News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Renting is Throwing Money Away, Right? (2015) by throw_away on Monday April 23, 2018 @01:01AM (#16900635)
Note that this will be capped at interest on a value of $750k for houses bought starting this year, so less than before. I think the leverage angle is ignoring the fact that your equity can be wiped as well in a downturn. It's unlikely my index fund will go to zero (and if it does, we'll probably have bigger problems on our hands).
Re:Renting is Throwing Money Away, Right? (2015) by phamilton on Monday April 23, 2018 @01:10AM (#16900670)
> leverage angle is ignoring the fact that your equity can be wiped as well in a downturn

I call that out when talking about "no recourse". If you leverage 5X in the stock market and invest $1M in index funds and the market drops by 30%, you are on the hook for the $100k beyond your $200k you lost. If you leverage 5X in a personal residence and the market drops by 30% (and you live in a no-recourse state), then you mail the keys to the bank and walk away. Very unique situation.

Re:Renting is Throwing Money Away, Right? (2015) by dash2 on Monday April 23, 2018 @03:06AM (#16901092)
> If you leverage 5X in a personal residence and the market drops by 30% (and you live in a no-recourse state), then you mail the keys to the bank and walk away. Very unique situation.

But that seems dishonest.

Re:Renting is Throwing Money Away, Right? (2015) by rlpb on Monday April 23, 2018 @04:39AM (#16901616)
> But that seems dishonest.

It's not. The bank has calculated and accepted the risk and factored it into your interest rate and other charges. Considering it to be dishonest is financially equivalent to considering a (not fraudulent) insurance payout to be dishonest.

Think about it this way. The bank has effectively bought an insurance policy to protect itself against this event and is paying the premium out of your interest charges. Now does it seem dishonest?

Re:Renting is Throwing Money Away, Right? (2015) by zrail on Monday April 23, 2018 @09:33AM (#16903232)
In the US if you put down less than 20% the bank literally takes out an insurance policy called Primary Mortgage Insurnace for this risk and makes you pay for it.
Re:Renting is Throwing Money Away, Right? (2015) by rsync on Monday April 23, 2018 @10:21AM (#16903595)
"It's not. The bank has calculated and accepted the risk and factored it into your interest rate and other charges. Considering it to be dishonest is financially equivalent to considering a (not fraudulent) insurance payout to be dishonest."

That's not a true equivalency. Unless your loan has language or provisions for "mailing back the keys", doing so is an act of default and regardless of how well (or poorly) the lender(s) has/have hedged against the default you are breaking the agreement.

A real equivalency is stealing from walmart "because they can afford it". You shouldn't do that and you also shouldn't default on agreements you enter into.

Re:Renting is Throwing Money Away, Right? (2015) by phamilton on Monday April 23, 2018 @10:54AM (#16903896)
> A real equivalency is stealing from walmart "because they can afford it"

That's not a real equivalent at all. Walmart could press charges and recoup their loss through legal action. Stealing from Walmart is illegal.

Defaulting on a contract is not illegal. That's precisely why we have contracts in the first place. It spells out what would happen in a default, and both parties voluntarily enter into the agreement. If one party is not happy with the terms of default then they shouldn't sign the contract.

In a no recourse default, it is literally spelled out in the contract: "If you default, the lender will not be come after your other assets".

Re:Renting is Throwing Money Away, Right? (2015) by asfasgasg on Monday April 23, 2018 @11:52PM (#16909723)
> That's not a true equivalency. Unless your loan has language or provisions for "mailing back the keys", doing so is an act of default and regardless of how well (or poorly) the lender(s) has/have hedged against the default you are breaking the agreement.

It depends on what you mean by "breaking the agreement." The state of default, its triggers, and its consequences are part of the agreement. You are acting within the scope of the agreement by triggering that state.

If you write a program like this:

    if (foo) { doX(); } else { doY(); }
does foo being false "break" the if statement? In a mortgage, it is (vastly simplified):

    if (youKeepPaying) {
      youGetToLiveInTheHouse();
    } else if (youSendUsTheKeys) {
      exit();
    } else {
      weWillSendTheSheriff();
    }
If anything, the last condition is the exceptional one. The contract doesn't generally contemplate what happens if you stop paying but also refuse to leave the dwelling.
Re:Renting is Throwing Money Away, Right? (2015) by phamilton on Monday April 23, 2018 @04:26AM (#16901542)
I absolutely agree it seems dishonest. But at the same time, it's in the contract. I'm aware of it, the bank is aware of it. They won't hesitate to foreclose on me if it's in their best interest according to the terms of the contract. Should I hesitate to take the action that is in my best interest?
Re:Renting is Throwing Money Away, Right? (2015) by Redoubts on Monday April 23, 2018 @03:33AM (#16901231)
Why? Lending is a risk on both ends.
Re:Renting is Throwing Money Away, Right? (2015) by hueving on Monday April 23, 2018 @05:53AM (#16901944)
It's called a put option in the stock market.

In this case its priced into the risk of your loan and you bought it by being in the state and taking a loan there.