I don't want to sound like Pollyanna,
but I really am very happy with another
'sale' buy.

I was given some gift vouchers
as Christmas presents and I've almost
spent the lot. I do feel a bit guilty,
in enjoying myself so much, but also a bit
smug - because I am finding these bargains.

This one, I hadn't even dreamt about, yet
there it was. A Carla Zampati jacket (and in
my size), on sale. I tried it on. It fitted
perfectly and looked great, so I bought it.

Whether we go out on New Year's or not, I'm
going to wear this jacket that evening.

Steady on Celivia. Do you not buy anything from stores having a closing down sale? Do you never buy used cars? And what if everyone was like you and never bought of anyone selling through financial hardship. What would the sellers do to live? Their price plumeting even further as people think they have some moral obligation not to buy things from them.

I forgot to add ...

Happy New Year to You All!

Have a Safe, Healthy, and Happy One!

All The Best,

Celivia “when I read that someone intends to profit from someone else’s misery.”

Consider this, someone has lost their house before it gets to auction and I have opportunity to buy it, often at a discount.

I am profiting from an opportunity which anyone else could profit from by going “counter-cyclical” in terms of investment.

By investing in property I am reenergizing the economy and rebuilding confidence through the real estate sector sales and making housing available for those who wish to rent and would note, there is a chronic shortage of rental property at present.

Me, investing will produce better overall outcomes than just sitting on my resources.

Imho “Someone else’s misery” is simple sentimentalism and what I do would be absolutely ethical.

Houellebecq and Col,
I admit that I’m a bit emotional about people losing their home but not so emotional that I can’t accept that it is inevitable that some people will have to sell when they can’t keep up with the mortgage payments. Banks are not charities.

I don’t have a problem with people buying properties that need to be sold because of defaults and I can even accept that buyers take advantage of the situation.

But the ‘ethics’ I’m struggling with is the fact that someone in financial distress is FORCED to hand over their home to a lender, who then auctions off their property rather than giving the mortgagee the opportunity to sell their property in a conventional sale at a fair market price. This forced auction system (as I see it) lets buyers take advantage of mortgagees rather than just of a situation.

An auction will not bring the best price for people who are already struggling financially.
Defaulting mortgagee’s situations should not be made worse than they have to be.

I personally would not participate in auctions either as a seller or buyer let alone mortgagee auctions.
As I said, my comment was not meant to be a personal attack on Col perse; it is more a question about whether it is generally appropriate to allow lenders to force people to auction off their property and I wonder if it’s ethical to participate in this system.

I’ll be off line from this afternoon for a couple of days, happy New Year!

Celivia “who then auctions off their property rather than giving the mortgagee the opportunity to sell their property in a conventional sale at a fair market price.”

The mortgagee had the opportunity to do that before they defaulted and “fair market price” is subject to the vagaries of the “market”, which might well place the “achievable” market price below the level of the mortgage especially if the buyer bought at the point of the market “high”.

I recall in 2005, someone I helped get a mortgage on an investment property he contracted to buy, off the plan in 2003. Because of some slide in the market in that particular suburb when the market was softening his agreed plan price was $250,000 but when valued for mortgage was worth only $225,000 and he had problems funding the gap,

prices do not always go up.

“Defaulting mortgagee’s situations should not be made worse than they have to be.”

When people “default”, it is too late. We need to act to maintain our financial responsibilities. That might mean selling at a loss but ending up better than defaulting.

“whether it is generally appropriate to allow lenders to force people to auction off their property “

That is the sort of thinking which caused the sub-prime crisis in the first place.

If a lender cannot foreclose and the borrower defaults, what should the lender be allowed to do?

From my experience the last thing a lender wants is to foreclose, it is bad publicity and non-profitable business.

It is the option of last resort but the US sub-prime crisis, which initiated the current financial crisis, was a product of previous US government encouraging lenders to lend and insuring (buying) the loans through government entities (Fannie Mae etc.) whilst allowing borrowers in USA to lock-up and walk away from their property and their liability (different laws in Australia).

Celivia, I understand the nature of your post and that you, unlike some, do not use ad hominines for simple effect. Hence, whilst we sometimes agree, we have often disagreed and assume no attack from you no