My understanding is that once the lender forced a foreclosure, their receivable was recouped or partially recouped, the debt was forgiven, and no further action was allowed against the borrower by the lender.

[Ozz]

...When a person buys stocks on margin he borrows money from the brokerage to buy more stocks than he could afford for the cash he has. If the stocks go down to the point that his cash equity drops below the amount of the "down payment" he had to make to buy the stocks in the first place he gets a "margin call". He either puts up more cash equal to the minmum "down payment or equity" required or the brokerage sells the stock and his investment is wiped out. Leverage cuts both ways: you can make more or lose more.
This would be an interesting way to structure a mortgage....I could see it reducing the risk of pricing bubbles.

[cdimattio]

So what happens in non-recourse states? My understanding is that once the lender forced a foreclosure, their receivable was recouped or partially recouped, the debt was forgiven, and no further action was allowed against the borrower by the lender.

Maybe no further action, but the cancelled and forgiven debt is treated as taxable income.

[cdimattio]

So what happens in non-recourse states? My understanding is that once the lender forced a foreclosure, their receivable was recouped or partially recouped, the debt was forgiven, and no further action was allowed against the borrower by the lender.

Even without further action there are plenty of negatives. Poor credit can have a broad impact from higher insurance rates to reduced hiring/job prospects.

The cancelled and forgiven debt is also treated as taxable income, and the amounts due can make a mortgage payment seem manageable and modest. While 'rational' many do not have a pile of cash sitting around to satisfy the IRS.

Plenty to consider for those who can afford to pay and choose to walk away from a "bad investment."

[1centaur]

The differences between businesses and people are important. Businesses create entities that are the borrowers while the business owns the residual value. When the equity is worthless, businesses walk away from the entity, not the loan, and the banks take over the entity. No loan forgiveness problem for the business, and the entity will probably wipe out the debt through bankruptcy. Smaller businesses or exceptional risks may require personal guarantees, but most businesses avoid that at all costs (banks are always trying to get that from Donald Trump on skyscrapers) because they know business is risky. So do the banks. They build that risk into their interest rates and required equity in the entity.

People are direct borrowers; no entity. Most states are non-recourse because of a long tradition of home prices going up (banks did not feel at risk) and people paying (prices went up and people felt an ethical obligation that does not exist in business, where it's not about personal trust it's about investment characteristics). The few people who defaulted were likely to be so busted that piling on with recourse was a direct threat to EVER getting their heads above water, plus the banks could usually do okay in the foreclosure sale (prices constantly rising and all), especially back in the 20% down days.

It is indeed rational for people to walk away from severely underwater mortgages. The ethics vary. If someone borrowed and relevered with no intention to pay then that's "bad faith" and it's unethical. If someone borrowed in good faith and got creamed by circumstances, I don't know that it's appropriate to view those ethics as questionable. Just as with a business that defaults, the greater question is consequences - IRS, collections, bad credit, etc. Most people are not well equipped to weigh those trade-offs ex ante. But they do know that life is short and there's only so long to save for retirement, etc. To spend 20 years paying off an overpriced asset is a massive gamble on having income for those 20 years and home appreciation in general. Starting over is much more likely to be profitable. Rationally, it would not be surprising to see implicit or explicit forgiveness for walking away in this downturn. The government may waive debt forgiveness income (perhaps selectively) if the politics demand it. Bankers may view the wave as so large it's not worth penalizing those borrowers as much as they would have in the past. Some of those borrowers will never be able to buy a house again anyway under tougher standards to come. Maybe a future President will say that bad credit records from this period should be expunged within 5 years to give Americans a fresh start.

Tougher/different standards are really where we're heading with the walking away question. If bankers view housing as an asset that goes up and down like stocks, they'll lend against that asset differently. They'll know that a generation learned how to walk away. They'll ask for 20% down and tougher appraisals. They'll raise the interest rate to all of us to pay for future default losses (and there will be fewer securitized structures to help keep rates down). Guess what - that means lower home price appreciation from this point on, exactly what those choosing to pay their ethics bill don't want to hear. This is good for the banking system's stability (and landlords), but it's going to be bad in lots of ways for lots of people.

[nm87710]

So what happens in non-recourse states? My understanding is that once the lender forced a foreclosure, their receivable was recouped or partially recouped, the debt was forgiven, and no further action was allowed against the borrower by the lender.

Depends....not as clear cut as most (want to) believe.

[Ken Robb]

In California "Purchase Money Deeds of Trust" (used instead of mortgages) for a residence are non-recourse. The lender can only look to the property if the borrower defaults.

On the other hand as is often the case the loan was a refinance that protection is gone and a lender can get a deficiency judgement against the borrower for any shortfall from a foreclosure/trustee's sale.

I think the potential for surprise income taxes being levied isn't necessarily because equity was pulled out of the property via a re-fi but because the IRS considers debt-relief to be income. Mr. Obama was talking about offering relief from these potential taxes in addition to "relief" from some of the debt. Just when you thought it was illegal to buy votes too. :rolleyes:

[Ken Robb]

Depends....not as clear cut as most (want to) believe. Plus if any fraud was committed with the loan application(lying about income, source of funds, etc.) then the loan is full recourse.

Oh yeah---I forgot that part. And so many of the defaults are the result of what most loan officers called "Liar Loans" where there was NO checking of stated income, etc. Some borrowers have claimed that the loan officer filled out all the documents so the borrowers would "qualify" and they signed the papers without reading what they were signing. I think they should be sentenced to repeat Junior High School while staying awake this time.

[bluekudu]

Here's a good IRS read (http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=179414,00.html)

[soulspinner]

i'm of the old school belief that if you promise to pay for something, you should do everything in your power to pay for it.

What ever happened to that? To me thats your word, but I guess Im old skooly...

[djg]

What irks me about this is that for all intents and purposes we are rewarding bad, shortsighted behavior. Everyone wants a "relief" for these underwater mortgages.

Me? I want a reward buying a house I could afford and continuing to pay my mortgage.

-Joe

"We" rewarded the behavior long ago. Or at least devised an incentive system that was waiting to reward it. Many states -- not all, but quite a few -- enacted statutes limiting lenders' recourse in the case of default on a residential mortgage. "We" did it state-by-state.

I'm not underwater (well above) on my mortgage and I would feel serious qualms about walking away from my signed mortgage agreement. But I do half way understand: we create a complex system of rules within which lending agreements are drafted; lending institutions, and those who acquire loans from them, use those agreements, and the surrounding law, to their best advantage. Those institutions are not incompetent at lobbying or at seeking representation in legal disputes. So there are consumers -- some in desperate financial straits, some who just don't give a damn -- who ask themselves the following question: why should I consider my loan agreement some sort of very personal promise, binding against any circumstance, when the institution that holds the note will do whatever -- in the view of its counsel -- the law permits that is to its best advantage?

As I say, I'm not in that position and I don't think I would feel comfortable with the walk-away view if I were in that position. But it's not as if I don't get it.

[godfrey1112000]

YOU HAVE HIT THE HOT BUTTON

First if you have lost your job or become sick or disabled please do not consider yourself part of this problem, but you might have a problem

These "strategic default" people are a cancer on the system.

Some one mentioned the loss of stock value and they are correct.

If I recall you signed a promise to pay, now it did not work out the way you wanted so you move back to mom and dad's basement and cry.
Yes the people have their jobs and have the ability to pay but they did not get their way, what a sad story. Grow up and be a man, you make a promise or even worse sign a legal document and then say F-it

If you stop paying on things that have lost value you better look at that 4 wheel hunk of steel in your garage with the bike rack on it. Drive it off the lot and you take a 30% haircut day one.

Now put the shoe on the other foot, the house with the loan doubles in value after 5 years and Mr. Smartie Pants sells it and makes a windfall. I am the lender and inform them of the fine print in their loan docs that says any profit in the first 10 years of the loan is to be split with the lender. Would the borrower be up for that deal, because I buy something I can not pay for so I borrow opm, other peoples money, so should I not share the profit with the source of the investment, no beacause the dead beat paid interest to opm,
lenders accept risk for interest and the return of principal.

These defaulters could eventually ruin the system, they are the same people who re-fi their homes ever five minutes and continue to load the back end of their mortgages with fees.

Some one mentioned Debtor's Prisons, good idea but the we would be paying for the room and board, a better Idea would be to bring back the Puritan system of the Scarlet Letter or a t-shirt with Dead Beat- Mortgage Defaulter.

Personally, I would like to go into the Pitch fork and Ax Handle business, please reference any movie that involves roits or the chasing of a monster by a Euro crowd, similar to the ones on the hillsides of the Tour de France
re: Frankenstien 1931 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0021884/
and we all could go visit this guy and make an example of him about his "Strategic Default" idea, after we fix this guy's wagon we can go straight to Washington and visit 536 other idiots that need to be explained the facts of life, More ax handles will be needed, my small business will have to start an IPO, I will make millions, open a bike shop and lose half my money

I digress, so it is 705am raining and I will be a nut case the rest of the day.

I guess I am an idiot, I am on track to pay my home off in 56 payment, 12 years earlier that originally planned, so I can take that payment and super charge the Retirement Biking Plan.

Maybe I am doing the wrong thing but I doubt it,

Remember, if you are debt free you win the game

[sloji]

I am a mortgage banker and sold my underwater property and took the loss, the loss of my life savings in fact. I witness daily wealthy people strategically walking away while keeping millions, i feel like a schmuck watching the game being played. I have no answers nor any faith in ideas of justice or our system of economics. I feel like Anne Frank and i'm going back to the attic now.

[Ahneida Ride]

The mortgage "money" was probably created by "fractional reserve".
The identical Ponzi scheme practiced by Bernie Madoff.

That is ... created outa thin air by typing #'s into a computer spreadsheet.

Interest on noting is infinite interest.

[djg]

I am a mortgage banker and sold my underwater property and took the loss, the loss of my life savings in fact. I witness daily wealthy people strategically walking away while keeping millions, i feel like a schmuck watching the game being played. I have no answers nor any faith in ideas of justice or our system of economics. I feel like Anne Frank and i'm going back to the attic now.

You might well have many serious and well justified complaints about your neighbors and fellow Californians. No doubt you might have serious and well justified complaints about your state government (Pete -- apologies if this is too political . . . something inside me says that complaining about California state financial planning is not really staking out a very political position, much less a partisan one).

But you're not going back to a hidden attic, and your neighbors, however profligate, are not ratting you out to the Nazis. I feel for you, I do, it sucks, but your train tracks don't just run one way, do they?

[Plum Hill]

Does age play a part in attitude?

The original post failed to mention that the homeowner was young, say late twenties-early thirties.

Another part of the 60 Minutes show was about a man in Florida that was doing everything he could to make his payments. He had lost his job and marriage, but believed it was his obligation to pay off his mortgage. He was from the previous generation.

Somewhere along the line my generation (I'm 55) created an Entitlement Generation, one that thinks they should have everything now - mini-mansion starter homes, expensive clothes, high-end autos, etc. and the me me me attitude that goes along with it.

[shorelocal]

Somewhere along the line my generation (I'm 55) created an Entitlement Generation, one that thinks they should have everything now - mini-mansion starter homes, expensive clothes, high-end autos, etc. and the me me me attitude that goes along with it.

Yup, and a lot of that entitlement generation are running the financial institutions today ... it's not just the borrowers who feel entitled.

I have no qualms with people walking away if it is in their personal/family's best financial interest. No love lost for banks or financial institutions ... they were integral to creating this mess so they can suffer the pain just like Joe Schmoe.

[54ny77]

interesting program/documentary recently by tom brokaw on the yuppie generation, it spoke to exactly this issue.

demographics aside, the generality was it showed the transition from flower power to cashout refi's for funding that new bmw or private school tuition for their kids, basically.

and now, it's another generational shift for that sense of entitlement you speak of. yuppie mom & dad used their house as an atm, now their kids should be able to as well. oops, only catch with that is that property had an unexpected multi-decade run that came a-crashin down....

check it out on cnbc or msnbc if it's on at some point as a re-run.


Somewhere along the line my generation (I'm 55) created an Entitlement Generation, one that thinks they should have everything now - mini-mansion starter homes, expensive clothes, high-end autos, etc. and the me me me attitude that goes along with it.

[chuckroast]

I am a mortgage banker and sold my underwater property and took the loss, the loss of my life savings in fact. I witness daily wealthy people strategically walking away while keeping millions, i feel like a schmuck watching the game being played. I have no answers nor any faith in ideas of justice or our system of economics. I feel like Anne Frank and i'm going back to the attic now.

Sloji, there's a big difference between you and the fellow on 60 minutes. When you shave in the morning, the person you see in the mirror is a grown up. I'm sorry about your situation and wish you the best.

[rugbysecondrow]

Does age play a part in attitude?

The original post failed to mention that the homeowner was young, say late twenties-early thirties.

Another part of the 60 Minutes show was about a man in Florida that was doing everything he could to make his payments. He had lost his job and marriage, but believed it was his obligation to pay off his mortgage. He was from the previous generation.

Somewhere along the line my generation (I'm 55) created an Entitlement Generation, one that thinks they should have everything now - mini-mansion starter homes, expensive clothes, high-end autos, etc. and the me me me attitude that goes along with it.


Interesting take. I would say that the baby boomers ARE the entitlement generation. McMansions, three cars (with payments), time shares, vacation homes, credit card debt...these were not invented by Gen Xers but were rather promoted by your generation, the boomers. There have been studies about how little saving there is for retirement amongst the baby boomers. I actually think the gen Xers have a realistic point of view regarding savings, mortgages, debt, obligations.

Sure, no generation is immune from stupidity or ignorance rooted in differences in life experience, but no generation corners the market on honest, faith in obligations, or duty to be responsible.

[rugbysecondrow]

interesting program/documentary recently by tom brokaw on the yuppie generation, it spoke to exactly this issue.

demographics aside, the generality was it showed the transition from flower power to cashout refi's for funding that new bmw or private school tuition for their kids, basically.

and now, it's another generational shift for that sense of entitlement you speak of. yuppie mom & dad used their house as an atm, now their kids should be able to as well. oops, only catch with that is that property had an unexpected multi-decade run that came a-crashin down....

check it out on cnbc or msnbc if it's on at some point as a re-run.


I saw this show and I don't remember them speaking about the Gen X entitlements. It did focus on Boomers and their failures with regard to financial responsibility...a lust for excess.

[martinrjensen]

I agree. I had to sell a couple bikes just to have an accurate signature file!
[QUOTE=The 60 Character signature limit SUCKS[/QUOTE]