This morning there was an interview on NPR’s Morning Edition (Story Here) with a woman in California. Sadly this whole mortgage/loan crisis has hit her quite hard, and she is “upside-down” on a home loan three years after she took it. How sad, how unfortunate! She’s in such a spot that she’s considering walking away from it.
Oh, did I forget to mention that both she and her husband both have the jobs they had when they took the loan? Or that they have no problems making their payments? It just seems “unfair” that they should be paying a loan on a property that is now only worth $800,000 when it cost them $1,000,000 when they bought it three years ago.
I’m amazed that this woman had the gall to get on the radio and say what she said. She bought a property that depreciated in value 20% over three years and so somehow feels like that gives her some kind of permission to walk away from her loan because it ‘doesn’t feel fair’?
I guess I can see what she means. I’ve never owned property, but I own a car. And, frankly, I think my car has lost more value than I had expected it to. I don’t think it’s fair that I’m still paying a loan on the value of my car when I bought it, when its current value is much lower. I’ll just stop paying.
Or some other things, like the keyboard and music equipment I use for work. They’re all worth significantly less used than they were when I bought them. I guess I should have payed with credit so that I could just stop paying my credit card bills because I’ve already lost $1,000s on the initial value of those loans.
I understand that people ‘expected’ their homes to increase in value and thus to be ‘safe’ investments, but sometimes you get the short end of the stick. For a person who is perfectly able to deal appropriately and responsibly with a setback like that to suggest that they shouldn’t have to pay is wrong-headed and childish. She is an embarrassment to herself.