Quote:
Originally Posted by Republicaninmass
Not to poke a hole in your analogy, But didn't money change hands with a housing sale, regardless of they paid their loan or not? If the sale never closed, then it would be a fraudulent report, no?
Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
|
I addressed this. It was banks money not the person's money. House is owned by the bank not the person. People could pay 250k when it wasnt their money. For some reason people like to pay more for things with other peoples money.
In fact, people owed more money than the house was 'worth'. A legal obligation was made for the buyer to pay back the bank. Even if they didn't pay back the bank, the house was considered 'sold'
There was fraud on the banks many times when they were lending 250k to people with no jobs with no ability to pay back the loan and the mortgage broker would make a huge fee to get the loan approved so there were huge incentives to get the loans approved by whatever means necessary.
Bottom line in the house market, if you look at 'past sales' The sale prices are shown without mention if they are Cash deals or for deals that are funded entirely by borrowed funds. Both are considered sales as one situation the hoouse was actually paid for by the buyers money, and the other situation there was a legal obligation to pay back a bank (with no ability to pay back in many of the foreclosure situations ) who forwarded the money. The analogy is that in the card purchase situation and in that problem mortgage situation, there was a legal obligation to pay and thus both are considered a past sale. In the baseball card market we dont know if the card was actually purchased or just sold unless the auction house tells us but in both cases the card was indeed 'sold'
Banks could get judgments against the buyers who didnt pay back the mortgage and so could the auction house against the bidder who didnt pay. In both situations the house/card was purchased because there was a legal obligation to pay.